ALAC ExCom 17.05.2010 Transcript
David Kissondoyal: Thank you, thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent, okay, and we’ve got Sebastian and Alan have joined us, so I guess that means you either gave up or vertical integration meeting has, in fact, finished for today. And we have Dave on the line, myself, Gisella, Heidi, and apologies from Carlton. So by my reckoning, we’re ready to go.
Dave Kissondoyal: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: We sort of hoped you’d get them both done by the time we got here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ha. Ha. Right, not without neither of the Vice-Chairs, and Dave and I obviously could do everything, but no, we erred on the cautious side and thought we’d wait for at least more than two of the Executive Committee on the call. Leading in immediately, having noted those apologies, to the action items from the 27 April meeting. The items listed are as follows: staff to check on funding source for non-com members, i.e. Olivier; I certainly know from my perspective that he’s done, but is there any conversation about that?
Heidi Ullrich: No, everything-
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi, perhaps you should tell the record what view that happened with all the wonderful world of this.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. In discussing this with staff who are covering the non-com, it was agreed that Olivier Crippen-LeBlan will be on the non-com budget this time, and in replacement we will have Badoin Chambe.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, Olivier will make himself primarily available for non-com activities, because we’re the ones picking up his bill, it does mean that he will be able to join us for the majority of absolutely every part of our activities, which is very good news indeed because it’s allowed us to bring another African person, as well. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, I didn’t follow in detail all of that obviously, but I am a little bit surprised of the decision and I'm not sure - I hope that it’s allow Olivier to be also at the meeting on Sunday for the ALAC, because even if it’s taken care by non-com, the dates are not the same. And…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: My understanding was we were paying his room and board for the first two nights, and therefore he is ours on Sunday.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Correct, Alan. That’s correct, Alan.
Vanda Scartezini: Now, may I?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes please go ahead Vanda.
Vanda Scartezini: Now just to inform that we rearrange all the Board meetings in Brussels, and to allow us to do a lot of other things. So people, fill the date in on that, so probably this week - in week three, we’re going to have a more clear vision of what is going on and what we need to do and change places and change ideas to not follow the same way we keep doing as a Board, probably will be not the Friday there in the last day.
I don’t know, it’s a lot of hard discussion, and so it’s a good idea to wait a little bit, to not make many plans that will impact the ability to get together in main occasion. Here is to have more opportunity to get together with the community. So it’s something that I need to have a more clear vision because until now we still exchange completely different ideas from each one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you Vanda. And obviously the Accountability Transparency Review Team is expecting a large block of formal time with the Board in the Brussels meeting.
Vanda Scartezini: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We will be meeting with as many of the parts of the community as possible. But we are having quite formal meeting times arranged though with the joint GAC and Board working group, with the GAC particularly, and we have expectations of a serious commitment from the Board in Brussels for at least two hours face-to-face with us.
((Crosstalk))
Vanda Scartezini: Yeah, we are trying to rearrange that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To that end, I think it’s very exciting what I’m hearing, because one of the preemptive criticisms that ATRT would be bringing to that table is the enclaving, the disassociation between Board activities and opportunities to interact with the community and BACs and BSOs, during these face-to-face meetings. So, I’m excited even by hearing that the agenda discussions are on the table. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, my second point was – and I wanted to say first that I have nothing against Budois – but I want to know how the decision was taken because I thought that it was to be first the region and as a region, and it was the case for Africa. And it will be the case in each continent, that we are unable to organize the general assembly of RALOs. I am wondering if the decision was taken by EURALO not to have another representative to allow multiple from the region to come, or if the decision was taken outside.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Your question goes back specifically to should we offer some accommodation support, rather than someone from EURALO, correct? So I understand, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: It’s my question, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you. Well two things and I’ll throw it to Heidi after that to get the details. The first one is that there was an expenses already needing to be used in a credit from a prior trip for that particular traveler. So we were in a position of losing our existing credit that could only be used for travel for someone up to and including a particular time and date, and it could only be used for that traveler. So I know that influenced my choice of who was on the top of the list to bring across. How EURALO interacted with that, I’m unaware, and at that point we’ll toss to Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: I think, I don’t really have anything to add. I think that was one of the key motivating factors for that was that decision, was that this credit could be used.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And on the same token, if I can just weigh in from an Asia-Pacific perspective, the fact that we don’t actually have everyone traveling from Asia-Pacific who was on the original list, Asia-Pacific was more than happy because there was beginning to be a critical mass from Africa for what could have been considered by APRALO. But it was not considered by APRALO, as a dividend specifically to their region, to be used for enduring whatever region had the largest number of people and who were doing an outside or allied activity, which happened to be Africa.
So what I would consider perhaps as equally our funds, just like you’re considering Olivier’s partial funding leftovers to be EURALO funds, to be put to the greatest good. I would suggest that you ask the question of EURALO. If they have a problem with it, then they need to get back to us as an Executive Committee.
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay, so EURALO is meeting tomorrow.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One more person traveling from what any one region does not make a regional assembly.
Sebastian Bachollet: I know, but - okay, it will be a discussion, I guess, in the EURALO tomorrow and we will come back to the-
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s fine. Remember to take to them, the fact that we had funds already extended that needed to be utilized out of Africa, and you have another region, who I would consider had strong argument for travel support, that decided that a greater good policy was the right way.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, I heard you. I will give all this information to the EURALO, but I know that some of the EURALO people wanted to come and we are asking for funding and the answer was no. Then we are just to be fair and to discuss that in an open manner and I will do that tomorrow at the EURALO call. There is no backmind in my question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: While Sebastian is preparing his information to take to the EURALO call, didn’t we also look at - what happened with the additional NARALO funding? Was that replaced by a NARALO representative or did that also go to the greater good and common call? I’m not sure.
Sebastian Bachollet: It’s going to the NARALO.
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, and again keep in mind that Olivier was the replacement for Desi. And then through working with non-com, we were able to arrange that he goes on the non-com budget. But he, you know, still will be covering for Desi.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He is, in fact, still actually acting on behalf of EURALO. He will be performing his role. But I think Sebastian’s point is that there are members of EURALO who would see those funds should have been released to allow another person from a closer environment to attend, correct?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, yeah. I guess we need to try to set up some rules on that to be sure that we are doing - and I have - it's - I have nothing against inaudible 12.07, it’s just I think we need to be aware that we wish to have some questions on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, indeed. And, in fact, one of the things I did a routine for, and perhaps that’s something through the year that we can look at, are for such, assuming we don’t get what we ought to get, and that is further along the lines of our greater important self-determination, only our budget in thin. I would be very, very strongly arguing for specific representation to be replaced specifically from regions, and common-source pooled money to go to the common good. So I’d be very, very interested and excited to have that conversation as we move either between Brussels and Cartagena, and Cartagena, on.
