ALAC ExCom 07.05.12 Transcript

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Good morning, good afternoon and good evening everyone.  Today is Monday, 7 May 2012.  Welcome to the ALAC Executive Committee conference call.  The time is 15:01 UTC and the first thing we’re going to look through is, well, first the roll call and apologies.

Nathalie Peregrine:                       Good morning, good afternoon, good evening everybody.  On the ALAC ExCom call today we have Olivier Crépin-Leblond; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg, Tijani Ben Jemaa; Carlton Samuels.  We have an apology from Rinalia Abdul Rahim.  And from staff we have Heidi Ullrich; Silvia Vivanco; Matt Ashtiani; Gisella Gruber and myself, Nathalie Peregrine.  I would like to remind you all to please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.  Thank you very much and over to you, Olivier.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you very much – I believe that’s Nathalie.  Thanks, Nathalie.  We have a few more points to mention there.  The AOB – Any Other Business – one was in addition to what we’re going to discuss, one was going to be the ICANN Academy; one is the IANA contract update; one is the Board cancellation of the Fridays; one is the TAS delay – T-A-S; one is the whom to interview for the website update and finally, the New gTLD Review Group.  So don’t think that the agenda is that short; we’ve got a few more things to discuss afterwards.

                                                Anyway, I gather we can immediately move to Agenda Item No. 2 which is the review of the Action Items from our last ExCom meeting and I think we’ll just focus on the open Action Items.  There are three of them. 

The first one is At-Large staff to move forward with the SOI and COI page – that’s in progress and we will be discussing this later on in our call.  No. 2 is Gisella to prepare a document showing the ALAC members’ current membership in working groups by the next ALAC meeting.  Gisella, this is in progress, I gather or…?

Gisella Gruber:                            Sorry, yes, Olivier, I’ve got it on a toggle stick and I’m in Brussels for a two-day meeting so I’ll transfer it on Wednesday and send it through.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, excellent, thank you.  And so the third one is - Silvia Vivanco and Gisella Gruber - to insure that the transcript of this call with the 24^th of January ALAC meeting is to be saved for the Rules of Procedure Working Group so they can review it once they begin their work.  Gisella, any update on this?

Gisella Gruber:                            Gisella here; sorry, Olivier.  Yes, transcript was forwarded.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It was forwarded, so it’s on the Wiki now?

Gisella Gruber:                            I believe so, yes.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, if that’s the case – and I take it from you that it is – this is completed.  So the newly-assigned Action Items – there are three of them.  The first one – Olivier is to follow up with Jean-Jacques with what his suggestion was during the GAC meeting; the second one was Evan to look through the notes of the meeting and compare them with regarding human rights and the internet. 

                                                These two are actually completed.  I went through the transcript and found out what the questions were, what the discussions were and sent the requests to the GAC, to Heather regarding those two points.  The response I received was an automated response that she will be back in the office on the 8^th of May, so we should be hearing from her as soon as she gets back into the office.              So these two are completed.  The third one – staff is to send the SO list of countries where ALSs are located.

Heidi Ullrich:                             This is Heidi.  That’s in progress and I’m just going to go ahead and do that as well as invite them to the Prague meeting – the meeting with the ALAC at the Prague meeting.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Fantastic!  Of course, to remind you all – this was prompted by the need of greater discussion and bilateral relations with RALOs and their local regional internet registries.  And certainly some parts of the world are already well through this type of relationship.  That’s pretty good.  Any comments on the Action Item?  Seeing no hands up, let’s move on immediately to the Policy Advice Development Calendar – Agenda Item No. 3.

                                                I refer you all to the ICANN public comment page.  We will pass over the recently-adopted ALAC statement.  One thing to point out is that the month of April was one where we published – was it eight statements, Matt?

Matt Ashtiani:                            Yes, it was eight statements.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It’s not something they would not like to do all the time.  Obviously it was pretty tiring for everyone, but I have to thank everybody for drafting those statements and putting them together.  It’s been very, very, very good and it’s quite impressive.  There are a number of still open comment periods at the moment, so I would as you all to consider them if I can find my…

Alan Greenberg:                          Could whoever’s doing demolition be muted?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Alan, this is Heidi.  We’re working on that.  If everyone could please mute their speakers.  Sounds like someone’s moving furniture.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Tijani, you’ve put your hand up.

Female:                                     Sorry, that’s Carlton, yes.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, but I still see Tijani has put his hand up.  Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, Olivier.  So it is about the two public comments open.  I propose that I draft the statement of ALAC about can draft the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget.

Alan Greenberg:                          I didn’t understand that, I’m afraid.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Tijani proposes that he draft the ICANN draft for Fiscal Year 13 Operating Plan and Budget Comment.  So there are two currently open policy forums.  The first one – ICANN Draft Fiscal Year 13 Operating Plan and Budget; and the second one is the IDN Variant TLD Program with the Revised Program Plan.

                                                Now anything to do with IDN, whether it was the one that’s currently being discussed – the Second Annual IDN ccTLD Fast-Track Process Review – all of these are usually punted over to the IDN Working Group and Edmund Chung takes care of it.

                                                What Tijani has suggested for the Fiscal Year 13 obviously the Finance and Budget Subcommittee will be working on this, but Tijani proposes that he picks up the pen for this.  Alan, you’ve put your hand up.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, I call your attention to the email I sent out yesterday on the budget item for the URS and we may want to make some sort of comment on that, specifically that… I’m not sure.  We may want to do it differently.  I found it rather inappropriate that that item was buried in the budget and not disclosed in any other way, and not saying it was nefarious, but nevertheless, it wasn’t the most open way of doing it.  And I’m not sure that we want to incorporate that in the overall budget statement.  It probably is a distraction, but we may want to think about how we want to address that, if not through the budget statement.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you very much, Alan.  Tijani, did you read that message on the URS?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, and I don’t think we have to include it in the overall part where FY12 Operating Plan and Budget comments.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                FY13 you mean.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       13, yes I am sorry.  13.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It’s easier to write the 12 one.  We wish.  Okay, we can certainly work on this and discuss this.  Does anyone else have a viewpoint on this?  Should we include something about the URS in there?  Should we perhaps write a separate statement regarding the URS? 

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, I guess if you’re asking my recommendation, there’s a GNSO meeting this week and see what the GNSO does about it and then perhaps take some action to agree or disagree with them.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, that’s a very good point, Alan, thank you.  Now of course, with regards to the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget, there is going to be a call that will be scheduled, I believe, later on this week and if someone… cause I don’t have the calendar in front of me, but it’s later on this week and members of the Finance and Budget Subcommittee have been invited indeed to take part in the actual doodle to start.  And I believe that three dates or two dates have now been finalized.  But this is something I’ll follow up with after this call.  Evan, welcome.

Evan Leibovitch:                         I’m just going to sort of expand a little bit on a statement that I made in the Adobe Chat and that is that on the surface the URS might not be a big thing, but it has the potential to be a very big thing.  If ICANN staff has miscalculated on the cost of delivering the URS in the way that the community has asked it to be delivered, if the answer is to seek out lower cost solutions that might not fully implement the policy, this has a real significant consequence.

                                                And I’m just saying I’m really happy that it was pointed out and I have a real concern that if ICANN was told that “you need to do this” and this costs much more money than what ICANN had anticipated and the answer then is, “Well, then let’s find a cheaper way to do it,” I’m really concerned that there might be an implication that the policy of the community had so much difficulty in finally coming out with a way to have something as important as the URS that it may, in fact, be diminished or diluted in the attempts of dealing with a budget shortfall.  Thanks.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan.  That’s noted.  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, I think Evan is misreading the intent of this.  The URS, like the UDRP, other than administrative costs overseeing the overall process and contracting with suppliers, is funded by the participants.  So the problem is the URS was specified as being – according to the evaluators – a much more costly process than the price we wanted to put on it.  And the whole intent was that it be cheaper to the end users – to those who are participating in it or using it – than the UDRP and the suppliers are saying, “No, you’ve structured it so that it’s a more expensive process.”

                                                It’s not an ICANN-funded issue and with an ICANN budget associated with it; it’s an issue of can it be done for the price that the trademark holders felt had to be if it was going to be a fast and cheap process and that’s the problem.  The problem is that the community specified a process which those who have been asked to offer the service say is far more expensive to provide than we’re willing to pay.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Alan, to follow up on that, does that mean that we are reopening now a potential significant conversation between trademark holders and ICANN revisiting this whole issue of whether or not the protections for trademark holders are sufficient or whether or not it’s going to be too expensive for trademark holders to police and protect their names?

Alan Greenberg:                          I think implicitly since we have continually – we – ICANN – continually raised the URS as one of the reasons the trademark holders shouldn’t have any angst over the New gTLDs and now we’re saying there’s no one who can provide the URS at anywhere near a price… I mean, we’re talking pricing several times what was put as the nominal price for it.  So, yes, I think that does open the whole question. 

                                                Either we can come up with a new sleeker process which is far simpler – and I’m sure the trademark holders could do that, but remember – we hammered out the URS trying to make everyone happy – and a lot of the extra costs are associated with the checks and balances and opportunities for appeal and things like that and the speed.  The speed is partly attributable to the IP holders, of course.

[background conversation]

Evan Leibovitch:                         … was one of the reasons why the GAC got so involved, leading to that cute little summit in Brussels.  Are we potentially opening up…

Alan Greenberg:                          Evan, the answer is yes and one of the reasons that I have a worry about it – if you remember going back – I don’t know if you read my second note in response to Hong.  If you go back to… the URS first came out of the IRT.  It was cursed for a whole bunch of reasons – let’s not revisit that.

