Evan Leibovitch: Alright, Sam thanks for being with us. So what I'd like to do is perhaps talk to you and do this as quickly as possible. I guess, do we need to do anything to either start the recording, or Gisella do any kind of roll at this point?
Gisella Gruber-White: Evan if you'd like me to, we will just officially start the Work Team A Teleconference on Thursday, January 13th. On today's call we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Pastor Peters, Uri [inaudible00:00:32], Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond, Evan Leibovitch, Dev Anand Teelucksingh and we have a guest speaker today which is Samantha Eisner. Welcome Sam and we have from staff Seth Green and myself Gisella Gruber-White.
We still are trying to contact various off scene members and I will let you know if anyone else has joined. Can I also just please remind you to state your name when speaking which will be used for the transcript. Thank you, over to you Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, thank you. Alright without further ado, if I remember correctly the main agenda of this is the discussion of the bylaw amendment that we had talked to previously. And then passed on to Samantha with the intent of drafting something that would be acceptable to go into the bylaws, and so a proposed draft for that is up on the discussion notes for the Adobe Chat.
Now Pastor Peters, you are not in the Adobe Chat room so what we will do is we will read this out loud. And so the proposed draft: The intention of this is to replace section 2.4.A of Article 11 of the ICANN bylaws.
It currently reads: “The role of the At-Large Committee, ALAC, shall be to consider and provide advice on the act ivies of ICANN in so far as they relate to the interest of individual internet users. Our proposed modification to that is as follows: The At-Large Committee, ALAC is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual internet users whose views and concerns the ALAC captures, aggregates and articulates in order to offer a representative input into ICANN’s processes and activities.
The ALAC considers and provides advice on all aspects of work within ICANN including policies created through ICANN’s sponsoring organizations as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is sought. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN’s outreach to individual internet users. The specific elements of how ALAC fulfils this mandate are set forth below.”
And I assume the rest of the bylaw then goes into the structural issues of At-Large, ALAC, the RALOs and so on. Sam the floor is yours if you would like to introduce, talk about it or explain why you put in what you did and why you may have left something out that you did. Well I have Cheryl’s hand up, Cheryl did you want to go before?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just wanted to question on one word that Sam probably can answer me in three.
Samantha Eisner: I know exactly what you're going to ask about.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, okay.
Samantha Eisner: Supporting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You know what I'm saying, thank you.
Samantha Eisner: I do a lot of work with our gTLDs as well and sponsoring organization is a concept there and sometimes I just interchange the two, but…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, you changed to the correct term, thank you Sam. I love working with Sam.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay sorry could you remind us again exactly what - you two both know what you're talking about.
Samantha Eisner: Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The psychological connection, the bizarre telepathy going on between Sam and I was picking the word ‘sponsoring organization’ which actually needs to be written ‘supporting organization.’
Evan Leibovitch: Alrighty.
Samantha Eisner: Yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: Although I totally understand the wording, anyway moving right along. Okay Sam the floor is yours.
Samantha Eisner: Alright so this is Samantha. After our talk in Cartagena which I found extremely productive, particularly after the idea of a preamble was raised, we were really trying to figure out a way to bring in the concepts that were highlighted in the working group’s final report about the import of the role of ALAC and how that could be better called out in the bylaws because the review of the bylaws shows that a lot of that information was actually already in there but just not in a easily accessible way.
And so there is a recommendation that we instead, try to modify the bylaws in a way that would create a more holistic preamble to say “This is who the ALAC is. This is what the ALAC does. And then you can find the details of how the ALAC fulfils this work below.” And so Evan when you suggested that the remainder of the bylaws detailing the structure and the work, how it's performed, those would all remain the same.
Evan Leibovitch: Right.
Samantha Eisner: But we’re looking more at the preamble as a way to make people understand when they look at it what exactly the ALAC is. You don’t have to read through the entire multisection item on the ALAC just to get a sense of what the ALAC is, if you were only looking at the ICANN bylaws to figure out where each part of the ICANN organization fits in.
So I went back and I looked at the draft that someone from the working group had performed earlier prior to our meeting in Cartagena. There is some great language in there, so I pulled that out. So you might actually recognize some of the words in here and just added on it with the working group report next to me as well and came up with this as a suggestion of a first draft.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. So you're totally comfortable with this in terms of its acceptability, at least from a legal standpoint, and given its situation as a preamble you're comfortable with its acceptability?
