transcript ExCom 25 May 2010

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Alright, well we've certainly given it plenty more than the quarter past the hour, so let's begin, if Dave joins us, terrific. Alright, let's look first at the follow- up of action items - oh dear I've picked the wrong box and I've now got Skype in front of me. That’s not what I wanted. I wanted that. The follow up action items from the 17th of May ExCom and they are, encouragement for people to use the At-Large workspace on INT, we still need to continue on that. The - I assume staff - I have invited the Co-Chairs to Vertical Integration Workgroup or not yet for Tuesday the 22nd.

Heidi Ulrich: Gisella is handling that meeting, Gisella?

Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry?

Heidi Ulrich: The invitations to the Co-Chairs of the Vertical Integration for the polish-

Gisella Gruber-White: That’ll be going out shortly.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, terrific. Seth was going to revise the At-Large Improvement Plan, et cetera, et cetera. Now, he did speak to some of those matters today. I am at, an ExCom level, concerned that we make sure we don’t put in what are known inflammatory and barrier issues that might be used to hold up our progression of key points in the At-Large improvements plan, quite specifically, the seating and selection of At-Large Board Director.

With all consideration of what Adam was saying and why he was saying it, and I’m certainly happy for it to stay in the plan and to stay on everyone’s agendas, we need to make sure it’s not coupled with the selection and appointment process of the Board Director because, for example, there is considerable and strong resistance for having inequals any more than one, and that’s not to do with voting or otherwise, that’s just got to do with size, logistics and probably finances.

Seats taken by At-Large by the Board table, and that’s a very strongly held view by a few Board Directors including the Chairman of the Board. So whilst we need to certainly keep it in the documents and as a fresh item, I am fearful of it getting coupled to the appointment process. So what are your thoughts on that Alan and Sebastian?

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I’m not at my screen right now, but I’ll give you a quick comment. I think given that it was a subject exclusively in the Board motion exclusively that the liaison would be replaced.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Correct.

Alan Greenberg: I think the only viable-

Dave Kissondoyal: Dave inaudible 03.35

Alan Greenberg: Pardon me?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s Dave joining us. Thanks, Dave.

Alan Greenberg: I think the only viable way of getting that back on the table is if one has the commitment of at least a few directors and members of the appropriate committees who are willing to fight for it.

((Crosstalk))

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Yeah.

Alan Greenberg: Without that commitment ahead of time I think it is absolutely ludicrous to bring it back. With that commitment, who knows where it would go, but I think that would be an absolute prerequisite.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I would think it’s the sort of thing we need to make sure is still on the table in the paperwork, as an aspiration, but that we work really hard to make it a natural next consequence, you know, perhaps as a transition point towards two full seats or in its own right. I don’t know. But certainly I’m just fearful of it being tied to the At-Large director selection process and the seating of that person, and that worried me greatly.

Alan Greenberg: The only mechanism that I could have imagined would be as a transition overlap, and they didn’t do that, and bringing it back now I think is rather difficult.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I think so too.

Alan Greenberg: If they had done it as a transition and then they could review after six months or nine months or whatever whether it needs to continue or not, it would have been a nice position for them to have taken. I’m not sure we can turn the clock back and make it happen though.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, putting the milk back in the bottle is often hard. Sebastian, your views?

Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, first I think if we have been able – and I don’t say we as just us but ICANN in general – to have a director sitting there for the Brussels meeting, it would have been possible to ask for that post liaison and that all directors stay for six months because our liaison was supposed to be elected for one year even if there was some possibility to withdraw his seat before. I think it’s still something we need to keep in mind, but I am not sure that we can do, as you say, at the same time.

Then first, let’s get what they offer us and with that it will be easier to struggle for something else, especially because we will have one elected Board Director participating and not just a liaison. I think it’s an important step to be used and we know he’s not representing us or she’s not representing us, but it will be one step. In the same time, we have to take care of all the hurdles we will have. And, for example, if we have the agreement of some Board Director, in six months three of them will be leaving and then we have to take care of that.

If we want to convince a Board Director, it must be the one who stays and the new one coming. And the position they could take could depend also on the position if they want to reapply or not, and it’s quite a lot of politics involved in all that. And I support either position but we have to be careful on how we struggle for that and maybe it’s better to postpone that for after the election of the Board Director.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I agree with you there, Sebastian. Dave, your views, remembering you have come in slightly through the middle of the conversation? I’d raised concerns with what Adam had put forward about making sure that maintaining the liaison position in the Board was something to be prioritized.

