Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, I think maybe it’s time for us to start, and not at the time of 1530 UTC, but strangely enough 1711 UTC. Slightly delayed here, at the ALAC Executive committee conference call on 22 February, 2011, and we are starting quickly with a roll call. Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, let me take a look here. On today’s call we have Olivier Crepin-Leblond, we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Evan Leibovitch, Sebastien Bachollet is still on the Adobe Connect, and the Tijani Ben Jemaa, and from staff we have Seth Greene and myself.
Alan Greenberg: And you have Alan for a while.
Heidi Ullrich: And Alan. Alan, I did not hear you, and I do not see you in the Adobe Connect.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I’m not in Adobe Connect, because the agenda where I seem to find the Adobe link still have social text Wiki in it. If someone in Skype can give me the correct URL, I’ll go to it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, Heidi, I hope you’re enjoying this.
Alan Greenberg: I’m not trying to zing anyone; I’m just trying to find the page.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh Alan, you don’t have to, because I am.
Heidi Ullrich: Alan, which page are you looking at? I’m writing (Phila) and Marilyn as we speak, I’m saying “come on folks, let’s go”.
Alan Greenberg: I am looking at the Google calendar on the At-Large home page, and it says the ALAC monthly call February 22 and the description is found at https://st.ICANN.org and so forth.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, At-Large home page on the website?
Alan Greenberg: On the website. The official one.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: You’re absolutely right, Alan. The Google calendar shows st.ICANN.org.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, again apologies for that.
Alan Greenberg: Well, if someone gives me the right URL then I will be glad to go to the Adobe connect. I’m on Skype.
Heidi Ullrich: I’m sending you that right now; again, apologies. I cannot tell you how many times we’ve talked to that amongst…
Alan Greenberg: Thank you, Seth, who gave it to me. I have it now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s interesting, Gisella has already and most definitely updated the correct things in some of the calendars, or Marilyn and Gisella, because I get multiple calendar entries, and the one that comes in in purple is different than the one that comes in in yellow. So yeah, it’s all got to do with where it’s feeding from. I think we need to make sure all of the entries are changed.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: And with these calendar problems, we’ll move to the 9th of February, 2011, action items. We have in there a number of – in fact, we’ve got a very long list again. Let’s go quickly through those. Staff to include in the call out for the new ALAC work group members, the list of current members for references and confirmation. There’s nothing next to that. Heidi, has there been …?
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: What’s the progress on that?
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, what happened is that we have the note drafted. Before we sent it out, we noticed the sad shape of some of the Working Group Wiki pages, so what we did was take a week to put them all in the same format, correct the broken links; we’ve done that now, so I can go ahead and send that note today out to ALAC Announce.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, that sounds good. Any objections to this? Perfect. Please go ahead. And the next one, staff to update all Working Group conference pages with current and historical membership lists, well you’ve just mentioned it, and that’s in progress and I guess it can be said it’s done now.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, Olivier. We still need Cheryl’s historical memory, so we’ll follow up with her on that as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, as of today seeing it’s a quarter past four now, and I have drunk a whole bottle of red wine throughout this meeting…
Heidi Ullrich: It won’t be today, Cheryl.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, Evan, Tijani, Carlton and Alan to polish the wording of ALAC’s current unionized JAS charter in order to make the Working Group easier, given the fact that it will have two charters. This has been zapped, as we have mentioned in the ALAC call earlier, and this was replaced by Alan, who has provided a charter that we had worked on, that we have reviewed. Is there an action item to take out of this action item?
Heidi Ullrich: Could we have just follow up with Alan, who’s actually just a few hours ago sent me his text again, and we can work on that, Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, Heidi, let’s do that. Alan, your hand is up? Please Alan.
Alan Greenberg: May I suggest, we’ve spent an infinite amount of time on this. If this group is happy with the charter I drafted, minus item (i) I think, or item something along with the 100K in it, and propose it to the ALAC. I don’t think anyone is going to argue with it, get the ALAC to approve it, and then tell the JAS group what you’ve done.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hear hear!
Alan Greenberg: I don’t think we need to discuss it a lot more unless there’s someone who disagrees.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Can I have ticks for this please, if everyone agrees?
Alan Greenberg: I’m not online, you have my virtual tick.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. I think we’re all in agreement. I haven’t seen anyone speak against that. So let’s go ahead with that please, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: If you would like, I will revise the document to reflect that change, and I can send it out to ALAC, if you wish, on your behalf or Heidi can do it; whatever you want. I still have the document, I’m happy to revise it with that last reflection, that adjustment, and send it out.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Make it so, Alan, and I so wanted to use that sentence today.
Alan Greenberg: Done, thank you.
Heidi Ullrich: Thank you Alan, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Alan, it’s appreciated. There’s so much to do out there. So Heidi to arrange for addition of ALAC and GAC meeting to the Silicon Valley schedule, or shedule whichever part of the world you’re in, and that’s still in progress, and we heard earlier that we’re still awaiting an answer but hopefully we will get an answer, and if there is no answer by email; there will be an answer, trust me, face to face. The ALAC should take steps to define consumer, and that’s in progress; the discussion on consumer versus user. What’s the progress on this, Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: The ALAC should take steps to define consumer? Is that what…?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Consumer; is it just for our collective action?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, I think it’s collective action. I think once we sort out the meanings with Beau and Rosemary in San Francisco and move forward on that, I think that will be completed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To the best of my knowledge, Rosemary won’t be in San Francisco, and one thing I did email, and I think, Olivier, you were copied on that email, suggested that at least a possibility would be either a presentation in preparatory form or in some meeting or other, but it could come into our own ALAC general meeting; try and draw on ALS expertise on what it means to be a consumer in their particular parts of the world would be a useful exercise.