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: I was - sorry when?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s now go to At-Large improvements – go ahead, Sebastian, I didn’t realize you still needed the microphone
Sebastian Bachollet: No, no, sorry, you - it was just to say that I don’t know if you see some of the email exchange of the EURALO list, some of the even ALAC members saying that if we can’t have a EURALO general assembly, we may close the EURALO organization.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well.
Sebastian Bachollet: And it’s all that - it's to be taken into account. But I also notice that you say that one people in addition is not a general assembly, I know all that, but we have to be careful, that’s all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, well there is no way we can fund a EURALO general assembly. And if that means EURALO revisiting the NOU, and another form or subset of regional organization, forming out of that, so be it. That would be a great waste, it would be a great shame, that would be something I would argue very strongly against, but that’s actually up to the EURALO Board because…
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: … as you know, they’re the ones who are in contact with ICANN on that. Okay, moving back now to the next matter on the At-Large 29, At-Large improvements; three weeks prior to Brussels, see who’s going to review the At-Large improvements on regional calls, Ex Comm to review At-Large project plan and provide feedback prior to the meeting of Ex Comm. Actually we've done it prior, but we are doing it today – and the translation to French and Spanish. Can we do that in reverse order? How are we going with translation of the final project plan?
Heidi Ullrich: That has actually been put on hold because over the week - we finished the project plan in time, late last week, but over the weekend we heard from Ray and Marco on some issues on that document. So we will be revising the project plan to incorporate some of the-
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, Heidi, can you just repeat again; some of us got as far as, “We heard from Ray over the weekend.” Could you say again, from that point, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, sorry. Over the weekend, we heard from Ray and Marco on some questions they wanted to have incorporated into the project plan, so we will - Seth and I are working on that and will, for the next week or so. So we’ve asked for a halt to the translations until that is - the revisions are final. So the aim now-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Which translations?
Heidi Ullrich: The translations of the-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: With translators?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes with - the translations into French and Spanish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And they are starting it, but putting it on hold until this editorial issue is done, correct?
Heidi Ullrich: Correct, correct.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, the faster we get the editorial issue solved, the faster they get to go back into translation world.
Heidi Ullrich: Correct.
((Crosstalk))
Seth Greene: Are we allowed to know what their concerns were?
Heidi Ullrich: The concerns were-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s on our agenda; I was about to say, that’s on our agenda.
Seth Greene: Sorry, okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So let’s get through action items and I can perhaps get into some meaty business in a moment. Also on our action item, to give whatever feedback on the project plan today, so let’s move backwards. Seth, I assume you are going to get a bit of time on the regional calls between now and Brussels, then?
Seth Greene: I’ve actually already begun.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead Seth.
Seth Greene: Hi, hi, let me just make sure I’m not on mute.
Man: You’re not.
Seth Greene: Everyone, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can here you.
Seth Greene: Yes, I’ve given relatively brief summaries of the improvements project to two of the RALOs so far. Cheryl, you suggested, and Matthias and I both briefly discussed, that AFRALO is probably best done during the Brussels meeting, rather than before.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Seth Greene: And there’s a possibility that I will be on the agenda for tomorrow’s EURALO call. So that’s actually closer to being done than begun, happily. And I think that the main thing in the next, certainly in the next week, but I suspect looking at the scope of the requested changes, is that my attention’s going to be turned back to the project plan.
You know, I don’t mind saying, I understand where they’re coming from - or at least I understand what they want, if not where they’re coming from, but I believe the comments we’ve gotten are rather extensive and certainly more than editorial.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, great.
Seth Greene: So I do think it’s going to take up a significant…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well let's get to those when we get to that part of the agenda. Is that all right?
Seth Greene: Okay, yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And make that part of the agenda, which means we’ll now move to what is definitely an action item done, that is Sebastian’s drafting of the ALAC statement on reconsideration. Sebastian, that was done, thank you very much, and I believe it’s been voted on. Sebastian, did you want to speak to it before we find out what’s happened with, I think, a quorate vote so far?
Sebastian Bachollet: I guess all the votes are collected and was “yes”, and this one among the four others can go on and no I think it was good. I have nothing to add to what was sent to the participant.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good, excellent. And Heidi, correct me if I’m wrong; all the votes were quorate, were all of them affirmative?
Heidi Ullrich: They were all quorate and I believe what do you mean by affirmative? If you could
Sebastian Bachollet: There is-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do we have statements all positive or do we have negative responses? It's all very good being quorate, but the vote is “yay”, “nay”, or “abstain”?
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, sorry. Yay, in favor.
Sebastian Bachollet: There is between 12 and 13 for each “yes” participant, and all are “yes”.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, unlike some of you I don’t actually spend my life looking tick by tick as people vote on these things so I do want that information, and I certainly want it read to the record. Now, I’m aware – and we are going to have any other business – that some of the issues have gone through onto the appropriate public comment. But Heidi have all now, the items that we voted on, been transmitted to the appropriate parts of ICANN?
Heidi Ullrich: I don’t believe all, but they - the key ones were yesterday and I will double check the others. I know the consumer one had already been submitted, so I will look in the remaining two.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so that’s either done or is about to be done.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly nothing we need to raise an action item over.
Heidi Ullrich: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific, okay, bringing ourselves now to review and revise timelines under the PAD. Carlton is not with us this evening, or this morning, depending what part of the world you’re in. But, I, while we were waiting for the vertical integration meeting to complete, did make the following proposal and that was as to the registrar accreditation agreement, subsection 3.7.7.3, with its closing date of 9 of July.
It would be an ideal opportunity for us to ensure that people come to Brussels as regional representatives with the information from the regions and At-Large structures on terms of opinion on that, and that we should look to actually drafting something on that while we are in Brussels. And Heidi has looked at the current schedule and we do have time for that, providing it is sufficient. Is that something the rest of the executive committee believes is a good idea?
Man: Sure.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. No disagreement? Fantastic, so that brings us to do you want to react or interact with the inaudible 22.00 review draft working group report? Yay or Nay? We didn’t respond to the comment period with the regional inaudible 22.17 report, but it may be appropriate to briefly react to now the workgroup’s conclusions on the, what was it, I think eight recommendations from inaudible 22.31. What’s your view? Alan?
Alan Greenburg: I guess I would - I mean our normal position is that we make a decision based on advice from either the liaison or the workgroup who’s responsible for overseeing that area, and I would like to make this decision with that insight.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So that’s a full decision at the ALAC meeting and we ask Patrick specific advice on that, remembering that Patrick and - mental blank. Anyway, Patrick is our ALAC member who is involved and acting as interface with the technical issues workgroup, and group service would come under technical issues. Does that work for you then, Sebastian and Dave?
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well let’s just - Heidi we just need to make sure that’s in the agenda appropriately, please.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: Who is the chair of that workgroup?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s Co-Chairs, and I had a mental blank on the other person’s name, also from EURALO; it’s Patrick and?
Heidi Ullrich: Is it Lutz?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Lutz, thank you, Patrick and Lutz, yes.
