transcript ExCom 31 March 2010

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm going to just get started on the action items. The 12th of March ones – single-purpose call on ALAC engagement; that is, ALS engagement. Not sure that that's happened yet – or happening. That's still on the to-do list. PID – yes, we keep working on the PID, and we'll deal with that in a little while. It might be worthwhile checking if Carlton is likely to join us as well. And the IDN liaison matter is also on our agenda tonight. The feedback from the RALOs on the FY11 operational plan has been done, and we have that linked to tonight's agenda as well. So with the exception of the ALS engagement call, I don't see anything on the 12th of March action items that is not being dealt with or that may carry over, is that correct?

(inaudible) Alan and staff and I – hmm? Go ahead, Sebastien.

Sebastien Bachollet: Just – my question is it something different that's the revitalization of the working group? Yes, it's something –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, it is.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, okay, okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There's a – I mean, they perhaps have some sort of relationship with each other. I would like to see it if they did, but it is a separate matter.

Okay, then moving to the action items for 23rd of March 2010, staff to organize a community call on DNS CERT. Thanks to the heroic efforts of Heidi, who has possibly made herself an enemy in some of the staff rooms around the world for continually going, "Can we have some feedback? Can we do this? Can we have (inaudible)?" That is being done, and that's going to happen in a very narrow opportunity on the 9th of April. And I'll get Heidi to talk to that in a minute.

Sylvia and Siva's presentation – we have got the update. It has been circulated. It was dealt with at our previous ALAC meeting, and she has agreed that as of today's date or soon after, we can put this out to Barbara's attention. And we just need to wait and ask her, as a result of Barbara starting today, is she and see the happy – for us to use the current update or is this the update she wished to make. I was under the impression at the ALAC meeting that she had some other updates to make. Is that your memory as well?

Heidi Ullrich: That is my memory, Cheryl, and I will – I'm just putting an action item to contact her and Siva.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm quite sure, Barbara, yes, she starts today, but do you know if she actually adjusted her chair and found out where the coffee is bought.

Alan Greenberg: Technically, that's tomorrow (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, true, true. I'm a day ahead, as I often am, yes. So that we – I'm not overly concerned that it's not in her inbox the moment she connects to the Internet on the 1st of April, but we don't want to leave it too long –

Alan Greenberg: Her e-mail address will not be turned on until tomorrow, so we don't have much option of getting it there before she arrives.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, fussy, fussy, fussy.

Alan Greenberg: I tried to send her e-mail and that's what I was told.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughs) Okay, well, to that end, if we can pick up on Sylvia or make sure it's there in the not-too-distant future, that will be the main thing. Following up also with Barbara Clay is to invite her to a single-issue call on the at-large global outreach program in April. Can I ask who H.U. is, other than Heidi? Why are we now doing very specific –

Heidi Ullrich: I thought that was just me. It could be staff. I'm happy to have that –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. I prefer it just to say "Staff," and there is a method in my madness there. I understand that the predilection – perhaps I would like (inaudible) – I understand the predilection of minutes and action items to have H.U. do this and A.G. do that, and various other people doing something else. It's just not the form we've used, to date, and it does lead to other sorts of things – but happy to discuss that. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg: You said a single-purpose call with Barbara to talk about global outreach. I would suggest a dual purpose – that we, first of all, give her 20 minutes or whatever she wants, to tell us about what she imagines she's going to be doing.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hmm.

Alan Greenberg: And where she wants to take ICANN in terms of communications, in general.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we'll make sure the agenda does that – in terms of single-purpose call, it's a conversation with Barbara Clay as its single purpose.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. And that follows on from Sylvia and Siva information, having also been, you know, sent early enough and duly digested. And in the regions – that's very important that when we do that doodle that it goes at a point where we can have sufficient and equitable regional representation as well. It's not just the ALAC. I would like to have the assurance that we've got the leaders, at least from the regions, on that call.

Staff to update workgroup wikis. Staff?

Heidi Ullrich: That is somewhat being done but has not been completed yet. So that will be continued over.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, nothing wrong with carrying actions over.

Heidi Ullrich: Partly because we are now getting the response from the working group officers, so we're updating what we're – some of the information that we're getting.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fantastic, I'll look forward to hearing that in gory detail about that in a minute. Yes, Seth, go ahead.

Seth Greene: Pardon me, but if I could just inject at this moment that we have the responses from all the groups. If infrastructure and accountability would just help us out by getting back to us, that would be terrific.

Sebastien Bachollet: It is not getting back to you because I am online today, and I was not online before, and as I was ready to answer because we sent all the information on this group is accurate, I am still share, and Alan, and our time is divide share. And Sylvia, she is working as the – but that's okay if I can't answer. But it's updated.

Seth Greene: Terrific, and Sylvia had tried to – had responded very enthusiastically but, frankly, for me, at least, unclearly. So whenever you get around to that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, I will.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Well, it sounds like they're all done now or soon will be. And the changes to BCEC is nomenclature, and I'd like to discuss the matter of making changes in a white paper, so that's on our agenda. Staff requesting Vanda on feedback with locations, Latin American meeting. I don't know whether she's done that directly to staff, but I do know it's still an interesting issue and a work in progress. And so she hasn't joined our call, I think we can carry that over, but we may discuss that in sort of small detail, and we've got the travel to Brussels on our agenda. And we do definitely – not necessarily – we do definitely need to make sure that Matthias works with Rudy and Ron on the ALS poll on the CCNS phone matters and to place it on the agenda of the RALOs for this month. But, more importantly, we need to make sure that if we're going to put the poll out to the ALSs on the CCNSO that the RALOs also have had time. And that means they've got to prepare now to put two or three questions, if they so desire, from a regional perspective that they would like to make, because we don't want to miss the opportunity of reaching out to the ALSs with more than just one lot of questions.

The only other thing I would like to suggest, then, that, perhaps, if we know the date of that poll, we might try and make sure that we have that thing brought back to us, the regions, and the CCNSO liaisons. At a time where, if there was a question about outreach and activities from the regions, that we got that feedback in real metrics at a time that we could see that into the next round of specific budget public comment. So I just would like to do a little project planning to make sure that poll happens to run at a time when we can maximize the benefit of getting feedback from specific ALSs at something as important as the particulars as the ICANN budget – seems like an opportunity to me.

It might also, Seth, if there is anything that you want to specifically try and encourage the workgroups or for your own project management to get directly to the ALSs on any of the ALAC improvement implementations that I think could be usefully tethered into that as well. So I might suggest, Seth, that you have a little chat to Matthias as well and see if there's one or two questions or a particular link or a single request that you might want to tie into that sort of outreach activity at the survey.

Seth Greene: Terrific. Thank you, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Anything else on our action items? If not, we need to look at the PID and the actions of Carlton.

Unidentified Participant: Before we continue, somewhere in the agenda, I'd like an opportunity to talk for a few minutes on the Board resolution on helping disadvantaged GTLDs and what's been going on in the GNSO.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, that will be very useful, although I gather that hasn't – that's coming up tonight at the next meeting or is it coming up in session.

Unidentified Participant: It's coming up for a vote at the meeting, but what's been going on, I think, is worthy of some note –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Background on that, that would be very useful. I haven't put that in as part of our discussion section rather than our decision section. Thank you.

All right, Heidi, you mentioned that the PID we were connecting to may not be the most up-to-date one, has that been sorted?

Heidi Ullrich: David (ph) said that he has updated it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, okay.

Heidi Ullrich: So let's look – from the last time I looked.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right. PID is a work in progress. I'm not particularly planning on going through the gory details of the PID, but we do need to look at the global DNS business case. I think the response to that, extended until the 14th of April, is something that we can, as in the executive (inaudible), we will try and have some words and opinions put onto the meeting page for the wiki for the 9th of April as discussion points when we meet for our briefing.

And I think between the 9 and 10 and 14th, we should have no major issue at putting together enough comment to ask for more information, greater granularity in – supported in principle but be concerned about whether or not it is ICANN's role to be more than champion and supporter. Does it actually need to set it up as a staff up, is my question.

And I look forward to the feedback from the community as to whether or not they think it's a good idea. And I will note the – and thanks to my computer shutting down overnight, the links aren't here. I was going to raise them, but in this week's circle ID there was a very interesting article wholeheartedly supporting the principle of the CERT and, indeed, making very clear that it was a good idea back in the early 2000s when it was first (inaudible). But that it didn't happen then for a whole lot of reasons, part of which was the maturity of the domain name system – sorry – the domain name industry, or the DNS industry, as they're resurging themselves as. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to relook at it. So it may be that –

Unidentified Participant: Is that Paul Dicksey's (ph) article or some other one?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It is Dicksey's comments, thank you. So if you've got that link, I need to put that into the –

Unidentified Participant: I don't. I can find it, though.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, that would be great. It's just – of course, I had always prepped up ready for this meeting, and thank you, Windows 7, you are being 10 minutes old and needed to go and reorganize yourself. That would be great. So I think I'd like to have that on the meeting page and for community reading and consideration before the 9th, if at all possible.