I agree it’s something that should be left in the paperwork, but certainly not prioritized because I fear if it’s tethered or tied to the selection and seating of the At-Large Director, it will be used as an obstruction and a hold up. And I’m also very aware that a number of Board members are absolute in their view that one seat is one seat and it is it. And Sebastian, of course, has seen to that point. So Dave, your opinions on that then?

Dave Kissondoyal: I do agree that okay to the going forward to what Adam mentioned, that the seat of the liaison to the Board should be prioritized. I think we have to go this way until we get to the Directors elected.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well the liaison does stay until the Director is selected and seated, but the resolution about having the single At-Large selected Director to the ICANN Board includes the words that make it very specific, that that will be the replacement of the liaison.

Dave Kissondoyal: That will be the replacement. Yeah, I believe you Cheryl. Since we don’t have the - the best scenario would have been that we have the liaison and then we have the Director as well but since it is already mentioned that the liaison will be replaced, so I think until the time that the Director should at least 16.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, I think the other thing that was being made by points that both Alan and Sebastian were making is that there will be politically appropriate opportunities once we have a seated Director to engender trust and faith and perhaps go back to revisit the fact that the recommendations of the review team was in fact for not one, but two At-Large selected Director seats.

And as an interim to that future process we may look at a liaison as an intervening one, which is I think one of the mechanisms that was a regret that it didn’t happen this way. But I think we just need to play this very smart; not remove it from the table, but play it smart.

Dave Kissondoyal: Yeah, but our priority which is like most important for us, from my point of view, is the director selected.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely. We have to get them there, that’s right. Okay, well that was a bit of a diversion as we went through the action items. The one that were we were talking about, the At-Large Improvements Project Plan. So what I’d like is for our mid-month, Pre-Brussels ExCom Meeting – Heidi if Seth can definitely be available for that and we spend a reasonable amount of time looking at some of the finessing and fine-tuning of what we need to do in those documents?

Heidi Ulrich: Okay, again, the final document needs to be submitted to the SIC and the Board on the 7th of June.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. Well, at the moment it’s in there as a by-line at the end, isn’t it? There’s no reason to change. Or should we be meeting before the 7th of June?

Heidi Ulrich: I think it would need to be approved by at least the ExCom before the 7th of June.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well seems to me like we’re going to be meeting before the 7th of June or on the 7th of June perhaps, but before it goes to the SIC. Okay, let’s see what we can do to make that happen because it’s too important to get wrong. Alright, moving down ALAC and DCEC and the RALO offices informed that all issues related to the At-Large Board selection process, I’m not quite sure what the action item there is other than it sort of fits in with what we’re doing as part of the At-Large Improvements Plan.

With Seth making himself available to the regions and their meetings, this is what’s happening there. But I think we’ve matched up that extra bit where it’s talking about that issue of quorum must be followed at all levels. That’s more of an add-in to what we’re putting as highlighted points in the improvements plan. I haven’t looked to see that that’s been added, so is that an action item we still need to follow up on?

Sebastian Bachollet: This is something we discussed at the EURALO level and we decided not to have a GA during the Brussels.

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, it’s Alan. If I remember correctly it wasn’t the intent to put it in the plan but to alert the RALO leadership that this was something they need to focus on.

((Crosstalk))

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Right. So really that’s an action item-

Alan Greenberg: And need to make sure they looked at their own rules and procedure and make sure they’re followed scrupulously.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So that’s really an action item on staff to make sure that happens in not only the regional meetings but also in the secretariat and regional officer’s meeting at Brussels.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, at whatever level necessary to make sure that when actions are actually taken by the RALOs on Board selection, whether it’s – this was raised specifically in respect to if a RALO is directing a vote that that action be taken in a formal way. Just for the information of those on the call, there was folk lore that the Latin American RALO and maybe the European RALO had rules that said they could direct the votes of their ALAC members.

In fact, we could not find that in any of the rules. So that if they decide to direct any votes that that decision be taken in a way that is absolutely squeaky clean because the issues of capture and our decisions being made according to the process as approved has been brought up by a number of Board and Board committee members.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, yeah. I wonder whether we should, in fact, also have it in the improvements plan, directly verbalized, for want of a better word.