                                                Staff came out with a revised proposal which was universally panned and then the GNSO formed the STI Group to come up with what was eventually implemented pretty close.  Now we’re suggesting again that staff consult and come up with a new plan on their own.  That’s the implication of what the budget item says.

                                                And you’re right.  This is a brand new… manned up with a much changed process which may give brand holders better protection at the expense of freedom of speech and various things like that or… I don’t know what the “or” is.  And it’s just fraught with problems at a rather awkward time.

                                                It’s not a surprise.  We’ve known the providers have been saying it’s too expensive, but the fact that it is too expensive and ICANN feels there’s no choice but to reopen the discussion, is something new at this point.  So yes, it could be reopening the while issue, including the concerns of trademark holders that have been to some extent pooh-poohed because the URS was there.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan; thank you, Alan.  Can I just ask – I gather, of course, Alan, you will be on the GNSO call.  Can I just ask everyone here whether it would be fair to ask that if this issue gets reopened, it is treated in the same way as it was treated originally which is to have a working group that will incorporate people from the ALAC, from At-Large.

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, I think one of the problems is – and I think ICANN is trying to address that – that we make sure to include providers in the discussion.  There’s no point in coming up with yet another plan that can’t be implemented.  However, if you read my posting on the GNSO list which I pointed you to in my email, I said just that – that if indeed ICANN feels that a summit or some other process is necessary, there must be funded support for taking GNSO people to it and I think it’s a given that there be ALAC participation in that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                And what’s the time scale for all of this?  This is clearly a seventh hour, twelfth hour; this is past the sell-by date, isn’t it?

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, don’t need the URS until a gTLD is deployed.  All the contracts have to say is you have to implement the URS as to be specified and ICANN can nest that in the contract but it better be there the day TLDs are deployed and live.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Well, certainly this time constraint is a concern for me.

Alan Greenberg:                          We have a year, longer if we never reopen TAS. [laughs]

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                [laughs] You are optimistic.  Okay, great, well…

Alan Greenberg:                          All sorts of pressure would be taken off by that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Let’s move on.  Yes, it certainly gives us a little bit more time and for once we’re not blamed for it.  Great.  So, let’s continue with our agenda and I’m looking back.  So we’re okay with Tijani holding the pen for the Fiscal Year 13 Operating Plan and Budget and I’ll follow up on this to make sure that the Finance and Budget Committee is well aware of the calls that are going to take place, bearing in mind the calls that are going to take place with Xavier are just going to be a walk-through of what the Fiscal Year 13 Budget is all about.  It will not consider our individual requests.  I think there will be further meetings in the future for us to be able to comment on these.

                                                And then finally the Variance TLD Revised Program Plan – I suggest just sending this over to Edmund Chung, although I have had some concern with the speed in which statements were drafted by the IDN Working Group not providing enough time for the rest of ALAC and for the At-Large Committee to comment on those.  So, Tijani, you have put your hand up?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes.  Tijani speaking.  So I think that Rinalia now is also in charge of the IDN.  Why don’t make Rinalia to follow on this statement?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Very good idea, Tijani.  Let’s forward that to Rinalia as well and I’ll ask Rinalia to make sure things get moving on this, although I do know that she is quite busy at the moment doing her PhD the last few months.  But we’ll see if she can spare a moment on that.  Certainly she’s done a very good job with one of our latest… with the second annual… no, it wasn’t this one; it was a previous IDN statement – the Variance Issues Program.  Thank you. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    [If she warrants it as] appropriate she could come to you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, fantastic, and that was Cheryl for the transcript.  So items for discussion now.  We’re now on part No. 4 – the development of the Prague ALAC meeting agenda.  I gather for this I’ll hand the floor over to Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Thank you, Olivier.  You can see the agenda for all of the meetings and we are going to be working on the actual setting of the agenda for most of the meetings; some have already been set.  For example on Sunday we expect that we’re going to have a similar agenda as we did in Costa Rica with working group pairs being asked to give 10-minute updates.

                                                Also perhaps inviting some of the VPs – the Vice Presidents – of the partnerships for the outreach portion with Mandy who is usually the person that we speak to.  I think it would be useful to have some of the Vice Presidents there this time.  There’s also been a request by a number of staff working on IDN for a 20-minute presentation and discussion with the ALAC, so that’s going to be (inaudible) into the afternoon.

                                                And then it’s up to you for the decision on what other agenda items you would like to make.  So if anyone has any suggestions, please… Olivier, how do you want to do this – today or just have it on the Skype chat or through email?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                We can continue on the Skype chat if you wish, although I always have a little concern of having no copy of the Skype chat made available to everyone, so perhaps now would be the best thing.  Maybe the ExCom list?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, that’s fine.  Okay, so then on Monday we have several meetings.  So the person who’s the At-Large Recruitment Task Force – Cheryl, you approved that time.  We do think currently that SIC will actually make that time.  Two agenda items – we think the At-Large Recruitment will accept a meeting with the members of the SIC for a final interchange and then the official conclusion of the At-Large Recruitment.  So that would be a really good meeting.

                                                The next one is the At-Large New gTLD Working Group meeting.  There are actually two of them.  This one is just with that New gTLD Working Group.  The one I believe on Tuesday afternoon will be a joint working group with New gTLD Working Group, as well as the Review Group.

                                                Monday afternoon/evening is the At-Large Anniversary Event and we are planning that with EURALO.  Right now it looks like there may be one or two panels including, hopefully, getting all of the former Chairs of the ALAC on the panel to provide a discussion on what some of the challenges they had during their term and how they overcame them and perhaps bringing At-Large ALAC from 1.0 to 2.0 in the future.

                                                So we’re also planning cocktail events there; we’re planning to have special lapel pins and lanyards to celebrate this.  We’re also hoping that that’s going to be the time the Board will meet informally as well.  So should I go ahead and just continue through this or is this taking a little bit too much time?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Just a quick question, Heidi, it’s Olivier here.  There was a mention of the invitations for the At-Large Anniversary Event to be put in the main bags of all participants, but also for pins to be put in all the bags of all participants.  Any thoughts on this?

Heidi Ullrich:                             I can… just let me ask Meetings staff about that if we can do that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                What would be the end quantity though – the number of pins that we’re looked at?

Heidi Ullrich:                             I want to say 300, so yeah, that wouldn’t be possible since they are expecting a very high number of participants.  But if that’s something you really would like to look into, I can cost that out as well. 

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, yeah, please cost that out just to find out.  Carlton, you put your hand up.

Carlton Samuels:                         Thank you, Olivier.  Are you hearing me?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Yes, we are.

Carlton Samuels:                         Okay, good.  This is Carlton Samuels for the record.  Regarding the At-Large Anniversary Event – can I ask that something be made to stand out for the RALO formation?  I think that was a (inaudible) event and I think we’re going to do the anniversary.  We should have at least something for the impact of RALO formation and the ALAC and At-Large.  I think that would be useful.  Thanks.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes, Carlton, thank you.  This is Heidi for the transcript.  Cheryl had a fantastic idea of finding the videos that were filmed that (inaudible) the events from the beginning of the RALOs, as well as the official MOUs between ICANN and the RALOs.  We’ll have those prepared as well.  And perhaps if there is a feature that discusses purely the formation of the RALOs, perhaps the former Chairs can mention that as part of their activities during their term.  So that’s just one suggestion.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Heidi and thank you, Carlton.  Next is Alan Greenberg.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, I’m going to speak against your suggestion of lapel pins for everyone.  I just can’t see a lot of people wearing them and I don’t think that would get the kind of visibility we want.  If we want to put something in a bag for everyone, I would do something like a nice ballpoint pen, where whatever it says on it will be visible for a while as people use the pen.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Alan, I see agreement from Carlton.  If you could check what the cost would be for pens, that would be a good idea.

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, pens probably vary from 3 cents to $35, depending on what you want them to be. 

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Well, knowing At-Large….

Alan Greenberg:                          $35 then.  [laughing]

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Well, of course!  $35.  We’re known to spend money.  [laughing]

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, so pens for everyone – maybe a pen that has a little bit of an anniversary event text on it.

Alan Greenberg:                          You could use a lapel pin as a price point and see what kind of pen you can get for that. 

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Certainly the lapel pins… well, there’s 300 anyway.  These will be solely for people in At-Large and also for the people who will be attending the event.

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, yeah, it would be nice if Board members wore them or something like that – that has some panache.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                We’ll have at least one Board member wearing it and the others will be…

Alan Greenberg:                          Of course, they have to be wearing lapels.  [chuckles]

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                [chuckles]  Okay, we’re rapidly descending in the… Let’s go back over to Heidi, please.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, so that is our Monday event.  Gisella, if you could just confirm, we think that the ALAC dinner is going to be Monday evening as well, so that would be as everyone’s in a good celebratory mood from the At-Large event.  And then we’ll invite everyone to go to dinner Monday night and ICANN will cover the drinks.  Is that correct, Gisella?

Gisella Gruber:                            Yes, we’re just looking into that.  We’re just checking if we’ve got the Policy dinner on Monday; we can eventually change that.  But I’d probably say in this case it would be good if we could have the ALAC dinner after the celebrations on Monday.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, thank you.