Heidi, do you want to speak to the matter of the ICN applications, the chiblicks (ph), the report? We hadn't decided whether or not we were going to respond to this. It comes into the matters of (inaudible) GTLD workgroup and, obviously, they would own it, but it is such a large issue. It's one that previously under morality and public order, we have said, in our view, it is time of Triple X. We are not particularly keen on ICANN being involved in content at all. And if a TLD sponsored or otherwise and, in this case, the STLD, has been proven – in inverted commas, at least, in the most recent round of legal review to have been justified in approval of its application at the time. Other than reiterating that and being somewhat saddened that the cost and energy of the exercise is going on at a time where we are fiscally concerned with limited budget and from many parts of ICANN needing more extended and more support with less resources. I'm not sure what else you want to say. But what's this, Heidi, I'm asking you just to say is it your feeling around the water cooler that they are particularly keen to get At-Large Advisory Committee input or At-Large input on this issue?

Heidi Ullrich: The reason that this item is on the agenda is due to Vanda requesting that we should not forget this issue.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So, clearly, the Board is very keen, if not staff, to get some sort of input in. Okay, what's the feeling around the table then? Sebastien and Alan?

Sebastien Bachollet: I think it's – for At-Large, it's important to say something. The question is how we've come with – in addition to what you say that we always to win at something else, and if we – if, yes, how we build something else to be said by a (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Alan, your view?

Alan Greenberg: Just one second, I'm just finishing what you asked for.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry.

Alan Greenberg: Oh, well, okay. I'm sorry, I'll fix that in a minute. I'm not sure what we want to say other than we support doing something in a defendable and expedient way.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hmm. Encourage, not mucking around and not spending money and, certainly – well, minimum money. I'm concerned that it will be a group of bloody-mindedness coming out of some of the boards use. You know, we're not going to encourage the Board to not be bloody-minded on it, I suppose.

Alan Greenberg: Have you all looked at the process position that came out a few days ago?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh.

Alan Greenberg: The Board, in its Nairobi meeting, sent off legal counsel in some way or other, to look at the options. And they identified a whole bunch of issues of, you know, can we just rubber-stamp it right now based on due diligence that we did six years ago? If we do anything again, which set of rules do we use? And those are all things that need to be decided but, hopefully, they can be decided quickly and not serially one after the other, belaboring this for the next nine months or waiting for the next Board to have to make a decision.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, yes. Expedience is definitely a word we should be using.

Alan Greenberg: So we would like to see it settled quickly. We would like to see it settled in such a way that it is defendable, and I don't really think we want to take a position on yes, approve or don't approve. From my point – I don't see any merit in that. I simply want to get it off the table in such a way that it will not likely come back and haunt.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that sounds like –

Alan Greenberg: I'm not sure we can say that in exactly those words, but (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think that sounds like a good framework for us to work with, though.

Okay, so it sounds like we are definitely saying something that won't be particularly worthy. It will be a reiteration exercise and a strong encouragement to get your house in order fast and make a decision quickly. And we will later reference that in new material.

Okay, so the answer there is, yes, it goes on. Okey-dokey. Goody, more! Lucky us. We might ask the regional meetings to put that on the April agenda, and I'd like a – no further comment is required other than encouraging posthaste and timely resolution by the Board and reiteration of what GTLD would routinely, At-Large, At-Large Committee has said in the past, or any new information to come forward. So we just give the regions an opportunity to feed in on that as well.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I mean, part of what we're saying does imply some of the answers to the question. In other words, expediency implies we should not wait for the next round of GTLDs.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, bother.

Alan Greenberg: Well, but that's included in the options.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yes. (inaudible) last year's and that's one that I think we ask the new GTLD workgroup to look at, but they don't get to run it all by itself. It's an ALAC and new GLTD workgroup (inaudible).

Now, we come to James. James has indicated that it's too early for the ALAC to take a view or a position on the impact of the interim paper on the introduction of IDN CCTLDs. I have no problem with that. I think this is one of those we don't need to respond to every time everybody puts anything out for public comment. And the fact that we have not – as a member of that working group, we have both James and myself on that working group, so, you know, this is a chair's interim paper. It's based on input that we've been part of, and I do not believe that this particular IDN CCTLD working group is particularly advanced. I think we can probably let this one go through as the keeper, but does anyone have any other view?

Alan Greenberg: Nope.

Sebastien Bachollet: No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great. Well, we will agree with our IDN liaison. We do, however, need to do something on proposed implementation plans to synchronize IDN CCTLDs. That is essential. James has indicated that he has a problem, at the moment. This is a very short amount of time, ending the 13th of April. It was quite a short – we only found out about this when we got back from Nairobi. I will go so far as to say at the APRALO regional meeting we felt this was vital that we put some form of response in.

And, as a region, Hong Xue is drafting something for us. If I can encourage Hong to give us an early draft as soon as possible. In other words, at a point around the 9th or so – 9th or 10th of April – it would be possible for us to see if we can get James to build that APRALO comment something slightly larger for the ALAC to consider and still get it in, even if it's going on the vote when it goes in. So it could go in on 13th of April, but it could be going in under vote for ratification. Do you think that's a reasonable way forward?

Alan Greenberg: I think that's reasonable. I'd like to be in the loop on that one to the extent that I might otherwise not be. I think it's very important that we send a message in our response that we are very supportive of the Board's methodology in doing this. That is, specifically that they acknowledge this is important, we don't have the right answer, you know, the perfect answer, but we cannot delay forever.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And it's those last words, the lack of delay – we can't delay, and we do need to come up with something, and if synchronization is the best way forward, then let's get on with it.

Alan Greenberg: Well, but the message also – the methodology also says we can accept multiple solutions from different parties. We are not trying to find a definitive answer and that's an exceedingly crucial message.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, and I can't see any way, politically or otherwise, that we will get through this impasse without that type of approach.

Alan Greenberg: But it's new for ICANN.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, yeah, and – you mean to not only encourage but to complement their choices here. Is that what you're saying?

Alan Greenberg: To complement –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The fact that they're making these sorts of choices.

Alan Greenberg: The Board is, yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yes.

Alan Greenberg: The fact that they are open to expedient solutions, which are safe and secure but address real problems now instead of waiting for, you know, for the IATF to come up with a standard five years from now on how to do it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly.

Alan Greenberg: To be blunt.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no, that, I'm sure, will be very easy to work in at that sort of macro ALAC overview level. It's not the sort of thing I would expect Hong to come up with, but it would be a subset theme. Because I know that in APRALO, we are most concerned that we just get on with it. Otherwise, we're going to have significant tensions develop because of the lack of ability for the IDN CCTLD, fast tracked or otherwise, to go ahead without some sort of plan to synchronization.

Alan Greenberg: I suspect – I don't know, but I suspect there was a fair amount of opposition on the parts of the Board to doing that. I think we have to reward those who pushed it through.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, well, it sounds to me like this is a can-do. We can, in fact, do that. I will get back to James now and tell him that is our plan, okay?

The one ending in less than 24 hours, which is IDN variants and IDN three character – he has prepared previously a draft ALAC statement on IDN variants and IDN three character. I don't know that if any of you had possibly much time to look at that, but I am perfectly comfortable to start a vote on the statement and have it sent. It might be, Heidi, that you need to send it on James's behalf, if he's too busy. Perhaps you can just double check whether or not it will go via him or via staff into the public comments system.

Heidi Ullrich: Then prior to a vote?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But with the rider that it is currently under ratification vote on the Xcall (ph) – with the ALAC, sorry.

Alan Greenberg: I assume the statement says variants are important?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, strangely enough, it does (laughs).

Alan Greenberg: Okay, fine.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So have you got – if you've got time, it's not very long. It's, you know, we've already published on January, our – our one – there's one that's out there. And it simply says, you know, to attempt to apply uniform rules, it's just going late to our administration. ICANN should be flexible, blah blah blah. It's very much – and then justifying with examples, with Japanese, Chinese, et cetera, et cetera.

Alan Greenberg: I've always thought that we should have a demand that until we adjust variants, we stop handling the upper and lower case.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughs) Oh, Alan, thank you for that. What a good idea (laughs). If we can now interject that into one of the forums, I will be so pleased. That will make –

Alan Greenberg: I've said it before in various different forms (laughs).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, well, keep saying it.

Alan Greenberg: Perhaps not as bluntly, (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no, I want to hear that again. That's very, very good. And I guess the final word here is we may need to change – this is my only issue. At the time of writing this, the synchronization hadn't come to the table. I would perhaps want to wordsmith the following paragraph – "We noted that the team recommended that variants not be delegated as TLDs at this time. We also noted that the team recommend further studies to be made on one character IDN TLDs. While these limitations are generally acceptable in most language communities, it has serious impact on Chinese if such limitations remain in place."

I wondered if, at that point, we should just insert, "We also note the current public comment and discussion on synchronization." So I'm proposing that we do an edit by adding a reference to the current synchronization public comment and discussion without saying other than an ALAC will be putting in a statement between that second last paragraph of James's statement and the last one. And the last one reads, "We do not believe ICANN has the intention to marginalize any community specifically, but the recommendation, as proposed, has, indeed, put Chinese Internet community in a disadvantaged position."

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, what – how – when they came out with the two-character, they said something about one character. Was it "we're not going to look at it?" or "It needs further study?" I thought it was –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: "It needs further study." In other words, too hard now, go away. It's one of those, "We've made some further study, well, let's get going on it."