Alan Greenburg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And because it’s a newly integrated workgroup and it picks up IP before, it'll like be transitioned, if we wanted to look at a leadership team it would be Patrick, Lutz, and Olivier.
Alan Greenburg: And I think we should ask them - ask for an answer prior to that meeting, prior to the ALAC meeting.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so…
Alan Greenburg: And we’ll make-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What we’re asking for is Patrick to come with the workgroup-specific advice to the ALAC meeting.
Alan Greenburg: That’s correct.
Sebastian Bachollet: Cheryl, you can ad me in the group as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry?
Sebastian Bachollet: You can add me in the group as well.
Alan Greenburg: Are you already in that group?
Sebastian Bachollet: I’m not in the group, but you can include me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It's probably - well, amongst the things that we will be doing in Brussels is making sure that we - with the review of the At-Large structures survey is all working groups get to be actively repopulated. So Dave, I’m sure the doors are open and it would be a good idea if you were involved in what now - it used to be looking at security and stability issues, as they relate to ICANN matters, but it’s now technical issues. So yeah, I think that’d be a great idea for you and anyone else you can encourage to get involved with that.
Dave Kissondoyal: Okay. The request to the workgroup should go with - should be for a recommendation, and if the recommendation is yes, be prepared to submit a draft within a day or two after the ALAC meeting.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay.
Dave Kissondoyal: Otherwise we won’t make the approval on time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep, that sounds like a very good plan. And it really is in respect to we need to react - if we need to react, we need to react with an At-Large opinion on the workgroup reactions and proposals - draft proposals to each of the eight recommendations from the external reviewer. It does actually make it easier because you’ve got what the external reviewer says, the workgroup’s reaction, and so you should be able to get a fairly concise, “We agree”, “we disagree”, or “we think you should look at this as well.”
Good, okay, we’ve kind of dealt with the statements, five as listed, but is there anything anyone wishes to discuss on any of those five day votes that we’re just completed? No? Good, I like it when we don’t have anything to say, life’s even more efficient than usual. So now that brings us to our items for discussion, RAA amendments; discussion of initial report on the registrant rights charter and next step.
We have an initial report for the RAA group ANB, which will be then presented to the GNSO in Brussels. And we also have an opportunity in our Brussels schedule for a small amount of time which I’m going to throw to you about, Heidi, to tell me exactly when and where for the record, where beginning work can happen on the international rights charter and to see whether there’s an opportunity to start now doing more work on that.
We have a public workgroup planned for, hopefully the Monday if not the Wednesday afternoon, looking at a number of issues that At-Large is very keen on and that more enforcement was raised in terms of proposed changes to the RAA. And we also have an opportunity now to have a formal meeting gathering between interested parties under what would call themselves consumer interests in ICANN.
I don’t know what date and time has been set by that, but predominantly people from the At-Large world and some commercial stakeholder groups will be involved in that, but not limited to those groups. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenburg: Yeah, assuming we have - we end up deciding to comment on the RAA, Part A public comment period, and I would like to think we will, it would be nice if the optics were a little bit better than they were on the registrar constituency one, where the statement blatantly said, “This was written by the proponent of the registrar constituency in the GNSO for the main proponent.”
We should try to have separation of power such that the person recommending something does not write the report for ALAC saying “Yes, it’s a good thing.” I mean, I understand the overlap and responsibilities, but we should just try to get the optics a little bit better and make sure that there are other people involved.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, but just to be clear, the initial report is product from two combined - is a combined reporting product from two workgroups, RAA-A and RAA-B, which are pro-shared workgroups. In other words they were - even though it’s a GNSO-chartered RAA workgroup, the resolution was to work specifically with the At-Large Advisory Committee. So both RAA-A and RAA-B workgroups have been populated, at least in theory, by a balance of GNSO and ALAC/At-Large interests.
On the 20th, the GNSO will be asked to, I guess, not endorse, but to recognize the input from their part of the equation into this report. And whilst we don’t have our meeting until the following week, the reason it’s on the Executive Committee meeting agenda today is for us to see whether or not we believe it’s a true, reasonable, and accurate record of the report, an initial report on the work of those two workgroups to date, noting that RAA-A workgroup was even co-chaired by an ALAC and a GNSO person, so we had Beau and Michaely coach.
Hearing that, they are of the opinion that the work of RAA Group A, is actually done under the charter for this particular piece of work. But now what continues is the important aspects of next-steps and aspirational documents, which in the workgroup’s opinion firmly sits in the world of ALAC and At-Large. So I guess, I think we need to be comfortable that that’s a good thing and that nothing has to go back to the beginning. What’s your views on that, Alan, and then Sebastian?
Alan Greenburg: I guess I wasn’t questioning the whole process. I was simply saying that if ALAC submits a statement on the RAA Group A recommendations and report, it shouldn’t be written by the co-chair of the RAA group. I’m just saying the optics look bad where people switch halves.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.
Alan Greenberg: That’s all I was saying. Where the statement on consumer constituency mentioned Beau’s name five times in the statement, you know, as the drafter. It was purely the optics of it, that I was suggesting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alan, how do you feel the optics from the ALAC point of view is on this draft initial report, remembering that this isn’t one that’s going out for comment; it’s going back to the chartering organization, in this case the GNSO?
Alan Greenburg: It is out for comment, I believe.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Not formal public comment, only 3.7.7.3 is-
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Oh, I’m sorry, I misread that; you’re right. I think it’s important that even though we have very little participation in some of these groups from ALAC members and At-Large members in general, that we do our best to try to get other people involved in the assessment, so it doesn’t look like a one-man show, which is what we’ve been accused of, off and on for years. That was my point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well I think - I mean, I’m in both group A and B, so under those terms I’m the last person to comment on the validity of who did the initial report. So Alan and Sebastian and Dave, and to that extent Vanda, none of you are; how are you feeling about the draft initial report? Does it paint us in a good and balanced light or not? I believe it’s a true and accurate record, but that’s all I can tell you.
Alan Greenburg: Sorry, I’m not in a position to pass judgment today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: But I believe, if we’re going to make a recommendation or a statement, it should come from a slightly wider group, and that was all I’m - I wasn’t trying to make a big thing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, no problem. I certainly hear what you’re saying. One of the issues would be if we had everybody who is listed, both on the GNSO and on the At-Large side, actually in the workgroup activities throughout it would have been perhaps a very much faster process. But that wasn’t the way of the world. Sebastian, do you, based on what Alan is saying, then think we should find time in our already overcrowded ALAC schedule to discuss this?
Or - I mean, at the moment what the Executive is doing is acting as a gatekeeper here. Are we comfortable enough on this draft initial report; yes or no? If we don’t believe we can stay comfortable enough with it then it needs to go through to the whole ALAC. So, opinion first form Sebastian and then from Dave.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, I don’t think we need to add that for our next ALAC conference call. But it could be one of the subjects on the Sunday meeting in Brussels with the revitalization of the working group, and more importantly, of the participation of the At-Large people participant in each and any activities of our group.