Certainly we here in Australia can draw on ACAM’s experience, where we’ve had to define what a tele-communications – no, not tele-communications, but communications consumer is for formation of the new peak body of peak body, and I’m sure similar experiences may have happened in any number of places, particularly Hong Kong, for example.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, and I think that can be an action item on that action item as well; to move forward and draw on our ALSs expertise to define what is a consumer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s do a little survey, and put the survey results in an ongoing tally on the Confluence Wiki, and that will allow individuals that are not ALS linked or who are not contributing via the ALSs to make comments and put their two cents in worth as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Now the question is, I’d be inclined to ask Beau for drawing this, is this a possibility, or is he too busy?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (crosstalk) processing, if you can ask him and actually get a response, good luck to you. Not even a response, ask him and get a response and an action, even more good luck to you. And yes, my venom is deliberate.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I might ask Evan to ask Beau.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Evan, you used to work with him.
Evan Leibovitch: Well yes, we were sort of partners in crime trying to fight the battle over the RAA amendments thing, so – I think, look, we’re going to be working together with them on a whole bunch of things on this consumer related stuff, so I don’t know. The whole thing about --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The whole thing that he’s part of has had no – correct me if I’m wrong, Heidi – no feedback, despite how many personal outreaches from you to him? On just getting the consumer literature.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, that’s nearly completed though, and if I can just do a quick follow up --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because you’ve done it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi, you were about to say?
Heidi Ullrich: The next sort of related action item is that Seth was to ask Rosemary, Alex, and Beau what their next steps are regarding the proposed candidate/consumer constituency, Rob followed up about a week ago; wrote to Rosemary and to Beau, and I just heard from him that no, no response from either.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: This is one of the reasons why I mentioned should At-Large, should ALAC take the lead on this, and this was transferred to a leadership role.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, the thing is, if we take the – we’re clear. You’ve heard it before, I don’t need to say it again. Just in terms of Rosemary, on Monday and Tuesday this week, and it is only the beginning of our Wednesday morning at (inaudible), the National Broadband and Beyond Conference has been on. So while she attended by remote participation the AUDA ccTLD Board meeting, she didn’t attend face to face. She only managed to dial in, due to her commitments on that. So Heidi, I suggest that you resend the request you did recently, again. And not to her Blackberry, but to her (atug) address.
Heidi Ullrich: To her – I’m sorry, which one, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Atug. The dot au address.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Heidi, thank you Cheryl, for this tracking of people. Heidi to contact Marika to request a one week extension during which the ALAC could submit a comment on the GNSO Working Group guidelines, and this was refused because the public comment was already closed. As a result, the At-Large Advisory committee send a statement directly to the GNSO for consideration at their next meeting, and in fact there was a discussion that followed on with Alan very kindly being able to follow up and being of the same mind as the At-Large – well, as I guess many of the people on the committee. Alan, is there a little follow up on this?
Alan Greenberg: Well, I put out my interpretation. Cheryl sent a note saying it agrees complete with hers. I don’t think I’ve heard from anyone else, so I’m assuming no objections means I can relay those words.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I also said I was fine with it.
Alan Greenberg: Okay sorry, I missed that. My fault.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe Alan, we are as one.
Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you. That meeting is on Thursday, I believe.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you Alan. OCL to identify who should write a draft ALAC comment on the GNSO Working Group guidelines to be submitted in one week, and Olivier/staff to request that person to write the draft comment - as far as I understand this was submitted.
Then staff to ask AG to write draft comment on proposed process for recognition of new GNSO constituencies -- I can hear an echo of myself, this is why I’m speaking a little strangely at the moment -- to be submitted by the end of the comment period on 4 March 2011. Thank you for cancelling the echo. That was completed, so Alan, thank you very much for that.
Staff to ask Edmund to write draft ALAC comment on interim period of the internationalized registration data IRD Working Group, if Edmund considers himself to close to the report staff, the next to ask James to write comment, and in fact Edmund did find himself too close, so James has been asked. As discussed previously, I thought I had read something from James to the extent that he said “yes, I’ll write something soon”, but staff hasn’t, so we’ll check that --
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, I have a message that James sent yesterday, and let me read it for the record, if you allow.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, all I see is “Sorry, I am traveling in Nanjing right now so will not be able to participate on the call”, but I have no response from him. I’ve done a search, I have no response from him on the reply to my request to draft that statement. So if you have one, please could you send it to me?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Maybe my neurons have been short-circuited somehow in my head; I’m not sure. I will check. If there is such a case, then I apologize that I made the mistake and this wasn’t the case.
Heidi Ullrich: No problem. Can I just follow up on that last action item, with the comment that Alan prepared?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Please, yes.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, we put that out for comments, we put it on the Wiki page. In order to have it completed by the deadline, can we start a vote on that tomorrow? A five-day vote?
Alan Greenberg: You might want to address my hand first.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, sorry. Olivier?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: I’ve seen two comments on my proposed statement. One was from Jean-Jacques, and although I agree with the intent, I think the wording he has is problematic, so I would tend to not include that. I noticed however, this morning Mark submitted some other comments and I haven’t had a chance to look at them yet. So what do you want, do you want me to handle it? Revise if necessary, revise if in my opinion and then submit back to the ALAC, and then you can start the vote, I guess? I haven’t looked at his comment at all, so I don’t know if it’s substantive or just wording.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I must admit I missed that one as well. I certainly – I personally don’t like commenting on leaked memos, because one just sometimes wonders whether these are genuine or not, or if it’s just a working document.
Alan Greenberg: What are we talking about? This is not a leaked memo.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: It says here “Heidi to research recently leaked US Commerce…”
Alan Greenberg: We’re back on the GNSO constituency one.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Oh, the previous one. Okay. I thought it was the leaked memo that Heidi was speaking of.