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, okay. I think we should phrase in that way as oppose to simply pointing out it is needed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, now, what we are saying is that ICANN staff have said it's needed. We couldn't agree more – if it's needed, then let's do it. Let's get on with it.

Alan Greenberg: But I think the phrase of "Let's get on with it," in different words, obviously, I think is the key part we want to say. Not just reiterating that, yes, there are some people who need it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, okay. So – can I suggest that in all our spare time today, Heidi and I insert an additional paragraph? Tell James that we are doing that, and then put that text out to vote so that the text – the modified text, as we've discussed, will go to a five-day vote at the same time or on the same day as the text goes through to the public comment period.

Alan Greenberg: Sure.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, good. Heidi, that's an AI.

Heidi Ullrich: Yup.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right, moving right along. We're finally getting to some decisions. I'm very excited about that. The 38th ICANN meeting in Brussels. Heidi, when you said there were 45 days, what math were you using?

Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. Actually, I had heard that from another staff. I know I hate to pass the buck, but then after, I think it was Mason, wrote back and said that that caused him some concern. I did the math on my own and realized we had a few more but (inaudible) a comment.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughing) I know my math isn't good (giggles).

Heidi Ullrich: It counts all the holidays that Europe has and the (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We have a very short time.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That said, I am rather delighted that at this point, in other words, so soon after our last face-to-face meeting, we are in a position to say we have got our list of travelers all sorted. Yes, Alan, go ahead.

Alan Greenberg: I've restrained myself severely in not making this comment to the list.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay, go for it.

Alan Greenberg: But I will make it to this group and take it under advisement whether I should do it wider. I have never, ever seen the kind of response we got to Heidi's message. I haven't counter, but almost every one of the 25 potential travelers, within a couple of days, and some quicker, said, "Yes, I plan to go Brussels."

What do we need to do to get that level of involvement and activity on substantive issues that do not relate to travel?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughing) Suggest that if they don't do that we won't be offering the travel?

Alan Greenberg: Do you advise against me putting in a note (inaudible) noted (inaudible)?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Actually, I do advise against that.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And the reason I advise against that is that I am seeing – I hear your frustrations. I also understand that we are putting in a huge amount of work including at Nairobi with revitalization and with (inaudible) input. We have examples, such as a region can probably draft something that our IDN liaison and ALAC member haven't got time to do. You know, we are getting more examples where we are getting input than, certainly, this time last year.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, but, I was not referring to At-Large involvement. I was referring to ALAC and RALO leader activity.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, well, we tend to get the ALAC responding faster than the RALO leaders a lot. Perhaps what we – I mean – if you want to put that, fine. But I think we probably we need more (inaudible) at this time.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. I just saw responses from people who I suspect, if we did statistics, would be their first message in months.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, absolutely. Yep, couldn't agree more.

Okay. Now, Gisela is reminding me that in 10 minutes, I have another call. So we need to power through. They are on standby. I might be a little bit late, I'll just tell her.

Alan Greenberg: I would like at least two minutes to talk about the –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yep. Well, we are one step away – two steps away from putting that in as discussion.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So – the current list isn't linked, but there is one question on the list, Heidi, and that was from the EURALO meeting. Has EURALO advised us who will be their preferred traveler as a replacement for Dessi?

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, well, Wolf has suggested that Olivier replace Dessi. I've not heard any other comment in support or against at this point.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: When is EURALO's meeting?

Heidi Ullrich: I won't be for a while. So I think the best thing is for Matthias or one – or I can follow up on that question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Can we put – put him in on the list now with a "to be concerned" by region? Is see very little downside in the process being held up with a probably outcome. And could I ask, Sebastien, is it within EURALO's either rules or is it their habit to decide these sort of things on a list if there is not a convened meeting to deal with the matter?

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, we can do that by list, no problem.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. Okay, so if we could strongly encourage that, I would like to have us approve that list of travelers now at this meeting and ask Heidi to give EURALO – what will work – 24, 36 hours to confirm the proposed alternative traveler as Olivier?

Sebastien Bachollet: I guess you can consider that it's already (inaudible) from EURALO as (inaudible) is in agreement with the Board, I am sure.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fine. So you don't believe there will be much opposition?

Sebastien Bachollet: I am sure of the contrary.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughs) Well, I'm delighted to hear that. That's excellent. Okay. Or it sounds to me like we can approve that list providing that you all agree we approve that list.

Heidi Ullrich: Could I just interject here quickly?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Please.

Heidi Ullrich: A couple of issues – on the list currently, we have a few wait-listed. And those include the – Dev Anand as secretary and Andreas as chair of LACRALO because there may be elections. We assume that there are going to be elections shortly. And also in APRALO, the position of who is going – whether it be the secretary or the new vice-chair, which now is being called for. Therefore, that position – one slot in APRALO is on wait-listed status right now.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Well, I don't think that needs held up because it means that ICANN travel can move through at least 20 of the 25 travelers.

Heidi Ullrich: Exactly. I just wanted to highlight those.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. Anyone else got an issue with that?

Sebastien Bachollet: No.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I must say, we have traditionally suggested that it is a chair and a secretariat of a region, and I can't imagine that APRALO would be changing its method. It may be that it's the vice-chair and the secretaries of the region that goes, but to say the chair and one of the vice-chairs go, I think would be exceptional.

So I have a fairly high degree of confidence that the secretariat will be going – from APRALO, at least.

Heidi Ullrich: Thank you, I'll make a note of that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, all right. And, obviously, that's something that Matthias needs to follow back up with. So – yes, I think is the answer. We have approved that. And I don't have a problem not taking that to a vote, because in days gone by, before we had such an active and helpful EXCOM, I simply said "yes." So I'm just saying "yes" with friends now.

A decision on the accountability and transparency review team next steps for At-Large. The amount of information and material that came in just on the e-mail list, in response to be mentioning the fact that an e-mail had been sent to me by (inaudible) indicating I'd been retained for the position – I see you, Alan, as, I think, worthy enough of note for our decision, or to influence our decision here, that some sort of wiki (inaudible) commons would be useful should we decide to do that. I would also be proposing that we pull across the material and information and, indeed, the comments that were made on the list and make that part of that such a space. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, I have no problem, of course, with setting up a commons area. Has there been a formal statement from ICANN of who all the members are?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would be a no.

Alan Greenberg: And, barring that, can you share with us any public or semi-public knowledge on what has happened with the CCNSO?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I believe there will be two people – my current intel is it – will be Becky and the chair of the CCNSO.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Louis is in for the ASO.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, I think I heard that – or maybe I didn't, but –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, you have now.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So – no, there hasn't been a public one, but it shouldn't be very long, one would hope. So – Sebastien, your thoughts on (inaudible).

Sebastien Bachollet: I think it's – we need to open the space, yes. I don't know – I didn't read all the mail I have – 1,000 stuck – to read – but I – one of my time, I thought about a situation with At-Large, and you know that I was very pro that U.S. share not just share but also share a member of this team. I still feel that we need to say that we are very happy with the choice that you were chosen by the two, but we are unhappy with the outcome – the general outcome of this group because my memories on this is it's supposed to deal with public policy matters, and there are two groups dealing with that.

First is – first of two groups – one is the (inaudible), and the other is an ICANN. We see the differences of treatment of those two groups, and that's not good for the end users. A view of the situation of all that cost.

I would like to add that a lot of people within the EURALO but, I guess, in other RALOs says that it could have been very interesting to have people outside of the end user suspect participating and the answer was some expert could be nominated. But they can't understand part of this discussion thing that outside of the usual suspects, could be interesting and just worked on.

If, in one, and we are just one represented of end user, on the other end we don't have any other inside (inaudible). It's a first full set for this group, and I think we need to say something around that and other idea, obviously, on both things that (inaudible) with you, but we are in disagreement with the overall decision.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that's exactly the sort of thing that can be discussed on the commons, because we actually (inaudible) –

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, yeah, yes, of course.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – there is, of course, it's very clear, as it's clear in the AOC that it's – two people have the role of choosing who will be on these committees. And I believe that the concept of an outsider is still in the possible (inaudible) of the group, should it exist because it could engage a consultant. And a consultant, by definition, would be an independent consultant and, therefore, an outsider.

So – I'm not suggesting that some of those wishes are not still possible. I just think we need to broker them in the right way. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I'll put this on the commons when it gets created. But the AOC clearly says these are "representatives of."

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly right.

Alan Greenberg: Now, if you look at some of the GNSO people put forward, they are people who are not the usual suspects in that they don't necessarily go to ICANN meetings, and they are not parts of the GNSO or GNSO council. But they have been tightly coupled with ICANN issues for many years, you know. So this may be someone from a registry who is not the active participant but well understood (inaudible) issues. We don't have the luxury of having many of those.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth. That is, the luxury you have when you have more than one representative.

Alan Greenberg: John Levine (ph), perhaps, was the closest we came in our list to someone heavily involved but not one of the usual suspects today.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.

