ROP DMDT 2012-07-24 Transcript

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Note: The following is the output resulting from transcribing an audio file into a word/text document. Although

the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages

and grammatical corrections. It is posted as an aid to the original audio file, but should not be treated as an

authoritative record.

Gisella Gruber: Welcome to everyone on today’s UTN Metric’s Drafting Team on Tuesday, the 24th of July. We have Yaovi Atohoun, Eduardo Diaz, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Holly Raiche, Alan Greenberg, Fatima Cambronero, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Tijani Ben Jemaa. Apologies noted from Sergio Salinas Porto and Sandra Hoferichter. From staff we myself Gisella Gruber, and if I could also please remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes. Thank you, over to you Alan.

Alan Greenberg: Thank you very much. In a prep call Eduardo and I discussed it and I’ll be chairing the meeting for today. You’ll remember for those I think everyone was in Prague, that Eduardo chaired the get together we had in Prague, and this will be a follow on from that.

The agenda is essentially to continue the work of Prague and at that point we were working to a large extent on the concept of the executive committee, how it gets creating, including the Chair and a number of things related to that. I’m sorry; my voice is a little bit rough today. And following on that assuming we finish that during this meeting, and hopefully we will, we’ll start going over the overall list of duties and responsibilities of the various players in this At-Large game. Are there any questions about what we’re going to be doing, before we kick off and actually start it? No hands, no one calling out.

All right, one of the things that became obvious in Prague, and became more obvious as we started doing some prep work for this meeting is that the four groups sound like they’re divided into four separate sections, but there is a non-trivial overlap between them. So to what extent we’re going to be doing things that perhaps the definitions group will also be doing is not clear. I think it’s going to take some skill to meld all of the pieces together, as each of the group starts producing something. Because it looks like there is a significant overlap,

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 2 of 34

and as you’ll see, it’s very hard to talk about the duties of the ExCom, without talking about what it is, and that’s just an example.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, Cheryl here.

Alan Greenberg: Yes. Go ahead Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: One of the advantages of having Holly on your team here as well as holding the team in the definitions would be to minimize that.

Alan Greenberg: I’m hoping so and I plan to participate to the extent possible in those groups as well, and several of us are. I’m just pointing out that there is significant overlap and we’re going to have to be careful as we go forward on that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure.

Alan Greenberg: All right, I think we can jump right in then and Gisella, if you could pull up the first of the two comments that I made the longer extensive one in the Wiki, if you can put that into the shared area, that might be helpful. Or those of you with enough screen space, if you can pull it up yourself, I’ll put…

Female: It’s scrolling off of your screen.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 3 of 34

Alan Greenberg: Sorry?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, he is.

Alan Greenberg: I am scrolling off with my screen, I am. I fully…

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He’s floating, he’s definitely floating.

Alan Greenberg: I’ve been working on this for years to get to this point.

[background conversation]

Alan Greenberg: Well, I’m not sure yet if it’s a time saver or a pain in the butt. I’ve yet to figure that out. In any case, I put the URL there in the chat.

Gisella Gruber: It will be up in the next couple of minutes, thank you.

Holly Raiche: Okay, Alan I opened the URL, maybe close the URL and work on one of those screens.

Alan Greenberg: I’m sorry, say that again, Holly.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 4 of 34

Holly Raiche: I just was going to the URL which you have put in the chat room, but is that what Gisella is putting up in the…

Alan Greenberg: That is what Gisella is putting up. Perhaps it is slightly different format, but the same words.

Holly Raiche: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks.

Alan Greenberg: And there it is to the extent that you can read it.

Female: And that’s when you hit all three, Alan.

Alan Greenberg: I can read it on mine.

Female: I bet you can.

Alan Greenberg: To the extent possible I’d like to not revisit things we’ve already decided before, but obviously if there’s a different group of people here, and I’m not sure to what extent there are, we may have to reopen some things.

In Prague one of the things that we talked about is the names of the officers and things like that. Since we’re looking at ExCom with five people, right now

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 5 of 34

we’re using, one of them has the term “rapporteur”, which I think we universally decided to get rid of and one is unnamed in terms of position.

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m assuming there’s a Chair, two Vice-Chairs and two other officers without specific other title, that can be changed and I don’t think we need to have that discussion in this group right now, but that’s the assumption just so the words can be fabricated for the rest of it. You’ll see that there is some logic to it, and it’s what I’m recommending, but I’m not presuming that the outcome.