Alan Greenberg: Perhaps, but I think it’s one of these things we need to talk to the leaders about and get them to say to our face or to someone’s face, “Yes, we understand.” As opposed to just assuming it’s understood.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay can we make sure - when we meet before the 7th or on the 7th, can we make sure that we’re happy that this matter has been addressed in the report to the SIC? And also to make sure that when we’re discussing this particular topic in Brussels - because that’s going to be the opportunity with the regional leaders sitting at the table - that a full, frank and fearless discussion on this matter comes through?

Because it may be that the regional leaders of some of the regions are surprised that they don’t actually have the power to direct vote after all. Okay, we’ve done the ALS survey. I’m not too disappointed with the 50%; I’m disappointed with the performance of some of the regions; my own region being one of them. I think from my region’s perspective, the fact that the secretariat was quite literally absent during the whole of the time.

He came back I think, and was available about 24 hours or 36 hours before the close. So there really wasn’t the follow-through that we would like to have had in terms of reminders and things. One thing I was very confused about was when in the geographic regions call I was told that only 25 surveys, the lion’s share of which happened to be from At-Large ALSs, had come in.

So it looks like even though we had 60 or 70 people responding on behalf of individual ALSs, probably only one third of those also completed the geographic regions survey. And I think that’s a bit disappointing so we might want to do an outreach again, some sort of announced link, an invitation.

Heidi, I’m happy to work directly with staff on that to see whether we can get more geographic regions survey work done as well. What was everyone else’s feeling on the survey? Early days, but?

Heidi Ulrich: I think, Cheryl, if I may?

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Please.

Heidi Ulrich: Fifty percent, as you noted in the ALAC call, for surveys I think a 50% completion rate is rather good.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh yeah, yeah.

Heidi Ulrich: And I, just again, have glanced at the results and there’s so much information in there that it will take weeks, if not months, to adequately review that. And I think that presenting that information not only to At-Large, but also to other communities and Barbara, would be fascinating.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I would like to think that when we have our time with Barbara on the Sunday morning, more time will be spent on that and less on why spending $2.5 million on advertising would be a good idea. So I don’t know who is micromanaging our presenters, but -

((Crosstalk))

Heidi Ulrich: I’m handling that particular meeting.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Somebody needs to micromanage that very carefully. Okay, next on our-

((Crosstalk))

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl? I had -

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, sorry, Alan, I thought I-

Alan Greenberg: I keep on disappearing. By the way, you gave me the microphone before I saw my hand up.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Wow.

Alan Greenberg: Two -

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: I only respond to little boxes in front of me.

Alan Greenberg: Two related things: on the survey, I sent a note to Heidi to make sure that my answers, which were what I thought was a test of the survey and they petered off because I lost interest as we went along, to make sure any test results are excluded that aren’t deemed to be real results.

I don’t know, there may not be any others; maybe mine was the only one, but the number of people who answered the first question, who are you, compared to the number who answered towards the bottom says there may be others like that. And the other thing is related to our previous issue of squeaky clean in regards to the At-Large Director position.

I suspect the other regions have rules like North American Region that a quorum is 50% of the ALSs, and I understand surveys are boring and people don’t like to do them, but we need to find out if these ALSs are alive and, if not, do something about them because we may be in a position otherwise where we can’t take any action at all because we can’t even get email responses from a quorum.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, well for those regions-

((Crosstalk))

Alan Greenberg: So -

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: For those regions who-

Alan Greenberg: We don’t have much time to do that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: For those regions who are silly enough to have quorums at those levels, yes, I agree it’s a real problem.

Alan Greenberg: But I think we need to focus on it and decommission or wake them up or get emails that work for them. For the ones who didn’t answer we almost have to go to one-by-one and make sure they’re still alive.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And to be honest, I would like to - Pat suggested that something that can prove their livelihood is responding to the survey as a late entry, because we do have months of analysis, as Heidi said.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, but at one point we said let’s worry about decommissioning the ALSs at some later date, but the At-Large Director position may be something that causes us to do it sooner rather than later.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. Well, as I said also, it depends

((Crosstalk))

Alan Greenberg: I've got a noisy air condition so I'm going on mute …

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: On the region.

Alan Greenberg: …until I need to go off.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, okay, the action item then will be for us to ask the regional leaders or someone within regional leadership to follow up on this and to approach all our ALSs which haven’t responded to the survey, offering them a single opportunity to respond to the survey with the information that this be part of a future accreditation review and renewal process perhaps. Sebastian, go ahead.