Gisella Gruber:                            Olivier, sorry, just a quick one.  Olivier, you asked what else was usually planned on the Monday.  Just to let you know that the only thing I could think of was the ISOC event.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                The ISOC event usually is on Tuesday night I think.  It’s on Sunday night…

Gisella Gruber:                            It’s the only thing I haven’t got confirmation for.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, the only thing we have to watch out for are what will be planned for the Monday afternoon since there was talk at some point of the return of the SO and AC joint discussions and those are – I think everyone agrees – they were particularly interesting and certainly a very good moment to be able to exchange views with other SOs and ACs.  The calendar for these doesn’t seem to have been published yet and I hope that it doesn’t stop after 17:00.  That’s something which we’ll have to check.  Okay, back to you, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, this is Heidi.  Thank you, Olivier.  Tuesday then we have a full day of meetings.  7:00 is the APRALO meeting and then a very similar schedule for Tuesday morning – mid-morning – and that is the ALAC meeting with the ICANN Board – 8:30 to 9:30; again the format – Olivier and Diane have been in touch regarding the format and Diane has taken into account several of Olivier’s suggestions, primarily a) a larger room; b) to have Board members up front in the room so people on the table can identify them very quickly.  So those will be taken into account.

                                                Following then that meeting, there’s ALAC meeting with the GAC.  If you’re looking at the agenda page, those topics actually are not the ones that are now going to be discussed.  We’ve actually set up a Wiki page to collect comments, so we will be working with the GAC on finalizing that.

                                                Then the ALAC policy discussions 1 and 2 are scheduled.  The first one is 11 to 12:30.  That agenda includes David Oliver speaking for 20 minutes; Filiz Yilmiz speaking also for 20 minutes and then a discussion with ICANN Compliance Team for almost an hour.

                                                Then there’s going to be a lunch break, so that’s the first time I remember having a lunch break for some time on Tuesday.  Then the ALAC Policy Discussion II begins – 14:00 to 15:30; again that agenda that is currently us is correct.  A discussion with ASO including John Curran and Louis Lee.

                                                Then a discussion with the NomCom Chair and NomCom Chair-elect.  And then a 30-minute session for Hot Topics that’s going to be left open for any topics that come up during the first several days of the meeting.

                                                Then we have a Joint At-Large New gTLD Working Group and Review Group meeting and the final meeting of the day is the At-Large Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group meeting.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Before we move onto Wednesday, any comments from anyone or…?  I just wanted to say just one comment on the ALAC meeting with the GAC – the two subjects which were proposed were to follow up with regard to the effort initiated at the last meeting to create a joint GAC/ALAC effort on conflicts of interest. 

                                                As I mentioned earlier, I’ve sent an email to Heather.  Jean-Jacques Subrinat was copied on this as well and I gather that we will probably, hopefully, have reached the next step on this and hopefully a joint ALAC/GAC effort would have already taken place by then.  So this, of course, is likely to change and we might have to think of something else to put instead of this point discussion.

                                                The second one is – is there work the ALAC and GAC can do together to study the demand from and impact on internet users from the gTLD program launch?  Of course, some of you, in fact I guess all of you will know that the consumer metrics – the CCI Group – is working on that and I just wonder if we’re just not doing it – sort of reinventing the wheel somehow.  First Tijani and then Carlton.  Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       It’s only to say that this time we will have a good time to interact with the Board because we have a meeting for 90 minutes on Tuesday and a lunch on Wednesday.  It will be much better than the past meeting in Costa Rica and I hope that the format, the room fitting will be better than the last time.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Tijani.  And yes, the room fitting will unfortunately still be in a classroom fashion because the Board requires a classroom format since it remains in this room and some other groups are a lot larger than our group.  And so it would be difficult, if impossible, for them to have a room with a round or a square face-to-face pattern.  But certainly have insisted that the Board members sit at the front, that At-Large and ALAC will also sit at the front and then the rest of the community can stay further back so that at least we have a discussion face-to-face rather than discussion a few miles away from each other. 

                                                Certainly in Costa Rica it was absolutely impossible to see past the second row and many Board members were in the third, fourth, fifth row or even further back.  And so many of them didn’t even say a word during the whole… well, I didn’t even know whether they were there or not, so we would have to see.  Carlton?

Carlton Samuels:                         Thank you, Chair.  Two things – one, the first thing – we put up the list asking for questions for the Board and questions for the GAC.  I hope, Chair, that we do not lose sight of prioritizing the issues because I believe that the priority issues and the time we have to discuss them are already up front.  If anyone disagrees with me and the ones we already picked out, I’ll be happy to entertain it.  But I really do believe that we should prioritize the issues and I think we already have the ones that are of the moment.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Carlton.  Next is Evan.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Hi, I just want to reiterate what I’ve said before in terms of trying to work together with the GAC on analyzing end users’ ramifications from the gTLD program.  And, Olivier, I know you and I differ on this, but I continue to assert that this working group on Consumer Choice and Innovation not only is not the answer to that, but I think it actually marks a very dangerous redefinition of the public good in the New gTLD process and that our participation and validation of that group, I think, actually works against our interests. 

                                                We’ve talked about this before but I want to reiterate in this conversation that I don’t think that that particular working group at all addresses the issue of identifying (inaudible) the general public from the gTLD Program.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Evan.  Any other points or thoughts on this from anyone?  I don’t see anyone jumping up and down on this issue.  Evan, I guess we can leave the second thing in – that’s no problem.  It’s a starting point and it would be interesting to hear the GAC’s point of view since the GAC has not taken part in the working group itself.  And of course, the GAC will have on their desk the report that will be published during the Prague meeting from the TCI Working Group.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Cheryl, and then Carlton up to you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Thank you.  Just both points that you’ve got listed for the GAC.  I’d be tempted to leave them both in, even if there is substantive work done in a joint sub-working group or whatever we’re going to call it – liaison reelection – whatever the grouping name will be between the small number of GAC people and the small number of ALAC people working on the other (inaudible) because the GAC will always meet its community as a whole informed and discuss an issue and I think to do that with the ALAC in the room would be a wise choice.

                                                The same with the issues if indeed and it probably will be par for the GAC to think it needs to go through,  just the Board resolution required metrics definitions that will continue to be AOC reviews to the AOC-borne review team later.  Then that’s probably worthy of the full room’s interaction.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Cheryl.  Noted as well.  Carlton, you had your hand up for a moment.

Carlton Samuels:                         This is Carlton.  Thank you, Cheryl.  You thought of what I wanted to point out.  Cheryl got to it before me and I totally endorse what she says.  We have to approach it with a two-prong approach and she’s identified the issues and the reasons why we must make it that way.  Thanks.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, so I see that there is a majority of people who wish to keep those two in, so let’s keep them in for the time being and see if the agenda expands with time or if anything else will need to take the place.  I certainly see… I start understanding the point for No. 2 – the work that the GAC and ALAC can do together to study the demand on infinite user for the gTLD Program launch.  Okay, so Heidi, back to you.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes, shall we continue?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                You’re driving.  If you want continue or sing a song, you’re very welcome to do so.

Heidi Ullrich:                             So we go to Wednesday then?  So then we start with an 8:00 sort of breakfast meeting but there’ll be no breakfast served; we’ve ordered coffee, I believe, for that meeting.  This is the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group.  This is a public workshop, so Evan, if you want to talk a little bit about that?

Evan Leibovitch:                         Not much at this point.  I’m still working with Jean-Jacques about the details but the idea for the Future Challenges Group is to have one private meeting and one public workshop where we’re talking about the white paper that’s soon to be released and basically trying to get more public input into that.  Thanks.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, Evan, for the agenda, should we just put “discussion of white paper” at this point or…?

Evan Leibovitch:                         For the workshop – yes.  For the internal session, there’s the ongoing issues of compliance that we’ve been working together with Garth on, but essentially those are the two I call overarching issues and everything else stems down from there.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay.  Thank you.  So I’ll go ahead and put on the agenda “discussion of white paper” on the public workshop and the next day on the closed session, I’ll just put “discussion of compliance issues,” okay? 

                                                So going back to Wednesday, starting at 9:00 to 10:00 we have the ICANN Academy Working Group.  That’s going to be a meeting of not only the At-Large ICANN Working Group, but also the additional representatives that have now come forward from Olivier’s invitation.  Olivier, would you like to talk a little bit about that agenda?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Heidi.  I was going to actually talk about this in the Any Other Business part of this call, just to provide an update on the whole process.  I’m not quite sure how the meeting itself will take place.  That’s something which Sandra and I have to discuss and which the working group will have to discuss of course.  But I’m very glad it’s taking place.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay.  And then we have following that meeting we have the At-Large Regional Leadership meeting.  So that’s normally a lunch but this one has moved to earlier this time because we have a lunch with the Board between 12:00 and 13:00.  Now for the ALAC lunch with the Board, are there particular agenda items you would like to discuss or would you like to have those identified nearer to the time?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                I think we’ll probably discuss it closer to the time, depending on what the hot topics are.  We usually discuss hot topics around the table.  This time around the Board has already met with all of the ALACs so I think we have to go a bit further than just an introduction of just saying hello to each other and enjoying a great time.

                                                However, it will also depend on the formal face-to-face discussions that we’ll have the day earlier, in which case we might wish to look at what we will discuss with the Board earlier and then drive the points that we wish to make across on the second day.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, so maybe pinpoint those a little bit more; maybe narrow them down so the lunch meeting with the Board.  I’m just asking because I’m going to be asked relatively soon to draft talking points or notes for the CEO so he gets to know the agenda for all of the meetings with the Board.  Okay?