In terms of the ExCom, if you go back to the origins of the ExCom and there’s a link to it in this document, you’ll see that the ExCom was created essentially as the Chair plus the officers that were defined at that time, two Vice Chairs and rapporteur and then at Cheryl’s wise request at the time Cheryl was Chair, we added a person so that we would have a regional balance on the ExCom. We never had a provision for how we made sure the Vice Chairs and rapporteur and Chairs were all from different regions, but miraculously each year it worked out.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There’s a lot of work behind the scene.

Alan Greenberg: I think the rules have to be a little bit more detailed, but not a lot. Go ahead, someone is trying to talk?

Holly Raiche: Yes, it’s Holly for the transcript, do you want a statement it would probably be the definition rather than the duties. It is desirable that the executive members, all members of the Executive Committee come from different regions or something like that…

Alan Greenberg: No, I think we’re saying it’s mandatory.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 6 of 34

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, [not just] desirable, is necessary.

Alan Greenberg: And the rules – later on in our proposal, I am going to propose a methodology for doing this; or not I, but we so I think we’ve covered that, we will have covered that, but in terms of the definition, yes, mandatory. I don’t think we could live with three people from North America and two from Europe, I don’t think that would quite be acceptable for the rest of the world, and for a very good reason.

Holly Raiche: Then in the definition, we are we not saying, one member from each region and then are we leaving it up to the ExCom as to an elect their own Chair and Vice Chairs?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Probably not.

Alan Greenberg: That is not what we’re going to propose. Why don’t you hold the questions, I think we’re going to be covering a fair amount of that.

Holly Raiche: I will, okay.

Alan Greenberg: Now, going back – oh, Tijani you have your hand up, sorry go ahead.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 7 of 34

Tijani Ben Jemaa: This is [wrong]. What I wanted to say is that as for the name of the Executive Committee, it is an Executive Committee of a Committee, of an advisory committee. I think we need to change this to make it more relevant and we cannot have a committee of a committee. This is the first point, and it is not important (inaudible).

The second point, I think that there is a large agreement about the fact that the ExCom must be regionally balanced, so five persons. Second there is also a large agreement about the [person who will] replace the Chair in case of absence or in any other case; and if we joined this, married this with what Jean-Jacques brought in Prague we can have three people in charge of three big issues, or three big [topics].

So I think we can find something like this. At all should have, I don’t know why have – have different level of members. I’m sure we need a Vice Chair, but why we would need three Vice Chairs, two Vice Chairs, I don’t know. Sure, we need the ExCom to be effective and to work on contracts to be in charge of something. This is very important, because if you are on the ExCom you have to get the responsibility. Thank you.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you Tijani. Let me explain why what I posted I left two Vice Chairs. First of all if you look at the models that are used in other parts of ICANN, the Board had one Vice Chair, the GNSO has two, the GAC has a variable number depending on each year, typically two or three Vice Chairs. And typically things are assigned to these people. So I think experience has shown and Cheryl and Olivier are in a better position to comment than I am that I think if we had only one Vice Chair the last few years, things would have been much tighter. There are enough things that are delegated specifically to a Vice Chair that I think that would have made things more difficult.

Now in the future if we do more delegation that may be less the case, but I wouldn’t want to change that at the moment, there is certainly precedent in other parts of ICANN for having at least two, and I would suggest keeping it but again

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 8 of 34

the past Chairs may have more to say on that. In terms of four Vice-Chairs I think that would look like overkill to the rest of the world, it is almost a third of the ICANN – of the ALAC or Chairs or Vice Chairs. So I think that’s a bit excessive.

Let me comment on the other things you said, and then we’ll go to anyone else, we have some hands up. In terms of a committee in committee, I think it’s – definitions can come up with a new title for the Executive Committee. I have no real interest in worrying about the name. Perhaps changing the name is a good thing in any case, and in terms of assigning responsibilities to Jean-Jacques, as Jean-Jacques said I have it covered in one of the other bullets and let’s defer that discussion until then. Yaovi.

Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you very much. I want to make [the comment that I agree that we need to]…

Alan Greenberg: Yaovi, can you speak up, you’re very hard to hear?

Yaovi Atohoun: Okay, can you hear me now?

Alan Greenberg: Yes.

Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. So I would say that I agree that the [main point] should be [related to the order] of the Vice Chair, but putting this in the – it is very difficult in the document to say which has the responsibility. So I have an idea, I don’t know if it’s going to work. [I don’t know if we can make the Vice Chair], suggest him to maybe attempt to push it to three years’ [period] between the Vice Chair

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 9 of 34

position rotating between the regions. So we have the Chair, have two Vice Chairs, we can have the positions rotating between the [order of members]. So it’s something I want to suggest we think about.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, sorry, did you say three years?

Yaovi Atohoun: We are – in the document we are [suggesting] that it be two years for the Chair.

