Cheryl: While we’re waiting for them to appear in the Adobe Connect we can start going through them. We’ve got the Brussels travel issue which I find very annoying with getting these emails that are so fraught with fear, oversight and errors, especially when you’ve been waiting for something that was supposedly translated and no translation has come out anyway. It does make you wonder why it’s held up and the deadline for responding is still so short a time.
Anyway, I’m sure we’ll get past that eventually.
Heidi What I’m confused about is Sylvia did receive hers in Spanish. I’m not sure why Sebastian and Patrick didn’t receive theirs in French.
Cheryl: Interesting.
Heidi: I’ll follow up.
Male: Heidi can we get some clarity of whether the email was in Spanish or if she got a Spanish attachment, got a Spanish form? What is it she got in Spanish?
Heidi: Okay.
Cheryl: Yeah that could be very useful. I’m keen to know of course who is going to be traveling from which regions. Have we got an acceptance list or do we have to wait until our people respond? We have our approved list but we actually haven’t got any indication of who the travelers will be who will be taking up the options.
Heidi: Most people responded that they would be able to go.
Cheryl: Mohammed you’re not taking up the travel support option, correct?
Mohammed: Correct.
Cheryl: But are you going to be attending the meeting then or not?
Mohammed: Yeah I’ll be attending the meeting.
Cheryl: Okay. We’ve got a lot we need to try and do on Sunday and it’s going to be fairly important that we have people there by late on Saturday. Will you be arriving because you’re going to be traveling outside of constituency travel...?
Mohammed: Yeah my plan, I think, is Sunday which is the 20th I’ll be there on Sunday no problem.
Cheryl: Terrific, okay. That’s the only thing that concerned me. Now anything we need to look at? I think these comments particularly the travel comments Alan you and Adam are going to have a go at that and that’s fine. But we haven’t really discussed is any of the previous comments we were told that the travel guideline took into account a number of our previous comments.
Do you want to look at that and give us a bit of an update before it goes in or have you not had time to look at the…
Alan: I haven’t looked at it at all. I will look at it in the next couple of days and formulate a comment and give a…
Cheryl: Okay but I think what we need to do though is make sure that if we can clearly identify that some of the things we’ve said have been picked up on, we should do a little warm fuzzy thank you very much we’ve noticed this type intro.
Alan: My taxes are due on Friday and that’s one of my priorities also.
Cheryl: So in a post-tax environment we’ll get that okay. So Alan and Adam to work on that and that’s terrific. Although I note that if Adam is on holiday next week he’s not going to be terribly useful to you after Friday.
Alan: I’m going to have it done before Friday somehow. You know the hours I work.
Cheryl: Okay fair enough. We’ve got the, oh you also picked up the but that only has to be a fairly minor statement with the council prioritization process recommendation and the communications coordination work team.
Alan: It’s not a minor item to read them but I did say I would do that.
Cheryl: Okay. I think this lending in of recommendation 13 is the nutty part of that. It’s not due until the 10th or 16th of May?
Alan; Yeah I believe we said we were going to start all the votes on the 4th.
Cheryl: Okay and that’s still achievable you think?
Alan: I’m going to try to get a 1 or 2 sentence statement on both of them out and I hope to achieve it. It’s on my list. I try not making promises but I have to try.
Cheryl: Now are there preferences for the Excom now in terms of picking up the rest of what we didn’t complete? A lot of it are items for discussion but we still have the very important ALS survey and we have the opportunity for a number of the regions to put any particular in reach questions that they might want to put forward I know IP Rowlo put a couple of proposals and discussed a couple of things today.
Is that something that you think we can jump over or do you think we need to address at the meeting, especially if it’s late next week? I’m concerned that’s pushing our send out time down the track a little bit too far. What is the view of the Excom on that?
Sebastian: Is there a Secretariat meeting in the near future? I think this type of work would be under advisement if it’s in the nearby now, if not we need to do that as soon as possible. And if it’s too late to call we need to do that prior by Excom. I think it’s important to send this survey as soon as possible.