                                                So following that meeting, then there is a one-hour break and then we move into the traditional AFRALO/AfrICANN joint meeting.  Tijani, has a topic for that been discussed yet with the two groups?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, Heidi.  So for the AFRALO/AfrICANN meeting, we will have an AFRALO call tomorrow and we will discuss about the theme that will be discussed during this meeting and we wills set up all the arrangements for it, I mean the drafting group.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Perfect.  Thank you, Tijani.  And again, let the staff know if you would like to have that set up calls with this group.  Again Heidi for the record and continuing on Wednesday from 15:00 to 16:00 we have the At-Large IDN Working Group that was requested by Edmund. 

And finally the last meeting of the day is a two-hour session.  Cheryl will be leading this one.  This is a joint group of the At-Large Rules of Procedure and the ALAC Metrics Group Sub-Committee.  Cheryl, is there something that you’d like to mention at this point?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Not particularly, excepting that we should be at that point finalizing all of the Rules of Procedure, that is the must-dos that have to be done in line of the implementation of the improvements that may not be… I would suggest that while the ALAC will have already discussed and I trust approved any that are key to be ALAC improvements for the (inaudible) there may be some opportunity during that meeting specifically to have the ALAC go in greater detail over the Rules of Procedure and therefore perhaps Olivier have a Q&A opportunity leading up to a discussion that you might either want to have a vote during your session in Prague or start as an online version of a vote to accept and endorse new Rules and Procedures immediately after Prague.

                                                I think it would be a pivotal point to make that happen.  You will need to have a reasonable time for the ALAC to dot the i’s; cross the t’s and ask all the questions and I would think that that particular forum is an opportunity for that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Cheryl.  Do you think that the working group will have reached enough consensus on enough points for it to warrant a vote right away?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    On some of the key issues, yes, because some of them have to be done because some of them are tied into the implementation of the improvements review.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    I won’t know until the time.  Metrics obviously will still continue on and then the metrics will still continue on will be the metrics that are beyond the ALAC, the ALAC metrics are part of the Rules of Procedure review which I would have thought the ALAC should be able to endorse or otherwise by then or shortly after then anyway.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Cheryl.  Back to you, Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, thank you.  So again this is Wednesday night and I just want to go back to Tuesday and then spring forward to Wednesday night.  Tuesday night will be music night.  That’s going to be in the Hilton.  The gala will be offsite and shuttles will be, I believe, picking people up starting at 18:30 to 18:45 I believe, but I will confirm that.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Did you say starting at 18:30 to 18:45 or just picking people up from…

Heidi Ullrich:                             Picking people up.  The shuttles will start picking people up at that time.  I need to confirm that time.  Somewhere in my inbox I have the answer to that exact timing of the shuttles. 

                                                So moving to Thursday, again 8:00 to 9:00 the Future Challenges Working Group.  This one is closed.  It will not be on the public schedule.  Again, coffee has been ordered for that one.  And then Thursday morning we believe that the meeting of the [PPC] is going to be the same time as it as at Costa Rica – that is 9:00 to 10:30, so we’ve left that available so everyone can go to that meeting. 

And then we’ve scheduled the ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Meeting at 11:00 to 12:30.  And again, the tentative schedule for that is going to be the report from the liaison; the report from the RALO Chairs.  The third item is the ICANN CEO meeting with the ALAC depending on whether the person who is chosen as the CEO will be in Prague and the timing.  We’re hoping to have both Rod, as well as the new CEO there sometime during that wrap-up session.  Then finally we have 30 minutes for a review and a wrap-up.  So any questions there?

Okay, so moving to Friday we have the ExCom 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. scheduled and I’m very happy to announce that the meetings have agreed to provide all services, including a bridge including internet, as well as interpretation for that meeting.  So again, that agenda is open at the moment.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you very much, Heidi.  I ask everyone – is there any meeting that you are aware should be taking place but is not listed so far?  Did we forget any subject or any meeting?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Oh, actually I’ve forgotten one.  Sorry. 

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                So Heidi first, who’s forgotten one and then Carlton.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Sorry, Carlton.  Matt actually is meeting with the ALAC and the NCSG.  Matt, can you just update us on what time that tentatively is scheduled at the moment?

Matt Ashtiani:                            We’re now scheduled for 1:00 to 2:00 on Wednesday. 

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay and that timing has gone out to the ALAC and the NCSG?

Matt Ashtiani:                            Correct.  We’re just waiting to hear back.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, 1:00 to 2:00.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Heidi.  Next is… first time I saw Carlton and then I blinked and then I saw Tijani.  So Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Just to say that the New gTLD Program Working Group have decided on two meetings in Prague and one for the working group at 10:00; the other joint meeting between the working group and the Review Group.  So I didn’t see the second meeting.  Oh, it’s on Wednesday, okay.  I’m sorry; I didn’t see it.  Okay.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Sorry, I believe it’s on Tuesday actually – Tuesday afternoon.  So it’s Tuesday, 15:30 to 17:00 is the joint group and Monday afternoon is the New gTLD Group.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Okay, thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Yes, Cheryl, please go ahead.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    I just wanted to raise… Certainly I thought that it might have been the ExCom list but it might have just been Heidi and Olivier.  The ccNSO is having a couple of what would be considered of interest to general ICANN community topic meetings on the Wednesday and I just wanted to make sure we at least were aware of those.  I think maybe in a way of avoiding pressures.  But I did send them through quite some time ago and if Olivier, you deem that our community might be particularly interested in them it would be good to have them advertised, if not trying to [clash minimally.  In my sum it was the actor, and you know, we had lots of] boo-hooing when it was conflicting with other things.  So I gave you a heads-up this time some weeks back.  Might be just useful to bring into the agenda anyway if not [tasks].

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Yes, thank you, Cheryl, that’s a good point.  The discussion – because I’ve actually been in discussions with Leslie Cowley, Chair of the ccNSO on other matters, but yeah, the idea of the ccNSO is to have some further meetings such as the ones there.

                                                Just wondering, not confused, but just wondering if it’s not going to be something that will also be at SO and AC levels during the joint Monday afternoon meeting.  Bearing in mind I still don’t know if these will go on or not.  But I thought that the ccNSO was going to also make suggestions for that in addition to running its own show.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    I’m sure they will do, but I’m just saying what is advertised now out and say fairly concerns agendas for the meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday includes both topics and what happens or which is it going to cause to remember.  It’s certainly not as yet determined and I would think that if they do get it in on Monday, well then that’s great. We’ve got that Monday afternoon.  We have to commit sometime, but it’s if there is clashing on the Wednesday that I wanted you to be aware of.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you.  Carlton?

Carlton Samuels:                         Thank you, Olivier.  It’s Carlton for the record.  Just for the record, we tried to get a meeting of the WHOIS Working Group and we have tentatively a slot for Wednesday.  Unfortunately, when we put it to the working group, we didn’t get any substantive comments to suggest that we might have a real worthwhile meeting, so that’s one of the reasons you don’t see it on the list.

                                                However, knowing how people are and how late they get, if there is some kind of movement hereafter, because we suggested that would be coming up a renewal and what it says about WHOIS requirements, we thought we might be able to put in something there.  But nobody has yet said anything, just to let you know.  We might make a change later on if we find a reason for it.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Carlton.  And just to make sure, if you are going to ask for some time, you need to do it pretty fast.  I think the schedules and the room bookings close after a while.  But I would just let you liaise directly with Heidi and Gisella on this.  Heidi?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes, thank you, Olivier.  This is Heidi.  Carlton and everyone, I believe as usual there will be sign-up rooms available once we all get there.  So if you do need a meeting room, please let us know as soon as you know and then we will find a room that will be able to accommodate the kind of meeting that you are wishing to hold.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Heidi.  Now there is one thing that I did note.  It’s been a while since we last had a meeting with the registrars and I wonder whether there was any thought here to have a meeting with them at this point in time or perhaps wait for the next meeting after that.  The last time we had a meeting with the registrars we had an informal one around some food at lunchtime to get to know each other. 

Several people have changed in the Registrar Stakeholder Group but at the same time, the last formal meeting we had with them was the meeting prior to that.  And of course we had started on discussing the possibility of registrars providing answers to questions that internet users might have about how to run their domain name, etc., etc.

At the same time I understand that there is also a parallel process that is taking place with the beginners’ guides now.  Heidi, do you wish to add a couple of things?

Heidi Ullrich:                             I’m sorry.  Could you repeat that last part?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                I guess you’d have to pay attention rather than typing in the chat.  [chuckles]  The registrant Rights and Responsibilities are somehow getting entwined now with the beginners’ guides which we’re getting help from Scott and his crew.  I just wondered whether you can say a couple of words because I inquired also about the process that we initiated meeting up with the registrars and getting them to provide answers to questions that internet users and that domain name registrants might have.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Okay, I thought I heard beginners’ guide in there and I couldn’t make the connection.  Okay, yes, this is Heidi.  What I thought had been agreed, given the comments received from the comments from the next beginners’ guide is that we were going to switch from a guide discussing consumer and end user issues to one that is How to Participate in ICANN which would be something that might be able to be used for the Academy in Toronto.

                                                I’ve discussed that with Lynn and what we think in the timing is that a good draft could be prepared by Prague and then a final version be prepared in Toronto.  So that leaves again the question open – would you still like a beginners’ guide on the end users?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, Heidi, thank you.  I see Alan has put his hand up.

Alan Greenberg:                          Thank you.  This is almost a side comment but the ALAC and At-Large are regularly getting named in various places, both in PDP recommendations and in fact in meetings, such as with the ALAC and registrars that we be assigned tasks of essentially educating the world and various other global things.