Because it's - I see the question of optics and - but it’s true for a lot of things we are doing. I just take the example of what Alan write about the GNSO and saying that liaison must be included and it was written by the liaison. We have always this question of optics, but also participation, and more than the optics I would like very much that we try to find a way to have more participation, more participants to all this work done.
Alan Greenburg: Can’t argue with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, nobody would argue with that, that’s for sure. And I think the opportunity when we now have a next step leading from this initial report, which gives us fresh work to do in the world of ALAC, what you’re saying is even more important. Dave, go ahead. You might be muted, Dave.
Dave Kissondoyal: Yeah, sorry, I was muted. I think, Cheryl, what we need to do is that of giving in to have like a working group which will go through all these, whatever we need to comment yes or no, and then this group brings each to the agency’s committee and then we assign people or chairs of the working group to submit their recommendations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, actually thank you, Dave, and of course the matters of registrant accreditation agreement, accreditation agreement, we have a long-standing working group that has been running for many, many years. But that’s always been a within-At-Large workgroup. These are standing workgroups on the matters, not active workgroups heading into the policy development or potential policy development process.
The RAA workgroup, which was split into part A and B, of course was a particular part of policy development work chartered by the GNSO, and it was one of the early efforts that had an active involvement - in fact, a mandated involvement - by ALAC and At-Large in its processes.
So it was the baby step, it was a very important step. But Alan, coming back to your question on the registry liaison writing things, that’s no - that optic shouldn’t be applied to this initial report to the GNSO, should it, because all of the reporting has gone through the usual close, due diligence, that a workgroup puts to anything that has been captured by the staff support on there.
Alan Greenburg: I was making two statements. One is the one that Sebastian made clearer. We need to get more involvement. We are the documented and/or self-acclaimed supporters of the public good. We need to take that to heart. And the second is - was a purely semantics issue that the statement should not, to anyone giving a cursory read to it, sound like a one-man show.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, well…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Again, I really wasn’t trying to get a 15-minute discussion out of this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well that’s okay. Just I was quite - for example, the listing of the participants in both workgroups, from the group A and group B for the At-Large input and the GNSO input, is actually very well balanced. I thought this particular paper was an exercise in improving the optics, if not the actuality. Which is why I wanted -
Alan Greenburg: And I was commenting on if we make a public comment on it, an official submission on what we think of it, that was what I was talking about…
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.
Alan Greenburg: … not the paper itself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, but with your optics view then we probably need to be very careful how we integrate and organize our next step activity, in terms of work on the aspirational document. Because we don’t want the same two or three usual suspects carrying the lion’s share of something that needs to have wider input, and that’s something that I think Sebastian’s proposing we look at very carefully on that Sunday.
Alan Greenburg: I support it 150%.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. All right, so to feed back to the RAA initial report for group A and B, can we ask Heidi to - because she's - Heidi, along with Margie, is sort of co-staff support on these - are we as an Executive comfortable we don’t see any glaring issues? Or do you need another 24-36 hours to look over the document?
Heidi Ullrich: I’m fine with that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do you - the GNSO won’t be looking at it until Thursday. So if Alan and Dave and Sebastian and Vanda want to have a - and Carlton as well, want to have a closer look at it and if they see something glaring, get back to you?
Alan Greenburg: I will gladly do that, it just hasn’t been on my radar at this point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, okay. Well let’s do that as an action item on everyone but me. Give ourselves another 24-36 hours, which means Carlton can have a look at it too and see if there - have a look at it for the optics. I can assure you that it is, in view of both workgroup A and workgroup B, a true and accurate record of our activities. But if you have an interested reader’s view on it and see if there’s anything extra that needs to be put in, that would be excellent, and that should go straight back to Heidi.
And particularly, make sure we have a look at the next step proposal because it’s the next steps which will be strongly dependent on At-Large. Notice I’m saying At-Large; ALAC can facilitate the collection of information and the iteration of registrant aspirational rights with other interested parties. Those other interested parties will come from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder’s Group, and will come from obviously consumer interests, but they will also come from government, and they will also come from outside of ICANN.
Because that is what we have seen has happened even in this RAA group B process, looking at next changes. And I would like to make sure that we’ve got people equipped in Brussels, to react to and interact with the forum that will be running on either the Monday or the Wednesday, where we’re looking at the desires of particularly law enforcement.
And balancing that with interests of our community is often weighted on such as privacy, such as the ability to know who you are dealing with. It does take us into the murky waters of to proxy or not to proxy, and various levels or pre-registrant accreditation and checking, and it’s not unrelated with some compliance issues.
So again, we can have a look at that, at least the compliance aspects, during our Sunday schedule in the At-Large meeting in Brussels. And that brings us a segway, if you will allow me, because I don’t see one hand up, into item four for today’s agenda: At-Large meeting in Brussels, Heidi, tossing over to you while I have another sip of coffee.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. If you’re on the agenda, the link to the At-Large Brussels meeting agendas is there, and I’m going to actually put it into the Adobe Connect at the moment. Now at this point, we have populated the agendas quite - in some detail, so please do take a look at what those items are.
Okay, I put the link to the agendas in. Again, I’m going to quickly review the meeting. I’m taking into account or into note the request for a possible At-Large/NCSG meeting, as well. So on Sunday we have the ALAC in Regional Leadership, that agenda includes outreach/inreach issues. We’re going to be inviting Barbara Clay to that who has already indicated that she’s looking forward to speaking with the At-Large representatives.
We’re also going to have one hour on the topic of reinvigoration of the At-Large working groups. We’re going to have about an hour and 30 minutes - or 15 minutes on the introduction to and training of the new Wiki - the new social - Wiki that we will be transitioning in towards the end of the year, called Confluence Wiki. We are also going to have a two-hour lunch - working lunch with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Cheryl, if you’d like to add a little bit more about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I will Heidi, and I’ll take it back to Confluence Wiki, as well because it’s really easy. I know you’ve been doing an awful lot of training, but it’s going to be brand new news to our community and we need to make sure the community’s properly prepared when they come to Brussels. We don’t need a flurry of people rushing to Google to look up confluence when they see it on the agenda; not until they’re in the room.
I think that’s something that, as an Executive Committee we need to make sure we start getting information out, and to that end it’s probably important that we get informed ourselves. So I’ll go back to that as well. With the two hour lunch block, it’s unlikely that the Accountability and Transparency Review Team will take up the whole of that, but we will probably take up around 90 minutes, either at the beginning or the end of that.
So ALAC and At-Large regional leaders should look to having at least a sort of a half hour or so, perhaps even a little bit more, of time during the working lunch to do other things. So I would be keen for you to realize that the ATRT isn’t coming in and taking over your lives totally. But clearly we think that the At-Large community is a fairly important interface for us to interact with. And…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Despite our one member-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Go ahead, sorry I’ve got two speakers; Vanda, go ahead, then Alan.