Cheryl: I’m quite happy with the survey as it is. I’ve suggested it goes in 3 parts. Now by in 3 parts that we segregate the global outreach and regional specific questions with a hard stop option a little bit like separate, both on separate ALS’s or on separate statements. Then people can either continue straight on or come back with the CCTLD survey lump.
We’ve also said that we will be happy to propagate the geographic regions survey questions which need to go out to all of our ALS’s as well as a 3rd lump. What I’m concerned about Sebastian is not so much that the Secretariat’s haven’t had time to put input into the questions. I believe the Secretariat has probably have because each of the regions has had an opportunity to have a meeting and have input. I think Mateo’s has followed on fairly carefully to make sure everyone’s voices have had an opportunity to be heard.
But I don’t believe the ALAC has had a look at it. That is something I would still like them to do.
Sebastian: Okay and I wanted to say one thing about the travel to come back to a point from before. I see that we have the date for participating and to come one day prior. I think it is less and less fair because not the coming one day prior but that you show for this meeting myself not be allowed to come on the 18th. Because with different working groups, we will have meetings on Saturday where we need to be. I think there will be a meeting and it’s important to participate.
I would like to suggest that it would be at least changed if not in the document at least in the realization of the (10:03 – inaudible) that was one of my points. The second we have to, it was a case for the last meeting and it will be the case also for Brussels even more, its Olivia is coming and he’s wearing both hats. I don’t think we need to; well we need to see how we split the money in between because it’s supposed to be from At Large perspective the 19th through the 25th and from the Non-Com perspective it’s the 21st through the 27th.
Some real 21 to 25 could be better, not to have all the (11:04 – inaudible) in one hand or the other or we decide its one hand and not the other. That was my 2 points about travel.
Cheryl: Sebastian, I was under the impression that we were already having the budget allocation split between the proportion of time that is being put against line items for ALAC expenditure to travel and Non-Comm. Do you need to double check on that because I thought that was the way it happened?
Heidi: Yes I will check.
Sebastian: I wasn’t sure it was done last time because last time it was not Non-Comm meetings and it was a little stricter. Some people were invited and not others if I understood well. This time it is the official meeting of the Non-Com and it could really be different and we have to check on that. That’s my point.
Cheryl: Certainly even if it wasn’t an official meeting, if they’re invited then they should be shared in terms of costs for the days they’re working.
Alan: In terms of arrival date, the travel guidelines say what the steady state is. Is if there are people in ALAC who we feel that it’s important to have their on Saturday we simply need to tell travel constituency, my understanding is that’s part of the process that every meeting of staff provides travel if there are any exceptions to the steady state rule.
So if there are meetings being held on Saturday that people need to attend, we need to say so. Regarding Olivia, my presumption but I may be wrong is that if we have somebody who is not coming and therefore we have unused slots then we could subdivide some of their days to Olivia or to someone else. I’m presuming that Non-Com is paying his full travel. It’s only a matter of the per dium and hotels.
Sebastian: No, no this time Olivia is not such a big travel cause he’s coming from Nice and it’s not so far. But he’s not coming like last time. He is officially the At Large team and he’s officially on the Non-Com team and we have to be sure of the budget. That’s my point.
Alan: Okay whoever gets custody of him during the days and has priority over his time should be paying for those days.
Cheryl: Alan I think your point was if Non-Com would be picking up the airfare then that should be picked up by Non-Com. It makes no difference to them whether he lands on the 27th or the 20th.
Alan: No I’m assuming Non-Com is paying whatever they are paying and we should be finding the money for the rest of his days.
Heidi: That’s how I believed it’s worked in the past.
Alan: Yeah I think so.
Sebastian: Sorry I’m not sure.
Cheryl: In which case Heidi we need to double check on that because that actually frees up some…
Alan: Travel support and perhaps several days.
Heidi: My understanding is isn’t the Non-Com starts the weekend after the ICANN meeting, is that correct?
Cheryl: Yes but they would have to fly him there anyway.
Alan: I thought Sebastian said the number of days for Non-Com at this meeting is larger.