Alan Greenberg: No.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Sorry about that.
Alan Greenberg: I’ll look at Mark’s, and I’ll send a comment to the ALAC. Based on what I send, you can either choose to start the comment period or elicit more input. Or start the vote or get more input. If I agree with him, and there’s no dissent, there’s no disagreement, then we have a statement. If there’s a problem with it, Olivier, it’s your call whether you want to close it out or not.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, I will check. Action item for me I guess, later on today to read through and cross-check that your memo does not clash with Mark’s input.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I’ll try to reply in the next few hours, if I don’t die first. (coughing)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you. And so then we were on the last one, the Heidi Ullrich to research recently leaked US Commerce memo addressing intellectual property issues, according to various blogs. So Heidi, any follow up on this?
Heidi Ullrich: That’s still in progress. I followed up with some staff, but I have not heard back yet.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Is this still needed? Considering that we’re now seeing a lot more input from various – well, not only blogs, but from the actual Department of Commerce? I see a very long email that has been received, and which I haven’t read. I quickly sifted through, which I received maybe an hour ago. Has anyone managed to read this yet? Cheryl, perhaps?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I’ve glanced at it because it was coming to me as the ALAC meeting was on and I thought I should at least share it with the Executive Committee. I’m unclear, because when I looked at the details, Fiona has got the BCC, so I don’t know whether she has just copied it to the ATRT members and therefore it would be not for wider publication.
My reading on it, however, indicates that it is a presentation as prepared for delivery. Whether it’s as it was delivered is another question, and associated linkage would be public, so we can discuss it more widely. What it shows is the I guess particular views of NTIA and Larry in a number of issues, not the least of which is the fear for the multi-stake-holder model, unless we continue to get it right and make it more intelligible and more transparent, and make sure that things like end-user interest are in fact dealt with.
I think it’s not accidental that this keynote speech has come out not too long before the Brussels meeting. Beyond that, I’ve just read it much as you, scanned it.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. Also to say that both Evan and I have been in discussions in a conference call with Susanne Sene from the US Department of Commerce, and have received some input with regards to their so-called leaked letter and some further input on that, and certainly this has been dealt with separately I guess, perhaps we’ll discuss this later on in the GAC/Board meeting of ALAC positions. Anyway, we’re still going through AIs, and this was the last one. I suggest we now move to the next item in the agenda, which is the items for discussion. Review and revise timelines on the policy advice development calendar, which we’ve already looked at.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We dealt with that in the meeting, I think that’s fine.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: That’s what I was going to say. We’ve looked at it and we’ve actually made decisions then. Can we just carry those over to the ExCom, please? I see no objections to that. Let’s deal with the next one, follow up from ALAC meeting of 22 February, which we’ve just discussed proposed by-law amendments as requested by the At-Large Improvement work team A. Any feedback and AIs that we need to launch here? Judging from the extensive discussion we had and the great work that work team A did…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t think so, but generically, as I mentioned, a number of the work teams recommendations, as we get them formally, will require the ALAC to take these to next steps that are beyond the simple reporting on our implementation progress and sort of ticking off the majority of the boxes.
Most of the boxes will have a tick in them, but some of them will have a tick that says we’ve met the requirements as she has written the ALAC review, but the outcome of our implementation means that the following ongoing action or future action is recommended, and it will be some additional work required of the ALAC, and in some cases it’s the regions and the ALSs that result in that.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, and may I suggest that Seth holds the hands of work teams through that process?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Our preparation, if I may, for what will be the winding up-ish moments, the close to winding up-ish moments of the work teams in San Francisco, Olivier, I really would like you to see if you can schedule some relatively public but certainly well-recorded thanks for the amount of work done in a way that lists very clearly for the wider ICANN record, or whatever record you want I guess, those members of the work teams who have been integral in moving this all forward, as well as our valuable staff.
The reason I’m asking for this is I think what’s important is it’s going to show that the lion’s share of the work done in the implementation of the ALAC review recommendations has been done by regional and ALS members, and I think that’s kind of impressive.
The kinds of problems we’ve seen in other parts of ICANN and then getting implementation going on is that the review happens, the Council or its equivalent does its nay or yay-zing and it’s rumination, then it goes out to some form of public comment and then debates start and then they go yay or nay and there’s far less buy in than I think we have, because of the mechanisms used.
I think we need to thank Seth and obviously our general staff for that, but we also need to recognize the role of regional leadership that has played in the process. So I don’t know whether you want to strike them a certificate or something, but please try and do something, because it was a job well done.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl, I’d love to strike them a certificate, but I’m told we don’t have enough funds because it’s not in the financial year budget yet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughter)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So it will have to be something for the future maybe.
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, have you seen the cost of paper lately?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, strangely enough, I was thinking to do even better than this, and this was of course the At-Large and ALAC pins, which you might have, if you were following the NORALO showcase discussions, you’d see beautiful little ICANN At-Large pins. I want one of these, they’re very cute, and maybe that’s something that we might have to look at on a wider basis; I think they’re really good and beautiful looking.
Anyway, we’re diverting completely, but certainly thanks for all of the work that was done by the work teams is definitely in order, and I wonder if it might even be in order as a written document and not only a spoken thing. It certainly is an extraordinary amount of work from the time when the external consultancy team looked at At-Large and down to the moment now of At-Large actually doing the work themselves, and the regions, and everyone involved.
A countless number of hours, amazing graphics, and certainly we have seen some real show and demonstration of the talent we have out there. That’s what I often say, there’s talent out there, and I hope that ICANN is able to make use of that talent, and realizes how much talent they have out there. Anyway, any other suggestions on this? Should we move to 3B? Right, 3B, the GAC and Board meeting; discussion of ALAC positions, we’ve also spent plenty of time on this in the previous call. There is one thing which is of concern to me, and that’s what we’ve been given, what we’ve received today and what I’ve sent out as a serendipity.