Samantha Eisner: We would be comfortable recommending that this be put into the bylaws.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, does anybody -
Samantha Eisner: I run through the language with other people here in legal just to make sure they were on the same page, so.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, does anybody also on the call or in the chat room have any questions that they have right now? Okay Olivier, go ahead.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan. I have a question with regards to the word ‘captures.’ Is there any specific reason for that word to be used instead of ‘collects?’
Samantha Eisner: No, no - this is Samantha. I think we can change that. I know that, now that you mentioned it, the word ‘captured’ has many different meanings in many different places. So why don’t we go ahead and take that suggestion to change that to ‘collects.’
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Yes because I had to look at the Thesaurus for ‘capture’ and there is much ‘forceful holding, grabbing, placing under arrest, nailing’ there is just so -
Evan Leibovitch: Obtaining by force.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Forceful, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm not going to tell you that ‘capture’ works for me but that’s my own bias.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: It's like come into At-Large and you will talk.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah do we-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Olivier it probably, quite seriously though that’s a good catch. Can I ask that in the final preparation of this also run through of this thinking of Spanish, French, and Portuguese; can we make sure that these words translate well?
Evan Leibovitch: Actually, Uri, go ahead.
Uri: Yeah, this has been - this is my fault because the text that came from the working group that was my work, so I really think too that ‘capture’ it has too many meanings. So I'm very happy if it's changed to ‘collects.’
Evan Leibovitch: Actually I have another suggestion to make in order to actually make this a little more comprehensive. I would suggest changing the word ‘capture’ to ‘solicits.’ In the sense that it has to go to the bidirectional thing that At-Large and ALAC actually has to go out to the community, it has to solicit the input and then collect it and articulate it. Uri, then Cheryl.
Uri: Yes. ‘Solicit’ is even better, yes thanks.
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can Olivier or someone also look carefully at the Thesaurus for ‘solicit’ and while you're doing that, make sure that you are not creating a single word upon which we can have a situation where Edgars can say “I was not specifically engaged in the conversation and contributory to the following statement.
Therefore, the ALAC, which is an advisory committee which needs to have a great deal of reactivity and reflect time to be thought about as well on some matters, cannot make a statement in some future point. Because Upper Mongolia complains that such solicitation was not inclusive of them.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Olivier?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm -
Evan Leibovitch: No, your point is taken. I don’t want to put in language that we’re going to have used against us, you know, for any corner that believes that they haven’t been sufficiently solicited, got it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly, yes, I mean, I think we need to look at the word and just be very careful that solicits has all the right terminology and that we don’t, and Sam you should be very good at this, box ourselves into a corner because otherwise -
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Olivier go ahead and then Samantha.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan and I have looked at the Thesaurus for ‘soliciting’ and that obviously involves a part of ‘begging, approaching in order to obtain’ and it therefore extends the mandate of At-Large in exactly the same way - well in what Cheryl has said. Effectively if then people in Outer Mongolia are not asked specifically they can always come back and say “Ah we haven’t been asked.” So that goes - that is not working right. ‘Collects’ is probably a safer word.
Evan Leibovitch: If that’s the case, then do we really need it? Is it not redundant? Why don’t we just put “concerns that ALAC aggregates and articulates?” Is it not redundant?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let's see what Sam says.
Evan Leibovitch: Go ahead Sam.
Samantha Eisner: Sure Evan I see in the chat room that you had raised a concern about the issue of nonbinding and I think that this type of discussion really raises why we want to have that conversation. The fact that some is “nonbinding” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have any meaning.
But we can look at the preamble as a means that it's not the language that describes how the work is being done. It's the language that describes what the ALAC does and the specific elements of how that work is done, it's that force underneath. And so that’s really what the phase “nonbinding” is which might not be the right word to use here.
And so I think that the work to get the right words in here, to really report and represent in all languages what ALAC does is a good thing to do. But I think we can always argue around it later. If something comes up and says “Well this word in the bylaws says that you're supposed to do this.” You can always point at the specific items below and say “This explains how we do the work.”
And so that’s the buffer that comes in between the preamble and the more descriptive items below. I don’t really have any big thoughts either way as to whether ‘collects’ should be in there or shouldn’t be in there. I will take your guidance on that. I'm happy to make whatever changes to this that the group feels is appropriate.
