ESADT Adobe Connect Chat Transcript

  Gisella Gruber-White:Welcome to the ESADT Meeting on Monday 08 October 2012 at 1300 UTC
  Gisella Gruber-White:Agenda: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4_fuBQ
  Tijani BEN JEMAA:Hi Gisella
  Tijani BEN JEMAA:Is the audio facility working on Adobe connect?
  Silvia Vivanco:Good morning everyone
  Eduardo diaz:Hola a todos!
  Silvia Vivanco:Hola Eduardo!
  avri:just listeinign at the moment.
  Tijani BEN JEMAA:Ok, it works now
  avri:icant beleive elections are secondary
  avri:i thought the name was appropriate
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:my connection  to Internet is  slow  today so there seerms to be a delay in tick  or hand up  showi g  so assume  agree  UNLESS  I type here...
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Wiki  format is indeed a mystery  sometimes
  Gisella Gruber-White:Alan and Avri have joined the audio bridge
  Gisella Gruber-White:Hong Xue has also joined the Adobe Connect. Hong, can you hear us through the AC room?
  avri:i am not a member of this group, but i think it is an error to make the election of the chair secondary to some sort of consensus
  avri:it guarantees status quo domination
  avri:another mistake
  Hong Xue:cannot hear anything though.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the 2 years  is from the ALAC Review  and NOT  the DT's choice
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we need tioi agree to disagree on this @Avri
  Eduardo diaz:Where is 2..1.10
  avri:CLO: we don't need to agree on even that.  we merely need to disagree.  to agree to disagree is a way of telling me that my view doesn't count and should not be brought up again
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Yjro  noted it  was mislabeled  as 2..1.11 Eduardo
  avri:the englis misreads.  
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Avri  your intrpretation of my words  is not my intent but ... regardless the 2 years  for Chair was not an option  for this team it was a given from the ALAC  Review process
  avri:CLO: of course it is an opition.  
  avri:CLO: it is not a Board command and if the AAC from a bottom up perspective were to have decided it was wrong, then they should have informed the Board and said no.  the Board serves the community, not the other way around
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:a casual vacancy was accounted  for as @Alan indicated  I thought
  avri:Am I correct in assuming that all of this is going to be subject to full community review before being set in stone?
  Carlton Samuels:@Replacement of Selected/Elected Representative. I Agree with Yaovi we should have a minimum period.  I would say 6 months!
  avri:Alan, much of the langauge throughout the document is ambiguous
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:remebering that the Community  in this case is the ALAC istself  @Avri  the community input ( in terms of At-Lagre / not 'just ALAC'  has happened throughout  these DT deliberations  
  avri:CLO: this DT, like all Dts, is only a small self selected relatively closed group.  it is not representative of AL
  avri:CLO: let alone the entire community.  So you are saying this will not be subjected to full ICANN community review?  That would be outrageous!
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the  ROP - WG  is an accumulation of ALL the DT's  and that  committee of the whole  goes through the base drafting  for all the rules  thus our  regular  cross DT  meetings  and w'shops  at ICANN Meetings
  avri:CLO; if i had not worked very hard to find out about thse meetings and which of the letter salds was doing what, I would have had no view.  and i am not only a volunteer in AL, but i am on the board on one of the ALSs that has not been consulted at all.  ever. about this stuff.
  Carlton Samuels:@Yaovi: The mechanisms of the election requires almost 2  months. Which is why it would only make sense is there is a minimum OF THE PERIOD LEFT!
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ALAC  makes the Rules  for ALAC  
  avri:CLO: so ALAC is independent of AL and the rest of the ICANN community?
  avri:CLO: I think perhaps ALAC take a bit too much upon itself
  Carlton Samuels:@Tijani: The ALAC would never be without a 'c'hair; the Vice Chairs can do the job
  Carlton Samuels:@ALan on the role of 'c'hair: +1
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ALAC  has always  from Interim ALAC  and  to the  current  versions  of its Rules  has always  only "done its  Procedure rules internally ...   This review of ROP's  has involved wider community  through the Regionals and RALOs inout into the ROP Review WG  and additionally via these DT's
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:so this review has greater input than ever before
  avri:CLO: now that is something that most be fixed.  ALAC has no business doing things without full community comment.  I have a new cause!
  avri:And ALAC is abusing its power if it does not constantly go out to the RALOs and they don't constantly go out to the ALS.   This DT is a small self slected group, it is not the community.
  Eduardo diaz:@avri: I think that all this work is open to anyone that wants to comment as everything has been published and available for anybody to see
  Eduardo diaz:and comment
  Carlton Samuels:@2.3.2:  That 'sooner if warranted'  is problematic.  Especially if the question isfor a 'C'hair!  We don't want a palace coup instigated under these circumstances.