Sebastian: Non-Com is 21 to 27 this time and At Large is 18 to 25.
Alan: So there are 1 or 2 additional days.
Sebastian: There is 21 to 25 twice or could be twice. But just check, I’m sure it wasn’t the case last time and this time…and even this time the budget is very small for travel compared to the other I guess.
Alan: But this is the first time in several years that Non-Com is starting on a Monday.
Heidi: I’ll look into it.
Cheryl: We just want to be sure we’re not…
Alan: Getting shafted again.
Cheryl: Still I think is there term, yes Alan. Is there anything else on the travel part before we get to what I think we have to get to because if we don’t get it at a point in time early enough we’re going to fall foul of deadlines in terms of the Brussels meeting. Heidi do you want to bring up some of the Brussels agenda?
Heidi: Yes. On the agenda you will see the link to the current list. I’ll put that in the Adobe Connect. My concern or wish is that we have some agreement at least for the types of meetings, the dates and times we will be having meeting because next week I need to start filling out the meeting plan information forms.
We can do the agendas in the week following. So the link is in the Adobe Connect.
Alan: That’s the link for the Excom meetings?
Heidi: No.
Cheryl: Below that, Brussels schedule.
Heidi: Do you see that Alan?
Alan: In the Excom chat.
Cheryl: It’s in the Adobe room.
Alan: Okay I thought we were talking about a different link.
Heidi: Okay so we definitely have the all day Sunday meeting and we’re already working on agenda items for that one. Currently, we have the AP Rowlos scheduled for Tuesday, we have again the traditional ALAC policy discussions part 1 and 2 on Tuesday. We have again on Tuesday the Rowlo showcase event and I believe that is tentatively scheduled for during lunch. Is that correct Sebastian?
Sebastian: Yes.
Heidi: Then also on Tuesday we have again tentatively the ALAC improvements discussion with interested members of the FIC and DGC. Is that one something you would still like to have?
Sebastian: I guess so yes.
Cheryl: There is no harm in having it. We’ve never not filled the time in that’s for certain.
Alan; Yeah the only harm in having it is if we don’t have some substantive discussions.
Heidi: Yes and I would expect that this time there really ought to be because during their Board retreat in May they will be discussing the At Large Director and I’m hoping that things will, there will be things to report following that.
Alan: Then let’s have the meeting on the assumption that something is going ahead. We can’t not schedule it on those terms and if we cancel we cancel.
Cheryl: Yeah we can use the room for something else.
Heidi: The Rowlo monthly meeting that’s going to go ahead again on Tuesday, is that correct Sebastian? SO we have both the showcase and the Rowlo monthly meeting on Tuesday?
Sebastian: I guess it’s because usually our meeting is on Tuesday. We have to check on that and I would ask to maybe it could be more flexible. But yes at the end of the day if it’s possible we can have it. But the final choice if there is one on the night and we have to be at 6 and we can’t have our meeting, we need to schedule for another day. But yes in the general schedule it’s a good day to keep.
Heidi: Okay. The At Large Regional Secretariat I would assume that’s going to be on Wednesday again somewhat in the morning? I can confirm that with Mateo.
Cheryl: Yeah that would make sense. We do know there will be general sessions on Wednesday that they may want to be attending. It might be an opportunity, I don’t know how long lunch and break is planned for at the Brussels meeting but if Wednesday becomes so full of we would rather be there type things, then we might have to look at suggesting that they meet even over Tuesday at lunch. I don’t know.
Heidi: Okay and then we have the Lack Rawlo monthly meeting on Thursday and oh this is something that Cheryl you and Tim Cole wanted and that was the At Large Registrars meeting. Tim suggested early afternoon on Thursday which would then be followed directly by the ALAC Leadership Wrap Up meeting.
Cheryl: Okay that’s all right.
Heidi: And then the Excom, again the regular time I would say.
Cheryl: Yeah.
Heidi: I’ll start inserting the times then based on the regular times.
Cheryl: Okay. Alan you want to raise a point?