Evan Leibovitch: Samantha did you share Cheryl’s concerns about the word ‘solicit?’
Samantha Eisner: I do share some concerns about solicit. I think that solicitation has as many negative connotations to it as well. It does have that begging connotation, has some elicit connotations to it that might not be the right tone to put out.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Olivier and then Cheryl. Oh Cheryl has lowered her hand, so Olivier the floor is yours.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan. I response to what Samantha has just told us, being an At-Large person and knowing how much of a pain in the backside we can be, especially when one deals with bylaws and things, I know that we have in the past looked at every single word of the mission statement and the way things are written.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh yeah.
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: And this and that. And I know that we can be really annoying. And let me continue to be annoying then and continue cutting the hair lengthwise and finding how many times we can cut it lengthwise. We have to get that word right and you know, I hope we do, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm putting my hand back up because, you know, a single search on an online Thesaurus for ‘solicit’ - ‘plead for, try to sell, accost, approach, beg, besiege, besiege, bum, catch, canvas, challenge, claim.’ I mean these are not words that are going to translate well.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so right now we have on the table, we have a suggestion from Olivier to put in the word ‘collects’, I suggest just taking the word out and just keep aggregates and articulates, what is the feeling of the group? Okay, let's use checks and X’s, everybody who is in favor of the word ‘captures’ give me a check in the Adobe Connect. Okay I have an X and no checks. Alright anyone who wants ‘collects’ to replace it, so we have “ALAC collects, aggregates and articulates”, checks or X’s.
Okay I have four checks, no X’s. And for just leaving it out and putting in the words that “ALAC aggregates and articulates?” Okay, no strong feeling, one check, one X. So it seems by far it seems the consensus here is to have the word ‘collects’ to replace the word ‘captures.’ So do I have the ability to edit this in real time on here with Connect?
Samantha Eisner: Evan, this is Sam, I'm going ahead and in the Wiki space, I'm trying to capture each of these already. Oh someone did it, great.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, I have editing privs on there, so I mean I can do this as we along in real time, I guess.
Samantha Eisner: Excellent could you change the ‘sponsoring’ to ‘supporting’ as well?
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, any other comments? Is everybody okay with the last sentence? “The ALAC which plays an important role in ICANN’s accountability mechanisms also coordinates some of ICANN’s outreach to individual internet users.” Is everyone okay with that line as is? Personally I would add “and transparency” into that just keeping in tune with existing verbiage that’s used.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan I understand why accountability and transparency are [inaudible00:18:59]. I actually think our primary role is actually in accountability not in transparency. We hold ICANN accountable to be transparent. But I don’t think our role as such - again I probably need someone more [evantry] than I am to -
Evan Leibovitch: I was simply thinking in the role of acting as public witness to what was going on, almost as a proxy for the general public.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s accountable not transparent.
Evan Leibovitch: Well I guess in order to be accountable I guess you have to be transparent. But I guess -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly yes. But in fact, it's ICANN that needs to be transparent. Our role in its accountability, making ICANN [inaudible00:19:52] is how we do that. Am I making myself at all clear? I haven’t had my coffee yet, perhaps I should.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay Samantha.
Samantha Eisner: I think you're making yourself very clear. But hear a different aspect of transparency. But maybe you'd like to think about reflecting in here that the ALAC itself is a very transparent organization. And the ALAC operates in a transparent fashion too, reflected somewhere in there if you want to have that concept embodied.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah I don’t think we want to use the word ‘role model’ in the preamble.
Samantha Eisner: Right, no we wouldn’t use the word ‘role model.’ But we -
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah.
Samantha Eisner: We’d find a place somewhere after we say the word “ALAC operates in a transparent fashion to” and -
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Samantha Eisner: To link that idea of transparency to the operations of the ALAC.
Evan Leibovitch: Now you're going to have to forgive my - I'm having a brain freeze this moment. Is the term “At-Large Community” mentioned in the bylaws?