  Carlton Samuels:Which is why my original call for 6 months - I am counting the entire timeline of the process - for this!
  avri:Eduaro: that is not the ICANn process of community comment.  ALAC has no bunsiness make these sorts of procedural changes without full community comment and full consideration of the communiy's comment.  Otherwise we are in a funny situation where ALAC thinks it can commen t on anything, but somehow holds itself a sacred and above the community it is supposed to serve.  as for ths being open, it is hidden and only open to someone who is stubborn enough to find it and ask permision to attend.
  Carlton Samuels:The 'normal' timeline that is!
  Eduardo diaz:@avri: By full community, do you mean the At-Large or ICANN a as whole?
  avri:I mean both.  But yes the whole community.  Just as every other group puts out changes in process for full community comment, so too should ALAC.  Do you really mean to say these are going to be reviewed only by ALAC and then made rule?  That is most unfortunate.  As for ALAC consulting the ALS, as far as i can tell it never happens.
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri:  There are 10 ALAC members directly elected by the ALS!
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:@Avri please note  ICANN Bylaws  on this  Artlicle XI  on all Advisory Committees  Section 3.
  avri:Carlton, that is beside the point.  Other group have members (s) elcted by their communities, nonetheless their recommendation are put ouyt for community review.  that is the way ICANn works
  Carlton Samuels:At a mimimum, we surely must accept that their procedures involve talking to and listening to their constituents from time to time.
  Gisella Gruber-White:Yaovi disconnected - we are calling him back
  Yaovi Atohoun:Please my phone line is disconnected. Following with my speaker while waiting tobe reconnected
  Gisella Gruber-White:Roosevelt disconnected - his phone is now not answering
  Gisella Gruber-White:Yaovi is back
  Gisella Gruber-White:Cheryl disconnected - we are calling her back!
  Yaovi Atohoun:I am reconnected. Thanks
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri: I'm not at all against your idea of input from the larger ICANN community on procedural changes. What I'm correcting is the notion that ALS are not consulted on ALAC procedural changes since that is a built-in process
  Roosevelt King:OK following from here
  avri:i have never seen anything in XI that relieves ALAC of the burden of full community review.  I also see an obligation for fuyll 2 way communitation with the larger AL comunity.  And as I said as a Board member of one of the ALss I have NEVER seen such 2 way communication. Nor information outreach as required in XI.
  Gisella Gruber-White:Roosevelt and Cheryl are back
  avri:CLO: were all ALS informed of the opportunity to particpate in this DT?  Was there an opne call for membership that made it to far reaches of AL?
  Gisella Gruber-White:Please state your names!
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes  a call went  out  for both the Review WG  and the DT  sub parts
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:to Regional Lists  Announce  etc.,
  avri:CLO: well i watch fairly closely and did not see them.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:also  was discussed  at at least 2 different  ICANn F2F Meetings  during ALAC  and Regional Leadership Meetings
  Roosevelt King:It means that members would be voting directly for a chair.
  avri:CLO: and still that is not substitute for full community review of what a drafting team drafts.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yes  that wording of Tijani  seem  fine to me
  Roosevelt King:The member should be replaced from the region but members should have the right to vote for any member after filling the vacancy.
  Gisella Gruber-White:To ALL  - PLEASE state your name - we will have a string of: "man" ... "man" ... not very useful
  Eduardo diaz:So the result of 2.3.6 is that most probable we end up with 6 Leadership Team Members? Is this correct?
  Roosevelt King:Is the chair elected by region or the person?
  avri:CLO: that is not outreach to the ALS, you whole reason for existing at all.  If the AL and ALAC do not serve the ALS, then what is the basis of their authority?
  avri:CLO: and as for this group, even though i discovered it months ago and asked to particpate, i am still only an observer and not a member.  So much for openess.
  Carlton Samuels:@Roosevelt: So the the leadership team has geographic balance, election of the Chair prompts the decisions on where other members of the leadership team must be drawn.
  avri:CLO; which means that when i disagree it is not relavant, only fodder for A2D, as opposed to an indicv=ation that we dont have consensus.
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri: So far as I know, every ALAC WG is open to every [self-identified] At-Large member.  This usually means you show up, you participate as a member in good standing. At this stage your voice is as valuable as every other person.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I refer you back to the Bylaws  on AC  procedures  @Avri  I can't  do more than tnat at this stage   ALAC  has done more to involve  Regions  and At-Large more than it wa srequired to that is my main point on this matter at this stage
  avri:Carlton: not really my expereince.  i perceive tight group that can be observed but not really particpated with.
  Roosevelt King:what would be the nature of the consultation?
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Carlton  yes  the DT's  have always been open   the parent  WG is also open  as well as having a minimum  of Regional and RALO appointments  for balance
  avri:CLO: i have read them, and in fact just reread them now.  they do releive you of the need to include the ALS and the community at large.  I see no way to interpret them that way.
  avri:... do not releive you ...