Alan: Yeah just a head’s up there. There will be hopefully a substantive post expiration domain name recovery meeting because we should have a report. And with the lack of At Large participation in the working group, we really need participation in the discussion that goes on at the meeting.
Cheryl: I was thinking that was probably going to happen on Wednesday Alan.
Alan: I don’t know when it’s going to be. You know the problems we have in scheduling those kinds of things.
Cheryl: I do but that’s the sort of thing I was indicating that there might be a whole lot of things we need to do on the Wednesday that might mean we…
Alan: Wednesday the whole morning is taken up with the GNSO open meeting and there is usually high profile GNSO information meetings scheduled on a Wednesday.
Cheryl: Right.
Heidi: So it seems like the Regional Secretary’s meeting definitely is a lunch time…
Cheryl: I think it’s going to have to be squeezed into a lunch time somewhere yes. And we just need to make sure that whatever we’re doing with the meeting of the Board and ourselves doesn’t compete with that same lunch time slot. Put it in now as a placeholder but it may in fact end up running Tuesday lunch time or heaven forbid perhaps even Thursday lunch.
Heidi: I think it will need to be Thursday because currently the Rawlo showcase is scheduled for Tuesday lunch.
Cheryl: I didn’t realize it was running at lunch. Sorry.
Heidi: Yeah let’s do Thursday for the Secretariat’s meeting which is actually good timing because it’s prior to a series of meeting with the registrar.
Cheryl: That’s fine. Good that will work.
Heidi: I’m going to confirm with Diane but I’ll put a placeholder in for 12:30 to 14:00 lunch with the Board on Wednesday.
Cheryl: Okay.
Heidi: Also on Monday we don’t know the time yet but probably in the afternoon would be a joint At Large/GNSO/RAA working group B meeting.
Cheryl: It’s not so much a working group B meeting, as a proposal by the working group to have a community wide discussion on RAA amendments with a particular focus on the desires and needs raised by the work the RAA work group has gone through so far. But focusing on the fairly public and republicized needs from the GAC communiqué in Nairobi from law enforcement.
Heidi: Okay so I’ll work with Margie on, I’ll put a placeholder in there as well. Would you expect that the joint working group on the support for the new GTLD’s is that going to be having a meeting?
Cheryl: I very much doubt it.
Heidi: Okay so that looks like a pretty full agenda right there.
Cheryl: It does indeed.
Heidi: I’ll go ahead and update this and put in some tentative times and put that into the Excom chat so you can see it.
Cheryl: That will be good thanks. Do we have any idea what our, yes go ahead Sebastian.
Sebastian: About the Sunday meeting, I think we need to have a discussion about the working groups, ALAC working groups and how they’re working and how we repopulated with I guess every other working group is trying to do the same thing before Brussels. But I think it would be important to have one part of the discussion, short time discussion on how we want the working group because if we don’t succeed with that we will still be with the 15 people plus the Secretariat and that’s all the people participating and that’s a pity.
Cheryl: That fits in with a number of the aims and At Large improvement implementation recommendations. So in as much as we can focus on those activities within those sub topics I can’t see how we could avoid looking at that.
Sebastian: No, no, no I’m sure it’s just to have that in the agenda to put some items I wanted to have and make sure.
Cheryl: I don’t think it’s going to be stand alone, we’re not going to have working groups present and tell us how you revitalizing yourselves. It’s more likely to be a committee of the whole discussion. We’ll have the implementation from the recommendations of the review to discuss and we’ll also have the feedback from the survey tool to look at what the ALS’s are actually indicating they’re interested in.
Sebastian: Yeah I was not talking about how each working group is trying to revitalize. It’s how together we can discuss how the working groups need to work better for the improvement and in general the At Large work.
Cheryl: Okay.
Sebastian: I agree with you, don’t worry.
Cheryl: I was just particularly keen to make sure we tied in any metrics and feedback we get from the, well I’m going to call it average but as we know it’s actually in reach because that whole survey concept, the global outreach one was very much designed to follow on from the needs and we discussed these issues in Nairobi. So I think we have to close the loop on that certainly.