Samantha Eisner: Yes.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay because - is there a use to actually have an explicit link here? There is a reference made to the At-Large Community and the fact that it's the At-Large Community that selects and is represented by the ALAC, is it useful to have that kind of a linkage direct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I think you're heading down a very peculiar pathway there Evan. The ALAC is an advisory committee. I mean otherwise you'd be putting in a preamble - the equivalent would be to putting in a preamble to the GNSO Council, remember this is a preamble on the mechanisms for the GNSO constituency to create the Council. It doesn’t belong there.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, I'm not sure I get the similarity. Uri you’ve been waiting patiently for awhile.
Uri: Yeah the present formulation that is to say that mentions accountability alone comes from the final report; Page 7 where it says “The third aspect of ALAC’s role although in some sense is the most important” is part of ICANN’s accountability processes. And I think that there is - this - it doesn’t mention transparency. And I think that is for a reason. That is to say, the stress is really on accountability here and it's stronger if it doesn’t include transparency.
Transparency, after all, is the responsibility primarily of ICANN itself. It's not as I see it, the responsibility of ALAC or At-Large Community to make it transparent. But of course it has to be transparent in order for us to play a role in the accountability process.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay so that very well falls in line with what Cheryl was saying in that accountability is - you need transparency to have accountability but the accountability is our business and the transparency ICANN has to do itself.
Uri: That’s right.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, alright does anyone have any other comments. Eric you’ve been awfully quiet.
Erick Brunner Williams: At the moment, nope.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, I have Samantha and Dev, Samantha go ahead.
Samantha Eisner: I noticed in the chat room that Dev had a question about why does the preamble say “Policies created through ICANN’s supporting organizations” as opposed to “Policies created through ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees?” and I just wanted to clarify that question. In the bylaws themselves, the only organizations that actually have the ability to create policy are the supporting organizations.
Each one has a policy development process. And then each of the advisory committees is we hope and we expect that they would contribute to that policy development process. But the policies are created through the supporting organizations so that’s why I worded it that way.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay Dev you're up next, does that answer your question?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes I guess it does. But I guess my concern is that at the same time we need to be able to provide advice on any output coming from the advisory committees, no? And I guess that was thinking about that. But I take Samantha’s point too.
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just to Dev’s point and to hopefully not steal exactly what Samantha is about to say because the At-Large Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board, our requirement is to advise them. What this is doing is also making clear that we additionally have a role in policy creation that does go on in the supporting organization.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay Samantha you want to add to that?
Samantha Eisner: Further to that the line that comes directly after the words “supporting organizations” reads “as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is sought. And I tried to leave that as open as possible for the purpose of there are many things that happen within the world of ICANN.
It could be something that Staff puts out for public comment or an advisory committee puts out for public comment or you don’t even have to have a comment period raised. But there could be an issue open for comment in many ways throughout the organization. And I tried to capture the broad aspect of the ALAC isn’t just there to provide advice on policies but for anything that’s happening within the organization.
And again, this does not modify any of the rights to have liaisons to various groups and the descriptions that happen below within the bylaws or any other section of the bylaws regarding an ability to have liaisons between groups nor does it affect the ALAC internal operating procedures that allow for that type of liaison effort.
Evan Leibovitch: Actually I noticed that and appreciated it. As a matter of fact, it seems almost explicit when you say “The ALAC considers and provides advice” you're not even explicitly saying it has to provide that advice to the Board. That advice to could be to any component of ICANN that ALAC thinks is a good target of getting that advice.
Samantha Eisner: That’s right.
Evan Leibovitch: And so, I mean this is - I mean frankly I'm extremely happy with the way you’ve worded that. One question, something that’s been raised to me outside this working team is the compare and contrast the definition of the ALAC’s role with that of the GAC in terms of within the bylaws. How close is this particular kind of language to what the GAC is authorized to do?
Samantha Eisner: I will have to take a look. I'm pulling out the file on it now.
Evan Leibovitch: I mean it was my - it's sort of like the ACs essentially, although obviously there is substantial differences in various aspects of it, the mandate and the remit is pretty close from the looks of things.
Samantha Eisner: Right.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No.
Samantha Eisner: Well I think the government, the GAC has a different place within the structure though of similar origin but a different place.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There's a nexus that public interest and government interest maybe not always be the same either.