Alan Greenberg: Correct.

Yaovi Atohoun: If the Vice Chairs are for one year, maybe it might be [wise] to have more Three more for the other members. The other members would be Vice Chair for three months, not actually month, the year. [The idea would be] just to replace the Chair when he’s not, to play the role of the Chair when he’s not available. So anyone of many people can play the role of the Chair, so making it rotate is my suggestion.

Alan Greenberg: Perhaps we can defer that discussion until we’ve covered responsibilities, because in my mind, the role of the Vice Chair is much larger than just to replace to the Chair when they’re not available.

Yaovi Atohoun: I agree, I agree.

Alan Greenberg: All right, but the idea is that it…

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 10 of 34

Yaovi Atohoun: It was just an idea.

Alan Greenberg: Well, again if we could defer it because I do talk about that, and I’d prefer to try to go through this in order instead of dealing with the subjects on an ad hoc basis, if that’s okay with you.

Yaovi Atohoun: Okay, agreed.

Alan Greenberg: If we look at the original documents for the ExCom, we said the ExCom will be made up of originally it was four and then five people to balance the regions and that the group would have no specific functions and if they had any decisions, if any emergency decisions were taken, that they would have to be ratified by the ALAC. Experience has shown two things. Number one; I don’t think the ExCom has ever taken a decision that needed to be ratified. Number two, it has taken many, many, many small and potentially inconsequential decisions. And as it has turned out, the ExCom has not really been a decision body but has been an advisory body to the chair, and the kind of decisions the ExCom has made over the years are things like should we have a comment on a specific subject, should we respond to an ICANN comment period, how should we structure the meetings, should we have a webinar on something.

So it made things that are technically decisions, they are not decisions that are irreversible and they’re not decisions that – I don’t think anyone would feel there a whole 15-person ALAC should be deliberating and considering these things. So there’s many, many decisions, but they’re all effectively decisions of the Chair, and they’re advised by the ALAC. And so I’m suggesting that we change the definition of the ALAC to be an advisory body to the Chair and keep the rule that if the Chair and the ALAC together make any major decisions, they

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 11 of 34

have to be ratified, but I don’t think the view as I’ve watched the ALAC for what five years now, is that it actually makes decisions. It really is a discussion group for the convenience of the Chair.

Carlton Samuels: That is what it is, this is what it’s turned out to be, and that’s why I’ve always supported it.

Alan Greenberg: Olivier and Cheryl, any comments on that? I mean that’s my perception from the sidelines.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl here Alan. Other than for the record, every time you said ALAC in the last three minutes, you mean ExCom.

Alan Greenberg: Sorry. [Laughter]

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But that’s all right, that’s just tying up the record. Yes, I do see it as that but I’m not keen on the descriptive language of advising the Chair. I’m kind of more in the leadership team language than I am advising the Chair, only because I think we’ll end up vesting too much power in the Chair. And we’ve got them from two years from now on.

Alan Greenberg: Do we want to use more terms like collaborative instead of advising.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 12 of 34

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I think you know – yes, language that is along those lines I think might make me feel a little more comfortable.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you Cheryl, before we go to the speaker list, Olivier, any wisdom to add to that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Alan, it’s Olivier here. I agree also that bringing too much power to the Chair might not be a good thing. Certainly, what I do like in their support the ALAC Chair and the overall management of the ExCom collaborates with the Chair or something that is slight softer than advises the Chair.

Alan Greenberg: I presume our minute takers are noting the word “collaborates”.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Collaborates, yes.

Female: Alan, weren’t you the note taker?

Alan Greenberg: I think we have several at this point, so I think we’re okay. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you Alan. I think that the Chair can delegate what he wants to any number of the ExCom. It’s not compulsory that the one to whom he can delegate as the Vice Chair. So this is not I think a valid reason to keep two Vice Chairs or three Vice Chairs or five Vice Chairs.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 13 of 34

The second point I don’t think we would agree that the role of the ExCom, otherwise [it is] a committee of a committee and [it is better]. So no it is not only advisory as Cheryl and Olivier said. I think that if we assigned a committee to monitor the ExCom it will be much easier for the Chair to have things shared the ExCom numbers and to have the work done by different people other than on people to do by self, if you mean that you cannot delegate to other people than the Vice Chair, thank you.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you and Carlton?

Carlton Samuels: Thank you Alan, this is Carlton Samuels for the record. Two things; I totally agree with Cheryl that it’s not a role that advises, I would want to say a leadership team that supports the management of the business of the ALAC. To me it’s important to say it is about the management of the business of the ALAC, that the team supports and without those two things, is the Chair, it’s the management of the leadership team and the management and support of the ALAC. That’s one.