While we’re talking Sunday, Seth you’re on the call, particular priorities are we going to try and get through all 13 recommendations or what’s the plan?
Seth: As we were discussing the other day, I think that this point Sunday would be the obvious time to have the ALAC and regional leaders giving us, discussing the various recommendations that we are hopefully going to be allocating to them based on the list we created that is now available in the project plan that was emailed around to the ALAC.
Cheryl: Yeah.
Seth: So there is probably a, as long as we have everyone in the room, I think there are about 6 of the recommendations if not actually more that would be the obvious topics, yeah.
Cheryl: Is there any prep work we should need to get them? I want to get as much value out of the time we have.
Seth: Right not at this second Cheryl but yes that would be a terrific idea. I’ll definitely work on that and get a list.
Cheryl: Okay so to that end Heidi wasn’t it we were going to try and do more in the thumb drive type distribution materials in Brussels than we did in Nairobi?
Heidi: We will do completely thumb drives.
Cheryl: Good. So what I’m saying Seth is any of the materials that we want to address need to be ready early enough for us to get on that thumb drive.
Seth: Okay sure.
Cheryl: That’s good. With hearing back from legal have we got anywhere hearing back from legal on the bylaw issue?
Seth: Actually yes and I was able to speak to Sam this last week. He basically had a few points that he wanted us to be very aware of. First, as far as simply implementing into the bylaws some mark up that would satisfy recommendation 1 that is actually a fairly simple thing. She actually gave me and Heidi some example mark ups that she would make. They were actually fairly short but she wanted us to be very aware of 2 points.
One and that is that the 4 elements listed as the purpose of ALAC within ICANN in recommendation 1 that they all are not actually appropriate issues to be addressed within the bylaws per se. for example, she was explaining that accountability is not addressed for any AC’s or SO’s or any subgroups within the bylaws. That’s as of right now and that’s addressed elsewhere and the General Counsel’s office would advise for example, not making any changes to the bylaws that involve accountability simply because then we would be the only group within ICANN that actually had accountability addressed within the bylaws.
She was rather adamant and this might not be news to any of you. I was somewhat surprised but she was rather adamant that in the General Counsel’s office they definitely are the keepers of the bylaws that they would not be advising that everything be enacted through the bylaws that is exclusively outlined to be addressed by recommendation 1 that’s in the bylaws and accountability being one of example.
The other issue she wanted to make sure that we were very aware of is that while it’s a very easy issue to simply address ALAC and At Large’s responsibilities within the bylaws, we can very easily change them to say the ALAC is responsible for XY and Z. The first step really are to get the SO’s on board, probably make changes to everyone’s PDP’s and have things that are put into the bylaws that are actually will have some meat and meaning and people actually taking action on them rather than just unilaterally having the At Large ALAC review putting things in that everyone else ignores.
She thought that conversation is actually the first step with the SO’s and other AC’s. Those were the points she mainly made about the bylaws.
Cheryl: Okay. Alan you wanted to comment?
Alan: Yes maybe I’m missing some interaction that I wasn’t present for. But the position that was taken for the GNSO changes is a very minimalist one that is put in the bylaws things that need to be in the bylaws and don’t put in there stuff which can reasonably be somewhere else. I presumed that we were following the same pattern, so I’m a bit mystified about why there is even discussion going on for some of these other things being in the bylaws.
Seth: I think that well obviously the obvious answer is we’d have to ask Sam why she is discussing these things. Perhaps some of it was just by way of explaining to me relative newcomer to the whole history of this that could be one explanation. I don’t mean to speak for Sam.
The other, the idea that I got, the feeling I got was she was attempting to explain and wanted me to make sure that I then turned to you folks and made sure that everyone was on the same page with legal. So despite some of the elements of recommendation 1 in particular, I think it’s exactly as you’re saying that it’s not appropriate but all those elements are not appropriate for the bylaws such as accountability.
So I think that what she’s saying is probably consistent with what you’re saying, why there is more discussion on it that might be and that I don’t actually have an answer for you about that.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Sebastian did you want to say anything?