                                                And I think as these things come up I think we need to quickly point out that we are not funded for that kind of thing; we’re a volunteer organization; we have relatively sparse coverage.  And I don’t think we should say, “Yes, of course we’ll do that.”  We’re certainly willing to participate in things like that and as an example of what Heidi was talking about, we’ve been known to produce a little tutorial or how-to guide or something like that.

                                                But I think we need to do a level set of expectations that we are not referred to as the group that’s going to solve the consumer education problem throughout the world.  And we’re named like that on a regular basis for the last couple of years.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Alan.  Is this not somewhere part of the ICANN bylaws though?

Alan Greenberg:                          What – that we’re supposed to educate the world?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                I’m just trying to read through them quickly.  Maybe not educate the world.  That could be something a little too ambitious of course, with the limited budget or lack of budget that we have for that.

Alan Greenberg:                          Given the minimal budget; given the volunteer nature; given the fact that we can’t hold people to things, we can’t take responsibility for educating people and things like that.  And that’s been said in a number of places in the last couple of years, including a very recent one in that we reacted to in our statement in the… I don’t remember – some paper we issued last month.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                However, in Article 11; Section 2.4.J.5 it says here, “developing and maintaining ongoing information and education programs regarding ICANN and its work.”

Alan Greenberg:                          And we can do that, but that doesn’t mean that we carry them out.  If the implication of that means we have a responsibility to follow through and carry out education programs, then I think we needed to make a rather different statement on our comment on the budget.

                                                Now, whether the bylaws should be changed because of that or not, I don’t know, but I think we do need to do a level set of expectations so that other people can’t process something and assume it’s going to get done because they gave it to the ALAC.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                A fair point; fair point.  Hadn’t thought about it but… okay, Evan, you put your hand up.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Yeah, I just wanted to keep going on this same topic and essentially make the point that Olivier, that particular cause in the bylaw is something that ALAC has indeed tried to fulfill.  The problem is we have prioritized what we have believed have been the necessary programs and initiatives in order to carry out that bylaw and ICANN continues to refuse to fund them.

                                                So this is not a matter of are we fulfilling our purpose or not.  We have taken extreme amounts of diligence and care to try and prioritize the ways that we are hoping to fulfill those bylaws and ICANN continues to refuse the resources to do them.

                                                So it’s one thing for any given constituency to toss out and say, “Well, yeah, you should be sending this out to the public” – no.  We have been tasked with educating the global public on things; we have defined certain priorities such as outreach in order to do this.  We have proposed these to ICANN and ICANN in its wisdom has chosen not to allow us to fulfill our bylaw mandate.

                                                I really think that when we have a discussion like this, we need to frame it that way.  We are trying to do our job; we are trying to fulfill by directional communications between the global community and ICANN, but ICANN chooses to allow us to insist that we do it simply on volunteer basis, already having taxed people to the max on the amount of time they can contribute.

                                                If ICANN chooses to want to mandate something in the bylaws, but not support its execution, I have absolutely no qualms about defending the way we have been acting in this regard.  I don’t think we should be held… anyone has an ability to blame us for not executing our duty that we have been trying our best to do.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan.  And of course, one of my teachers used to ask, “What funding do you need?  All you need is just a pencil and you won’t even need a notepad since you can probably use the back of an envelope for this.”  I’m seeing one more thing though and that’s just one thing that was reminded over to me.

                                                Holly is currently drafting a small consumer outreach document and I guess there are funds for briefing documents that we would be able to put together and this is really the help that we’re getting from ICANN communications.  I’m actually in agreement with your point of view, Evan, and I agree that it’s difficult to have to do all of that on a shoestring budget.

                                                Heidi, can you just expand a little bit on what we’re able to publish and how much help and support we would be given for educating the world?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yeah, again, this is Heidi.  Again, we have numerous channels.  One would be going through the Communications Department as we’ve done with the beginners’ guides and the podcasts.  There are actually tons available to the ALAC for production of documents that would facilitate or support policy development.  I’m not sure if that would be for purposes of education to consumers, but that is up to you, how you wish to use that.  Another way would be again, requesting it through fiscal year budget requests as NARALO did this past year with the outreach video and other such activities.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Evan?

Evan Leibovitch:                         Heidi, I understand that and appreciate it, but simply the video was only the least expensive of a number of NARALO things, many of which were considered, in fact, to be higher priorities, but in fact we have a situation in which we have other people who are dictating to ourselves what our priorities should be and the methods we should use to carry them out.  And that is, to me, just unacceptable.  Thanks.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan.  Next is Alan and then Cheryl.

Alan Greenberg:                          Thank you.  I just want to highlight something.  I don’t think anyone has been saying we’re not fulfilling our bylaw mandate.  Someone might, but I don’t think anyone has actually done that.  I raised the issue I was more worried that there’s a set of expectations that are not going to be satisfied by At-Large, regardless of what kind of budget support we get within any reason, that we’re just not an organization structured to carry out education on a wide-scale basis, and certainly not with any level of success.

                                                So it wasn’t so much that we can’t participate – and how much we participate obviously is going to be controlled by what kind of budgets are allocated – but just that there’s an expectation that we are in the business doing something that I think is far and above what the bylaws say and what we’re capable of.  That’s why I raised the issue.  Evan’s point is not without merit, but I want to make sure we don’t confuse the two issues.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Alan.  Next is Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Thank you.  Cheryl for the transcript record.  A couple of things.  Let me respond to Alan and to speak up on something that I think comes out of what he raised.  Whilst there is the clear tasking in the bylaws, what that of course could also mean is that working with ICANN to develop those things.  Not only do we – as we should – it should be one of those not about it; without it issues – we certainly wouldn’t want ICANN or parts of constituency parts of ICANN coming up with guides, outlines, outreach material and activities which impinge absolutely on the internet end user and registrar, which is our bailiwick to work with without them.

                                                So we certainly, Alan, make the whenever topics come up, so I don’t have a problem with us being listed.  Whenever for example, even things like the PEDNR work, it says “These following things shall happen,” well, we as the end user would like to represent an interest group we’d certainly want to be at the table while those things are designed.

                                                And yes, it does mean resorting in terms of being… do think about “not about us; without us,” as a good mantra there.  However, it should be something that isn’t hard purely to request someone as an advisory committee also which is I think goes to what Evan’s point is where we’ve asked for a particular funding for a particular thing.  And for various reasons over various years that hasn’t been forthcoming. 

                                                But there are other ways to skin that cat which of course is very much what Heidi is outlining and I think there’s been significant improvement in the last couple of years, at least by my watching of it where we can get the resources and allocation of resources to meet our bylaw requirements.

                                                But what we do need to do and this goes back to the very first Regional Leadership meetings, 2006 and 7, where there was a desire to have a repository of sources and that’s something that modifying and refurbished website we’d make it pretty sure that we have a clear space allocated for that. 

But we do have to have easy access to resources which are rather borne out of their own if it’s all those from ICANN more generally and most particularly our At-Large structure particularly.  There are resources that some of our ILSs have developed which would be hugely useful and beneficial for others to know about.

So that repository, that lending library of materials still needs to be on the agenda as well and that’s something we probably need to make sure isn’t lost in translation.

Finally and the reason I wanted to say something is because the piece of work that Holly is having a go at at the moment needs to meet very careful criteria.  It is meant to be not just consumer, but consumer advocacy groups.  It is specifically tied to be material that will make our improvement recommendations relating to consumer input into GNSO and ccNSO activities that is beyond ALAC representation.  So it’s not just a simple matter of another piece of outreach or another piece of beginners’ guide or advice.  It’s got to be tied specifically to [key] bodies and consumer advocacy involvement in ICANN.  That’s it for me.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you very much, Cheryl.  This is all noted.  Of course, this all started from my question – shall we have a meeting with the registrars.  I gather we probably are not ripe for one yet.  Possibly in the future – maybe in Toronto – but we’ll cross that bridge when we have to.

                                                In the meantime, as far as the repository of resources is concerned, I understand that with Matt currently doing work on the Confluence Wiki, such a thing is about to appear or is in the process of appearing or maybe may already be there.  But certainly we have a beginners’ guide which has already been published and put together; we have our brochures and we have more material that will go in a location where all of that material can be downloaded and certainly try to make it as friendly as possible or user friendly as possible.

                                                I’d like to move on because we are already late and so if there are no more questions and comments about the development of the Prague ALAC meeting agendas, we’ll move to point No. 5 in the agenda which is Input for a Public Comment List.  This is an email which I sent out, I believe a few days ago, just asking about the upcoming public comments.  But I see that Alan has put his hand up.  Not sure if it’s for the previous point or this one.

Alan Greenberg:                          It’s for a much earlier point.  I just noticed in the minutes regarding lapel pins – it said I am not in support of lapel pins.  I supported lapel pins for At-Large and friends; not for everyone.  What I did not support was the request to get one for every attendee at the meetings.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                And here we go.  Automatically this has been amended.  Thank you very much.  Back to the upcoming public comment list.  That’s of course a question to our working groups if we are going to implement changes and things that will require public comment, can we forecast any of these coming up.  So the floor is open to all of you present here.  Rather than sending an email out to all of the  Chairs of all the working groups, I thought it would be probably easier to first discuss it here. 

                                                Okay, so it looks like we haven’t got any coming up.  That’s the conclusion that I take from there.  Cheryl, would any of our Rules of Procedure works require public comments in the future?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    I missed the last sentence, part of your sentence, Olivier.  Cheryl for the record, while I was desperately trying to unmute.  Could you repeat?  Could you or would you?