I don’t think we should make it that if it is Vice Chairs who must be delegated duty. Quite frankly, I agree with Tijani on this that you can delegate, you should be able to delegate to anyone including people not on the ALAC. And that has been done very often. Alan yourself, this is one shining example, you’re delegated a lot of tasks on the ALAC, and you are not a formal member of the ALAC. So this I think not of the ExCom or the ALAC, the ExCom of the ExCom. I’m a member of the ExCom. So I think it’s important. That is what I want to make.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, thank you.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 14 of 34

Carlton Samuels: You don’t have to be on the ALAC.

Alan Greenberg: I’ll note that what is in the Wiki no one is suggesting that things only be delegated to the Vice Chairs or in fact only to ALAC members. I don’t believe that – that suggestion was not made and I whole heartedly agree with everybody that delegation should be made based on skill and interest and in any given set of officers that share the Vice Chairs the others, you know regardless of what the counts are of each of them, are going to have their own specific interests and skills, and I think we need to be flexible so delegations are made to people who are actually interested in doing something, and are likely to do a good job of it. So that’s one.

One of the reasons, and this goes back to one of Tijani’s original comments, one of the reasons I kept two Vice Chairs and the exact number doesn’t really matter, and some nonspecific officers is the expectation I think of a Vice Chair is a larger commitment in time than one of the unnamed officers, and accepting the position of Vice Chair implicitly means you are accepting a larger commitment to serve the ALAC than one of the other officer positions.

And if I think back to the discussions that have been had over the last couple of years, there have been people who have back on the ExCom and currently are sitting on the ExCom who would not, because of personal commitments and personal time constraints would not have accepted a Vice Chair position, but are willing to serve in the lesser role, and that’s one of the reasons I thought it was important to keep the distinction between Vice Chairs and the other officer positions, just because it gives us a stratification, allows us to divide the workload into different levels.

The Chair clearly is the largest of it all. The Vice Chairs are one step down, and then the other ones. And I think that has some merit. It’s not an idea we talked about before and I guess I’d like to hear comments or thoughts on is it worth preserving. I think and again talking to people who have been in these positions that the decision to accept the Vice Chair is a more – requires more dedication

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 15 of 34

and more time than the rapporteur or the unnamed position in the current structure.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Remember we won’t have a rollover at the…

Alan Greenberg: No, no, I said in the current definition.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

Eduardo Diaz: This is Eduardo, I want to make a suggestion on something that Tijani said before about a committee within a committee. Maybe it would get a good thing to have Holly from the definitions group to see if they have another name that they can come up with for the internal Executive Committee, you know something different.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, Eduardo I think that’s a good idea. I think it’s one of the issues that needs to be discussed. I don’t think the duties change based on what we call it, so I am happy to leave that to the other group.

Female: Please Alan, one moment, please hold.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, how do we have to hold?

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 16 of 34

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, while we’re holding…

Alan Greenberg: Go ahead.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Cheryl for the transcript record. Right now I’m thinking in terms of the leadership team idea. I like the concept of leadership team and that’s assuming one per region, okay. And I started, while I’m listening to you all, contemplating and thinking outside of the box, we can put all sorts of bubbles up: how would it be if from each region representing the ALAC, in this case that’s five regions, three members from each region, that one of the – and here I go in two ways, either the 15 person ALAC decides one from each region, or each region decides one from each region, steps forward to serve on the leadership team, what do we call that team.

So we may not even need the traditional “election process” for the leadership team, therefore we would have five people, somewhere between June and October each year. They would I hope serve for three years, just as the Chair would serve for three years, but not necessarily, you might choose to serve and rotate them in alternate years, so you might have them to serve, by the time they start half of them only serve one year and they can self-select to that. Then from those five, the ALAC elect a Chair.

Then if you have basically a group of five who was all basically regionally endorsed and equal and from that five a Chair selected, you would have your two Vice Chairs or however many you want organized, they can in fact be rotating, you know a year on and a year off, they can go for ratification to the whole group, you know that can ratify them each year, or they can simply say I’m willing or not willing to serve in that capacity. But the aim would be to have at least two VCs in support of the Chair’s activities in any given year.

And the reasoning there is that there is often a situation which is outside meetings, but rather more representational, Olivier can’t be in three or four

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 17 of 34

different meetings at once, and so it’s quite tolerant for him to send a Vice Chair to represent the ALAC. Of course now it’s the model would be, I’m just proposing overhead, but even now if you’ve got five otherwise equal leaders or representatives or whatever, there is always representatives actually, then you’ve got the five people who can share some of the load and take on particular portfolios as well as someone who in addition to that has a Chair role.