Sebastien Bachollet: I agree with you. I just – if we open a discussion on that, say that the two chair, from my point of view, missed one point. They were supposed to get the endorsement of the different ASOs and ASEs, but I don't see anywhere where it must one people – one (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastien, we are wasting our time now because we can argue until the cows come home, it's not going to change. We now need to make sure that we get the outcomes we want, and that next time such a team is put together, it is managed in an entirely different way. We started that work in Nairobi. We will continue it. And one of the reasons that I am very keen for the commons is that this type of information can be publicly and freely available and I can refer to it at regular intervals at the appropriate time in the review team's workings. But we're not going to re-model on the fly. It just won't happen. Do you see what I mean?

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, yes, I see where you are, but – okay, okay.

Alan Greenberg: The words need to be said but not at this meeting when we're short of time.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We're not just short of time, we're actually out of time. So I want to now (inaudible) move immediately to Alan – any other business, and then I'm going to propose perhaps a 30-minute break in this meeting, because my other meeting, I need to be there at the beginning, which just started two minutes ago. I can probably leave early. So – Alan?

Alan Greenberg: We can postpone until – if we're going to do a 30-minute break, let's just do it, let you go.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh. Okay, are you both happy with that then?

Sebastien Bachollet: No problem, I will go for a (inaudible) and come back.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I will make a message on the Skype chat when we need to call back in.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay, and, Cheryl, that will be a 30-minute – ?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Where were we up to? Let me find the agenda.

Alan Greenberg: You were going to ask me about –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, that's right, the floor was yours.

Alan Greenberg: The – the-- whatever – the working group and I also have some words on vertical integration, if you want them (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, yes, please.

Alan Greenberg: Well, the discussion in the GNSO on the Board's motion to form a joint working group, ASCO working group, to try to help disadvantaged GTLDs to summarize, has been exceedingly active with visceral negative reactions from many players.

Sebastien Bachollet: "Visceral" negative reactions?

Alan Greenberg: Visceral. It was read, generally, by most GNSO long-timers, as it were, and some new-timers, as ICANN was trying to come up with ways to give these people a break or to delay the whole process and – it was visceral and negative. And I, and a number of other people reiterated many times that that is not what the Board said. Eventually, there was general understanding that this was not an attempt to lower the price by ICANN. Yes, we hope to find other people to give money.

Finally, a motion was made, or a motion was proposed. Tim Ruiz (ph) made a friendly amendment, what he claimed was a friendly amendment, which said something to the effect of the working group would do such-and-such, keeping in mind that it is ICANN's policy to recover costs for both the application or operation of GTLDs.

Now, given that that was one of the "whereas's" in the Board's resolution, which is referenced, I though that was gratuitous and – you know, and he moved to remind the workgroup – "Remember, remember, you can't lower prices."

Sebastien Bachollet: It was his only reason for it.

Alan Greenberg: He said everyone now agreed that this is not an attempt to lower prices, so we need to put it in the resolution in the charter. It was deemed to be an unfriendly amendment by the person who made the motion and seconded it, which was Rafik from NCSG and Olga Cavalli, who was the seconder.

Typically, when someone says it's an unfriendly amendment, the answer is "Okay, then we will vote on it." Instead, a number of people started "harassing" – is the only word I can use – "Rafik, why do you consider this an unfriendly amendment? We demand you tell us why." And that's not a question I can ever remember ever asking anyone before. And, you know, he's a junior member. He doesn't quite know what's going on, and I thought that was just out-and-out harassing. He has finally, after consultation with the NCSG, modified his answer to say – to include an almost equivalent statement but saying according to the GNSO policy, everything should be cost recovery. You know, the original GTLD policy.

I'm not quite sure why that one is less offensive. I find it more offense to the ACs and SOs, which I haven't said, because this is supposed to be a joint group and simply pirating a GNSO policy, I don't think is appropriate in that charter, and we may want to say something. If you want me to say something right now, I will. Or we can just let them pass it as is.

But I had an interchange with Paolo (ph) over this, you know, to GNSO's director on the Board, and he, too, says he doesn't understand why – and I used the word "visceral" with him, and he agreed. He doesn't really understand why this has received that kind of reaction when the Board's motion was relatively clear and relatively innocuous and chances are we're not going to find anything, which is a self-sustaining way of addressing the problem. I didn't say that, but –

Unidentified Participant: Mm-hmm.

Alan Greenberg: I mean, one can define "what of" solutions and recommendations to find, indeed, a self-sustaining way to handle the generic way is old, and there was – I don't know how many of you are participating in the discussion group that Bertrol (ph) started out on –

Unidentified Participant: Categorization?

Alan Greenberg: Categorization. And there was a note from Richard Tindall (ph) there – there was a note from Richard Tindall there saying, you know, he's looking forward to participating in this other working group. Here is what he thinks should be done, including, you know, a list of – we need to find a way to find disadvantaged, and ICANN needs to audit this to make sure that people, indeed, are disadvantaged. And we're looking for money somewhere else. It's going to be up to the other people to audit it, not ICANN.

You know, World Bank wants to give money to a (inaudible) Maasai in Africa, or Verasign, for that matter. That's their business not ICANN's. So the reaction has just been very weird, that's all I can say.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, well. Perhaps not as weird as –

Sebastien Bachollet: (inaudible) then that there is no consensus around the fundamental principle, or it's because of the way it has been kind of (inaudible) right now.

Alan Greenberg: There is no comprehension of the problem and the potential solutions in the group who are discussing this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, you passed on to me, and I'm not sure, because I've just pulled it out of my e-mail – did you pass it on to more than me – the motion to create the joint SOAC working group?

Alan Greenberg: I don't remember. Who was it addressed as?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now you're going to make me do that.

Alan Greenberg: Well, I can certainly –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just two seconds, two seconds – no, to ALAC working group. So everyone should have it.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It went to ALAC working list.

Alan Greenberg: I will send a new version with the now-accepted friendly amendment, which I find personally offensive.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that's what I was asking. Because when I didn't see what you were referring to in that original text.

Alan Greenberg: No, that's happened since then.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right.

Alan Greenberg: And the acceptance by Rafik was just this morning.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right, okay.

Alan Greenberg: I will certainly –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So what we could do is ask you to rise, as our liaison, our – not concern, our curiosity as to why this change was in any way, shape, or form necessary when –

Alan Greenberg: Well, I already did. I specifically asked him why is this necessary when the virtually identical words are already in the "whereas" of the Board motion, which is pointed to, and his answer was, "Well, in that case – that makes it all the more friendly because it doesn't really change anything." I will forward a copy to the ALAC list –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. It's not like we're doing a charter here. This seems strange days, indeed. Was it a group of the usual suspects or was it genuinely, you know, people who just didn't understand and just knee-jerk reacted?

Alan Greenberg: Well, there's been a lot of discussion, as I said, of the people who, in general, were pushing for it. Tim certainly was one of the first ones – Defan (ph), Adrian (ph). At what point I made a rather impassioned statement on why this kind of thing is necessary, because there was a large discussion of why do disadvantaged developed (ph) countries need new GTLDs.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughs) Well, yes.

Alan Greenberg: And I can forward my answer to you. It's a stock answer, and Adrian said, "Well, yes, I guess I see at that level, but why did they (inaudible) ?" You know, and I –

Sebastien Bachollet: I've heard that one before, too.

Alan Greenberg: Well, and it's a valid answer. It's the standard discussion – I'm giving you part of my answer, but it's a standard discussion that anyone in development circles has of why do countries need ICT when their people are going hungry? Why should donor countries put money into technology when they could otherwise be building schools or teaching people how to farm? And these are the standard things that get discussed, and the answers have to do with participating in global economy and infrastructure and all. You know, we know the answers, but these are new answers to many of these people.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, they just haven't thought about along these lines, yes.

Alan Greenberg: And, indeed, even in development circles, these are not givens. The discussion keeps on coming up, and perhaps it should because there's a lot of developing countries that have, indeed, done things for attempt at status and not because of the real prioritization.

Sebastien Bachollet: We know that argument well.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I mean, so – those of us who know it have a history, can, in fact, prove that they are correct, and sometimes if you don't need these kind of things, it's waste of money to throw your money away on new GGLDs, this week is the one. But that doesn't preclude the fact that there are some instances, which (inaudible).

Anyway, so that's going on. I'll forward it with my current feeling. And if anybody, including the people on this particular phone call, will respond saying, "Yes, I agree with you," then I'll put something on the GNSL list.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And just for reference, you did send the first one to the working list so the second one needs to go there.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: The other thing I wanted to mention very quickly is the vertical integration group, which I believe they reopened membership until today, or something like that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

Alan Greenberg: It was used mainly as an opportunity for more registrars to register. We're starting to see on that group something similar to what's happened on Pednar (ph).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right.

Alan Greenberg: There's a huge number of registrars who are getting their two bits worth in. In any case, I have seen more traffic on that list than I have ever seen on any topic in ICANN.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Hm.