  Carlton Samuels:There are times that there is a request to designate 'official' rregional representatives.  But that is notto preclule others, justto ensure that given the vagaries of volunteer work, it is a method to ensure 'broad' participation in the grunt work
  Roosevelt King:The problem with trying to avoid the details, is that it leads to multiple interpretations and hence confusion.
  Roosevelt King:For example, what is the procedure for consultation?
  Roosevelt King:It's too wide open.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:3.2 must  match the words in the ICANN ByLaws
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yes  @ Yaovi
  avri:Consulting with the ALSs should not be up to the RALOs.  How they do it, yes.  That they do it, no!
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri: The RALO IS constituted of ALS.  It is the ONLY reason for it to exist!
  avri:Calrton: unless they consult with them in all things, then that is just symbolic.
  avri:And unless everything we do do in the ALAC bubble is reviewed by them, then what we do is imperial.
  Roosevelt King:I agree with Carlton. However, my concern is the lack of definition for consultation. There should be an established procedure or process for consultation.
  avri:of course i am only looking into this bubble, and so forgive me my presumption to think i can speak of what it should or should not do.  I am just shocked and somewhat outraged by the attitude I am seeing to community review of the work being done.
  avri:i see the ALAC putting note out about how the CoI in other SOAC is wrong, yet it falls into the same sins.
  avri:I see the ALAC telling other groups how they shold reoranize, yet deciding that no one has a right to comment on it reorganizes.
  avri:the double stndards are starting to be blinding.
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri: The MOU is signed between ICANN and the ALS, not the RALO.  That is the significant point
  Roosevelt King:Avri, please make your specific contribution
  Roosevelt King:rather than all over the place
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes  I do not  see the need to the serios  in the sentence
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Dropped again
  avri:Roosevelt: We lare ong past the specific point that bothered me (i was admnished to agree 2 disagree - A2D, i.e 'hush now and be still') . now my issue is that all of this work must be reviewed by the entire community before being voted on by ALAC.
  Roosevelt King:wometimes you can make contributions at other points that could address the situation or even cause the point to be revisited.
  Roosevelt King:sometimes
  Carlton Samuels:@Tijani: I don't disagree at all re better communication!
  avri:Roosevelt: of course, thanks for the advice.  beleive me, i will persist in working on my issue anywhere and everywhere.
  Roosevelt King:I do the same
  Roosevelt King:a little at a time. I think the rules are not clear enough but have to keep the heat on that score.
  Carlton Samuels:I also FULLY agree that the qualities & attrributes of the presumed nominee to NomCom will be aired before the vote, preferably at the call for nomination
  avri:my issue is that small groups should not be making the rules without full community review.
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri: I can sign on to that, not a problem!
  avri:i do not think the ALAC shold be able to go beyind the nominees of the ALS via the RALO
  Roosevelt King:not sure that who makes the rules is as important as ensuring that the rules are clear.
  avri:I do not thik the old ALAC should elect the chair of the new ALAC.
  Eduardo diaz:@avri,@Carlton: me too.
  avri:yet all these things are declared consensus.
  Roosevelt King:agree with you avri
  avri:i am not part of that consensus.
  Eduardo diaz:Adios
  Carlton Samuels:@Roosevelt: Clarity yes.But guard against  a 'nickel & dime' approach!
  avri:so we have ALAC with yet another defintion of what consensus means.
  Roosevelt King:well, you declared that youare not a member so consensus cannot include you.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thanks Yrjo and Yaovi  ther will be a LITTLE  time in Toronto  yes
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes  recall  rule  we can use precedence  to assist  drafting  text
  avri:i was never allowed into the group.
  avri:i was only allowed to be an observer.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Groups  are OPEN
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:who ever gave you  'Only Observer"
  avri:and yet i do not count when speaking on consensus.
  Carlton Samuels:Avri: You in the group!  I will challenge ANYONE who says otherwise!!
  Alan Greenberg:As I understand it ,Consensus is not a synonym for unanimity.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we have people dropping in and out of all the groups  throughout the whole process so far
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Correct Alan  
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I know  Full Concensus  does  equal it in some  definitions  used in ICANN of course
  Carlton Samuels:@Alan: Very true.  I unbderstand that my view will sometimes not be carried thru
  Alan Greenberg:All of us get heartburn over SOME of the decission of the groups. I certainly do. But you acn't winn every point if we are to move forward.
  Silvia Vivanco:Thank you all bye bye
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but then there is  FULL Concensus   & Consencuc  terms  listed
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Should read Consensus
  Roosevelt King:therenis need for definiung consultation????
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:if  so then it can be outlined in an Annex  not  enshrined  in a Rule  (In My View)  @ Roosevelt
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK  Bye  for now then
  Roosevelt King:does not matter, so long as it is defined