We spend an awful lot of time on elections and selections, but we’re rewriting the book, so we shouldn’t be tough on that. So I just want to throw that in and see how that chewed over with you all.

Alan Greenberg: All right, I have a comment, but Olivier has one first.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, it’s Olivier for the transcript. Cheryl, if I understand you correctly, did you mention you would say the regions would select the ExCom members?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, the three – the regional people in the ALAC, not the regions, not the RALOs, but once you’ve got three people from APRALO confirmed as the regional ALAC reps. One of them steps forward or is pushed forward to the leadership team. It’s up to those three people.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, I’m just wondering how this plays with members of the regions that have been selected by the Nominating Committee and whether there is any…

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It should make no difference. It should make no difference.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 18 of 34

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: …or whether it’s [Nominating Committee and whether there is any… Or whether it’s (inaudible) or not.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It shouldn’t make any different at all, Olivier. Because it’s a huge time commitment and sometimes I’ll be pushed, and sometimes I’ll jump.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, Olivier, are you done?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, I’m done, thanks.

Alan Greenberg: Let me make my comment and then we’ll go to Tijani. I guess I’ll speak a game switcher suggestion, Cheryl. And the reason is the following, first of all, I think it’s exceedingly important, because the Chair represents the ALAC in so many meetings, there’s no alternative, I think it’s really important that the Chair be selected by the ALAC as the best person…

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I said that.

Alan Greenberg: No, no, as the best person for the Chair, and not filter it first. A second related reason is and again now we’re revisiting what was discussed in Prague, but there was a strong feeling in Prague that the Chair should be selected – the actual selection or election if it’s contested, and it hasn’t been in recent years, be done by the old ALAC who has a fair amount of knowledge, remember in any given year, as many as eight of the 15 people may turn over.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 19 of 34

And the other advantage that that has, and I hadn’t realized that in Prague, but as I was composing my notes, it became obvious is that allows the person who is going to be Chair to know who they are prior to the ICANN meeting, and that allows a fair amount of transition for years when the Chair is changing. So I think it’s important to select the Chair and the exact process for the other ExCom members I think we can be more flexible on.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’d be happy Alan just in reply to that, if you want to just run a selection process for a Chair, for a two-year term, then and then have the remaining region put forward the other four, I’m equally comfortable with that. But I certainly would want the whole of the ALAC selecting the Chair here.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, and I mean currently any of the officer positions can be nominated by anyone on the ALAC, and I sort of like the fact that you don’t have to stick in your regions to nominate or to name someone for those positions. We can talk about that in depth obviously, but I sort of like the concept that these people are selected and even recommended or nominated by the ALAC and not necessarily make it a regional issue. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you Alan. First of all, I agree with you Alan that the Chair must be chosen by the whole ALAC out of the region consideration. The second point Cheryl you said that we need two Vice Chair to help the Chair. I say we need five ExCom persons to help the Chair. All have to help the Chair. And in my mind, a Vice Chair is someone who would be able to replace the Chair if he is not here, but the qualification, as we said before, any one of the ExCom can have responsibility delegated by the Chair, thank you.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 20 of 34

Alan Greenberg: Thank you Tijani. One more thought on the issue of Vice Chairs. Within ICANN the concept of Vice Chair is sort of institutionalized and I know in the past there have been meetings that the Chair and the Vice Chairs have been invited to and as a non-Vice Chair in the ExCom, I wasn’t invited. So again by only having one Vice Chair we are to some extent restricting ourselves in who participates in discussions the CEO and President, or you know a breakfast with someone or that kind of thing. So there is some advantage in having the extra Vice Chair actually named and as I said earlier, I think saying you’ll take a Vice Chair position is implicitly saying you are willing to make a larger commitment than one of the unnamed position. So that’s something I think we need to consider as we go forward. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: So let’ go for the four or five Vice Chairs.

Alan Greenberg: That I think will be… That would have no credibility with the rest of ICANN.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: That’s my question. That’s my question. It’s not an issue of if they want it or not, only need to be more – more effective and more…

Alan Greenberg: Tijani, are you still there?

Carlton Samuels: Is he gone?

Female: It sounds like he went.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 21 of 34

Alan Greenberg: I guess he’s gone.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, Cheryl here.