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay.  Would you say…  Will you say that there are going to be any public comments required on any of our Rules of Procedure changes?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    No because they’re internal.  They’re not tantamount to public comment.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It’s only a question because some of these… Well, will any of these require ICANN bylaw changes?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Not at this stage and if at all, it would be after Prague, so I’m certain it wouldn’t be raising it now.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay.  Hey, don’t be suspicious – it’s only a question.  [chuckles]  Next is Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          I’m sorry.  I was just going to go along with Cheryl.  We may well end up with something that we find that needs a bylaw change, although I can’t imagine what it is today.  But even something like the two-year term for the Chair I don’t think needs to be enshrined in bylaws.  So probably not, but if we do, we do and I will let the cards fall where they will in the fullness of time, I think is the expression.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, well, that’s good so we can fly through this item and we can move on to the next item for discussion and that’s developing an At-Large Statement of Interest template.  We had a call – Heidi and myself – with the people that put together the GNSO Statements of Interest Wiki.  As you all know, we are trying to push a lot towards absolute transparency on all of our participants. 

Matt has very kindly put together from scratch a table with all of us, our pictures, our Statements of Interest and the only problem with that is it’s not something that’s scalable in that if we wish to extend this to more than just the ALAC and to all of the regional leads and that’s something that I think is desirable since we’re getting working group Chairs that are neither on the ALAC nor on the Regional Leadership.

                                                Then we need to have an SOI system that is scalable and therefore being able to implement something alongside the GNSO Statement of Interest was a possible solution.  I’m glad to report that Ken Bour who has implemented the system for the GNSO has told us that it was possible for him to do something similar to this for the ALAC.  And the reason I use the word “similar” is that the fields of the actual SOIs themselves need to be different. 

The GNSO fields are asking about any genus or working groups and asking about the constituency that they’re in, etc.  Of course, in ALAC it’s slightly different – we might wish to ask what region somebody is in and to ask other questions.  And so I open the floor here for a quick discussion on this and hoping that we can then design the actual template that we wish to use.

The technical side of things – the implementation of it and so on – we will leave to Ken Bour and his colleagues at ICANN IT and so the good news is they’re ready to implement it.  They can do that pretty quickly for us.  What we need to do is just supply what SOI we want in there.  Questions and comments – the floor is open.  Cheryl?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Thank you.  Cheryl for the transcript record.  I’m happy with where that’s heading, Olivier, but I actually think that rather than necessarily a replacement of the fields that are in existence in the GNSO SOI, we might need to pop those as some sort of subject somewhere.  Obviously we need specific regions, etc., etc. 

But I think the information in the data set which indicate whether or not we as ALAC reps or leaders or even just work group members from At-Large are involved in other work groups in other parts of ICANN is a very important piece of material to be advertised and flagged and recorded, just the same as if you’re a card-carrying member of a whole bunch of other parts of ICANN constituency stakeholder group, etc., etc.  That should all be listed.  So I would be looking rather more to have our own supersets put in and perhaps rather than delete very much of what is in the GNSO, we might want to subset some of that.

                                                But I just don’t want to have to trash some really useful information being gathered that we forget to notice that there’s a particular employment or even non-remunerated relationship between another part of ICANN that will come back to bite us later if we put someone in as a representative of us into a work group, either our own or one which is cross-community or another part of ICANN and someone who you sit on the Board thereof, even if it’s an honorary position.  You know what I mean?  I think we need to be more rather than less.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Cheryl.  Perhaps I didn’t explain myself correctly.  I was just saying amended, let’s say, amended, add, do whatever to add to it and if you feel that the fields that are currently there are worth keeping, then of course, by all means, let’s do that.  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, I think we’re spending too much time on this topic.  I suggest we delegate to whomever to work with Ken to come up with a proposed set of fields clearly identifying those that were dropped from the GNSO and those that are added and bring it back to this group – to the full ALAC – for comment.  I don’t think we need to discuss it ahead of time.  I think most of us will likely end up with the same set of questions regardless and just task someone – whether it’s you or someone else – I don’t know – with doing the first pass.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, Alan, thank you.  Do you think that punting it to the regions would be a good idea?

Alan Greenberg:                          Not as a first pass.  It’s far easier to have someone critique something than to have them invent it and having five people inventing in parallel I don’t think is a good use of time for something.  This is not a particularly onerous thing.  We gotta get it right and we don’t want to be too stupid about it, but I think it only takes a limited amount of time to do it.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Does anybody wish to volunteer? 

Alan Greenberg:                          I’ll volunteer if no one else wants to.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                You knew that question was coming up, Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          I don’t think this is going to be a time-consuming issue regardless of who does it so yes, I’ll volunteer.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It’s not being time-consuming; it’s well, just the discussion led to the right answer.

Alan Greenberg:                          Tell Ken to work with me and I’ll be glad to.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, excellent.  Alright, thank you.  Just for the record, there was a suggestion that we actually integrate our own SOIs with the GNSO SOI.  The answer to that is it’s actually a lot more complicated than we think.  Apparently the GNSO Council has taken much time to discuss those things and it will just complicate matters so that’s why we have our own system that is separate from the GNSO’s one.

                                                Moving onto the next agenda item which is agenda items from May ALAC meeting.  Anything specific that you wish to bring forward?  Alan, you put your hand up.  Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          I did indeed.  There is going to be a substantive discussion on Red Cross IOC type issues at the GNSO meeting this Thursday and I’m sure it will need to be reported and perhaps some action taken, so I’d like that put on.

                                                Just to give you substance to it, there’s a discussion in the GNSO that since a PDP has been launched on the fuller question of inter-governmental organizations as opposed to just IOC and Red Cross, that we should disband the current Drafting Team.  Some of us on the Drafting Team feel that is exceedingly inappropriate because we still have a GAC request that came through the Board that we have not addressed, that is, second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross in the first round.  And it remains to be see what the GNSO will do with this, but I suspect coming out of it, it needs to at least be reported to the ALAC and perhaps some action taken.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay so maybe we can add this to the agenda of the next ALAC call.

Alan Greenberg:                          That is what I’m suggesting.  That was the subject of the question I think.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Excellent.  Well, I’m agreeing, then yes, let’s go for it.  Next is Evan and then Cheryl.  Evan.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Hi, okay, sorry, I was just going to speak as one of those that believed that the Drafting Team needed to be disbanded because it really has no charter except for a very short-term purpose.  The PDP is going to accomplish what it needs to and I really don’t see the need with going ahead with something that was charged to do one very specific purpose, a specific purpose that is submit a set of recommendations to the Board for this one thing has been done and therefore, the task has been done.

                                                And the idea of having drafting teams to keep going after what they have been drafting is completed and submitted just to me, it goes against the process of having groups with a specific charter do what they’re supposed to do.  And because of the way this thing was tossed together so quickly, and so I would say haphazardly, keeping it going beyond the limited life that it has already I think is a bad mistake.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan and next is Cheryl.

Alan Greenberg:                          I do have a rebuttal on that at whatever time you feel appropriate.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, so go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay, the group was tasked with addressing the implementation for the first round specifically at the second level.  The group chose to do something at the first level also which did go to the Board.  The group has not done anything yet in terms of recommendations on the largest part of the request and from the GAC’s point of view, the entire request.

                                                So I disagree with Evan that the work has been done and should be disbanded.  If the work had been done, I agree it should be disbanded but at this point it has not addressed at all the explicit request from the GAC and the Board.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Alan.  Next is Cheryl.  Go ahead.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Thank you.  Cheryl for the transcript.  I just want to make sure that the placeholder that the Procedure and Metrics Group requested in the May ICANN meeting is… sorry, in the May ALAC meeting… is getting onto the agenda.  Particularly we want to make sure that our progress toward the drafting or final drafting of the report for the SRC regarding implementation and improvements is on the agenda hopefully for a discussed deliberation and if not decide at the meeting, decide shortly after the meeting so that it can go through to the SRC in a timely manner and pre-Prague. 

                                                And I’d also like a little bit of time to update everyone on the matter of not only the general Rules of Procedure but the progress in the metrics as well.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you very much, Cheryl.  There is an item which is already listed for decision.  That’s the Vision Statement.  You wish more than that?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Yeah, cause the Vision Statement is obviously part of the implementation, but we also need to have… we’ve worked extremely hard to have a schedule for the ROC Metrics and Task Force rotation of those work groups to make sure we’ve got drafting done for the report to go to the SRC and the Board in Prague so that it can be in front of the ALAC in the May meeting.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, Heidi, is that noted?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Cause that was some of the gymnastics that these will have to go through.  [chuckles]

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes, Cheryl I believe that’s under decisions, both the decision statement as follows:  the draft final report of the ALAC.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Okay, that’s fine.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you everyone.  Evan?

Evan Leibovitch:                         Sorry, hand left up.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Evan.  Next is Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, with regard to Evan’s comment, if this group does desire that I make a statement at the meeting on behalf of ALAC, then I would appreciate being given such a statement; otherwise, I’ll speak purely on my own behalf there.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Well, the meeting is in three day’s time.  I’m not sure we’ll be able to have something that would come from all of ALAC in three day’s time.

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, from the ExCom and… to put it bluntly, if everyone agrees with Evan that the Drafting Team should be disbanded, then I can give an indication that there is a strong feeling among ALAC leaders.  If that’s not the case, then so be it.  I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the ALAC on this one.  This is already a sensitive issue, as you know.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, Alan, let’s just take a quick show of hands here.  I see various people playing around with their hands – putting it up and down.  That’s a bit confusing on my screen.  But I heard Carlton about to say something.  Carlton, your hand is up now.