Evan Leibovitch: No I understand. What I mean Cheryl is for the second sentence of that paragraph the one that says “the ALAC considers and provides advice on all aspects.” If you replace the word ALAC with GAC would that be at all incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well probably not in the mechanisms of some of how the role is. but if I just cut and paste what the equivalent to the preamble is, in other words, what the government advisory committee says about itself into there you will see that it's very specifically giving ICANN advice from government where our role it's a little bit like a question of the difference between the noncommercial stakeholder group interest in specifically GNSO issues and the role of the GAC in its advice giving to government or for governments giving into the ICANN Board. It’s a layering exercise.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah I was thinking more in terms of scope rather than process of what it's entitled to comment about as opposed to how it gets there.
Samantha Eisner: Evan this is Sam.
Evan Leibovitch: Go ahead.
Samantha Eisner: Within the bylaws and I pasted in closest thing to the definition of the scope of the GAC’s advisory role into the chat room and it reads “The governmental advisory committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of government, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN’s policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.”
Evan Leibovitch: As I'm reading that, that’s actually more limited than the one we have here for the ALAC that you’ve written.
Samantha Eisner: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Uh yeah that’s exactly right.
Samantha Eisner: Yes it is. And the current bylaw section for the ALAC that reads “The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee shall be consider, provided advice on the activities of ICANN in so far as they relate to the interests of the individual internet users.” That has a much closer limitation to the GAC provisions.
But as we try to bring in the concepts from the review working groups final report and then also just acknowledge the resiliency of the ALAC and the ability to address many items. The GAC doesn’t have the ability to really get as far reaching as the ALAC does. So I think that the new language is far broader for the ALAC, yeah.
Evan Leibovitch: So on implantation issues such as pricing and things like that might be beyond the GAC remit but it is within ours?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Samantha Eisner: I don’t want to say here that we’re limiting the GAC’s role. The GAC’s considered policy or public policy matters wherever they see it and it doesn’t have to necessarily just be on a specific policy issue, so.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, now we, okay is there - Cheryl, I sort of want to close off discussion soon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah just to round that off following on what Sam was just saying, some of the reasoning behind the specific recommendations the ATRT has put out with regards to GAC and Board interaction is quite literally looking at changing some of this. So I think where we’re heading for our piece of work is a very fine theme. What we may see is some changes in GAC world which will bring them perhaps more into line with the benchmarking that’s being set in this language.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay what I'd like to do is we so have some other things on the agenda, so what I want to make sure is that anybody who has had any comments on this has had a chance to say their piece. Erick you haven’t said much. I haven’t heard from Pastor Peters. Do either of you have something to now. If you have this is the time to do it.
Eric Brunner Williams: Thank you Evan this is Eric Brunner Williams and I'm very happy that the GAC scope is not reduced because I think that would be vexing at the very least, thank you.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Pastor Peters? Okay, alright if that’s the case then we will move on to the next agenda item which is drafting of comments related to the ATRT and Sam you’ve got the floor again. Do we have something we can kind of paste related to that? Oh Seth go ahead.
Seth Greene: Evan I think that I possibly made a mistake in the agenda or you're looking at the wrong one. The next item, Item 4 in the agenda pod that I'm looking at in the Adobe Connect room is Planning of Steps for Completion of Bylaw Revisions, do you see that?
Evan Leibovitch: Oh, okay.
Seth Greene: The ATRT comment was a couple of meetings ago, of course.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes that horse has bolted.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay sorry I'm looking at the one in the Wiki. Okay.
Seth Greene: Oh yes, no my error I apologize. I didn’t update it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We will beat Seth with a brown boot lace when we meet him. I bring a brown boot lace with me and we will treat him shamelessly.
Seth Greene: I feel it already.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, no I just pasted where I've been getting my agenda from.
Seth Greene: And I apologize.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so oh boy. Alrighty, so Samantha I guess the next issue is for you as well.
Samantha Eisner: Yes and I'm far more prepared to speak on this than I was on the previous item, so. I was just speechless here for a second. Alright, so planning of steps for completion of bylaw revisions, I think that the next step is because this comes out of the At-Large Advisory Committee review we will (and by we, I mean me working with Heidi) will prepare a paper for the Structural Improvements Committee to review the proposed bylaw changes as long as everyone is onboard with the modifications we made today and provide that to the SIC and ask the SIC to recommend that they be presented to the Board and that the Board recommend the bylaw revisions be put out for public comment.