Alan Greenberg: Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Look, I don’t have a problem and I previously stated I’m happy with our Chair and the rest of the leadership team acting in the capacity of Vice Chair, but if you’ve got three new turns, you can agree that for a representational role, that two will be primary and two will be secondary in any given year. So when an invitation goes out with only three would be going to those sorts of chats anyway. I don’t think that’s insurmountable, but I would like to have more general equity for a specific portfolio.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, may I suggest that the exact who has the term Vice Chair and who has the unnamed ExCom position is not really crucial to what we’re talking about now, and I don’t think we need to spend all of our time deciding how many Vice Chairs we have. It’s something that has to be decided before these rules are finalized, but I’m not convinced that’s something that’s in our critical path right now.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don’t know Alan, I think…

Carlton Samuels: I don’t think, we’re getting as far with trying to figure out how many applies we need to have in the barrel.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 22 of 34

Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, are you trying to talk?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No.

Alan Greenberg: Olivier?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Alan, it’s Olivier for the transcript record. We agree we’re spending too much time on this Vice Chair business. We have plenty of other things to discuss, the Vice Chair part is one which will be a detail as to how many we can have and we can all think about it and come back with significant reasons why this should be four or two, but going around in circles like this is just somehow wasting time, so let’s move on please.

Alan Greenberg: All right, if we could – oh hold on, we have another hand up, no we don’t. Olivier, you’re still up or not? No. All right, may I suggest we go through the bullets that were in the discussion piece, and with the changes – we’ll make the appropriate changes as we discuss and see if we’re finished this or not. I’m not quite sure.

So the first bullet was the ExCom supports the ALAC Chair and the overall management of the ExCom, it really meant of the ALAC that was a typo. And we’re going to use words such as “collaborate” and “leadership team” instead.

The ExCom has no explicit powers other than those resting with the Chair and delegated as the Chair decides. Anyone have either a hand up or a shout out as we’re going over those.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 23 of 34

As suggested by Jean Jacques, it is expected that ExCom members and particularly those designated as Vice Chairs would be given specific portfolios. I think we decided we can extend that outside of the ExCom but this is the definition of ExCom duties. So we’re not saying that only ExCom members can be delegated with portfolios, but ExCom members are expected to be.

And I think we need to make it clear that this essentially isn’t giving over the task to that person not with a complete mandate to do whatever they feel, but nevertheless to take on all the responsibilities. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, I need to – I propose to remove especially the two Vice Chairs.

Alan Greenberg: Okay. So noted. Let me make a note of that too. All right, the prime purpose of the ExCom is to work with and again we’ve changed the words to be reflect more collaboration and not advice, and to ensure that the ALAC can focus on the most appropriate issues of the minimum of administrative overhead. That’s really a statement saying there’s a lot of little decisions that need to be made along the way.

The ALAC delegates these to the ExCom, so that the ALAC doesn’t spend two hours of its meeting every month talking about the trivia and what’s more many of these decisions have to be made on a more timely manner. If we have a 21-day or even a 30-day comment period, we can’t wait until a monthly meeting to make decisions on whether to comment or not. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Sorry. I was-

Alan Greenberg: Okay, sorry. The next point essentially says if decisions have to be made, that Is substantive decisions have to be made in a more timely manner than can be done

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 24 of 34

by the ALAC as a whole. The Chair should do this is collaboration with the ExCom and it must be ratified later. I think that’s pretty well out of the current roles.

And each ExCom member is expected to – now we come into duties here, they’re expected to attend all or most ExCom teleconferences and meetings and understand when they take on the role that this is a substantial amount of work, and are agreeing to undertake that.

Is there anything that should be there under duties and responsibilities of ExCom members that are not, that I have no listed? Obviously, the Chair itself has all sorts of other responsibilities and those will be dealt with separately. Anything else that comes to mind, we can always add to the list later as we go along. No hands, okay.

The next item – well congratulations, we have actually finished a section. The next one is the process of naming the Chair, and in Prague we came to the conclusion that this should be done and finalized by the old ALAC, that is the people who have some appreciation for what the issues are and hopefully in most cases, although Olivier was an exception, in most cases its share will be an existing ALAC member who’s been on prior.

One issue that there is some confusion, at least I’ve been talking to people that seem to be; we are now talking about an ALAC Chair to be appointed for two years. That – pardon me?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s one of the recommendations that’s an implementable out of the ALAC review.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, correct, thank you. I don’t think in my mind that doesn’t presume that we can only name someone to that position who is starting a two-year; remember all of the terms in the ALAC are currently two years. Having the two-year term as

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 25 of 34

Chair does not presume that the person is guaranteed to be on the ALAC for the following two years. But should they be, it’s a two-year term. So if for instance, we were to name someone in the upcoming year who only has one year left on a term, they could still be named as chair.