Sebastian Bachollet: You took the words out of my mouth.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, Sebastian.

Sebastian Bachollet: No, that’s okay, that’s great! I really think we need to go to each and every ALS; we need to do that at the regional level and give them the opportunity to answer the survey. So it maybe, if we can find a little time, if there are some announcement of the survey, we can explain why some people didn’t go through the three surveys because part was for 06 and I guess we can announce that a little bit if we have time. If not then we leave like that hoping that at least they are to do the first part of the new survey.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And in fact the sooner that’s done, the better, because things like the geographic survey are still open formally. And I think that the value and the analysis of what’s going to come out of the CCTLD and ALS one is, again, not so time critical so we could run that in the next couple of weeks. Heidi, we probably need to talk to Ralph and work out exactly how we open up on a sort of one-to-one basis; a particular invitation.

I should think it’s not that difficult; it would be a matter of after a phone call or email communication with a regional leader, the particular person who has undertaken from the ALS to respond to the survey will be sent the equivalent of a voting tool, which will take them into the survey and it is incumbent on them to complete it.

Dave Kissondoyal: Cheryl, Dave here. I have a question referencing the survey.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Dave go ahead.

Dave Kissondoyal: Okay, from the result on the survey I can see that the percentage provided the person did on the group side, but it would be good to have the person gage region-wide as well. I personally want to know in Africa how many ALSs we have and how many have participated. And the same applies to other regions, as well.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, well the analysis there, that’s something that the analysis team will be doing and they’re meeting on Thursday.

Dave Kissondoyal: Okay, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because - It’s a crosschecking. We did wonder about asking that particular question but it’s probably something that’s just as easy to pick up in analysis. But yes, I’m interested in exactly the same thing and I’m sure each of us are. Did we arrange to send the survey to all the non-com ALAC appointees?

Heidi Ulrich: Yes, we did.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent.

Heidi Ulrich: Well to the individual and that’s why Alan, I thought Matthias, in fact I saw an email where Matthias was asking Ralph to send the survey to the non-com as well as the individual ALAC members and other members; for example, Alan and Adam, et cetera.

Alan Greenberg: If it was sent to me, I missed it, which is entirely possible.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: I certainly don’t want my first answers to be taken as that answer.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well my test answers were very flippant, believe me; they were absolutely test.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, but I don’t believe I’ve seen another one, but it might be buried in my inbox. It could well be.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I don’t think there’s anything else on that. Oh look, we may as well dive in and continue on.

Heidi Ulrich: I have my hand up, just a quick question, if I may.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, sorry Heidi. I can’t give you the hand so just take it, go on.

Heidi Ulrich: In terms of who should be involved in reaching out to those ALSs that did not complete the survey, you mentioned the regional chairs and leadership. What about also the working group that is now going to be tasked with doing the analysis, as they have been the ones that have been following up with all the ALSs as the survey was running?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I didn’t know that they were the ones who were doing that. That would make sense then. I assume that most of them are regional leaders anyway, but if they’ve already had then role, fine, but what I wouldn’t be supportive of, you know, the analysis group unrelated to the ALSs to date suddenly interfering in what I would consider regional business, because it is regional business.

Heidi Ulrich: That’s why perhaps both could be doing that. In some cases they are the regional leadership and in some cases, for example it would be Dave and Viviere and Darlene. So those are all secretaries. Pavan, et cetera.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, if we do have separation of power in any given case, we should use it to double check.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Yeah.

Alan Greenberg: If they are the leaders, we have no choice but to ask them again nicely.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, anything else, Heidi?

Heidi Ulrich: No. That’s fine, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so we are regularly updating comments on the ATRT workspace, which is good. I’d just like more comments there but hopefully that will happen at various points in time. I did ask Alice to put dates or some clear nomenclature on the meeting recordings. I don’t know whether that’s happened but a formal request did go through.

And we are looking at ways to allow community members to receive information during the meetings. We will certainly be making better use of the Adobe Connect room, but there will also be - what low-bandwidth mechanism is there, I don’t know, because it depends what they set up in Brussels but the question again has been asked. ALAC to review ALAC organizing documents with references to statements, advisory comments, et cetera, what does that mean?

Heidi Ulrich: That was a request during the last ExCom meeting. Well actually the action item below that needs to come first, is where we, staff will provide the ALAC with the details within the ALAC organizing documents on submission of statements, advisories, comments, et cetera. and then after doing that the ALAC can review these documents.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Right.