The new gTLD briefing papers for the ICANN Board and GAC consultations; we have received – just by luck, I guess – it was a case of seeing an announcement on the 21st of February, which was yesterday, and which provided briefing papers on objections procedures, root zone scaling, market and economic impacts, registry/registrar separation, etc., etc., etc. The smallest one of these is a few kilobytes, the largest one is something like 25/30 pages.
I guess it’s definitely something, we definitely need to read those, but for any one person to read those might be a bit of a big task, and I wonder whether we could share the task to read those and perhaps for each one of us to send a short summary, perhaps, of what the points are in there. What the sticky points are, since we all know well enough what At-Large’s position is with regards to many of these points. Any comments or feedback or suggestions?
Evan Leibovitch: Well, I’ve already read the one on the objection process, for obvious reasons, and it reads really, really strange. I mean, I can smell Kurt’s handwriting in that, from a mile away. Only this time he has the luxury of occasionally quoting Peter in his rejections, as opposed to making it a staff thing. There’s really weird wording in that, and sometimes it’s going to the letter statement, and there’s also occasional ‘well, we have the sense that the Board may be doing this’, so for instance, a return – I’ll give a small example, not to belabor it right here.
But a perfect example is anticipating the GAC objection to having to pay for its objections to strings, there’s an envisioning that the Board may be acceptable, it’s almost putting forward as a bargaining position that there may be a budget availability to subsidize the cost of objecting. So rather than waiving the fee, they would simply give us budget in order to object.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: This was something that was discussed in Cartagena, wasn’t it? I heard that in Cartagena.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: -- staff --
Evan Leibovitch: And it was pointed out how stupid it was to allocate budget so we could give it back to them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Evan Leibovitch: You noticed that too, huh?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So that’s still in there?
Evan Leibovitch: Well, that constitutes the response. That’s part of this document. This document reads almost the exact same way as the staff response to Rec 6. “We’ll toss you a crumb here and there, but generally speaking, we don’t like it and here’s why.” So anyone who’s familiar with the way the staff reacted to the Rec 6group will fully understand the way that this is being put forward. This is a staff presentation document, and they’re accurate of their representation of the sides, and horrible in their interpretation of the issues.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The question I have then is are these documents – in your view, are these documents going to be used as the basis for the discussion? In other words, we’ll start first meeting objection procedures and Kurt comes on and describes “well, yes, here is our paper on objection procedures, and the debate and the discussion is opened”.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, perhaps. But the way it’s worded, it’s sort of like Kurt gets to stand up and say “well, in previous public statements Peter has already shut you down.” So this is going to be interesting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Perhaps Kurt needs to be reminded what the difference is between a position of the ICANN Board and dissertations by its Chair.
Evan Leibovitch: By its outgoing Chair. I know that, I simply note that at least in the parts that I read, that kind of statement was being used heavily as a rationale for a “the ICANN response”. And will no doubt be noted well by a number of players.
Alan Greenberg: What do you mean?
Evan Leibovitch: You may not be taking kindly to it; there may be GAC members and Board members who don’t take kindly, also.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, well that’s none of our business, I guess.
Evan Leibovitch: We have enough of our own problems.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The problem I see is being an observer in that meeting and seeing all of this horrendous stuff going on, should I just take a cyanide pill? To ease the pain?
Evan Leibovitch: Don’t take it yourself, hand them out. Have they said you can’t hold a placard with words on it? That’s not actually talking.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I would have thought some other constituencies that shall remain nameless would use placards; but that ALAC does not use placards. That said, if it comes to it, I’m ready to take some cardboard with me and wave it around.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, just take your credit card (work at carving the body)….
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (laughter) Okay, I had some practice in Ukraine a few days ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I would think so.
Evan Leibovitch: Exactly, that’s right, you can (out Pritz) them now.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, let’s go back to this. I’m going to try and read through all of these, but I would really appreciate it if we could share some of this. I understand not all of them are very long, but I would appreciate having your feedback on anything that you note and that you would find as being positively outrageous, just like what Evan just told us.
Evan Leibovitch: I think I singled out a couple of quotes, either in the chat, the Skype chat or elsewhere where I highlighted a couple of specific notes that I thought were – not necessarily summaries, but indicative of the tone they were using. I certainly plan to spend more time – if the rest of you will indulge me, I plan to pore over the documents on the string objections a lot deeper than I have, so that’s definitely where I want to be.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Alright, thanks Evan. I see Sebastian has raised his hand, so Sebastian?
Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, thank you. As you know, I am not speaking on behalf of anybody, even of the Board, and I am speaking as the member here, but I wanted to ask you a question about the discussion you just had, because I think we need to find a way to decrease the tension and not to add to the tension. If not, we will never find any solution.
But for example, about the point – yes, it’s written by staff, yes definitely, all those papers, but for example the question how we handle the fact that mainly the type of things will be done by outside staff, and then I am not sure that the money is going from the ICANN budget to the ICANN budget. It is going from the ICANN budget to the outside people, so it could be decided that the ICANN staff will spend this money on behalf of the GAC or ALAC, but it could also be spent and then given to one or the other of the organizations to be spent for that purpose.
It just once again, it raises more questions than answers, and the second question is that do you think that there needs to be a maximum number of possibilities for the GAC to disagree, to object, or do you think that it could be open? The answer to this question may have an influence to the first one, for example.
Evan Leibovitch: Actually Sebastian, Olivier, if you will indulge me. You’re absolutely right Sebastian, on both grounds. On the first one, yes the money that would be paid by the GAC or ALAC to file the complaint would go for the beer money for the ICC, not for ICANN staff.