Alan Greenberg: Largely, by a small number of people, but who are obviously spending all of their time on this, or a good part of it. I'm not sure what this means to the outcome. Part of it means that it's going to be hard to get two words in edgewise against some of these people or even in support of some of them. And my position has been that, given our small amount of time, we need to make sure that our recommendations address the issues, which must be addressed to preclude failure of some classes of GTLDs, lower case c for classes. And we don't have time to address the general issue. Other people are trying to do a far more generalized issue, and I'm not quite sure where it's going. We've been talking process until now in the meetings, and we'll see what happens at this coming meeting. So that's where we sit.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. Okay, well, that's going to be – I mean, it's good to have been –

Alan Greenberg: If you want to amuse yourself, if nothing else, look at the archives of the list. You will not believe the number of messages that are going back and forth.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Right. All right, well, there's a small action item on all of this to respond when you put out the question – sorry – the update with the friendly amendment. When is the meeting? When are you likely to be putting the –

Alan Greenberg: The meeting itself is on April 1st, tomorrow.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, okay, so we're looking – yeah, okay, so we won't have long before we get to know. Okay, fine.

Alan Greenberg: No, and if you want me to say anything at the meeting or on the list, I need to get something quick.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure, yeah, okay. So we will need to be pretty good here. Okay, good.

Ron?

Sebastien Bachollet: Sorry, I was late, it's Sebastien. It was dinnertime. I just wanted to ask if you discussed how we – as At-Large or ALAC, we get involved in the discussions set up by Bertrand about categorization as a long list of participants and long e-mail exchange the last few weeks.

Alan Greenberg: I think this is people acting on their own. If you're on the list, participate. If you're want to be on the list, I'm sure Bertrand will let you.

Sebastien Bachollet: I am on the list, there is no problem about that. It's the – the question is that do we need to do something specifically because it was, both during the Nairobi meeting, we need to set up specifically something at the ALAC level.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we actually don't need to do it at the ALAC level yet because it's a general sort of discussion list that many ALAC members are on. But what we do need to make sure is that the new GTLD workgroup starts – is plugged into that, and starts feeding both from the workgroup into that discussion list and from the discussion list into the workgroup, issues on the matter of categorization.

Or do you think it needs an ALAC view now?

Sebastien Bachollet: No, I didn't read the e-mails on that subject yet, but I see a lot of (inaudible) spots. I depends on the, I am sure, that if something, it's urgent will be pop up.

Alan Greenberg: Again, there are a small number of people who are very active on that. I would suggest that as – if and as things start coalescing into harder concepts as opposed to people just raising issues – that we echo them or point to them. I don't know if this is archived. It probably is, but I haven't looked. I would just say it's not on an ICANN list.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, it's not. And I don't even get digests from it, which is a bit of a bugger, because I really prefer to read these things in digests.

Alan Greenberg: Most mailing lists have a digest form if you can – I'm just –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, I'd like to – if you could –

Alan Greenberg: I just haven't looked at where it's hosted or what one can do. But I think as things start coalescing, then we can pass ideas back into ALAC, NC (ph), or At-Large, and see what the tones are. Certainly, there have been a number of issues brought out, which I have illuminating that I hadn't thought about.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I wonder if one of you two should own the responsibility to just make sure that anything does come back of great importance or occasional synopsis into the working list. It's not – we don't have a formal relationship because it's not – our relationship is really with our workgroup on new GTLDs, and this is not a formal relationship because it's not an ICANN workgroup. But it might be good to have a sort of a relaxed button if it's in a clear liaison point, or several liaison points.

Alan Greenberg: I would say several. I'm certainly not in a position to say I will try to do a synopsis of what is being said. Right now, anyway-- far too much going on.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, exactly. Well, perhaps, is that something – Carlton, are you on the list as well?

Carlton Samuels: No, I am not on the list. I actually – I was a part of the discussion, but I somehow did not get invited. So I am just (inaudible) by trying to add me to the list.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, maybe it's something that I could put to you through (inaudible) to somehow share between each of you – to just make sure anything that's really important gets picked up and moved across into the working list as well.

Sebastien Bachollet: Well, I would be happy to do that, I mean.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think that's all we need to do at this stage.

Alan Greenberg: I think if any of us see something, which we think merits forwarding to?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Because that way the working list, the – we would expect, with the leader of the working list, in the – sorry – the leader of the working group and members of the working group also on the working list – too many workings in my words here, and I haven't finished my coffee yet, which is serious.

Sebastien Bachollet: We know what you mean.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Then we know we've got that pathway. All right, well, that's sort of an action item at an executive level that everyone but Dave and me will share (laughs). Now, I'm fairly sure my days will become somewhat busy very soon, with the review team, which is why I'm just going to keep a watching brief on that list, rather than an interactive role.

Do you want us to do – to note anything with the vertical integration, Alan, or is it just – ?

Alan Greenberg: No, I was just noting that there's a huge amount of participation, not much of it At-Large, virtually none of it other than I've made a couple of comments.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Who have we got in vertical integration?

Alan Greenberg: Unless someone has come in recently, the only formal At-Large people are me and Siva.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's what I thought. I thought Vanda was interested.

Alan Greenberg: She may well be. I don't think she subscribed. I'm sure she could.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Okay. Well, you might need to let us know if you need alternates at any stage.

Alan Greenberg: Hm. I guess I wouldn't mind if someone else was on the list and, therefore, could participate. The list is going to be closed, I believe, as of today or tomorrow. So there will not be an opportunity (inaudible).

Sebastien Bachollet: Do you have the list, the link? You can put down on now.

Alan Greenberg: Send a note to Glenn (ph).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi?

Heidi Ullrich: Yes?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I just get you to subscribe the personal e-mail addresses of every person on the At-Large Executive to that list, please.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, uh-huh.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, that would work.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Will that help, Alan?

Alan Greenberg: Yup, just sent the message to Glenn. You may want to put a filter in so they don't come directly into your box. There has been a lot of those.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, I've heard that from staff.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, what we might do is just make sure – because it is – that one, you can get digests from.

(cross talk)

(inaudible) if we ask (inaudible) the daily digests on, that would be useful. Because we just want to keep a watching brief and support our sanctioned representatives. And the only other thing is, Heidi, seeing as Vanda is not on the call, she's obviously busy, and I think she indicated she probably would be. You might just remind her that workgroup closes today, so should she wish to join it, we would encourage her to do so.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Or just tell Glenn that she is going to and –

Alan Greenberg: You can always unsubscribe, so –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, yeah.

Heidi Ullrich: (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, I mean the actual workgroup, join the actual workgroup.

Heidi Ullrich: And then I'll let Vanda know that, if she's –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. Just tell Vanda what you're doing in her name, and say "Cheryl said." That will work. And it's on my head, I can live with that.

Alan Greenberg: It's already – I'm not sure exactly the time zone that it was 31st, so it may be approaching the end soon.

Heidi Ullrich: I'll do that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yeah, because it's time-critical, I'm suggesting just to do it, and we can always retract gracefully later. And that's something Glenn should be able to handle.

Alan Greenberg: They do need statements of interest, of course.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Again, that shouldn't be a problem.

Alan Greenberg: Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah. Okay, back to the agenda. We're up to item 6, item for discussion. A fairly important little matter, something called the ALAC Statement on the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. We have convened and held a meeting of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee. That was held – if I can find – I have too many things open – there we are – that was held on –

Heidi Ullrich: Monday.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – the 29th, thank you. It's all a bit of a blur for me for a minute there. And at that meeting, we certainly reiterated the importance of what the framework – we felt that whilst our comments on the framework – the ALAC comments on the framework were undoubtedly going to be at sort of a macro level, and requesting more granularity, greater details yada yada yada, all the things that we said at the meetings we've held up-to-date on the matter.

We did feel that it was important to say that in that comment that we have a fit of regional inputs and that a subcommittee of the At-Large Advisory Committee has met. And its actions in the next 10 to 14 days will be to not prioritize but matrix or find mechanisms to see where there is similarity and where there is variance between the regions and their desires. And that we will then be putting recommendations and endorsements and prioritize suggestions to the ALAC for its specific budget requests as sort of part of a whole of the policy budget world.

That said, it then, I guess, comes to us as to whether or not there's a good reason to attach the actual regional input, and I think there is, that we've got. So that even at this budget framework commentary stage in its unedited and unsanitized form and, certainly, it's unmelded form into hull, at the moment. They are all five self-standing pillars of proposals. That there is an awareness-raising, and that we see that things like the attendance of local and regional meetings in the Internet ecosystem seize into Pillar 4 of the current strategic plan – and things like that.

Is that how you see us putting forward a comment, remembering that we agreed that, as the executive, we would be writing this comment? Or how do you want to proceed?

Alan Greenberg: It sounds reasonable to me, as long as I don't have to write it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we know we've got the AFRALO issue is considerable and quite a high-dollar value, and it may be one of those that needs to be looked at as sort of staged implementation. It's also one of those that needs to be looked at as perhaps looking at partnership opportunities. But I don't think we need to say that to that level of detail at this point. I think we need to say it at that level of detail at the next iteration of the budget. Is that your feeling? Do we just run the regional input at high level? Or do we go with the gory details? Yes, Sebastien, go ahead.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, I would like very much that we take, as a follow-up on the discussion we had at Nairobi, about the strategic planning – what we write there. It was told us that it may be more implementation plays than the strategic planning itself, and we need to take it back into this phase now. And I specifically, I think, the way we try to organize, saying that in the general assembly for each RALO during the next three years, and for the next three years, submit (inaudible) because if we don't keep a big share of what we are trying to do, each region will try to do one thing, and another will try to do something else, and we'll never succeed.