With all bylaws changes we do have a process that we like the Board to officially approve the posting of a bylaws revisions for public comment. So we do have that issue that we have to come through. So once it's posted for public comment the period would be for 30 days and then I would work with Heidi to produce a summary analysis of comments and we’d present it back to the Board for approval. I don’t know what the timing would be on this right now. I haven’t thought through the time table on it.
We have a Board meeting coming through in the 25th of January. But there is not a Structural Improvements Meeting before that time to allow for that [inaudible00:36:58]. And so it could be the case that we’re looking at this item being presented to the Board for approval for posting for public comment on at the March 18th meeting in San Francisco.
So we are pushing out - the soonest it could then be approved for inclusion to bylaws would be the April 21st which is actually a very short period of time to allow for the 30 day public comment and the completion of a summary analysis. So more realistically we are looking at if the Board calls a meeting at its May retreat or at the June 24th meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors when we meet in Amman.
I would say the 24th of June is probably the outside limit on when we can get these through for inclusion in the bylaws. But the first step really is for me to work with Heidi and prepare a paper for the SIC to get this whole thing moving.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Seth you’ve got your hand up, go ahead?
Seth Greene: Oh I'm sorry Evan that was from earlier.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay Samantha one question from me. This is going to be presented in the context of being the fulfillment of the ALAC review?
Samantha Eisner: It's presented in the context of fulfillment of one of the items identified within the ALAC review.
Evan Leibovitch: Right.
Samantha Eisner: Because the review working group did suggest that these concepts be captured in the bylaws. And hopefully we’re in agreement that this is a capturing of what the review working group said. So you would get that box ticked off on the Review Implementation Plan.
Evan Leibovitch: Got it. And in Seth’s spreadsheet -
Samantha Eisner: Exactly.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, Cheryl go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just a crosscheck with Seth and just to make sure we have all of our eggs in the one basket, Seth is there any indication from any of the other work teams that there will be any requirement for any bylaw modification out of the recommendations that they are working with because if there is, they all need to be bundled together.
Seth Greene: Thank you Cheryl. There has been some reference to bylaw changes, however nothing even close to concrete or emphasized at this point. At this point, I think the best thing to do is I will bring that message back to the other three work teams. But at this time I would say no actually. Related to that though I'm wondering as far as bundling of all the proposed changes there probably are changes other than the preamble from this work team that would want to be combined, the team would probably want combined with the preamble. Is that not right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I am now confused with that Seth.
Evan Leibovitch: Who are you asking?
Seth Greene: Oh I'm sorry I was just asking the team in general. But to clarify, at this point I would say no, no bylaw changes from the other work teams but I will bring that up with them. The second point, are there not beyond the preamble, other changes though that this work team probably wants bundled with the preamble when it's sent upstairs?
Evan Leibovitch: Not that I can think of, it looks like a good piece of work as is, at least to me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Accepting we probably should link, if I may, Cheryl here for the transcript, although the transcripters should recognize my [inaudible00:41:03] tones. I don’t understand why somehow. How are we going to manage Recommendation 11 Seth out of looking at the Board statement that recognizes ALAC as being the home of individual internet users?
It would appear to me that that’s an opportunity that we could with the SIC interchange is with Sam and Heidi working with them, and Sam how else would the Board ever be encouraged to make such a statement to close off those recommendations other than sort of putting it together at the same place and space?
Samantha Eisner: Let me call up the recommendation or [inaudible00:41:52] just so I can make sure I'm responding to -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay Recommendation 10 out if the review states that “ALAC and at At-Large is the home of individual internet users and we needed to be recognized as such.” according to Recommendation 11 of the review “That the Board make such a statement.”
Samantha Eisner: One thought on that Cheryl is as we bring this paper through the SIC and to the Board, that if we look at the language, the first line of the proposed bylaws revision says “The At-Large Advisory Committee is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual internet users.” And ask the Board as it's moving this through and resolving to consider and approve these bylaws revisions within those resolutions that such a statement be made as part of the rationale behind approving this change.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes that’s perfect.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, alright, Seth is there anything else on the plate that we need to tackle?
Seth Greene: Thanks, no I would just have one question that’s that in addition regarding Cheryl’s point about Recommendation 11, in some earlier meetings it was discussed, the possibility was discussed of Sebastian as the new At-Large Selected Director possibly being involved in implementing Recommendation 11 regarding a statement. Is that something that the team is still interested in? Or is what Sam just said suitable?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I help there?