I mean, as of right now, ALAC and GAC are absolutely united in detesting the idea of the dispute resolution service provider, the concept that ICANN staff refuses to let go of. But in terms of the cost recovery concept is that ‘well, the DRSP is going to charge a whole big whack of money and somebody’s got to pay for that and it’s not going to be ICANN.” And then the GAC is saying “well, we’re not going to pay for it,” and ICANN is saying “well, we’ll give you some money that you can go and give to the ICC.” The problem with that --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That cannot work.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That cannot work. In GAC world, that simply cannot work.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, it can’t work and in fact it’s already been proposed as part of changes to the dag in ways that we found objectionable. For instance, the independent objector is going to be given a finite budget, so even if you agree with the concept of the independent objector, which I don’t, but even if you go along with it, the idea of giving it very specific funding essentially is also effectively giving it a quota on how many it can do in a period of time.
If the GAC and ALAC are given a certain budget, saying this is how much you can spend on objections, then that’s effectively putting a quota on. Saying “well, okay, you’ve used up your four for the year, you might as well fold up shop, and you can’t do another objection until the next fiscal year.” That’s effectively what this kind of process does.
They pulled it on us when they made changes to the independent objector, they made it something with an explicit funding model that had to be – the independent objector had to pay for the objection themselves. This whole model “we’re going to give you money so that you can give it back to the DRSP” is a huge massive problem, and they’re just saying to the GAC that they expect us to eat it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t think GAC will, and we needn’t either. And I would think also, we will probably get support from the cc’s as well, because they’ve had an ongoing issue which actually effects things even as simple as ccNSO utilizing ICANN funded support on the grounds of ‘why should we be giving you money that you think you can then give back to us under your control?”
Evan Leibovitch: And don’t even get me started on how ICANN wants to use the same mentality on the JAS work group.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh yes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, I think we’re all in agreement, and I’m glad to hear there is consensus here. We’re all of the same frame of mind, and I definitely look forward to this weekend coming up.
Evan Leibovitch: One thing that somebody, I forgot who, has mentioned, I don’t know if it was mentioned in the circles today, was the fear that basically the user focused part of ICANN was going to be seriously outgunned in Brussels by crowds of contracted parties who are going to stuff the rafters. Is there any substance to that concern at all?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, the concern you’re speaking about is the one where I think it was Robin Gross who has written to say that she believes that only a handful of ALAC and (ncuc) folk will be there against a huge number of people. I understand that there are a lot of people who will attend, because from what I hear they asked for a larger room than what they originally intended to have. Now, whether they are contracted parties or whether they are people also interested in domain names and just hovering around the ICANN theater is something that I am not aware of.
Alan Greenberg: I thought I read that they accepted all of the requests. Of course, other people are better funded than we are to make the requests, so --
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Well, there’s no figure as to how many they have accepted.
Alan Greenberg: No, but I thought I read that they had accepted all the requests. I thought I saw a message that implied that. But clearly, other people have more access to funds than At-Large does to send people.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You know, the thing there is losing influence.
Alan Greenberg: Yes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: It certainly will be interesting, and I’m certain we will see the same faces as we usually do, I don’t think there will be any newcomers. It will be just interesting, that’s all. Any other comments on this, before we move on to the next item? Right, so no other comments and I think we should move on. As we decided in the previous call, we would be liasing with two things. On one side, we would have a Skype chat during the meeting, which will provide input to all of those who will be there physically; not only me, but others as well, and that includes Rudi Vansnick who will be there.
At the same time, we will also run an Adobe room, that’s certainly an action item which Heidi has received from the previous call. If we could set that Adobe room as soon as possible, then we can run these two in parallel and these two technologies will allow the widest range of input possible, even in those parts of the world which do not accept Skype, or which don’t work with Skype. Even in those parts of the world which don’t work with Microsoft Windows, which I guess is most of the open source world.
Heidi Ullrich: Olivier, can I follow up on that?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yes, please.
Heidi Ullrich: We already have the Skype chat that you’ve discussed, so we’ll create the Adobe Connect room today. We’ll put the link into that chat as well as send it to the ALAC Announce; or would you like that to be sent to the At-Large worldwide list as well?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I think At-Large worldwide, to make it wider than just having the ALAC. Any other suggestion on this? I want the edges to be able to have something to say as well.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, thank you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Right, moving on; next part being the AGAT Working Group. Evan, anything to add from our previous discussion? I guess you’ve got your conference call tomorrow, I will be present. Will others in ALAC be there as well, in the Scom?
Evan Leibovitch: Well, it’s my understanding that at least you, Cheryl, and Carlton are signed up, and beyond that I’m not sure. But I will take whatever I can get. I didn’t realize Edmund had signed up; I guess if he had I totally forgot about it. We’ve got a good group and if everybody contributes a little bit, it’s doable. It’s quite the task and it hasn’t been done before quite this way, but there is an opportunity here to have something ready pre-San Francisco. Forgive me, when you said can we have anything pre-Brussels, I started thinking I don’t think we can move that fast.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: That’s the reason why I asked pre-Brussels, and I’m sorry that I did ask in public, but it was a case of trying to see if we can get anything before that. I was asked this question by people going to Brussels, some members of the GAC have asked whether ALAC could have anything published pre-Brussels in order to be able to look at what we thought. There’s one thing about publishing something pre-Brussels and another thing about being able to convey this using the good old VOX, and conveying the VOX properly, in person.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, there’s two ways of handling this. It’s one thing to create an official statement, it’s another thing to have some activity on the mailing list in advance of Brussels, so at least the high level consensus that’s going to drive the specific wording can probably be nailed down to a decent extent before Brussels, because I think a lot of that has already been figured out, not long after Rec 6.