Vanda Scartezini: This is Vanda, just a minute, I need disconnect it because I just arrived with my client now, so if you will excuse, I will disconnect, okay?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well thank you, very much. Thanks Vanda.
Vanda Scartezini: I will continue following in the Adobe after that. Okay? Bye, bye. Thank you.
Heidi Ullrich: Bye, bye. Thank you, Vanda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Bye. Okay, Alan, go ahead.
Alan Greenburg: Sorry, I was just saying that we are an important group, despite the fact we only have one member on the team.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed.
Alan Greenburg: But we compensate it by having really good member on the team.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, well I’m not sure the ATRT, or at least some members would be in rampant agreement with you at the moment, but I’m not planning on being on people’s …
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Are you being a shit disturber? If so, you’re meeting my criteria.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I may not be seen as much of a sleeper in the group, perhaps you could put it that way. Okay, coming - just to explain what’s happening with that two-hour lunch, coming towards that, one of the things that I am particularly keen - and it’s only just started to happen, but if we can get our regional meetings between now and Brussels to pay a little attention to getting the message out. We’ve got a couple of comments that could come into the commons place for the general public and At-Large concerns that people have about accountability and transparency on the Wiki page.
I would love to have, you know, 25 or 30 specific examples in that Wiki page when we meet formally with the ATRT. That is something that very important parts of the ATRT will be very supportive of. We do have a tension between traditional ways of interacting with participants and less traditional ways of interacting with participants. And we have a set of questions that will be going out at the formal public comment period very shortly, which are designed in a very traditional way, for governments and organizations to respond to a set of questions.
The US government input into the ATRT’s immediate reaction to the very standard sets of questions and mechanisms was, “That’s all very nice and yes we need to go through it, but we need specific examples of concern from communities.” And it was rather nice for me to be able to say, “Oh, do you mean like what ALAC and At-Large already had set up and has had out there for several weeks? Here’s a link.”
So if you spot anything on any of the workgroup lists that you’re on which would be fairly classified as an example or specific concern or criticism under accountability and transparency, be it of the Board, of ICANN staff, or of course of ourselves, of any of the ACs and SOs including ourselves, and you could encourage the author of such commentary to put that in the space that we’ve created as sort of a drop box for concerns, that would be very, very good.
And if we, as regional leaders, can go back to our regions and encourage everyone in the ALSs and men in the street if they’re interested to do the same, I think that would be very powerful preparation for that discussion on the Sunday. You want to tell us a bit more about Confluence before you go through the rest of the schedule, Heidi? Or do you want to take it up as any other business later?
Heidi Ullrich: We can have about that at any other business. But I have made an action item that we will develop a communication strategy prior to Brussels. And we are also -staff are developing the At-Large Wiki page for show in Brussels.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic. Now, just so you wonder or just so you know if you use one of Nick’s lines, the reason that we are getting an introduction and initial training on this new tool is that while I was in Marina Del Rey for the ATRT, I had an opportunity to have a quick little look at this project of rolling out this particular tool for ICANN-wide use.
And I said to the project manager, Carol Cornell, “It appears to me that the world of ALAC and the At-Large is one that should be seen as a very good Beta testing for community.” They were in fact planning on having it pretty much an in-house tool where everyone was fully familiar and working with it, and then taking it out to the wider community.
But I prevailed on our behalf to see us as very viable community Beta testers, and that appears to have got sufficient support to at least try some training with our regional leaders on the tool in Brussels. So I think that’s quite a credit to how we’re seen as an important part of the ICANN community. So I really want this to work and that would mean an awful lot of pre-information going out.
But on my very brief little look into it, it seems to have a number of technical advantages, including full text search ability of even included attachments, which are streaks ahead of the Socialtext that we currently are using. So it’s rather exciting and I think it will be very good for ALAC and At-Large to be the first cab off the ranch to be using it other than those on payroll. Back to you Heidi.
Alan Greenburg: Is this envisioned as replacing or used just for conference?
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, total migration.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes.
Alan Greenburg: Okay, just for clarity, thank you.
Heidi Ullrich: And again, technical staff will ensure that all of our hyperlinks that are in Socialtext will be migrated over. So they’re already actually working on that.
Alan Greenburg: I wasn’t worried. I was just asking a question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Alan, actually what it does, from my totally biased view, is allow us to tidy up a lot of crap.
Alan Greenburg: Good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Back to you, Heidi. Oh, I’m sorry, Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, just a remaining question from yes, where we are with our membership system.
Alan Greenburg: Thank you, for the comedy period.
Heidi Ullrich: Sebastian, we are dealing with that. Nick and our technical staff are in communication on that issue. But again, I think at this level or at this stage it might be an issue that needs to be resolved at the higher level. So that’s something that is being worked on.
Alan Greenburg: Add it to the agenda item for Mr. Olive.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, back to you Heidi on our Brussels agenda. Heidi?
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, I’m talking to myself on mute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well that doesn’t help us, at all.
Heidi Ullrich: Exactly. I was wondering why no one was laughing at my joke. Okay, then moving on, with - we have 30 minutes with David Olive. He’s happy to talk about several issues with you on that, on policy development, on the exceptional amount of work that you’ve been doing in the last several months, etc., and listening to you as well. And then we have 90 minutes on At-Large improvements, including where we are with implementation, including also the issue of the At-Large Director will be under that session, and next steps.
Now because Cheryl has to step out due to her Accountability and Transparency Review Team Activities, the afternoon will need to be covered by the two Vice-Chairs. So, on the current Brussels meeting agenda, you’ll see where each session has been assigned to a moderator.
Alan you’re going to be moderating if you can - or if you accept, the session with David, and the At-Large improvements. While Sebastian, you’ll be doing the last two afternoon agenda items. One is the ALS survey, that is one hour dedicated to that, and then 30 minutes to the allocation of reporting on non-At-Large meetings. And -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hopefully that appeals to the specific interests that you both have been working in up until now.
Alan Greenburg: May I comment?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please, go ahead.
Alan Greenburg: Yeah, I have no problem, and I’d be delighted to do it, but the GNSO schedule has not yet been published. So understand that we may need to do some swapping with Sebastian or perhaps get another person involved who would like to take over the Chair temporarily.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well the other thing is if it’s a matter of blocks of time, we can always switch things around in the blocks of time to the best of our ability, because the internal aspects of our agenda is still very much run by ourselves, I guess.