Heidi Ulrich: So, that has not been done. So I'll -

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s a work in progress. Not a bad thing to continue that. Okay and we might reverse that in our action items then so it makes vague sense to me when I’m reading it at three-something in the morning. Then last, because Heidi has managed to match the two together and make sense of them for me, is ALAC and At-Large staff to work together to develop flow charts on At-Large decision-making processes for each type of statement, which is also related.

This however, is work to be done between Brussels and Cartagena meetings as part of the At-Large improvements, and also the ATRT, the At-Large flow chart would be up on the front page of the new Confluence Wiki, et cetera, et cetera.

I think it is fairly important that people who just want to know, “What does this mean?” when the ALAC says something – we still have people who are unaware of the difference between ALAC and At-Large, so we can’t do too much of this sort of advertising or clarification as far as I’m concerned.

Alan Greenberg: I have a flippant question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, go ahead.

Alan Greenberg: Is confluent the same as affluent?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hopefully not. Although if it is, immediate oath and search.

Alan Greenberg: Just thought I would ask because sometimes one wonders.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You’re a bad man sometimes, Alan. Alright, moving on to 25 May, now this is highly - this is hot off the presses. I am very, very impressed that we’ve got our action items from earlier today. So the first one, staff to announce new RALO members to global lists. Gee, well I can’t say that any of these have been done because the prints hardly dry; the ink’s still wet on them.

Alan Greenberg: By the way, my intent was the ALAC lists, not At-Large in announce.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so that needs to be clarified then. So it’s not the global lists.

Heidi Ulrich: Right, Alan, the ALAC and what was the other one?

Alan Greenberg: The two ALAC lists; the working and internal.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: They’re small, closed groups and when someone gets added we should know.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan likes to know who he talks to.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay, that change will be saved in one moment.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay and I assume the correction has happened on the action item from the 27th of May.

Alan Greenberg: Hold on; the correction is incorrect. It’s the ALAC internal and working lists.

Heidi Ulrich: Ah, okay.

Alan Greenberg: The two ALAC lists, not the At-Large lists. I suppose the same should go for the ExCom.

Heidi Ulrich: So the ALAC internal and working lists and the ExCom list.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah. It's the ALAC lists, as opposed to the At-Large lists.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay, if you refresh you should see that.

Alan Greenberg: Sounds perfect.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. Heidi, I assume the correction to add Sebastian’s name in front of the preparation of drafts of statement of reconsideration 110 has been done.

Heidi Ulrich: Yes. In fact that action item already includes those two sentences, including Sebastian.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. We’ve got the checking with the GNSO. A mechanism is to be developed to show activity, okay, that’s fine. We’re not sure how yet, but that’s good. Concern we’re all up on the correct links of the JAZZ charter. Alan’s got an action item. Patrick has an action item. Can I ask if that action item specifies text to what?

Heidi Ulrich: Yes, sorry.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In your rush to get it up there…

Alan Greenberg: Just text; any text.

Heidi Ulrich: I will make those corrections.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just generically text.

Heidi Ulrich: And also the third one, sorry, was a community call. Yes, that is the call on the meetings. And I’ll go through this and add the details.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because it was Nick and/or Jean-Jacques.

Alan Greenberg: I didn’t want to bring this up during the meeting, is Nick Thomaso really the right person for that? He handles logistics at the meetings, but a large part of the decisions they’re looking at are not logistics but have to do with making ICANN effective.

Heidi Ulrich: Yeah.

Alan Greenberg: I don’t know him very well but I don’t think that a fair amount of what we’re talking about – I mean, the decision to go to two meetings a year versus three, or regional meetings, I don’t think is a Nick Thomaso issue.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It would affect his-

Alan Greenberg: It would affect him, yeah. But he's -

((Crosstalk))

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I think this is where I like the idea of the “and” as opposed to the “or”.

Alan Greenberg: I have no problem with him being there but I don’t think he is able to represent all of the issues which are being discussed on the-

Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, but he is the one of the staff in charge of this -

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Of the public comments, yep.

Sebastian Bachollet: I agree with you, but.

Alan Greenberg: I’m not saying exclude him - okay but I don’t think he is sufficient if we’re talking about the substance of the kind of decisions that they want to make.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: And that’s where-

((Crosstalk))

Sebastian Bachollet: As soon as somebody will replace Nick 19 it will be welcome to come to discuss with us.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But that’s where I think having the chair of the public participation committee is so important. Remove AP from section in the text. What does that mean, Heidi?