To restrict people to only those who have full two-year terms going, severely restricts the number of people that are eligible to be chair. Again, if you look at how other positions are filled within ICANN, the Chair of the Board can be named for a year even if they’re not guaranteed to be on the Board for the full year. When Steve Crocker was named as Chair, he was guaranteed to be on the Board, but he was renewed by the Nominating Committee.

So I think that’s quite common and otherwise I think we’re going to be in a really awkward position if we only typically wanted to pick someone who has already been on the ALAC and we know we have a track record with them, and they have to be starting the two-year term, we’re probably cutting out two-thirds of the ALAC or maybe three-quarters of the ALAC at any given time. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you. As you have said now, it’s the two-year term [where we make the choice that is very, very large]. But on the other hand we need to [yield continuity]. So if you say you can elect one Chair for two years, but [it is really not the ALS who will exchange him], this will not ensure the continuity [which is essential]. So I think that we need to find something. I don’t have a real choice, but both aspects are very important for me: the continuity and also that the Chair has to be taken from the larger ExCom and from a reduced number of members. Thank you.

Alan Greenberg: Thank you Tijani. What would you think if we said that to be selected as Chair; you must be eligible to serve two years? That is you could not be in your last year of an appointment which is term limited that you can’t be reappointed?

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 26 of 34

Would that address the issue? That does cut out some people, but it cuts out people who are on their way out anyway. Sorry, is that Carlton?

Carlton Samuels: This is Carlton, Alan for the record. No, I think we should say that the most eligible to serve for two years – you still have the same problem. If it’s going to be selected from the – just in ALAC, and you’re saying…

Alan Greenberg: No, it doesn’t have to be existing, it could be incoming.

Carlton Samuels: Incoming ALAC.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But the voting is done as Alan was suggesting by the existing ALAC.

Alan Greenberg: Correct.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is done by the existing ALAC, but you do not have to be an existing ALAC citizen to be selected.

Carlton Samuels: Okay.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But [we’re suggesting] that you must have the ability to serve two years. So if you’re an ALAC member but have one year left on a time limited appointment from a region for example, then it would mean you could not be selected.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 27 of 34

Alan Greenberg; Right, that’s what I’m – I’m not sure, I’m suggesting it’s the best, that’s the question I’m asking. I think that says you’re not eligible if you cannot possibly serve two years, although even someone leaving a regional position could in theory be named by the NomCom for a third term, but that’s an edge case, I don’t think we need to look at.

Carlton Samuels: Alan, anyone is eligible for two years.

Alan Greenberg: Yes.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Isn’t it [essential] that he can finish he can be reappointed by the NomCom.

Alan Greenberg: Well, they could, it could happen. That’s what I’m asking. So how do we define eligibility? I was thinking of eligibility – well, Tijani’s right if you run a NomCom appointee on your first term, the NomCom may or may not reappoint you.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: But you’re eligible for reappointment.

Alan Greenberg: Tijani is pointing out that anyone including regional people at the end of their second term, if they’re term limited, is still eligible for a NomCom appointee.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 28 of 34

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Right and I understand that. And I’m saying with that qualification, it means that you are talking about and accepting that you could Chair without being on the existing ALAC, then that eligibility rule would then work.

Alan Greenberg: Well, then we don’t need the eligibility rule, because everyone…

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Everyone.

Alan Greenberg: Well, no, remember from any given region, you only have – you can only be selected, so if Olivier’s term is up, his second term were up this year, he could not – now Olivier is a bad case, Cheryl; if Cheryl was in the last year of a term, she could not be named by the NomCom this year. Because it’s an off year for Asia Pacific.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There are years where you can be.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, so it does restrict slightly the group, but not greatly. Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you, I think that the issue is to (inaudible) from a large number of choice. We cannot have the [consultants] between the two advantages. We need to choose what our needs, continuity for two years and anytime, or we need to have more people to choose from to be the Chair. Thank you.

Alan Greenberg: Eduardo?

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 29 of 34

Eduardo Diaz: Yes, I have a recommendation. I mean maybe we should look at this from two different perspectives, one is selecting the Chair and the fact that the Chair should be able to be there for two years. And the other perspective is to look at has to be – need part of the ALAC itself, what I mean is like if we select the Chair you know and that person only have one year to go, then you know that person should be or [I should say it is a decision] that that person will be reelected to the ALAC again. Otherwise if he is not, then we’ll have to go and look for another Chair. I don’t know if that’s a reasonable thing to do. But you know for the discussion I would say that we look at from two different perspective, and those specific cases. Then maybe we can look at it.

Alan Greenberg: I should point out that I don’t think we’ve ever had a case of a regional appointee who was willing to serve a second term and was not selected by their region, and to extend that and say we have a regional person who was named Chair by the whole ALAC and the region refuses to send them back again, it’s pretty hard to imagine. Thanks Eduardo.