Sebastian: No thank you.
Cheryl: Mohammed with the ALAC and At Large improvements process it’s going to be something that we definitely need Africa actively involved in. I would like to think that when you and the other regional leaders come from Africa that we will be looking to have them done a little bit of homework, a little bit of a looking at the implementation plan and everything else.
I know it’s very difficult to put things into agendas but is there any way we can help or encourage your region to be more actively involved in the discussions on Sunday when we hold it? Is there anything we need to do to help? Is there a call that Seth needs to spend an amount of time talking to the region at one of their regional meetings? What way forward do you think would help?
Mohammed: I think before a briefing call, I guess a briefing document could be useful so people have updates and literature available. Then we can have a briefing conference call, although I think we need to have some more in order to make sure we have a very good number of participants at the conference call. But at least a briefing document so people can have an internal discussion within their RO and then when they come to ALAC at least they have a background and something has been discussed. That would be useful.
Cheryl: Okay. Seth I’m thinking with some of the reporting and putting together of materials to go forward to the Structural Improvements Committee, etc. whether or not we could perhaps make some additional use of what is being produced anyway and see if there is an opportunity between now and 3 or 4 weeks, well 3 weeks probably out from Brussels meeting. Maybe to try and ensure an interface at some of the regional meetings just to cover off and make sure everyone is brought up to speed so we’re not going back to the basics when we gather together in Brussels.
Seth: Certainly I can ensure that.
Cheryl: I think that can be quite helpful. It gets people revitalized and thinking along the lines, so that would be good.
Alan: Just a follow up on the question I asked Seth. I just checked the report and the reason Samantha is focusing on not putting things in the bylaws is cause the report said to put certain things in the bylaws. The report explicitly said put these things in the bylaws which really don’t belong there. She was giving the rationale on why we shouldn’t follow up the report to its specific words.
Seth: Right I understand.
Alan: My apologies I had forgotten that that the report explicitly said change the bylaws for these items. She’s quite correct that doesn’t necessarily belong there.
Cheryl: That’s good. Heidi you’re back.
Heidi: Yes sorry. Alan that seemed very interesting what you just said. I will catch up with you after the call. I heard the very end.
Alan: All I’m saying is after opening my notes without doing my homework first, I went back and looked at the report and the report explicitly says that the purpose for ALAC should be put into the bylaws. I think Samantha is quite right and at the very least we shouldn’t be giving things at that level of specificity unless the rest of the organizations are also and perhaps it doesn’t belong in the bylaws at all. But whether or not it does we should be kept in sync with the others and not singled out. I think her point is quite well taken. And it wasn’t that she invented it but because she specifically mentioned it as it said in the report. She’s pointing out that it was probably said without good advice.
Heidi: Okay so you’re saying the actual final report may have over stepped?
Alan: It says the section of the ICANN bylaws that deals with the ALAC should be changed to reflect this purpose.
Heidi: Yes.
Alan: You can’t be more directive than that.
Cheryl: That is fairly directive yes.
Alan: I think she’s correct in saying that this should be part of a more global review of the bylaws and not ALAC singled out. I completely agree and now understand why she was focusing on it. Sorry to introduce a red herring.
Cheryl: No that’s good to make sure we’re all clear on that anyway. So is there anything else Seth that you want to share with us having not being able to share?
Seth: No other than if I can take 30 seconds and just mention that what we’ve done in the project plan and budget or I think more accurately titled now Project Plan is include the passage on the improvements from the ALAC comments regarding Fiscal Year 11 operating, ICANN’s Fiscal Year 11 operating plan.
I just took that and put it into the budget saying that it was one of the ALAC’s top 3 priorities and I also added based on our discussion some of the suggested work teams and if people could look that over at their convenience that would be terrific. Any feedback is what I’m looking for before we get to close to the SIC meeting coming up in a month.
Cheryl: Sure okay. Is that something you would like us to do at a particular time course? Do you want us to have a time to give some feedback? You’re talking to at least 4 out of 5 people who are going to probably do more in response to your request than most of them normally do. Perhaps you should take greater advantage of us while you have got it and we can make it an action item if you like.