Alan Greenburg: No, no, I’m just saying. You know in the past - in the last meeting I was in ALAC all-Sunday - other meetings have been a little bit more challenging and I don’t have a clue what’s happening in this one. So we’ll revisit that if necessary once schedules become firmer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, back to you, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, that takes care of the Sunday. And then next meetings - I’m going to do this a little bit quicker, then we have the APRALO meeting on Tuesday. We have the ALAC Policy Discussion Part 1 and Part 2 on Tuesday. Topics to be covered in those meetings will be vertical integration, we’ll be asking Margie Mylon to come talk to the At-Large representatives. We also have 20 minutes with David Gisa on compliance. We’ll have 40 minutes to discuss the RAA amendments and aspirational charter, including the new public comments period that Cheryl was talking about earlier. Then on the Policy Discussion II Session, that is going to be a single issue meeting on the - to be out at that time, the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 4. And Karen Lent will be speaking to us about that issue. Then continuing on Tuesday - continuing on -
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 18.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One moment, Sebastian’s raised his hand. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yeah, I know that it’s easier to have the staffs come in to talk to us, but on the vertical integration I would like very much that you, as the Co-Chair of the working group, if they are able to come to us. Thank you.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, I’ve noted that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Invitation to be sent, fantastic, good idea, thanks, Sebastian.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: On the vertical integration, we really are going to need some time to discuss internal to the ALAC if we are taking a specific position or minority positions or things like that. There really is division in At-Large at this point and I don’t - again, as custodians of the public good and the main rule of this vertical integration is, look at the interests of the public good.
We know that the people who are going to make money on it have positions and I think At-Large has to come up with a position, or multiple positions, if we can’t come to closure, which is quite possible. But I don’t think we have the luxury of not doing that, so we should try to allow time sometime in the week to do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, do you have a guesstimate on what size block of time we might need to do, or whether we need to have a block of time that is somewhat minimal and then ask those in Brussels to form a workgroup and do some intercessional work or what way?
Alan Greenburg: It’s hard to say what’s going to come out of the group right now, and I know we’re only a couple of weeks away, but it’s really, really difficult.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Alan Greenburg: I think we need at least a half an hour and perhaps we’ll need more, but no less than half an hour, if people don’t make speeches.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. I’m wondering – Heidi, as we move closer to-
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Cheryl, are you still there?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we are. Because we have specific matters out of the bag for - that will be being discussed in our meeting with GAC, i.e. the new GTLDs and morality and public order issue, if we need to tweak any time to give ourselves 30 minutes, specific to the ALAC and At-Large consensus view to go back into the ZI process, can we try and do that in our policy discussion part two on the Tuesday? So it may be, depending on our need, which we will be able to identify by then, and Alan this is meeting your proposal, that we steal the first 20 minutes or so from 9:30 through to say 9:50 to take it to the next level after we’ve had our staff briefing.
So, maybe even block off 30 minutes. So we’ll have had our vertical integration, our compliance information, and some work on the RAA Amendments and Aspirational Charter, of those, the one I believe will have the greatest follow-on requirements, by the sounds of it, will be the vertical integration. And if we can steal up to 30 minutes out of the next block of time, the 9:30 to 11 block of time, we could perhaps look at putting a placeholder in for that now. Alan, how does that work for you?
Alan Greenburg: That sounds fine. I’m really not trying to cry wolf here. We have another month of vertical integration. These processes normally when they start coming to closure do it very close and very close to the end. So we may well end up with a proposal that comes out of that which we can rubber stamp. I just don’t know at this point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, let’s just put a little placeholder in there…
Alan Greenburg: Yep.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: …just because internal discussion for matters carrying over for Part 1 and give it 15 or 20 minutes, and then move into the single purpose, new GTLD guidebook discussion, remembering that that also acts as preparatory time for our meeting with the GAC. So we don’t want to duplicate efforts, but we do want to have some verification and intelligence in our voice when we go into the GAC room on these matters. Heidi, you’ve got your hand up. I can’t give you anything because you can take whatever you like, whenever you like.
Heidi Ullrich: I just wanted to get in the queue and that was given that we’re going to be discussing vertical integration in Policy Discussion Part 2, should we move that down in Policy Part 1 down to the end so it’ll just be one smooth transition. And we can do compliance first thing, move the RAA up slightly, and then third issue, be vertical integration for, you know, a long…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Are you saying have the briefing and then the discussion?
Heidi Ullrich: No, I’m saying have the vertical integration at its current - in Part 1 that is currently the first item; move that down to the third item in Part 1 and then in Part 2 have that be the first item. So it will just be a long discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But Alan, that would be have the briefing and then the discussion, yes.
Alan Greenburg: I like keeping them separate, otherwise the briefing overruns, someone goes off on a tangent and we never get to the discussion.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, yes.
Alan Greenburg: I like keeping them separate.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, I’ll just keep it-
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t - keep it as is and put the placeholder in for internal discussion on all the items.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Bloody hell, sorry, I’m walking around in the dark and I just stood in something.
Alan Greenburg: Too much information.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh god, oh dear. Oh this is not pretty. Okay, just bear with me. Right, while I clean up the large pile of dog vomit with bone from them eating a goat carcass, Alan, could you just take over Chairing for a moment, please? Thank you.
Alan Greenburg: I’m going to still be laughing when you get back. Heidi, you may go ahead.
Heidi Ullrich: Sorry, I’m - thank goodness I’m not eating my lunch at the moment. Okay, so that brings us down - again, continuing on Tuesday. As Cheryl mentioned, we have a meeting with the GAC that’s 90 minutes between 11 and 12:30 on Tuesday, and then at 12:45 to 14:00 there’s the EURALO Showcase Event. And we had a very good meeting, I think it was about two weeks ago now, with Rudi and the other members of the working group. And they developed their agenda or their speaking - who’s going to be speaking and what those general comments will be, so that’s moving ahead.
Alan Greenburg: Just for a moment; going back to the meeting with the GAC, who is it that’s discussing the various detailed agenda items? New GTLDs is a bit too wide.
Heidi Ullrich: When you say who, is that - I think that’s just - those items, the morality and public order and the new GTLDs were basically the two agenda items that will be discussed. With both -
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Okay, I guess it's fitting to wait for the new Applicant Guidebook before deciding the details there. Go ahead, sorry.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, so going back to the EURALO showcase, just very quickly; they’ve decided to invite Rod Bextram to be opening comments, a keynote speech with the - actually I think it's - they’re going to be asking…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, I'm listening.
Heidi Ulrich: …some Board members. I think Dennis Jennings was one, Jean Jacques was another, again just very short discussions on the role of At-Large and ICANN in general. Cheryl will be invited to present a few minutes of At-Large, just an overview of at large, and then there will be - the EURALO ALSs who are in Brussels will be asked to say a few words about their ALS and their activities.
So again, it’ll be somewhat similar to the AFRALO showcase in Nairobi. Matthias and Rudi will be working on sending out the ALS template to all of the ALSs in EURALO to complete. And that will be - those completed templates then will be displayed in a similar manner as they were for the AFRALO ALSs in Nairobi.
Alan Greenburg: Just out of curiosity, neither the GAC nor the Showcase is listed as a food event. Are we allowed to eat that day?
Heidi Ullrich: The - the - Rudi and the working group on the EURALO Showcase are working on getting sponsors for some kind of food there - some kind of catering. That’s still to be under discussion. With meeting with the GAC, no, there’s no catering planned for that meeting. Again, moving on with Tuesday, a very busy day; we have between -
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: Just one point on that, on the Tuesday, sorry but we are starting at eight and no stop at all up to 2:00. I think it’s not feasible.