Heidi Ulrich: That is to remove Adam Peak’s name.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so I don’t have to get concerned about Asia-Pacific.

Alan Greenberg: Sure, you should.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because when I see “AP”…

Heidi Ulrich: Sorry.

Alan Greenberg: Anything to keep you on your toes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Listen, I am awake, okay? You don’t have to test me. Now, sending the Yanus, requesting pre-endorsement, blah, blah, blah. This needs to be done posthaste. This is a piece of work we need to do and it would be nice if we could do it in the next 24-36 hours. So how do we want to do this?

Alan Greenberg: I’ll put on my list to draft the specific requirements.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, and then if we can share it in, say, the ExCom chat?

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, well.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dot the ‘I’s, cross the ‘T’s and I can tell Yanus he’ll have a reply from us in the next 24-36 hours, full reply. Good. Post 58 Expiry Meeting; ah yes, that’s-

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, Cheryl, on that one I think the verbiage on the overall number of people and stuff, you have to do.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, oh yeah. There is so much happening with the ATRT and trying to get surveys filled up and everything else, I’m drowning, not waving. So that’s fine. I can always do verbiage. I find editing easier than creating.

Alan Greenberg: Hey, maybe that’s the next tool at Google; Google Drown.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The number of people who wave at me going, “Waving, not drowning,” or sometimes, “Drowning, not waving,” it’s quite amusing. Because what you need to recognize is of course I’m in the midst of preparing for the end of my financial year here and that includes all of the volunteer roles in all the not-for-profits I have, which is usually treasurer, as well as what’s left of the business I pretend to run. So I do have a few things to do.

ALAC members to send feedback to staff on revised project plan by end of this week. And then we are going to have obviously the implementation project plan; At-Large improvements implementation. We are then going to have a meeting shortly after that and we need to work out when, and that probably needs to be to suit Seth as well.

So what else do we need to do, team? I think we’re marvelous. I think we did a lot today. Is there anything else on our to-do list? We’ve sorted ATRT, we’ve sorted RAA subsection 3.7.7.3. We’ve sorted all those others. I would speak just for one moment on my serious concern that like a phoenix raising itself from the ashes, the concept of DNS Cert is going to have to be beaten down again and again and again until it becomes a widely-held, bottom-up consensus-built view from ICANN. This is one of those move-it-in-from-the-top issues which is going to be extremely costly.

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep.

Alan Greenberg: I think we are talking about Board action here. I think the only method is to do backroom work with Board members.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, we’ve got a lot of that to do.

((Crosstalk))

Alan Greenberg: This is the CEO taking action, the community saying, “No,” the action is still going forward. I actually haven’t looked to the budget yet but I presume there’s still money in the budget for it. Is that correct?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, well what the budget says - well, one of the questions I believe we should be asking is there is still a significant increase.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, but that was prior to the DNS Cert.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, well the DNS Cert, when it came out first time around, said it was outside of the budget framework.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: What the budget framework preamble says is for this year it doesn’t include DNS Cert.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. So it is not an issue of the approval of the budget.

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Nope.

Alan Greenberg: But it is an issue of the Board control over senior management of the organization.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It, to say the least, is.

Alan Greenberg: And I don’t see any other way of addressing this other than that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we therefore have to respond to this public comment issue.

Alan Greenberg: Oh yes. This is one of those ALAC advice to the Board issues

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely.

Alan Greenberg: You know this -

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: So if- we’ve got until the 2nd of July, but can I ask us to work - see most of the hard lifting will be done - I mean once things have gone to bed for Brussels, then other than getting our own personal houses in order and getting on hairy-planes to get over there – or trains or buses or automobiles; whatever we’re traveling with, I’d like to think that we can start putting some pen to paper on this between say, the 10th and the 15th or 17th of June, so we can have at least some roughed-out text for consideration at Brussels.

Alan Greenberg: That’s reasonable.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So that’s a new item out of there. And we obviously need to try and get the meetings for the next decade, which we’ve just done.

((Crosstalk))

Heidi Ulrich: Cheryl, just on that, the issue of the community call on the meetings?

Cheryl Langdon -Orr: Yep?