Seth: Right yeah that would be terrific. Either a set time of convenience or I’m happy to receive emails and put them all together whatever is easiest for everyone.
Cheryl: Okay so if we can perhaps make that an action item to do between now and our mid-month Excom meeting that would probably be a reasonable time course.
Seth: Sure thank you Cheryl.
Cheryl: Not a problem. Now that said I’m probably going to not be one of those who does a great deal but I do get to talk to Seth an awful lot about this. I suspect he’s had plenty of influence from me.
Okay back to looking at the formal agenda. In terms of the public consultations…
Heidi: Very quickly I will go ahead and have the project plan translated into Spanish and English once you’ve agreed and we have it in the final shape.
Cheryl: I’d love to see it in English but I think probably the French readers would prefer it in their language.
Heidi: Sorry French and Spanish.
Cheryl: Now if you can have it translated into Australian then I might be able to understand it.
Alan: You beat me too it.
Cheryl: Getting back onto our agenda the PAT I think we’ve discussed that to death as we certainly did the various of the ALAC statements. I think you’re all fairly comfortable where we’re heading with all that including the .xxx statements and then going on to vote in this next week.
It will be very nice to be ahead and have statements that we can actually put in before closing of deadlines. It’s probably what confused everyone today trying to get ahead of time. Can you think of anything else we need to catch up on? Is there any public consultations or anything else we’re looking at coming at us over the horizon?
Sebastian: I just wanted to say the draft recommendation on reconciliation we don’t put a name to (48:48 – inaudible) and I would like to suggest to take care of that if you agree and if it’s already done it’s great.
Cheryl: I think I don’t believe we put any name there.
Sebastian: No because we didn’t discuss it really during the ALAC meeting, you skipped that.
Cheryl: That’s fine if you want that one you can have it, it’s not a problem. I can’t see anyone else fighting you for it. You’re not planning on a particularly extensive comment though are you?
Sebastian: No, no, no that’s all. It will be short I think.
Cheryl: Yeah that’s fine. I was going to say it’s certainly something I don’t want to see too much time devoted to seeing as we have a lot else going on. One of the things that I didn’t get to raise with the ALAC meeting tonight but we’ll make some form of announcement in the next day or so is the nature of or openness of the accountability and transparency review team meeting. It means that we will have the basic principle of open unless there is a good reason to put something in camera or into committee. To that end, when we meet in Marina Del Rey, well a couple of things are going to happen.
Things we’ve done so far will be put into a publishable form and the link, the AT review team pages that link off our dedicated space will be coming much more populated with information. At the Marina del Rey meeting, there will be questions on notice which are probably actually going to staff now which some of which will be answered in writing but most of the relevant senior staff will be in Marina del Rey on the Wednesday and will speak to those matters. But they’re all questions on notice and that’s all going to the available and there will be an audio for recording but also for people to listen in onto what happens while we do that.
We will probably then be going into committee and if there are any follow up questions that are not on notice or not having any deemed confidentiality and then the second half of the first day and all the second day will be open meetings. This is a good reason to go into committee. Again, we’ll have at least audio feed set up.
Now that’s a huge step forward for a committee that wasn’t sure whether or not it would do very much out of camera at all, certainly for the first meeting. It is always the intention to have a public interactive opportunity during the Brussels meeting and indeed we will be meeting again under the same situation even though it’s a meeting of the review team, the review team meeting will be recorded and able to be listened to on audio under the normal constraints of open unless otherwise deemed inappropriate for that particular agenda item in Brussels. And that meeting will be starting on the Friday before Brussels ICANN meeting begins and running for half the Saturday, so it will be all day Friday and half day Saturday in the morning at the Brussels meeting.
There will also be a workshop forum interaction of some kind yet to be determined during the Brussels ICANN meeting. That is pretty much as far as I can give you in terms of updates on the accountability and transparency review team.
Any questions on that for me?
Alan: Cheryl what days are the Marina Del Rey meetings?