Carlton Samuels:                         Yes, thank you Olivier.  This is Carlton for the record.  I was about to say that there is a slight difference, Alan, in what you said.  I also agree that he may have misinterpreted what I thought that I was saying and I wanted to go to the chat to clarify.  I personally agree that the way to move is to go with Alan’s statement because those are the facts as I understand them.

                                                We might have to clarify to say that once the PDP is initiated we would have more to say or we would seek further participation.  Thank you.

Alan Greenberg:                          To be clear, the PDP may end up with… conceivably the Drafting Team could make recommendations with regard to the Red Cross IOC and the long-term PDP completely reverse that.  That is completely consistent.  Or it may simply use what it’s developed by the Drafting Team for the Red Cross IOC and expand it or not.  I’m not going to predict what the PDP will come out with and we certainly need significant involvement in the PDP.

                                                The only question is should the Drafting Team decide to… should the GNSO decide to either ignore the GAC Board request; fulfill it via the Drafting Team or fulfill it via a new mechanism that it chooses and I think those are the questions on the table, although I don’t think they’d be phrased that succinctly. 

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Alan.  I gather you’ve got a pretty good hold on this and I see your question being can you say that it’s just a personal statement from your or if it’s a statement from ALAC leadership.  Can I just ask for a quick show of hands as to you know, take yes – green – take if you think that Alan should be able to speak on the behalf of the ExCom or Red Cross if you would rather prefer that Alan submits a statement under his own name.

Alan Greenberg:                          I’m quite happy to say this hasn’t been addressed by the ALAC and speak on my own behalf.  I just don’t want to walk away from this meeting with people thinking I’m going to say one thing and me not knowing I’m supposed to. 

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay.  I see only one tick so far from Carlton.  I see Evan.

Evan Leibovitch:                         I don’t know if this… I certainly didn’t want this to turn into confidence in what Alan has to say to the GNSO.  I don’t want to tie Alan’s hands when it comes to talking to them.  Alan, you’re here, you’re hearing us – I think you’ve got a good feel for the way things are.  Having been here and heard this, I fully trust your ability to go to the GNSO and indicate to them where we’re at.  I don’t think this has to be whether it’s an official ALAC statement or a personal statement, but an accurate fulfillment of being a liaison and saying, “Well, this is the mood.”

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, I would like to be able to say on behalf of the ALAC Executive Team that the ALAC feels strongly that the GNSO should not blindly and blatantly ignore a request from the GAC and the Board and that’s the question that may be on the table. 

Evan Leibovitch:                         I don’t think that in just an ExCom meeting that you can say the ALAC feels strongly in any respect on anything just based on what you’re hearing here.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, but the real issue is if the GNSO decides to say, “To hell with the request from the Board and the GAC; we’ve decided we’re finished for the first round,” is that something which is appropriate and I think that would be concedingly disastrous for relations between the various bodies within ICANN and that’s the part that I have a problem with.

Carlton Samuels:                         And I’m agreeing here.  I’m agreeing to that to even being the case.  That such an option would be counter to all of our interests.  I’m agreeing to that because that’s what I’m hearing.

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay, and I really don’t care how the GNSO addresses it, but I don’t think they can ignore it.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Alan, what do you say is dangerous about that path?  I’m not seeing the danger.

Alan Greenberg:                          Because we are finally at the stage where we work together successfully and to have the GNSO say, to be blunt, “Screw you.  You made the request; the Board made the request, we’re just going to ignore it and do nothing,” is demanding that the Board perhaps unilaterally make decisions on its own instead of going to the GNSO and I don’t think that’s healthy for the organization.

Carlton Samuels:                         That’s absolutely right.  That’s the down side to this.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Evan, you put your hand up.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Sorry - putting it down.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, I see the points.  I haven’t heard Tijani say anything.  I’d like to have his point of view on that please.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Thank you, Olivier.  I am okay with Alan expressing our feelings because we are not ALAC; we are only ExCom, so I am okay that he express our feelings, yes.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Tijani.  Well, I see a majority of people saying, “Yes, please go ahead, Alan.”  But I would urge caution of course, as you know the GNSO Council is intent on always picking the nit that lie between the lines.  And so if you are to make a statement, then just say that… I would imagine that you probably mention the ALAC Executive Committee rather than the ALAC. 

Alan Greenberg:                          I will be Julie-careful.  With regard to Carlton’s comment in the chat with the understanding that a line be added with regard to future PDP involvement, I assume that means by At-Large – the only thing that’s going to stop our involvement in that PDP is we don’t volunteer to work.  So I don’t need to tell the GNSO to involve us; it’s up to us to involve us.  We are going to be welcome.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                You’re quite right, Alan, I’m just making the point.

Alan Greenberg:                          And I had to make the point back.  Thank you.  [laughs]

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Alright, so I think we need to move on then if we can.  We move on to Any Other Business.  On Any Other Business, we’ve got a number of them.  The first one is the ICANN Academy.  I wanted to give you a quick feedback on what’s happened since Costa Rica.

                                                Effectively the other invitations to the other SOs, ACs and stakeholder groups were sent out.  We’ve had three volunteers from the ASO come forward; the ccNSO is going to decide by the 8^th of May – there could be up to two or three people from them.  The SSAC has got two volunteers; the RSSAC has got one; the registries have got one; the registrars have got one; the ISTs have got one; the BC is to be confirmed and it might be Marilyn Cade; and a second person in the BC as well, John [Berard] might also be interested.  That’s also to be confirmed.  The NCUC is still to be confirmed and the NPUC has got one.

                                                So really what we’re missing at the moment is someone from the IPC; someone from the GAC and of course, that we will find out hopefully when Heather comes back tomorrow and then someone from the GNSO Council.  I thought it would be important to have someone from the actual Council itself rather than someone from the stakeholder groups since we have often heard criticism from stakeholder groups that the GNSO Council is not the GNSO.

                                                So having really a point of view from all sides is the right thing to do.  In fact, the GNSO Council might be discussing this in Any Other Business if someone wants to volunteer.  Alan, since you’re going to be on that call, the reason why I asked the Council was to have someone from the Council itself or someone who used to be in the Council and is able to share their knowledge about how to be a Councilman.

Alan Greenberg:                          Not to short-circuit the discussion, there is current discussion on the list that Stefan represent the Council and so that probably will be done.  That tends to be where the discussion is going at this point.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you.  Well, because there was also hearsay that there was significant opposition within the GNSO and whilst I had on one side Stefan sending me emails letting me know that there might be some opposition, on the other side I had individual stakeholder groups contacting me and sending their preferred representatives.

Alan Greenberg:                          The only dissention I remember – and I haven’t been following it very well – was from NCSG.  I might be very wrong about that, but I think that was the only place where there was real concern that this perhaps is something we don’t want to do.  They are raising a number of questions, including who should be targeted by this; who sets the curriculum; who funds it.  And I think I understand the answers to that.  I’ll pass it by the ExCom before the meeting to make sure I have the wording right.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                I think you can send them the document which is available for public download and which we have presented over in Costa Rica.

Alan Greenberg:                          If someone could send me the pointers - that might be useful.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, excellent.  Heidi, could you please have this sent over to Alan?  That would be good.  Tijani, you’ve put your hand up.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes.  Thank you, Olivier; Tijani speaking.  Especially for the GNSO Council, we need someone who is appointed by the GNSO Council, not a volunteer from the GNSO Council because we had the experience that the GNSO Council don’t agree on an output given by a group where their representative or someone volunteering from them who is working with us.  So we need someone appointed by the GNSO Council to avoid any problem.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Tijani.  It’s actually a Councilor that we need.  As you mentioned, someone appointed by the GNSO Council is someone in one of the stakeholder groups which is not someone on the Council.  It really is for them to share their knowledge of how things work on the Council and it appears that Stefan will be the person that will be appointed.  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                          Just to be clear, you are not going to get someone from the GNSO who is empowered to make decisions on behalf of the GNSO ahead of time.  So you’re not going to get someone who, because they participated in the discussion, the result is something the GNSO will approve.  They can speak with the full knowledge of what the GNSO is likely to do or what is likely to be palatable to the GNSO, but they’re not going to approve someone ahead of time to make decisions on their behalf.  If that’s what’s expected, reset expectations.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                That’s not what’s expected.  What’s expected is for that person on the GNSO Council to basically design the curriculum – what should be taught about the GNSO Council in the Academy.  Now it’s understood that each one of the representatives that will be on this working group will report back – and this is why we insisted for all of them to be represented – so they were a direct link back to their SO, AC and SG if there were any questions about what they would like to put on there.

                                                And I would certainly hope that the involvement of each one of these people will not be the involvement of one person, but certainly each one of these will go and bring the thoughts from their SO, AC and SG as to what should be in that curriculum..

Alan Greenberg:                          And I think you can assume that there will be interaction back and forth.  But from what Tijani said, I thought perhaps he was looking for someone who can speak on behalf of the GNSO, the GNSO Council.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       No, Alan.  I am sorry.  What I meant is that someone who is recognized by the GNSO Council because this is a group to work together and there will not be critical decision.  It’s not policy development; it is a design of a curriculum and the best one to say what will be taught on the GNSO Council and one from the GNSO Council and approved by the GNSO Council.  That’s all.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Noted.  Thanks to all of you.  So then the next Any Other Business is the IANA Contract Update.  There have been calls for the ALAC to find out what is going on with the IANA contract renewal.  Certainly we haven’t heard anything from the Board so I put pen to paper and I wrote to the Board IANA Subcommittee. 