Each one of the reasons I was quite reluctant – oh, I didn't say that, and I – now I am reticent to say that – but it's willing to say that we need to again to have the time to explain to all the ALSs what ICANN is doing for. We do that in 2009, and I am not sure that we need to do that each year. But we need to have that organized – well organized for all the region during one three-year's period and for a summit-type activity for the next three years.

If not, we will not – I am not sure that we will succeed with that, but if we don't do that, we will not succeed, for sure.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Carlton is currently disconnected –

Carlton Samuels: I am back.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: – so I might just –

Carlton Samuels: I am back, I'm back, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh! Perfectly timed. I was just going to ask Sebastien to very briefly reiterate what he was saying while you were away, because I think it's very important. Sebastien, do you mind just – ?

Sebastien Bachollet: Just to say that we need to take what we write, a statement for the strategic planning to the operational planning, especially we try to say that for the next three years we want to have the budget, to have a general assembly for each region at least once during these three years. And for the next three years' periods we want to have one submit of the ALSs organized. And when it was this big picture, it's not – each region will try to do something, and we will fail in doing so.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.

Carlton Samuels: Yes, I would support that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (inaudible) your responses to that but, also, Alan, I think it's important that you have a say on this as well.

Alan Greenberg: Yeah, I'm reluctant to put words at this point saying we want a regional assembly in each of the next three years. Given that this coming year, financially, is going to be rather challenging.

Sebastien Bachollet: Sorry, it's not each three years. It's during the time of the next learning – one general assembly for each region in this period. Does that seem – one for three years.

Alan Greenberg: One per region for three years.

Sebastien Bachollet: One per region for three years, yes.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, so that's, on the average, two per year.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes.

Alan Greenberg: I just think if we don't coach it with words related to the overall financial position of ICANN –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We're getting nowhere.

Alan Greenberg: I think we're not only going to get nowhere, but it's like the position we've taken when people say, "special prices for GTLDs," the answer is "Yes, we understand," but not now and our interpretation is always they don't understand. I don't want people to say we don't understand with regard to overall budget situations.

Carlton Samuels: So the principle bullet that is being enunciated is acceptable. What we have to do is to find a way to level it with the financial (inaudible) –

Alan Greenberg: I think we need to say on the medium to long term, this is what we need to move towards.

Carlton Samuels: Right.

Alan Greenberg: Given the current challenges, we don't know how much of it we can do in this coming fiscal year, but we need to start molding the strategic and operational plans to acknowledge that this is a requirement.

Carlton Samuels: Yes, I think that is reasonable, and that's what I would expect. I don't think Sebastien would disagree with that approach. Sebastien?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we need to ask him. Sebastien, what is your response?

Sebastien Bachollet: I agree with that. It's one of the reasons I say during the next three years, phase 1, general assembly, and it could be, say, that the last five meetings will be with the general assembly, and no one prior (ph), because for (inaudible) it's organized like that. Or it's flexible within these three years. And I just want to take this opportunity to tell you that I have no problem with that and to struggle with that when the decision was made quite quickly to have office in Palo Alto or there is no reason for that. The decision to spend money was taken. And I have no problem to say that officially again, it's contradictory to any decision they can pry up (ph). I can't even (inaudible).

(cross talk)

Alan Greenberg: (inaudible).

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, thank you.

Alan Greenberg: None of us are going to argue on that. By the way, I think if you phrase it of five general assemblies over the next "n" ICANN meetings, whether it's nine or 15, whatever number of years you want –

Sebastien Bachollet: You would get the way –

Alan Greenberg: It sounds a lot more palatable.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That's definitely the way to do it.

Carlton Samuels: I would agree with that approach as well.

Alan Greenberg: Yes. Part of the reason we are where we're are today is because of the office in Palo Alto. Another part of it, and I'm curious to find out how much, but I don't know, is to get the registrars to sign the last RAA last May, we lowered their fees. How much has that impacted the bottom line? I suspect significantly.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now, I'm happy to ask those questions or to raise those points, but do you think it is going to be worthy? Are we going to wrap up a tasty morsel in an unpalatable wrapper?

Alan Greenberg: Oh, I was not suggesting either of those be mentioned in our paper.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, thank you. I mean, if instructed to, I would put it in, but I just think it's –

Carlton Samuels: No, that's a back-channel thing. We don't do that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying that, because I was concerned. I prefer to succeed the necessarily be seen.

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, the point I was trying to make is to what extent have we gotten ourselves into this bind and not simply a result of the economy? I'm not quite sure. I suspect it's larger than we care to admit. But that's not what we put in our document. We may whisper that in people's ears, but that's a different issue.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, no, no, that's good. (inaudible).

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, I can suggest that –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry, Sebastien – to some extent asking for greater granularity, greater specifics, greater reporting details, picks up on some of that. Back to you, Sebastien.

Sebastien Bachollet: May I suggest that I will write something in the next two days and come back to you with it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Nope, sorry, don't want to. Sebastien, that's – sorry, that won't work. It won't work because we need something in public comment on the 1st of April.

Alan Greenberg: Which is tomorrow.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So – Heidi and you and I, can we do this in a wave form, because, to be honest, you know, I really am having time-management issues, and I'm sure Heidi is as well. Heidi and I can start to capture what has been said at the various meetings including here. And if we start a wave from with the EXCOM, can we get your ongoing drafting in a shared Google doc to put something together by tomorrow, during tomorrow's time, all right, so that we can at least put something in within 24 hours. I may be willing to stretch it, we'll put it in a day late. Heidi, you might just need to flag that with Kevin. But to put in something and then start an ALAC vote at the same time.

But I need to have your input in the next 24 hours so that we can get it to the wider ALAC working list input during the 1st of April. That's the only way I can see it.

Alan Greenberg: Twenty-four hours from now is more than halfway through the 1st of April so –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exactly right, and in the second half of the 1st of April, we have to have it to the wider At-Large community – the working list, at least.

Alan Greenberg: I would think if Sebastien is going to get something out, it has be done before he goes to bed today.

Sebastien Bachollet: Today?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If you want to put a few points that Heidi and I can use, because you are not far off your bedtime now, are you, Sebastien?

Sebastien Bachollet: I will do that now, if I am –

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, that would be most helpful for Heidi and I to have a skeleton to start hanging some of the fact (inaudible) in previous conversations that we've recorded off. Will that work for you, Heidi? Sorry, there goes your rest of your day, I suspect.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, that would be fine. Sebastien, I did place the link to the regional input into the site –

Sebastien Bachollet: And the agenda.

Heidi Ullrich: The agenda.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, okay. I now have another call I have to go to, which is extremely distressing. Can I leave you to cover off the matters of the WHOIS report in my absence and get – Heidi, if you don't mind briefing me a little bit later. And because we've had discussions under the white paper in the guise VID SDT – if can get you to also look at how we make changes or how we do the summary analysis, Heidi's got a template up already. I don't believe you change an existing white paper. I think you recognize changes that need to be made to the next level of output. But you don't go back and change the white paper.

Alan Greenberg: What I was going to do when, at one point, when I volunteered for that and have started, is do a set of recommendations to the SIC and Board and, as an appendix, include the summary of the comments and why they were followed or not.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, have you had a chance to look at the summary analysis? Because there is a standard template that is used for these things.

Alan Greenberg: No, I have not looked at that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So what I might do, with your permission, is I will leave the call now. Heidi, if you can just take Carlton and Sebastien and Alan very quickly through that white paper matter so he, particularly Alan, can see where what he's already doing can plug into that easily. Then bring them up to date on the WHOIS report and just draw attention to our needs to look at the At-Large Brussels meeting agenda. I really do apologize, but three meetings all back-to-back, far too closely squeezed. This is going to be an unlikely ability for today's meeting, but there was nothing we could do. There's only so many hours in the day.

Thank you all. I do apologize. So you two vice-chairs can work out who is chairing what when, and I think, Heidi, you can brief me probably in about an hour and a half, maybe two. Okay, thank you, bye.

We'd like to get these – don't forget to give Seth a chance to talk to us because, also, Seth, the only other thing is I'd want your specific, preferably, real dollar-and-cent potential in the not-too-distant future. But some specific things to put into the budget about at-large improvements, because they kept saying we'd be budgeted for. Okay, bye for now.

Sebastien Bachollet: Go ahead, Alan, to chair the meeting. I am not really on good shape. I am quite tired with the time schedule.

Alan Greenberg: Give me a moment, and I will try. But I was actually looking at something else as Cheryl was talking. So, Heidi, to the extent that I forget what she said, tell me what to do. I take orders very well.

Sebastien Bachollet: We have to discuss some (inaudible) of white paper to the common consultation.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. Well, there was also WHOIS, which I think was first. And it says "For information, WHOIS studies have not been budgeted for yet. GNSO is taking up this issue on Thursday," you're talking about tomorrow's meeting, I presume.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, Alan, sorry. This is something that Liz Gaster (ph) just asked whether this might be something that should be raised with the EXCOM and the entire ALAC. It's a document on approximate costs of some WHOIS studies. And, as you noted, this is going to be raised in the GNSO council, and to include into the fiscal year budget. And she was just – including this has some information on whether the ALAC would like to include some – this issue in their budget.