Heidi Ullrich: Well, again we have coffee breaks. So we have one coffee break between 10:30 and 11, and again the EURALO Showcase will have some sort of catering.
Alan Greenburg: Okay but, you know, if this is something with little bowls of chips on the table, I think we’re going to need a little bit more than that.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, again, as the sponsorship - as we know more about that, then we’ll be able to, excuse me, we’ll be able to -
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: With, no, ICANN it’s very, very poor company and as we - to organize everything and even to find the money to organize the ICANN meeting, it’s really nonsense, sorry.
Alan Greenburg: Okay. Point has been made.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay. So moving on more with Tuesday, we have a 3:00-4:00 meeting, ALAC improvements discussion with interested members of the SIC and the BGC. Again, the two items on that agenda will be At-Large Director selection process and the ALAC improvements.
Alan Greenburg: Okay.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, then there’s going to be AFRALO, particularly Tijani and Fatimata working with Ann Rochelle and members of the Afri-ICANN list, will be developing or organizing a joint meeting with the Afri-ICANN. Again, that includes members of the government and the CCTLD operators. Their primary aim for this meeting is to discuss and develop a statement on the same issues being talked about in the JAZZ working group. So, the issue of providing support for developing countries on the new GTLDs.
Alan Greenburg: Okay.
Heidi: Okay, and that’s 90 minute. Now, unfortunately, that currently conflicts with a meeting so we’re going to be discussing if that timing is going to fit. And then also on Tuesday is the EURALO monthly meeting. Matthias is working with Wolf on the development of that agenda. Moving to Wednesday, at nine to 10 -
((Crosstalk))
Sebastian Bachollet: I want to add one point on that and then I will suggest that tomorrow, even if we don’t have a face-to-face general assembly we need a general assembly. And I don’t see why it will not be taking place during the Brussels meeting and then why it’s not enough for a general assembly for the EURALO, during the Brussels meeting.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, let me just take a look when the Gala night - I think that’s actually Wednesday.
Alan Greenburg: The Gala’s Wednesday.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, so then we do have time to extend that. So yes, Sebastian, that’s fine. If you can discuss that tomorrow I think that would be fine.
Sebastian Bachollet: I will.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, so we’ll question that duration, then. Okay, then on Wednesday, currently 9:00 to 10:30 we have the regional secretariats meeting, 12:30-14:00 we have the ALAC and Board meeting working lunch. Table topics, do you have suggestions for table topics?
Alan Greenburg: Not at this very moment.
Sebastian Bachollet: We will have.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, then on Wednesday immediately after the Board meeting - now this is a currently scheduled meeting that Cheryl was talking about, this is the amending the RAA forum, and that is scheduled for 2:00-3:00 currently. But again, there are strong voices requesting that that meeting be moved to Monday.
So as we see the various schedule developments, changes, we’ll have to watch where that meeting is going to be taking place. Then moving more to At-Large meetings on Wednesday, we have the At-Large registrars meeting between - again, this is currently in conflict with the RAA forum and -
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Which would make so sense whatsoever.
Heidi Ullrich: No, that’s why we’re going to - again, we’re assuming that the RAA forum is going to change but we just need to wait to see whether that is going to change.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Put it this way Alan, you’ve seen the traffic on the ACFC.
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: I understand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Heidi Ullrich: So I’ve also been in touch with Tim Cole and we’re watching that, so it may be that we need to just go later in the afternoon for that session. So - and also, this is one of the issues Alan brought up over the weekend by Bill Drake, the idea of having this joint At-Large NCSG meeting. There is currently a meeting on - a consumer’s workshop being planned by members of the At-Large, that’s Beau Bremler and Holly Raish, as well as members of the NCSG, Rosemary Sinclair and Aubrey. And that currently is being planned for Wednesday between 16:30 and 17:30. So that would be somewhat of a joint At-Large NCSG meeting.
Alan Greenburg: Yeah, I don’t think that will be in there.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I may, because I’m actually not at the computer so I can’t put my hand up just yet, Alan, I would think that this was one of those that if that happens at that time, that’s a compulsory meeting for us all.
Alan Greenburg: I would - yes, but I don’t think it’s the same thing and I’m quite happy if we can try to make this s social event and not a formal meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: I don’t know if the timing will allow that but we can try.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It might - a formal meeting held then is really important, we then can all go on to the Gala Event. All it does mean is that an opportunity for a social meeting is going to come in on the Thursday.
Alan Greenburg: Okay. I think, among other things, the accountability and transparency review is something that collusion may help with.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, so then on Thursday, then because the public forum is going to be moved to the afternoon, we’re going to have the ALAC and regional leadership wrap-up session starting at 8:00, so 8:00 to 9:30.
And we’re going to be inviting Kevin Wilson to talk about the fiscal year budget. Now, he’s going to be asked to go first because at, I believe, 9:30 - I’ll double check this, but he has - actually has his Fiscal Year ’11 briefing right in the morning as well. And then for Friday, we have the ALAC executive committee meeting planned between 2:00 and 5:30.
Alan Greenburg: Okay, do you know when the GNSO wrap-up is tentatively scheduled?
Heidi Ullrich: Let me take a look.
Alan Greenburg: Normally it would be Thursday afternoon.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. Again, this is the current schedule, and that is Thursday between 11:00 and looks like 1:30.
Alan Greenburg: Okay, so it’s no conflict, okay.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, any comments or questions on that?
Alan Greenburg: Only that, if possible, you make official or unofficial access to lunch on Friday.
Heidi Ullrich: I didn’t quite get that. Lunch…
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Official or unofficial access to lunch on Friday…
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, yes.
Alan Greenburg: …since we’re not going to be in a hotel and can’t order room service.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: It would be appreciated if some kind soul made sure we have food.
Heidi Ullrich: Okay, even though it starts at 2:00, which is after the normal lunch period.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I would have thought we would have had time to go and grab some crisps or something.
Alan Greenburg: Maybe. It depends on when the Board meeting is scheduled when; sometimes they go to 1:30; they don’t always go to there, but sometimes they’re scheduled to 1:30.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I'm back now.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, actually they’re scheduled-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Sebastian – sorry, can I just ask a question, Alan?
Alan Greenburg: Sure.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian’s written in the Adobe room two hours for vertical integration for ALAC.
Alan Greenburg: Sebastian, are you asking or questioning why?
Sebastian Bachollet: No, I think that if we want to have a debate on that, with the presentation of the issue and the discussion it will take one and a half hours and not two hours, but it will take time because the people involved, the time it takes to discuss some issue and some documents if will take time to let the people know and then the people react and participate to the reflection of what ALAC will have to do. That’s why I was thinking about this time, yes. But the way you set up the meeting will allow some flexibility then it will be okay.
Alan Greenburg: I mean, right now we have close to an hour. I don’t remember the exact time,
Heidi Ullrich: Actually we have an hour.