We thought we had an idea of where things were going after Rec 6, until staff turned it around on its ear. So the high level stuff, that is the principles upon which we’re going to be doing the wording; I think at least informally you will have something you can work with by Brussels. But are we going to be able to turn that around into the kind of detailed wording that was designed for this group to do by Brussels? No way.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Might we have something we can point to? You just mentioned the mailing list, posting to point two if any Board or GAC members say “oh, have you people discussed this?” and I’ll Skype you or I’ll email you this link to this posting which was in our discussions.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, as of tomorrow, I’ll have a better answer for you. We effectively have two channels. We have a public channel and a private channel. The public facing channel is the Wiki page, and the private facing channels are the Google documents; so essentially we can do all kinds of tentative work in progress on the Google documents, but essentially put out those things that are fit for public consumption onto the Wiki page.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, well thanks very much for this update, Evan, and may I just add that we’re all waiting eagerly for you to press the button and get this whole machine going. So great start, and let’s get it in motion.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, thanks, but I’ll turn it right back because at least half of this ExCom is supposed to be on that call too, so it’s up to us too.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: We’re all ready to run. Okay, any suggestions or comments on the AGAT Working Group? Working team?
Evan Leibovitch: Alan, I’ve noticed that you haven’t really delved in even though you’ve got some of the best word smithing powers in ALAC.
Alan Greenberg: I’ve not volunteered to do a lot of stuff, other than things that were absolutely required because of PDNR work. That’s relieved a little bit at this point, although there’s still some work to be done in the next two weeks. So I will try to contribute, but I’m trying to control myself. I’m trying to catch up with other parts of my life which have been put on hold for a long time.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, I just know that you have the combination of some good wordsmithing talents and --
Alan Greenberg: No, I appreciate it. Whether I’m on the call tomorrow I’m not sure, I have another commitment, but I’ll try to.
Evan Leibovitch: You have a commitment at 7 a.m.?
Alan Greenberg: Effectively, yes.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. I have a commitment at 7 a.m.; it’s called my body not wanting to wake up. But I won’t have that choice anyway. Anyway, Alan, you don’t need to be on the call, but essentially your background as of having been knee deep in the Rec 6 already as well as your talent being able to wordsmith previously is going to come in handy if you have time to give.
Alan Greenberg: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I’ll see what I can do.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thanks very much gentlemen, and we’ll move on to the next part, the 3B, defining consumer choice, competition, and innovation. Much discussion going on on the ALAC call as well, we’ll just carry over the action item from the ALAC call?
Evan Leibovitch: I’ll just put in my own two cents on this, and that is I think the reason we’ve been hearing the word leadership mentioned so long is simply because the issue has been festering for a long time with a lot of people knowing something has to be done, and yet so little actually getting done. I think that’s the only reason we’re hearing the term leadership so much; is people are just asking will somebody bloody take this on and get something done with it. I mean, does anybody else agree with that assessment?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Look, in the world of ICANN, it hasn’t actually been going on that long at all. I look at the real start as the point where the Board resolution on trying to define the issue came out, that’s a short time.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: I’ll give you a cynical view, Evan. Sometimes people call for leadership because they don’t actually want to do any work themselves.
Evan Leibovitch: That too.
Alan Greenberg: I think that’s a part of it here. But that’s the cynical view.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Let’s not be too cynical; we’ve got plenty of other cynical views.
Alan Greenberg: If you want me to be too cynical, I can go a lot farther. That was just modest cynical.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: That particular subject isn’t as cynical as many other subjects within ICANN which we could get cynical on, but this is not the cynic’s Working Group, or at least not yet.
Alan Greenberg: Is that a standing group, or an ad hoc one?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Right. So the next steps we’ve defined already, and we’ll follow up on that, and then definitely put pressure. And if it’s been happening elsewhere, then it will happen here. D) the At-Large meeting agendas in San Francisco update and next step. Do you have anything else to add, Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: No, except that I was comforted to an extent when you and Mark acknowledged that unless they get some forward movement on the venue and on some of the technical aspects they may not have the event.
Alan Greenberg: I’ve got to tell you I’m really surprised, because NCUC is having their event the day before. Had I known that was going to happen, I would have asked to try and adjust my plans so I could be to it. I guess I’m really sort of a little shocked that things are happening so seat of the pants close to the event; you know, there could have been some good coordination between what Mark wanted to do, what Robin and NCUC wanted to do, even perhaps combining that with the NXT conference. It’s like even the user focused groups love their silos.
Heidi Ullrich: I’m quite concerned about that, the Town Hall because at this point we don’t even have a confirmed speaker. The logistics, as Olivier pointed out, will be very complicated. We just don’t have the bandwidth; neither meeting staff nor At-Large staff.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: That said, I think it was a great idea to engage the community, but it might be something that we need to look at over a longer length of time. Perhaps even develop a budget for this sort of thing, and file for a budget saying if we want to conduct Town Halls in the future --
Evan Leibovitch: Actually, forgive me for asking, because I’m not part of them, but are some of the other ALAC improvement work teams perhaps working on something that would, as part of their scope, include something that would work harder to engage the local community wherever ICANN has its meetings?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, not per se. We have, as an ALAC, discussed having outreach done at every ICANN meeting since I’ve been involved in the ALAC, and every time it has been suggested that the local hosts or the local ALSs who can work with the local host should be involved with. It was attempted, certainly, in Sydney, and we launched an Australian/New Zealand best practice awards and had several members and there is other big talk.
To say that we didn’t need a large room the day before the ALAC meeting started to sit the few ICANN faithful, the couple of us, and the odd one or two people that we managed to get into a room is an understatement. It’s basically a matter of ICANN meetings are also open to the public. They actually, as a public and outreach forum, it’s why ICANN meetings have public forums, which is not that attractive.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you Cheryl, and Heidi has her hand up. Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: I’m sorry, I’ve completely forgotten what I was about to say.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: You’re forgiven, after the fourth hour.