Alan Greenberg: Are they – I had not looked at this document before. Are they including specific studies or including an envelope to be allocated later in the budget cycle or by the GNSO?

Heidi Ullrich: Again, I just got it this morning, but she is mentioning certain specific studies.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. Certainly, the recommendation out of the GNSO meeting in Nairobi, was that we not try to decide on which studies but allocate an overall envelope and decide later. So I don't know quite what this is doing. Certainly, we don't have any opportunity, at this point, to consult with the ALAC before tomorrow.

Let me quickly look at what the resolution is for tomorrow.

Sebastien Bachollet: Where is the link which you are looking for? Because I am not following the discussion on the WHOIS, where it is?

Alan Greenberg: There is a link on our agenda.

Carlton Samuels: If you go to the agenda, Sebastien –

Alan Greenberg: It's towards the bottom of number 6. I'm not quite sure why it's there, but it's there.

Carlton Samuels: It just takes you back to the regular stuff. I'm sure you've seen it already.

Heidi Ullrich: It's there because it had to do with –

Alan Greenberg: The budget, okay.

Heidi Ullrich: I thought that would make it clear.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. Just hold on a second.

Sebastien Bachollet: But you added since the beginning of the meeting.

Alan Greenberg: Ah, okay, I didn't know that. Okay, the agenda tomorrow on who is – it's a presentation tomorrow. It doesn't look like there is any motion on the books to make a decision tomorrow. Because there is no motion proposed at this point.

Heidi Ullrich: Let me –

Alan Greenberg: So it's a discussion tomorrow, it's not a decision point tomorrow.

Carlton Samuels: Their main concern, though, is that they keep on doing these studies without fixing what is the basic fundamental problem. I don't know how many more studies they're going to do for them to get (inaudible) the problem is twofold. The first one is that they don't seem to be willing to enforce the contract, RA contract. And, secondly, the way it's set up now is when they have privacy issues, and they have a way of being (inaudible).

Alan Greenberg: Carlton, you're giving your perception. There are other people who feel otherwise.

Carlton Samuels: They should have another study?

Alan Greenberg: Pardon me?

Carlton Samuels: Well, I am sure there are people who believe that you should have another study.

Alan Greenberg: Well, regardless of what people believe, the previous WHOIS process went on for something like six years and ended in stalemate. There was a strong recommendation from the GAC and a mild recommendation from the GNSO that perhaps we could do better if we actually had some data and some knowledge of some things and not just hypothetical beliefs from various people, which differed radically from each other. And the decision was made to identify what possible studies could be done, and then to look at funding some number of studies to try to give us some hard data for the process.

Whether we agree or not agree, that was a wise thing to do. That is the path we're on right now, and we are not going to see any substantive WHOIS policy being discussed until we get at least some of these studies under our belt and can try to make decisions based on the – whatever these studies turn around. That's political reality. I'm not trying to preach whether it was a smart move or a bad move, but we're not going to turn back the clock on that.

Carlton Samuels: Oh, no, I'm not proposing turn back the clock. I am proposing when you're in a hole and digging and you're not getting anywhere, you stop digging.

Alan Greenberg: Well, a fair number of people have thought that to get some hard data is a way to get out of digging that hole, which isn't going anywhere. Not everyone agrees with that, and for better or worse, that is the path we are on. That was, at least, partially directed by the Board.

So we can revisit it as many times as you want, but that is the path we're on right now. So it looks like at tomorrow's meeting, there is a discussion of where we are and some pricing on things. It does not look like there is no motion on the books to approve any study. There may well be some discussion on how to go forward with it.

Carlton Samuels: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: But that's –

Carlton Samuels: We'll just wait on them then.

Alan Greenberg: At this point, it doesn't look like there's a decision point that we need to be providing (inaudible).

Carlton Samuels: Hmm, this week, it seems like.

Alan Greenberg: Well, we'll see what happens tomorrow and – there is no motion on the books right now for tomorrow, and there needs to be a motion for the GNSO to act on ahead of time – or needs to be a motion ahead of time for the GNSO to act on.

So it does not look like there is any decision that is going to be made out of this tomorrow.

Okay, let me find back where we are. Is there anything else that needs to be done on WHOIS right now?

Heidi Ullrich: No, Alan. That was just for raising the issue for information.

Alan Greenberg: Yup. Now, there was – in the preliminary budget, there was nothing allocated. I am assuming that the final budget that comes out of this will include some allocation. Exactly what the process is to do that, I'm not sure.

Okay, the white paper. Heidi, the analysis that is pointed to by this document – is that the analysis of just the comment that was made by the IPC? Or is that an analysis including all of the At-Large comments on the wiki.

Heidi Ullrich: It is an analysis of just the IPC.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Heidi Ullrich: In fact, as Cheryl mentioned, there is a template for these reports following public consultation. So I filled in everything else except the one paragraph that is needed for the analysis itself. So I've included the background (inaudible) of the IPC comments. The next steps, which, again, Alan, given your earlier comment, maybe we could just have one line of update on that one. And then, also, just some information on the contributor.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. I don't have the presence of mind right now to read this document. It's a few pages long, but I will before the end of the day, if that addresses your need, and I guess I'd appreciate if anyone else does it also.

I don't think – given that the IPC did not say anything substantive about the recommendations we're making to the Board and the SIC, I don't think there – I may have missed some subtle point, but I don't think there is very much in there, which is going to affect the recommendations we are making.

Heidi, you probably re-read the IPC comment more recently than I have. Is that generally what you agree with or not?

Heidi Ullrich: Well, they do come out and say that they do not have any objection to the procedure that's –

Alan Greenberg: Right.

Heidi Ullrich: – made in the white paper, but, again, they do point out this need for clarification of the process. And that may be – the effect it may have might be to slow things down.

Alan Greenberg: Clarification of the process –

Heidi Ullrich: For the impact of this in-principle decision.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, but they raise three points.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes. They raise the issue of the current (inaudible) of the ALAC as an advisory committee.

Carlton Samuels: Yes, the release of the liaison.

Heidi Ullrich: They raise the issue of the composition of the nominating committee.

Carlton Samuels: Right.

Heidi Ullrich: And then, also, the third point is the role of ALAC in the ICANN structure and what impact will this new Board seat have on the integration of ALAC into the ICANN structure.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. The first point, if I remember correctly, was really a question of does this set a precedent?

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, yes, they are asking that.

Alan Greenberg: And that's an interesting question for the Board. The Board may choose to look at – but it does not affect our recommendations.

Carlton Samuels: That's how I read it, too.

Alan Greenberg: In other words, the specifics of how the process should be carried out, the Board might think, "Oh, my God, it might be a precedent, let's back out." The Board might do that. And that would cancel the whole thing. But it doesn't affect the substance of our – there is nothing we can do in our detailed recommendations, which alter the fact that this might be a precedent.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay, so I just put in, again, interesting questions of the Board, however, it does not impact the recommendation –

Alan Greenberg: No, no, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to craft the words in your analysis. I'm just saying I don't believe it's going to have a substantive impact on what we're recommending to the Board.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: That doesn't mean we don't address it in your analysis. Okay.

The second issue is the call position of the NomCom. And, again, that is a decision the Board will have to take. The Board still has before it the external review of the NomCom, among other things. One can counter the specific comments the IPC has made as potentially irrelevant in light of the fact that the GNSO has two counselors and seven seats on the NomCom. And, of course, one can go in the other direction, saying the CCNSO has two seats on the Board and one seat on the NomCom.

So we don't have any consistency whatsoever at all, but it's not clear that, again, this is a decision the Board needs to take. It may impact us in the long term.

Carlton Samuels: I would just point to what the facts are and leave it to that.

Alan Greenberg: Well, no, no. Heidi's analysis cannot rebut what they are saying. All she can do is report.

Carlton Samuels: No, I wouldn't call for a rebuttal.

Alan Greenberg: We may choose to rebut in a different form.

Carlton Samuels: Good.

Alan Greenberg: And, in fact, the NomCom may choose to rebut. And the third point, again, all Heidi can do in her analysis is report, but if you look at the substance, it's questioning, among other things, should the ALAC still have a liaison to the GNSO.

Carlton Samuels: Right.

Alan Greenberg: If, indeed, we are taking on some new role, and the answer is, according to the current by-laws, that's up to the GNSO. The Board doesn't need to approve or disapprove. The liaison to the GNSO used to be a by-law-mandated position. It is no longer. We serve at the full discretion of the GNSO. So, again, I don't think any of the points they are making have any impact on our decisions. That this (inaudible) to the fact that we need to report on them. But I don't think it has a substantive impact on what we are recommending as a result of the white paper process.

Carlton Samuels: So probably are saying that we simply allow IAD to write the report, but simply leaves out some facts with regard to this, and we make a separate response?

Alan Greenberg: Well, what I was suggesting in terms of the white paper follow-on, is I think the document that the At-Large needs to produce is the recommendation to the Board.

Carlton Samuels: Right.

Alan Greenberg: Now, the white paper drafted or proposed some initial recommendations.

Carlton Samuels: Correct.