Evan Leibovitch: You’ve got your hand up, go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. It would be a most peculiar and unusual circumstance indeed if as the -
Evan Leibovitch: Cheryl?
Seth Greene: Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was talking can you not hear me?
Evan Leibovitch: I can now, go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay it would be most unusual circumstance indeed for the Chairman of the Board at such a Board Meeting where a resolution of this nature was being made to not have the occupier of Seat 15, the At-Large Selected Director, both put the resolution and speak to the resolution. I don’t think that’s a piece of work team activity at all. I think if it was not to be the case, the human cry from ALAC and At-Large to the ICANN Board on the disservice done to the newly appointed Seat 15 person.
I think, you know, Sebastian would fight tooth and nail to do this. I don’t think it's our business to tell the Board how they organize these statements that I'd be God smacked if it wasn’t Seat 15 that moved this and spoke to it.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay does anyone have any other comments on that? Me I am personally happy to just to see this preamble in the bylaws as a Board assertion of what ALAC does. But anything over that is - I'm happy with whoever on the Board chooses to make it. Anybody have any comments on this part of it? Okay then we will close that off. Samantha thank you so much. Your wording has been pretty close to dead-on because we have changed what, two words?
Samantha Eisner: I'm glad we were able to get this through. So as long as I don’t hear any changes and if there is anything else that comes up, any concerns, let me know. But I will start working on a paper on this in short order so we can start moving this through.
Evan Leibovitch: Now Olivier since you're on the call, does this need to go through channels within ALAC and down to the RALOs for consultation?
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: Thank you Evan, I'm not quite sure how the process actually works in this. I will consult with, I guess, Cheryl probably knows better than I do on the actual processes and Heidi would probably know. Heidi unfortunately is on another thing at the moment so she is not able to be with us.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay so -
Olivier M.J. Crepin-LeBlond: If you put it as an action item that we discuss it and then we will decide on whether we put it through the whole process or whether this can be pushed through.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay I'm just thinking in terms of speed and just making sure that this is in sync with keeping to the kind of schedule that Samantha was just talking about. But okay so we will put that off to you and Cheryl. Okay Seth you wanted to talk about San Francisco?
Seth Greene: Very briefly I want to confirm that the work team would like to meet in San Francisco? The other three work teams are going to be meeting and tentatively we would be able to have a spot on Tuesday during the week. So I just wanted to make sure that everyone agrees to that and is interested?
Evan Leibovitch: If anybody doesn’t want to have a meeting in San Francisco in Adobe - well I have a failed connection for Adobe Connect on my end. If anyone has a problem with having a meeting in San Francisco please speak now. Okay hearing nobody I think you’ve got that as a green light to go ahead with it.
Seth Greene: Thanks very much Evan and I just wanted to let you know if you can't see it Cheryl has her hand up.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh go ahead Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to jump in and say; now I understand why you didn’t recognize my hand. Normally I get lots of failed connections so I do understand your situation Evan. I just raised my hand because I'm all for having the meeting in San Francisco, absolutely. Secondly just to close off for this transcript purposes the question you raised to Olivier, this work team, it is the ALAC’s business to do the implementation of recommendations out of the review of itself.
This work team has the bonafide purpose of putting forward the proposals and doing the work and working directly with whoever we need in Staff. And Sam has been an absolute God send as she always is on these matters and it's a really good outcome in its own little way.
It is however and aggressive schedule that we need and I have no qualms about the fact that the regions ALSs and rank and file membership will have plenty of time just like the rest of the ICANN community to dot I’s, cross T’s and make comments on these specific words when the bylaw changes go to full public comment.
I would also be very, very surprised if like us, most of the At-Large Community who are supporters of ICANN and an At-Large movement within ICANN, there are always exceptions to those rules of course, would not be very, very pleased with these words and expansion and clarification of our role.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so and just to reiterate in terms of the - okay Eric I see your hand up, go ahead now that I have network connection again.
Eric Brunner Williams: Thank you Evan, Eric Brunner Williams. I want to make sure that there is remote participation ability during the Tuesday meeting during the San Francisco general meeting, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes there will be.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay alright then so we are four minutes into the top of the hour and into what I guess is any other business. Uri is there anything that we may have left off you wanted to cover?
Uri: Nothing I can think of really. I'm very happy with this - with the result. I think that this preamble is a great thing.