Heidi Ulrich: Did you want that prior to Brussels or after Brussels?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well we’re not going to have much time after Brussels; not everyone would necessarily even be back. I’d like to have the vote starting at the beginning of July, so if it’s possible, before Brussels, but it might be difficult.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay. I’m just wondering if there’s a replacement for Nick in place in the next several weeks, I’m just trying to see about the timing for that. Or would you like members, for example Jean-Jacques and Nick, to be on that call instead.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think we need to try and plan it with the people we know are there, because I have no evidence that Nick is going to be replaced in a prompt and timely manner.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: Although ICANN does seem to be very good with hiring new people these days.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But only at the very upper, upper executive echelon.

Alan Greenberg: I knew I’d get a response.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: God, I’m predictable. Okay -

((Crosstalk))

Sebastian Bachollet: So then we have to ask that the replacement for Nick, it needs to be a VP.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, ICANN needs more VPs.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, indeed, we do, sigh, huge sigh. Now, we’ve undertaken to do some of the penning for the Yanus letter. I think we’ve sort of discussed that so far and we’ve said we’re going to do it in the next 24-36 hours. So item three for discussion we’ve done. Vanda has indicated she’s going to do some general information sharing formally, as a report, and she’s given us some in the ExCom chat, which is very useful. So I guess we come to any other business. Any other business?

Sebastian Bachollet: Just to finish what I was saying when we were cut off, that at the EURALO level we have to replace Desi, who is formally stepping down, we try resolved to try to have her staying and just a replacement for a few months but we didn’t succeed and then we have to go to a formal replacement for the moment, I guess 01 will be the one to replace her. But we are still to finalize a decision.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, all right it’s good that you do have someone who’s not fresh to the world of EURALO who’s going to at least be an interim replacement.

Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, but then it’s a question of where we will find new, fresh blood because we need also that and I don’t see it, but it might be my backside of the world, we need new blood and we need a woman, and we need from Eastern Europe, and that’s a lot of things we don’t have or I don’t see.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well the makeup of the EURALO Board does have some historical issues that it needs to grapple with, and I think the opportunity that EURALO and all the regions are looking towards, which is trying to get an ALS per country, might be the best mechanism for getting new blood of whatever gender, but particularly from central and western Europe, involved, because there is certainly a cluster of where the ALSs are from and indeed where the Board members are from.

Sebastian Bachollet: Yep.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Alan, any other business from you?

Alan Greenberg: Don’t think so.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dave, any other business from you?

Dave Kissondoyal: Not at all.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, at a little earlier than quarter past the hour, a very efficient one-hour Executive Committee meeting, but just in case you think you’re getting off scott-free we are going to have a single-purpose meeting for the At-Large Improvements Implementation 04 delivery discussion.

And we will have to look at Doodle opportunities, but is there any days that you want to let us know now need to be blacked out? Is there any times that you three cannot make such a call between now and the 7th - well not now - between the 30th and the 7th?

Alan Greenberg: I try to avoid the real middle of the night hours.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Dave?

((Crosstalk))

Alan Greenberg: Unreasonable, I know, but nevertheless.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have you got some block-out dates, Dave?

Dave Kissondoyal: Yeah, my time is only UTC+4, so if you can make it not too late for me, as well.

Heidi Ulrich: Cheryl, also could I request that the days are limited from the 30th through the 4th just in case there are revisions, that Seth would have just a few days to incorporate them?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Happy to limit it between the 30th and the 4th; that’s fine. Sebastian, any block-out dates in the 30th to the 4th?

Sebastian Bachollet: No, except that you already know the meetings. I guess the 31 it’s quite difficult because I have already two ICANN meetings and a third one, but for the rest I can manage.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well Gisella knows where all the other meetings are so she’ll avoid that. Can we ask that we reach out to Carlton before we put that Doodle together, Heidi.

Alan Greenberg: I’m going to take my leave, people.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was about to say, Alan, you’ve got plenty of time before I need to talk to you again.

Alan Greenberg: Unfortunately I’m trying to review a 70-page paper in that time. Bye, bye.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Bye.

Dave Kissondoyal Take care, bye.

Sebastian Bachollet: Bye, Alan.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thanks, everybody.

Dave Kissondoyal: Thank you, Cheryl.

Heidi Ulrich: Okay, bye.

Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, bye, bye, then

Sebastian Bachollet: Bye, bye.

Heidi Ulrich: Bye.

Dave Kissondoyal: Bye.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi, do you want to call me?

Heidi Ulrich: Yes, just a second.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.

-End of recorded material-