Heidi Ullrich: Oh, it just came back. Evan, I think that a wonderful idea, and maybe you could bring that up when we have our discussion with Scott Pinzon and hopefully Barbara Clay during the Sunday workshop.
Evan Leibovitch: The problem – my curiosity is just whether or not this was something that was on the plate of any of the other three work teams.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not an ICANN meeting --
Sebastien Bachollet: If I can have some memory, (Vince) used to go to university in each city where ICANN were coming and have a meeting there and doing some outreach, and something since last New Year’s.
Alan Greenberg: The last one I remember of those was San Juan; my very first ICANN meeting. I remember either Vince or someone else doing an outreach at a local university.
Sebastien Bachollet: I guess it was --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: None of that has been ALAC or At-Large business. It had a lot more to do with being internet evangelist than it did with ICANN. I don’t know, maybe Heidi can look for any more logistic or admin support that those things got, but as far as I knew it was a matter of local organizations, whether or not they related to the host or in our case, you could insert At-Large structure. Thinking “Oh look, we’ve got some talent here, what could we do while it’s around?”
Heidi Ullrich: This might be something, again, for both Scott and/or Felice who you will be speaking to in the Sunday workshop.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you to all. I think I agree with you Heidi, and I agree with Cheryl. It’s not specific to At-Large or ALAC things. Certainly I believe ICANN should be doing more in general, certainly with the number of well known or well established people coming to an ICANN meeting. There should be further engagement with the local hosts, through the local hosts with the local talent. One thing which I was thinking of, and I’m sure might have been tried in the past was to try and organize a soccer game with locals, or a local school or a local university, etc. There’s many different types of engagement, and it’s something which should --
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please don’t go back to the sporting events. You have no idea how must loss of civilization was associated when we had sporting events at ICANN meetings. They used to bring in, in South America, they’d bring in real little ones, first class soccer players to play – be careful what you wish for Olivier.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Perhaps – I didn’t say I was going to play. I was just going to send those people that we might not wish to have in ICANN, or some of the meetings, we’d send them to the soccer game.
Evan Leibovitch: Well, one other possibility, and this is just something out loud because I’ve seen it done at Linux conferences, is they have a trivia bowl. They have teams submit themselves and there is a trivia challenge that goes through the week, and a winner is crowned at the end.
Alan Greenberg: Let’s do that instead of music night.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Why are we trying to refix the social interaction of an ICANN meeting? Can we get back to our agenda?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, thank you very much Cheryl, and let’s go back to the agenda. I think we’ve beaten this one to death. We’ll send it over to Scott and we’ll discuss that with Scott and with Felice as well, global engagements. Now on to the next thing, and that’s it really at the moment. At-Large meeting agenda for San Francisco, any further comments on that from Heidi or anyone else? I see no hands up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have we got any clashes now that the full meeting has been put up? I haven’t looked at it yet, have we looked for any obvious issues or clashes or whatever?
Heidi Ullrich: I’ll do that today, Cheryl.
Evan Leibovitch: You know, Olivier, if it’s impossible to move that consumer meeting out of the way on Tuesday, as much as I would like to have happen, from the sound of things, if it’s locked in place it’s going to be very hard to move. So if possible, if there’s a way to actually adjust the agenda of that meeting so that Cheryl, myself, and Beau can go to that meeting, that would probably be very helpful.
Heidi Ullrich: Evan, just to clarify, Beau is actually going to be co-hosting that consumer meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He will not be in the ALAC room at all.
Evan Leibovitch: No, no, I understand that, I’m saying if the meeting can’t be held at a different time, is it possible to adjust our agenda so that it makes it easier for Cheryl, myself, and Beau to be in that other room? That’s all I’m asking.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can only do our best.
Evan Leibovitch: Which is all I’m asking.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, we will check it. Right, I think we’ve gone through this. Coming back to the agenda, the next thing is the At-Large community Wiki, and an update from Heidi, please. Please, we are getting frustrated with this st.ICANN.org.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, well we’ve moved on from that, believe it or not. This is a quick follow up from the Cartagena meeting where the IT people promised us in particular that they would fix the broken links, but they just ran a spider late last week. They found around 350 broken links. What they did is they broadened the permissions, so you’ll see that there are a lot more pages available in that gray box on each of the pages, which reduces the number of broken links, but again it shows up a lot of orphaned pages. So what we are doing is that IT will be bringing in a consultant, a temp, starting this Thursday for two weeks. We will be working with that temp to place those orphans back into their proper homes. So that’s a very brief update on where we are.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Any suggestions, questions, comments from anyone?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’d like to see it happen.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: If I may just add, it certainly is very nice to see it happen, and it’s good to see someone from outside is coming to help. Will there be also a check of all of our documents, such as for example application forms, which still point to the st.ICANN.org for reference, and also the Russian pages in the community pages, which seem to be either completely out of date of pointing to the wrong locations?
Heidi Ullrich: If I can follow up on that; Matthias is going to be updating the ALS pages. I have the Russian page up, so I will hopefully get to that today. ‘
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, excellent. Super. Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Olivier. Heidi, a question about Confluence. We asked about the procedures for using the Confluence, and it was an action item so I don’t know, is there any news about it?