Evan Leibovitch: And so just to reiterate the timing Samantha if I have you right that we’re looking at the next meeting in San Francisco for the Board hopefully to pass a resolution that will start a public comment process with the intention of actually approving the bylaw change at the Amman meeting. Is that the timing you are anticipating?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sam might have dropped off the call.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay but if I read that right that looks to be the timing we are looking at?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay so based on -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That actually is very neat but it is aggressive that we've just got to get on to it.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, alright Seth any loose ends that we may have left off?
Seth Greene: I have received a quick Skype from Heidi just asking if the group had looked at the ATRT report that is currently open for review. And that’s all I have but I don’t know exactly what specifically she is talking about beyond the discussions that occurred earlier.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I know what she's talking about if you want me to respond.
Seth Greene: Please.
Evan Leibovitch: Yeah go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay just to remind you that the actual recommendations, the final report that we put out is itself now open for public comment. It is going to make not one iota of difference to the ATRT whose work is not finished what you say about our report at this stage. You’ve had (you as in the public, At-Large and the constituencies and other parts of ICANN) all the previous opportunities to help us craft that report.
However, because it is a report of such importance it is open to yet another final public comment period. Those public comments will be analyzed and will form part of the background material for the Board’s consideration of the ATRT report. So what Heidi is asking is does this work team and I'll guess we will ask the same of ALAC and the regional organizations wish to make an additional final comment on the final report of the ATRT?
Evan Leibovitch: Okay can we - okay Eric go ahead, my proposal to have this as an agenda item on the next work team A but Eric go ahead.
Eric Brunner Williams: Thank you Evan. Cheryl is that a broad scope or is that narrow scope by - limited to the scope of Working Team A?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s actually broad scope because we are - Team A was pivotal in crafting the drafting of the ALAC response to the ATRT report. It was reasonable for Heidi to ask whether we were going to take that again. But right now the ALAC hasn’t even decided whether it is going to make a response to the current call for public comments. I think we should and so yes it could be quite appropriate for this team to be involved.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay is this something that we can bring over to our next meeting scheduled tentatively for January 27th, is that reasonable?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let me just check the closing times for public comments.
Evan Leibovitch: Uri go ahead.
Uri: Yes just one thing I discovered, the - in this paper that was given by Samantha in Cartagena there are also a couple of changes in the Point J of - that is to say which is the ALAC is also responsible for reporting in the following activities and there - what used to be Point 6 Making Public and Analyzing ICANNs proposed policies and so on and so forth” it has been changed in a better form saying participating in the ICANN policy development processes. And my questions are we already through with those changes or should we discuss that at our next meeting?
Evan Leibovitch: I will tell you what why don’t we take this to email and discuss what it is we need if anything. Dev has just noted that the deadline for ATRT comments is February 14th.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The 14th, yes.
Evan Leibovitch: So we can still have a meeting on January 27th, perhaps that will give us enough time to at least craft something usable and I guess that might be the main agenda of the next meeting hopefully with a little bit of preliminary email based work done in advance of that so we can come up with something concrete.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I wouldn’t think it would be extensive. I wouldn’t think it was a [inaudible00:56:25] statement either but we've had opportunity to go into the end trails of the report up until now. But I would think that what the ALAC would be asking for is a statement that highlights what we particularly like about the proposals but also puts in clear text where the next steps should be and how that the following Accountability and Transparency Review Team needs to focus far more on the public participation and mechanisms wrapped around policy development than this particular ATRT was able to. And Eric hopefully what I've just said is also responding to a question you raised.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay with that do we have sort of enough instructions to ourselves and close this meeting off and prepare for the next one? Does anybody have anything else? We are one hour, four minutes into the call, so just trying to keep things tidy.
Does anyone have any other comments, questions, is every okay with having the next meeting time on the 27th which is two weeks from right now? And it seems like we already have some stuff for our plate. Gisella in terms of the cutting and pasting the thing off the discussion notes that has our wording in it, is that okay for you to do?
Seth Greene: I'll take care of that Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, so alrighty okay then if that’s the case then I guess this meeting is adjourned. We will see you back by phone in two weeks and hopefully in email sooner than that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you.
Uri: Okay thank you.
Seth Greene: Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Take care, bye all.
-End of Recorded Material-