Cheryl: Wednesday and Thursday next week.
Alan: So 5th and 6th?
Cheryl: Correct.
Heidi: Cheryl did you say there will be a meeting on the 19th in Brussels?
Cheryl: If that’s a Friday yes.
Heidi: Okay.
Alan: Is constituency travel no or can we ask for an exception?
Heidi: I’ve asked for an exception but for her to arrive on the Friday.
Cheryl: Well they can go and screw themselves backwards with a brick as far as I’m concerned. I’ll actually be I’m feeling a bit testy with constituency travel as you may have noticed. I actually have to be at the regions IGS meeting in Hong Kong before that. So their lack of ability to meet my travel needs will be yet again tested. It really has little to do with them anyway because we don’t operate the review team travel through the normal constituency travel network anyway. We certainly don’t need to be muted with that. We’re operating with whichever staff member is allocated and they work with whoever does the booking for constituency travel.
Alan: Cheryl that was a tongue in cheek question I asked about having to ask for an exception.
Cheryl: Oh I probably do but it will be because I will be in Hong Kong the week before anyway. It is again a matter again of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Heidi: Yeah that seems to be the case because all the people you’re dealing with for travel are actually part of constituency travel.
Cheryl: As usual with the attention to detail we get what we deserve. Anyway I’ll deal with that. Okay anything else from today’s agenda? We’ve got Brussels that we’ve looked at, upcoming Board meetings and obviously Cartagena has been one discussion again on the list in terms of security and travel. I don’t think we need to weigh in on any of that unless you all feel differently. I think just letting those conversations run their course is enough? But we probably need to look fairly soon at what type of travel list we want to put together because it seems to me some people may not be wishing to travel to the December meeting but we need to ascertain that sooner rather than later.
It might be helpful and it might be impossible but it would be nice to think we could have the constituency travel reaching out to our travel list, listed travel people earlier than they have on this occasion. But we do need to look at bringing in any new people, so we may not be quite so flexible with additional replacement people.
Heidi: I was just looking at the regional officer’s and elections coming up. For example, Norolo we will be having Chair and Secretary elections, yeah there will be some elections going on, the ALAC rep from Non-Com.
Cheryl: Yeah they’re the ones I’m concerned with, the changing of ALAC reps and Non-Com’s and we usually bring both incoming and outgoing.
Heidi: Okay.
Alan: Has anyone looked at the visa requirements for Columbia yet?
Cheryl: Nope I have not. So we just need to be a little aware of the slight changes that we tend to do for our December meetings. We’ll need to talk about that probably in our Excom meeting at Brussels, so we need a bit of pre-planning for that.
Is there any other business we need to deal with now?
Heidi: On that last point, would you like that to be on the Sunday or on the wrap up session?
Cheryl: Oh the wrap up. Any other business?
Sebastian: Just one point, if you intend to be in France after the Brussels meeting just let me know and if you want to spend some time in the company you would be welcome.
Cheryl: Oh thank you that’s a very generous offer.
Sebastian: My apartment in Versailles is very small and quite tricky but if you need one night it’s possible to organize. But if you want to spend some time in the country you are welcome.
Cheryl: Thank you that is very, very generous of you. Is there any other business? Alan?
Alan: While we were talking I figured out how to undock Skype windows, so if you want multiple chats at the same time, I can tell you how.
Cheryl: Okay. I’m glad your time with us at the Excom meeting hasn’t been wasted then.
Sebastian: One last point, I am now glad to have a member of IZAC and I want to congratulate IZAC having somebody as part of the IZAC Board.
Cheryl: Thank you very much and I’ll pass that on to the ALS, yes we’re confident Norel Clark will be an excellent addition to the IZAC Board. She has actually run for the last couple of elections and so we’re glad to see her get elected.
Sebastian: Yes and she may be participating at the ICANN meeting as she will be in Brussels too.
Alan: Cheryl thank you for giving me almost an hour to prepare for my next meeting.
Cheryl: Gee Alan I’ll be seeing you then as well. Thank you all, bye.
General
Content
Integrations
App links