Alan Greenberg: Some of those may be changed in some level of detail based on the comments that came out in the wiki. At least one of them we changed by ALAC decision.

Carlton Samuels: Right.

Alan Greenberg: That is, for the current instance in a case – the chair as a non-voting position as –

Carlton Samuels: (inaudible). Correct.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, so I think we need to – At-Large and ALAC needs to approve a set of recommendations going to the SIC and the Board, which has to be based on our preliminary recommendations in the white paper as modified by the, you know, largely by the wiki comments and, yes, by the public – to the extent it's relevant. And that was what I had originally recommended to say just because I'm familiar with a lot of the comments, that I will try to write an unbiased analysis. Since half the comments are mine, clearly, I'm not unbiased. And I think this group and then the ALAC needs to refine that. So it's a document that can be owned by the group and send it forward.

Carlton Samuels: All right, fine.

Heidi Ullrich: In terms of this analysis, then, I'll just draft just a few lines, trying to be – you know, again, I can't – I have to absolutely neutral on this. And then, if you could take a look at the entire document including the next steps by today, that would be very useful. So I'm going to try to submit it today so it's still within March rather than flipping over into April.

Alan Greenberg: So you're saying you want to make some modifications, and then you want me to look at it.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, please.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, then let me know when the changes are made, and I'll be glad to do that.

Heidi Ullrich: Thank you.

Alan Greenberg: And in terms of a way forward on the white paper, as I said, I've got a little bit of time over the next couple of days. I will – you know, since – I think we've pretty well – locked in all the details. I'll be glad to draft that, and then, you know, turn it over to the rest of the EXCOM and/or the ALAC, and the group can handle it as you will. I'm happy to draft it, you know, given the chance that I'm likely to be one of the applicants, I certainly don't want my signature on it, and I don't want to be the one who does the final work. But I'll be glad to do the boilerplate because I've – I've been very familiar with the document.

Carlton Samuels: That's fine.

Alan Greenberg: Any other comments on that – Sebastien?

Sebastien Bachollet: No, no. If we can't come back to a second on the budget issue –

Alan Greenberg: Sure.

Sebastien Bachollet: When it's time.

Alan Greenberg: I'm finished on the white paper, and I think Heidi has said what she needs to on her part. So I have no problem to go back to the budget.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, I will put, as last sentence of the comments of ALAC to the strategy planning – it was – Adobe Connect Room because I think what we say – sorry – that's very easy to read.

Alan Greenberg: You may want to do it to the EXCOM Skype, just because that's more permanent than the Adobe Connect Room.

Sebastien Bachollet: It's just to – and maybe it's a little bit better yet, even on the line out, because we – what really used to say about one RALO (inaudible) in a situation by the timeline. It's written, really, like that timeline – it's 2010-2013, we would like to have one AG per region during these three years, and we can say – write it another way, but it's the same idea. We all agree on that. And I don't know what I can write differently.

Alan Greenberg: I would just put it over nine meetings instead of over three years.

Carlton Samuels: Three years, yes, just put it over nine meetings.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, but my reasoning, I agree with Jake, and I agree with you – my reasoning was the way we are working was the strategy planning for three years, and each year is a budget planning. It's why – but then it's three – it's nine meetings, or one –

Alan Greenberg: Just phrasing it that way, I think, makes it more palatable because they can say, "We don't have the money for it this year," but it doesn't force them to refuse the concept.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, great.

Alan Greenberg: It obviously increases – you know, if you were to honor the request, it would increase the amount significantly in one of the following two years.

Carlton Samuels: We'll say nine meetings and/or five meetings of the meetings, it becomes a little bit more.

Alan Greenberg: It delays getting the rejection, which is what I think we need to do right now.

Carlton Samuels: Yes, I think that's a good tactic to adopt.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay, but maybe if we are doing that way, might I suggest that we say that we – because it will be even easier to say it – that we would like to have for the next 10 meetings, five regional (inaudible).

Alan Greenberg: Or you can even say three years and then bracket nine meeting or 10 meetings or whatever it is.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. I'll try to write something and send it – it's there (inaudible).

Carlton Samuels: (inaudible) on the EXCOM chat, so you just want to change it.

Alan Greenberg: I just don't want to make it too easy for them to say five meetings, three years – that means at least one next year. We don't have the money, go away.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.

Carlton Samuels: Give them something to think about, I agree.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: And we hopefully beat – as timing comes closer, we can add more substance to what kind of deliverables will come out of it, why it's important, and I think dealing with the global outreach people over the next year or so should give us the ability to do that in a much more effective way. So in my mind, the crucial thing is not to – is to not get it and have it rejected immediately.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: All right, the next item is the At-Large Brussels meeting agenda.

Heidi Ullrich: Yes, given that we have a very limited time between Nairobi and Brussels, we have already, as was seen by the travel list, we are moving ahead already. We have also created the Brussels At-Large meetings wiki, which is linked to the agenda. It is truly hard to believe we are already doing this – just back from Nairobi. And we've put in, again, placeholders for the regular meetings. We have already placed an agenda item into the ALAC and regional leadership working session, and those will be some parallel sessions of the working groups dealing with the At-Large improvements.

And we have already put in a meeting on Thursday, early afternoon – an At-Large registrars' meeting. And Cheryl and I have been working with Tim, and, I believe, Mason Cole (ph), on that meeting. And we also have put in the RALO meetings of those RALOs that have meetings scheduled – normally scheduled the week prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting.

Alan Greenberg: I guess my only words at this point, and I haven't done any detailed thinking, is Nairobi ended up being a piece of cake because there were so few other substantive things that were being discussed other than one-on-one group meetings and the open meetings. I think to make up for the lack of those in Nairobi, Brussels is going to be an exceedingly busy meeting. And I don't know to what extent we can do this, but in our planning of our own working meetings, I think we're going to have to be very careful to make sure that we have schedules that we can try to keep to. And to the extent possible, that we actually initiate discussions ahead of time, whether it's at previous ALAC meetings or online.

We just can't afford to – I don't think there's going to be any opportunity for scheduling the extra meetings, is what I'm saying – on the fly. And, therefore, we just can't afford to take a two-hour meeting and have it devoted to what was a 15-minute topic.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, and we will (inaudible) in our thinking that it's the so-called Brussels meeting, it's organized by the European Commission with this (inaudible) that you registry. It's not a national organization. It's an international organization, and that may change something in the meeting itself. I don't know what today, but I want just to put that in your head to think about.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. I'm not sure what it means, either, so –

Sebastien Bachollet: I can tell you that there are some discussion I am not part of, and I don't know what will happen with it, but you remember two or three meetings ahead, where business track setup during a meeting. And it seems that there are some wishes to organize something, either eye-level track, eye-level, yeah, group track. So we'll allow some politicians from different European countries and other countries, that are heavily (inaudible).

Alan Greenberg: Well, that's just going to make it even worse. So –

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, but it's why I am taking your point and just putting more. Yes, you're right.

Alan Greenberg: (laughs) Is there anything we need to or can discuss at this point?

Heidi Ullrich: I wanted to just highlight that we are starting to make these plans, and that the issue will be on all of the April RALO calls. But, again, given that we really are now starting to move ahead on this, that it really needs to be on the ALAC agenda for April as well.

Alan Greenberg: I certainly have no problem with it. Our meetings, at the very end of the month, and therefore that sounds like it's an opportunity for an input from the RALOs, preferably written ahead of time, not verbal.

Heidi Ullrich: Okay, I'm making that an action item.

Alan Greenberg: Certainly, the – I don't know exactly when the RALO meetings are. I don't have them on my calendar, but to the extent that we can get input into that, that we will have seen for a few days ahead of time, I think we maybe use our time more effectively.

Heidi Ullrich: Yeah, all the RALOs will have meetings prior to the 27th April meeting so that, yeah, there we'll be able to provide (inaudible).

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Heidi Ullrich: I'll make that an action item.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you. Let's see, the next item was Vanda on the next Board meeting. Do we, indeed, have an agenda for the next Board meeting? Let me check. I am stuck. I can't get to it. There is no agenda published yet. The next Board meeting is a special meeting on the 22nd of April. And at least in a public place, there is no agenda posted yet.

Heidi Ullrich: The special Board meeting, you noted, though?

Carlton Samuels: Yes. So there must be something that is already broached to be the item under discussion – it's a special meeting for –

Alan Greenberg: I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and check. It may well be that any meeting that doesn't happen at an ICANN meeting is deemed to be a special Board meeting, I'm not sure.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, it is.

Carlton Samuels: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: Because – the ones at ICANN meetings, I think, are deemed to be regular meetings of the Board of Directors.

Carlton Samuels: Hm. Okay, well, (inaudible).

Alan Greenberg: But, in any case, there is no agenda published at this point, so – unless Vanda has some information she can share with us, I don't think we have anything to discuss on it. And that brings us to the end of the agenda unless there's any other business.

Hearing none, I call this meeting to a close.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.

Carlton Samuels: Okay.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, and, Heidi, when you get the revised version of that public comment summary, let me see it, and I'll get it back to you quickly.

Heidi Ullrich: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Alan Greenberg: Okay.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Heidi. Take care.

Alan Greenberg: Thank you all, bye-bye.