Eduardo Diaz: In existing LACRALO rules, we only have – we don’t have a choice to be re-upped.

Alan Greenberg: Say that again?

Eduardo Diaz: Except that in the existing LACRALO rules, you are term-limited, one term.

Alan Greenberg: Only one term? It used to be two? No?

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 30 of 34

Eduardo Diaz: No.

Alan Greenberg: Does that change the equation any in people’s minds? I wasn’t aware of that.

Eduardo Diaz: Well there is a proposal to change it, but…

Alan Greenberg: Okay, Olivier.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you Alan. I am here. Carlton just mentioned the existing LACRALO rules, but I thought all of the rules are going to be harmonized across RALOs and they’ll be changed anyway, so that might be… You might not have to look at this since the Rules of Procedure will change both the rules that we’re dealing with here but also the RALO rules hopefully.

Alan Crépin-Leblond: I think that’s a good point.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Cheryl, speaking.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, Cheryl we have one more minute, so go ahead and then I’m going to try and summarize.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 31 of 34

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Alan, Cheryl for the transcript record. Perhaps while we’re working it, perhaps we should trust in any year’s existing – maybe two years’ worth of existing ALAC to look at the renewal options when they make the appointment of selection or election of their Chair.

Alan Greenberg: I’m sorry, I’m not following you. Can you try that again?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, instead of us worrying whether or not – if the terms is two years for a Chair, and the existing ALAC makes that appointment, however it’s made.

Alan Greenberg: Correct.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Perhaps we shouldn’t be quite so concerned about making rules that are too limiting on eligibility et cetera, et cetera. Why don’t we just trust the ALAC of the future to ask these questions? Just say Cheryl, hang on, how can you be sure if we appoint you to Chair that you will be here for the full term?

Or Alan, what if the NomCom doesn’t send you back? Do you see what I mean? Maybe that’s something that the ALACs in the future themselves can just deal with.

Alan Greenberg: Well, that’s why I was – I think it’s Tijani’s suggestion but I’m not sure, that’s why I was suggesting that we – the only rule we have is that you’re eligible to serve for two full terms, not guaranteed to.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 32 of 34

Carlton Samuels: Here is what I’m saying, once we’ve agreed on the incoming ALAC results so eligible for a selection, then we just say you are eligible, the Chair is eligible to serve for two years and leave it at that.

Alan Greenberg: I’m happy with that. I just wanted – I only raised the issue to begin with, because I wanted to make sure we’re not restricting it to someone who is absolutely guaranteed to be around for two years, because that I think restricts the overall pool, the selection pool by…

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, when you’re making your summary, you can also note – that’s Cheryl for the record – that the selectee, the potential Chair, can be from either the existing ALAC, or the incoming ALAC.

Alan Greenberg: Yes, correct, and the current rules, I’m not sure why they were drafted, but they were – they ended up being perfect, saying you have to have a reasonable expectation of being on the ALAC. It is not guaranteed, and it’s got to be more than I put my name into the NomCom, maybe they’ll pick me, but you know it’s got to be a reasonable expectation.

All right, we’re just about – well we’re already two minutes over at this point, but we did start a few minutes late. I would suggest that between the people who were taking notes and me, we’ll try to get a summary out within the next few days, because of the ALAC meeting today, it’s probably going to take a little bit of time, and I would suggest that we – I will try to summarize the current position with regard to selection of the Chair and I’ll put that out on the list and let’s try to have to the discussion in the email list, because I think that may be more productive than waiting for the next meeting.

We didn’t get nearly as much done as I had hoped today. We got half of one of the items done, but we are making some progress, let’s try not to go backwards

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 33 of 34

as we go on in the process, and I thank you very much for your attendance, and I’ll see pretty much all of you at the ALAC meeting in an hour.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks Alan, thanks Eduardo.

Alan Greenberg: Bye-bye. If anyone who is doing notes could send them to me I would appreciate it, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: During this call, I’ve lost my internet connectivity, as in I’m now been into several rooms and put hardwire connections into various computers. So that’s going to be an interesting ALAC call, it might just be audio for me.

Gisella Gruber: Okay, we’ll phone you on your plane.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, phone should work, hmm… Things that make you go hmm. All right, I’ll see what I can do about getting the internet back up. Bye.

Gisella Gruber: We’ll speak to you in less than an hour.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, bye.

Gisella Gruber: Bye.

2012 07 24 – (AL) ROP DMDT EN

Page 34 of 34

Gisella Gruber: Thank you everyone. The meeting audio will now be disconnected.

[End of Transcript]