Heidi Ullrich: I’m not following, Tijani. Are you talking about permissions?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I asked about the procedures of using the Confluence. There was a lot of problems, you remember, about editing, and I proposed to ask the IT team to prepare a kind of procedure.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, yes. I followed up with them again last week on that, and I have not had a response. So please do bring that up when you speak to Carol and Roman in San Francisco.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, can I do that, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, please Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I still have a purpose. You all need a bitch, and I’m the one for you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl, and may I tell Heidi to ask Roman to bring his sling-proof suit to the meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh trust me, that won’t help one iota.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: We just don’t want any of the complaints to be bounced off. Right, I think we’ve gotten pretty much through everything. Anything else on the At-Large community Wiki? No movement, and then now it’s item number five. Any other business?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Cheryl, please go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I would have brought it up in the ALAC agenda, but I didn’t have the heart to, so I’m bringing it up here. At the close of the Cartagena meeting, well, not at the close but at some point in the Cartagena meeting, JPNIC did a video which is part of the regular reporting to Japan and whoever is involved in JPNIC world on what happens at an ICANN meeting.
Olivier, I suspect you will probably be secured for similar services in the future as well. How we pitch the particular pieces of video, which I’ve only seen in its edited form today and approved for publication, which is why I was going to bring it up at the other meeting, I was really pitching it on a ‘why we need a new ALS or ALSs out of Japan’, that is part of the why you should be interested in ICANN, what on earth ALAC and At-Large RALOs are all about, and why you, if you’ve got an interest in these deals should apply for an ALS and how to do so; that will be going live to air soon in one of their public online meetings.
I will be asking for a pathway backup and materials other than my little video clip, which is subtitled in Japanese to go ahead. It struck me, as I looked at how they’ve edited the bits and pieces together that either with some cut and paste editing, it could be useful for some other outreach activities, but certainly it would be useful for within country and within region templates for similar videos, and it brings back to Evan’s issue on getting a youtube channel up for ALAC and At-Large. I’ve asked JPNIC executive and the video editors etc., permission and they seem to be very keen to work with ALAC and we just need to put it on our to do list, if you’re interested or not.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much Cheryl, any comments? No comments, well I guess I have a comment. I think it’s an excellent opportunity; it’s certainly exciting to see this, and should we leave it in your hands to follow up on then, or how do we do this?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What I said I’d do is I would be introduced after discussing it at the various meetings, at least you Olivier, remember we’re dealing with Japan, which means you’ve got to do the hierarchy and the formalization, etc. So they’ve got that coming through today to say who we should email to and cc: with. I suggest we therefore make it executive committee, and then Olivier, you can decide how you distribute whatever interaction; but at least that means that staff involved and most of us are involved as well.
It’s schedule to go live for the city coverage at the moment, behind a secure wall, we can I think ask for it to be reproduced, as opposed it being to/from somewhere on the ALAC website or Confluence Wikis and hopefully start a repository of a whole lot of things that would include your presentations to the Ukraine. We’ve talked about having a repository for resources, we need to put up and get it started and say you know, ‘please can we have more, and how can we help’, and Scott can be involved with that as well.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: With Jean-Jacques’s knowledge and background as far as Japan is concerned, would this be of help in the politics?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I think it would. It’s just a little kick start exercise. This is JP Nicks, because they want to have more active ALS involvement and they don’t believe the single Japanese ALS they have is doing that. So they’re proactively trying to grow ALSs within the country. This is what the pitch was all about. The normal reporting from, so I see it’s got possibilities directly as an outcome of what is done with the ccNSO, where you can do this ALS development and I also think it’s worthwhile looking at a sort of pitch mechanism. The whole thing runs seven minutes. That sort of thing.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, excellent. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate the comment I made during the ALAC meeting, that I would appreciate the time slot to talk about PDNR, probably before the formal presentation which is on Monday. If that means it’s on Sunday, then please coordinate with me to make sure I’m not in the middle of another GNSO meeting at the same time. I think we do need to whip up our group a little bit to get some participation.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Heidi, may I leave this in your capable hands?
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, Sunday is extremely tight. The only spot I can see is possibly if we don’t need the last 30 minutes on the morning for the At-Large review, At-Large Improvements.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I’ll leave it with you for the moment. I just think, and Cheryl can support me or tell me I’m wrong, that we really do need something separate from the public meeting where I’m going to be glowing and saying all the positive things about the registrars and how successful this was. My toll to the ALAC is going to be a little different.
Heidi Ullrich: Alan, how long do you need for that?
Alan Greenberg: 20 minutes would be good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think we can probably squeeze it in on the Sunday. I’m looking at the reporting base from the work team now, I think we probably can squeeze it in there, but let’s see how we go.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If not, maybe into the lunch time. We can do less team building and a little bit of work.
Alan Greenberg: I’d like to build a team – using whips.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ooh, perhaps I should get a whole different type of team building exercise then.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: After four and a half hours of conference calls, it goes to masochism and sadism. Fine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’ll tell you what, you get to choose the safe word, alright?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Oh dear, I think it’s about time to close this meeting very soon.
Alan Greenberg: It’s probably past that time.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Any other business, apart from that? If I could just add one thing with regards to what Alan has just said on the PDNR, I think – and I’ve already mentioned it in the ALAC call, you’ve done a fantastic job. Considering how hostile the territory is and how long this has been, it must have felt like a very, very long battle. I’m trying to avoid the name war in there.
Alan Greenberg: It’s not been one of the fun things in my life.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I’m sure. But you know, I think everyone appreciates it, and certainly you being able to tell us the real thing, what the real line is on Sunday is something that I think everyone will appreciate and I look forward to it.
Alan Greenberg: Well, I summarized it. We’ve gone from 30 to 75 days, to 30 to 40 days, to eight. That’s a message of how much we gave.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The war ain’t over and we definitely have more fire power, so --
Alan Greenberg: The war’s over. Let’s go with what we can.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Okay, right. Any other points or business or questions or suggestions? Right. I think we’re all waiting for this moment, which is to declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you very much for everyone attending, thank you very much Heidi and Seth for having lasted that long. Please thank Matthias who appears not to have lasted that long, and thanks to everyone here who has lasted that long.
[End of Transcript]