Alan Greenburg: Yeah.
Heidi Ulrich: We have 30 minutes in part one and then 30 minutes in part two.
Alan Greenburg: And I think that’s either going to be overkill or under- either more than we need or less than we need by a lot, depending on how things evolve over the next month in the workgroup.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And, Alan, if it’s less than we need then I’d be strongly encouraging intercessional work, which may be over lunch on the Monday a group of representatives will gather together and take it to the next level.
Alan Greenburg: That’s probably a fine way of doing it. I just don’t think we can predict, so I wouldn’t want to allocate a lot more time, but we may have to react as things firm up. So, Sebastian, I agree with you. If ALAC is going to have hard decisions to make on who to support, you may well be right.
On the other hand - the tone in the meeting right now Mikey is starting to say out loud that we’re looking at an interim solution for the first round and not the ultimate fixing of vertical integration for all time. And if he can convince the various proposers to work towards that I think we may come to some closure, but I don’t know.
Sebastian Bachollet: All right.
Alan Greenburg: I mean, he has said that since day one but he hasn’t pushed it and half of the people making proposals are making long-term, major, major change ones. Maybe not half, but some of the proposers are suggesting that, and we’re going to have to wait for it to play out for another week or so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I’m sure we’ll all be kept posted on that. Have we moved on to agenda item five?
Alan Greenburg: Well we just finished whatever that, the meeting, was, so I guess that’s now five, yes, At-Large improvements.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, terrific. Can I just make the point that we are, with the 10 minute delay, we are now one and a half hours into our meeting, and a mere less than halfway through the agenda. How do you want to proceed with this agenda now?
Alan Greenburg: My schedule’s okay to continue.
Sebastian Bachollet: I am okay, too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, is it possible to reconnect to Dave?
Alan Greenburg: Dave just put something on the chat. Dave said he’s okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, just so you know, both Heidi and I are supposed to be in the RAA group B call and have supposed to have been there for the last 15 minutes. So I’m wondering if we could take a 30 minute break and reconvene in 30 minutes to continue our agenda.
Alan Greenburg: That would be fine for me. I wouldn’t even mind slightly longer. It means I can go do something else, but whatever time you decide is fine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, is it possible for us to reconvene this meeting in 45 minutes?
Alan Greenburg: Okay, that’s on the hour.
Sebastian Bachollet: That’s fine with me.
Alan Greenburg: I’ll only have about an hour at that point, but if you think that’s sufficient, yes-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: Hour and a quarter, maybe.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well I think we can do that.
Sebastian Bachollet: That’s okay with me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s meet in 45 minutes; fantastic.
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, very much, for your indulgence.
Alan Greenburg: Okay, reconvene in 45.
Heidi Ullrich: In 45 minutes. Okay. Thank you.
Alan Greenburg: Okay. Bye, bye.
Heidi Ullrich: Bye, bye.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Either that or Seth won’t be able to join us, but I gather that he has extensively briefed Heidi on where we are fitting out our agenda which is At-Large improvement implementation update and next step. Over to you, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, okay, I just wanted to spend a little bit of time on the comments we received from Ray over the weekend, as well as then from Marco in response or basically interpreting what Ray was requesting. And I think it will take a little bit of time. It’s basically to shorten the current project plan, put it all into a simplified version of the simplified outline or what we’re calling an Executive Summary of the simplified outline, but in addition to that to put in more information on the idea of what some of the costs are, who’s covering that, liability issues, what are some possible liability risks, are there any bylaw changes required?
Well we know the answer to that one for recommendations one and 11, and then does this plan conform to any Board guidance given regarding the preparation of this plan? Well again, that goes back to a resolution passed in Sydney basically saying that the At-Large community as well as staff need to prepare this document. So we also need to stress that a bit more in the project plan.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Heidi Ulrich: But I think that -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The questions on the liability and cost; we bleated very loud and long about the fact that budget ramifications on improvement plans. not just the ALAC but also the GNSO, but all improvement plans as a result of independent reviews need to be properly budgeted for. How did that get to be our problem again?
Heidi Ullrich: Again, that’s the issue. I know - I’m hearing conflicting reports on at this time do we put in estimates of what we believe the improvements will cost. And on the other side, let’s put in that yes, they are being covered, there is budget available in the fiscal year ’11, and as the working teams start implementing some of these tasks then we will have a better idea. That’s what I need to - I’m speaking with David all of today on that issue.
Alan Greenburg: Heidi?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: To some extent it really does fall back to David because David Olive has the budget and he has two parties, the GNSO and the ALAC, underneath that umbrella budget that’s going to need a budget allocation out of his piece of cake. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenburg: Yeah, well the final budget is being drafted or is already drafted, I don’t know which. ((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It should be drafted.
Alan Greenburg: Is there a number there that has been set aside for ALAC improvements or not?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes, there is. I mean basically -
((Crosstalk))
Alan Greenburg: Then our answer to Ray is yes, there is $273,000 allocated, which staff believe will be adequate to address the urgent needs in this coming fiscal year.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenburg: And it’s in the budget. I don’t-
Heidi Ullrich: I think we can definitely put in that yes, there is X amount in the budget. But whether that’s going to be enough, that remains to be seen as the work teams start developing.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s what Alan said, urgent, urgent needs for implementation in this fiscal year. That is assuming it is sufficient for that until we see the budget. That makes that comment a little difficult.
Alan Greenburg: Well yes, I’m assuming that there is a substantial number. If they tell us it’s $14,000, then the words around it are somewhat different.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That budget’s due for posting today, is it not?
Heidi Ullrich: Indeed, the 17th.
Alan Greenburg: Yes, but is it going to have that level of specificity.
Heidi Ullrich: I would hope so, and if not I can go to Kevin, I would assume.
Alan Greenburg: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If it doesn’t then the question also gets raised as to how has this budget responded to considerable weight of community comment on the framework? Because both GNSO and ALAC, asked specifically for those matters to be well addressed.
Heidi Ullrich: And also, what we’re planning on doing between now and Brussels and indeed at Brussels is review, and that brings us down to the second level, Part B on this agenda item is the - this status log. We need to work with Cheryl on a regular basis and the Ex Comm, on where we are with all of the tasks.
Because we believe that we have completed or we are moving ahead on many of the tasks outlined. So again, all of this will be needing to be taken into account as we include the update and revision that Ray and Marco are suggesting. So the plan now-
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Are we allowed to see these revisions that Ray and Marco are suggesting?
Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, I think-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is this in the in the cloud of “about us and without us” conversations that go on-
Heidi Ullrich: No, no, no, I can include them in here right now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Because it does get confusing sometimes to know what we’re supposed to know about the SIC is saying about us, and what we need to know about the SIC is saying about us, and what will actually engage the SIC in conversation about us. Or is that just me?
Alan Greenburg: No, it’s not just you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh good.
Alan Greenburg: It may just be the two of us.
Heidi Ullrich: I’m going to put it into the Skype chat in just a moment.