And the reply that I received from Kuo-Wei, who is Chair of that Subcommittee, is that there is something going on at the moment, but due to the sensitive nature of the actual subject, they’re not ready to release any information yet.  Not only are they working on it, but the whole Board is working on it, along with ICANN staff as well.  However, he will keep us updated as a matter of priority as soon as they have something that can be released over to us. 

So they are doing something.  I would have wished that they shared more information with us on what they’re doing, but we’ll find out with time and hopefully within the next few weeks.  And I’ll keep the pressure on them to come back to us on that.

Next, the Board cancellation of Fridays.  As you know, there’s been a big discussion between SO and AC Chairs.  Thanks very much, Alan, for forwarding the notes that were sent over to the GNSO.  The note that we received from Steve was the Board was going to provide a fuller explanation of what is [enticed] because they’re not only looking at scraping Fridays but also having more interaction between the Board and the community both on Monday and Thursday and maybe other times too.

So I think we should just be waiting the full program as to what they wish to do.  And certainly I would like them to find out what they’re going to do as soon as possible since we’ve just been building our own timetables for Prague and adding things just a few weeks before Prague is going to throw us into disarray.

Next the TAS delay – there have been calls for the ALAC to write a statement about the TAS delay.  I’ve monitored the NARALO lists and seen that there has also been push-back on this thing that we don’t really have the bandwidth for this.  There’s already a lot of noise being made around the TAS delay and we have plenty of other matters to work on without just adding to an ocean of voices and in fact angrier voices than we are since really, internet users are really not that sort of marginally affected by this so far.

And certainly it gives us more time to do things ourselves.  Well, on the next thing which is the New gTLD Review Group, we’ve had a delay on this and we might need a bit more time to form this group.  So a delay isn’t so bad for us.

And next – who to interview for the website updates.  As you know our ALAC website is an absolute nightmare to go through and we had a meeting – Heidi and I – with the people who are designing or going to redesign the website from scratch.  We need to make up a small team – a handful of people that would be interrogated by Scott and his team to find out how this should be organized and how it should be, you know, sort of organized in a way to make it as user-friendly as possible.

So we need to come up with some names if we have any volunteers and if we know of anyone in our community that are particularly good at organization of websites and organization of information to make it as easy to travel through as possible.  Any comments or thoughts on this?  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                          I’m not particularly good at organizing information, but I’m particularly good at criticizing bad implementation, so I’d be pleased to volunteer myself.  Only partially tongue-in-cheek.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                So we already know who the nosy neighbor is going to be telling them, “Oh, you don’t want to do it like that.”  But I hear Cheryl has also uttered a word in the background.  Cheryl?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Thank you.  If someone interviews me or not, I’ll probably make my voice heard regardless.  But I did want to make sure that the mandate included that it be accessible in the [WC3] requirements because we have a mandate beyond the average to get to the edges.  We do have to with our mandate for internet end users, not just registrars.  But even if we were speaking to just registrars, we have to be accessible, so we need to make sure that our site is conforming.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                And do you know, by any chance, whether the current new ICANN website is…  it is not?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Not to the AAA rating.  It’s good but it’s not up as far as it should be.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Very good point.  Okay, so you might also be one of those people to be listed and interviewed.  But I ask others to also… I think we’re looking at something like… is it 12 people?  Heidi, could you remind me please?

Heidi Ullrich:                             I believe it was around 12 people – no more than that definitely.  But also I think we’re looking for regional representation, balanced regional representation.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                So should we send a call out?  I realize we’ve sent a lot of call outs recently and I’m a bit concerned sending so many call outs.  People start getting confused and it just gets lost in the mass of calls for more participants.  Should we perhaps designate people from our community, discuss it locally and try and find someone who…?  I mean I think it’s an excellent first step into the At-Large world, getting more and more involved if you have that skill and I’m sure we have that skill within our ranks.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Olivier, this is Heidi.  Perhaps we can ask Dave who is the Chair of the Technology Work Force.  Perhaps we could work with him in identifying people for this.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                I’m happy with that.  Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, Olivier.  What about if you send [a card]?  What about someone who volunteers and who is not able to help really?  So I prefer that since we know people, the best is to perhaps recommend people from the regions.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Tijani.  That’s why I suggested that.  Effectively it must be known who are people that are interested in this.  I’m sure you know in the AFRALO region who’s interested in these things.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Just on the accessibility, ISOC AU and [its component ALS] has an internationally renowned expert in accessibility issues.  Can I ask that [that person’s] name be put forward as an edge person certainly that we would be well advised to have her interviewed, even though it’s through ISOC obviously for the formal record if we’ve got someone who’s out there setting the benchmark of things (inaudible).

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                That’s exactly the type of volunteer which I thought could be asked specifically and I’m sure all regions have people in their ALSs that are very well versed in this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:                    Well, I’ll formalize it through APRALO that I would be putting her name forward.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                In the EURALO region for example, we have people coming from Wiki Media Foundation.  They might have some real experts in this sort of equipment.  Okay, so please, please check with your region and come back to us pretty quickly on that.  Just get back to us and then Heidi will arrange for the calls to take place.  Tijani?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, Olivier, it’s not only the technical skills that we are looking for.  From my point of view it’s more an understanding of what is the most important information that has to be put in the right place.  So it is more knowing At-Large, knowing ALAC and also having skill in the technical side.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thank you, Tijani.  And of course, with 12 people being interviewed, I gather that some will be stronger in the technical field; some will be stronger in the visuals; some stronger in the organizational and some stronger in the ALAC knowledge.  And I hope that they will be able to make up our best site ever hopefully.

                                                I think we need to move on because we’re way over time.  The last of the Any Other Business brought up by me and I know there’s one piece of Any Other Business from Alan as well which he mentioned earlier.  But the last one here is the New gTLD Review Group.  It’s the first time we have an operational matter to deal with and I’m a little concerned about not having enough people on that Review Group that will volunteer to move forward.

                                                It’s going to be quite an lot of work and spread over a specific amount of time –I’m not quite sure how long – maybe a full year – who knows?  But the questions that come to mind really is - are we doing well in our region.  As you know, we need two people from each RALO, brought forward by each RALO and also one person that the ALAC will choose as well from each one of the regions.

                                                The reason for it being that sometimes the RALOs only look at their ALSs; the ALAC would be able to look at people who might not even be part of any ALS and who might need to be put on there.  So the floor is open for a quick discussion on this and I see Tijani has put his hand up.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Yes, as for the AfrICANN region, I have seen already two volunteers from AFRALO; I don’t know if you received it.  They sent it on the AFRALO list, so the staff saw it.  So it is probably the decision of AFRALO since it is only the two volunteers.  But the third one should be decided by ALAC and we’ll do it together.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                What person should the ALAC use for this?  Should we all look in our own corners or at the ALAC itself to look for potential volunteers in the region?

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       I think that every member of ALAC has to propose people from his region.  And then ALAC take the right position, the right decision.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, Tijani, thanks.  That’s a fair way forward.  Any other questions or suggestions on this?  So the suggestion by Tijani was that every ALAC member needs to look for people.  So what I suggest is sending another email to the ALAC now and asking for ALAC members to come up with proposals and nominations from their region.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Make a deadline please.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                From their region instead of from their RALO. 

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                       Right, with a deadline please.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                With a deadline, yeah.  I mean we’re quite lucky, as I mentioned a bit earlier, we’re quite lucky that the TAS is delayed so we have a little more time, but obviously we need a deadline.  The deadline for the current nominations from the RALOs is – is it tomorrow, Heidi, or…?

Silvia Vivanco:                           This is Silvia.  It’s tomorrow.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                It’s tomorrow, so I’m a little concerned not seeing a flock of people having come forward.  We might have to extend this.  Let’s see the list we get tomorrow.  Heidi?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Sorry, I disconnected when I wanted to go off mute.  Yeah, the deadline is tomorrow for the RG members.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, I gather we’ve got two volunteers from AFRALO and have the other regions also followed through so far?

Heidi Ullrich:                             No, just the AFRALO.  There have been no other members that I’ve seen.

Silvia Vivanco:                           Actually I’ve seen there are two volunteers from EURALO.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Yeah, I’ve noted that as well.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yeah, actually I did see Wolf’s email coming in this morning.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, right, well, that’s it for my Other Business.  Alan, you mentioned you had a piece of Other Business as well.

Alan Greenberg:                          Just a heads up.  I’ve joined the PDP Working Group on locking domain names during UDRP.  I noticed there wasn’t any real At-Large participation and I thought we should be there.  And I have put my name up as Vice Chair.  Michele Neylon is likely to be Chair.  It’s gotta be agreed to by the Working Group and then the GNSO.  I don’t expect either of them to disagree, so chances are I will end up being the Vice Chair of that.

                                                It’s not a huge issue but it’s something that we haven’t been involved in at all and seemed like a good opportunity for me to get my feet wet in that area which is likely to become more interesting over the next number of years.  Thank you.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Okay, thank you, Alan.  And of course, you Chaired the PEDNR Group so anything after PEDNR sounds easy after PEDNR.  Any other Other Business from anyone else?

Alan Greenberg:                          The fact that Michele was willing to accept me and, in fact, propose me as a Co-Chair, is a good sign, given that he was subjected to be unfit.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Yeah, great.  I was going to crack a joke involving beer, but anyway…  Okay, so any other Other Business?  I gather that there isn’t any, so I’d like to thank each and every one of you for this long call, which has lasted another two hours.  The time is 17:06 UTC and this meeting is now adjourned.  Thanks very much everyone.

[End of Transcript]