ALAC Monthly Teleconference (Held December 9, 2008) Legend Name: First name of member of group Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure. Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male. Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female. O: Operator. XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined, it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin. unknown joined If the phone system indicates someone has just joined, but doesn't announce their name. XX left If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just left, it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin. unknown left If the phone system indicates someone has just left, but doesn't announce their name. Interpreter: If interpreter actually translates French or German for a participant we will note it as "Interpreter". It will normally be evident from the dialogue who the interpreter is translating for. If not, we will include a note in square brackets with respect to who they are translating for. # List of Participants Important Note: Please note that this should not be considered to be an "official" list of the attendees. This is just a list of the participants that we were able to identify during the transcription. There may have been others present that didn't speak and some people may have participated that were not on the official list of attendees published on the internet. Aguirre, Carlos Ashton-Hart, Nick (ICANN Staff) Bachollet, Sébastien Bouchoms, Marie-Helénè (ICANN Staff) Cade, Marilyn (President's Strategy Committee) Dandjinou, Pierre (President's Strategy Committee) Diakite, Hawa Greenberg, Alan Langdon-Orr, Cheryl (ALAC Chair) Langenegger, Matthias (ICANN Staff) Peake, Adam Scartezini, Vanda Seltzer, Wendy Ullrich, Heidi (ICANN Staff) Vande Walle, Patrick Vansnick, Rudi Younger, Danny # Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined O: Good morning, Cheryl. This is Tonya. Cheryl: Hi, Tonya. Somehow I thought that the other caller would be you. laughter O: laughter Okay, let me do my dial-outs. Cheryl: Thanks inaudible 00:42. silence - 00:42 to 00:51 French interpreter joined Cheryl: Hi, there. Who's tha-… Oh, French channel. silence - 01:02 to 03:07 Patrick Vande Walle joined Cheryl: Hi, Patrick. Cheryl here. Patrick: Yes. Good afternoon, Cheryl. Or good evening should I say? Cheryl: Thanks, but it's very close to midnight here, it's certainly not my afternoon. laughter What time is it where you are? Patrick: Well, it's 1:30 PM. Cheryl: Oh, is that close-ish to lunch for you, or… overtalking 03:33? Patrick: Well, actually, I already had lunch. I'm flexible. Usually the period between 12 and 2 PM is quite… is quiet actually… Nick Ashton-Hart joined Patrick: …so we don't have meetings during that period. Cheryl: Oh, okay. So you mean we could move it even earlier and suit you? laughter Patrick: laughter Cheryl: Hi, Nick. Nick: Hello. Patrick: And hello, Nick. O: Cheryl? Nick? Nick? Nick: Yes. O: Hi, this Tonya. Sorry to interrupt. I have Jacqueline on the other line. She's saying that she's not on the ALAC call anymore and wanted me to check with you guys. Nick: Oh yeah. No, that's true. O: Okay. Cheryl: Correct. O: Thank you. Cheryl: Apologize, but say hello. O: Okay. Cheryl: Whoops! Need to redo the list, Nick. Nick: We'll do that. Cheryl: laughter In all your spare time? 04:35 Nick: Yes. Cheryl: Hmm. Nick: I shall herewith spank Matthias with a wet noodle. Cheryl: Oh, well, okay. laughter Spanish interpreter joined Cheryl: Alright, who was that? Nick: The Spanish channel interpreter. unknown joined Cheryl: Missed that one too. Heidi: Hello, I'm Heidi. Nick: Hello. Cheryl: Hello, Heidi! Patrick: Hello. Heidi: How are you? Cheryl: I'm not only fine, I'm delighted to hear your voice. Heidi: laughter Cheryl: Welcome aboard, my dear. Heidi: Thank you very much. Nick: My compliments to Heidi on being up at 4 AM her time to attend this call on the same day's she flying to… Sébastien Bachollet joined Cheryl: laughter Ah, look, Heidi, it's good to know there's more than one crazy woman on… overtalking 05:31 Heidi: laughter Cheryl: At the moment, Heidi, other than Nick we have Patrick Vande Walle, who's one of our European Nominating Committee appointees, and… Heidi: Okay. Hello, Patrick. Patrick: Yes, good afternoon. Cheryl: overtalking …everyone else, come on in. laughter Sébastien: Hello, it's Sébastien. Heidi: Hello, Sébastien. Patrick: Hello, Sébastien: Sébastien: Bonjour Patrick. Hello. Nick: It's been so long since I heard your voice there, guys. Sébastien: laughter Nick: All of - what? - 15-20 minutes? Sébastien: Yeah. Just the time to grab something to eat and I am back on a call. Nick: Lucky you. Sébastien: Yeah. Cheryl: Sébastien, that sounds like my morning where the first GNSO call… overtalking 06:21 Alan Greenberg joined Sébastien: Yeah. Alan: Hello, all. Cheryl: …hotly pursued by two other calls, it took me through to 11 AM. Who's that that's just joined us? Alan: Alan. Nick: Alan. Cheryl: Hi, Alan. Patrick: Hello, Alan. Alan: Hello, all. Nick: How are you? Heidi: Hi, Alan, it's Heidi. I'm the new manager for At-Large Regional Affairs. Alan: Oh, how do you do? Heidi: Fine, thank you. And you? Nick: And I will introduce her officially later on in the call. Heidi: Ah. Nick: I'm sure she'll… Alan: Where are you located? Heidi: I'm located in Marina del Rey. Alan: Oh. Nick: She has become the first policy… person on the entire policy staff to actually be based in Marina del Rey. Alan: And to have the honour of a 4:30 in the morning phone call. Nick: That's right. Heidi: And quite an honour it is. laughter unknown joined Alan: We treat our people right. unknown joined Nick: You get all the benefits around here - sleeping in, wine parties… Alan: That's okay. As Cheryl will attest to, I was still working on preparing for this meeting four hours ago before I went to sleep. Cheryl: That's right. He snuck off and dared have a nap. I don't know. Alan: I'm in Montreal, by the way. Heidi: Okay. silence - 07:44 to 08:20 Marie-Helénè Bouchoms joined silence - 08:24 to 08:40 Danny Younger joined Cheryl: Hi, Danny. Danny: Good morning, afternoon, evening. Patrick?: Hello. Cheryl: Yeah, well, I find "Hi" and "Hello" is probably safest. It's somewhere… some time for somebody everywhere. So who else has joined the call? So far I've got Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien, Alan… overtalking 09:08 Vanda: Vanda. Cheryl: Ah, hi, Vanda. Nick: There's one more. Wendy Seltzer joined Cheryl: Hi, Wendy. Wendy: Good morning. Cheryl: Good morning. Nick: Morning, Wendy. Wendy: Why does it seem as though no time has elapsed between the last meeting and this one? Nick: Amazing how time flies when you're having fun, isn't it? Wendy: laughter Alan: Well, from my point of view, there's been no GNSO meeting between them and therefore it can't… can't be ready for this one yet. Wendy: And no Board meeting and… Alan: Yeah. Interpreter: This is Carlos in the Spanish channel. Nick: Hello, Carlos. Cheryl: Hi, Carlos. Vanda: Hi, Carlos. Heidi: Hello. Hi, Carlos. Interpreter: Hello, everybody. Patrick: Hello. Cheryl: Nick, do you have a list of people in front of you, or does Matthias? Nick: I don't, but I bet Matthias does. Cheryl: Okay. silence - 10:11 to 10:30 Cheryl: Okay. Adam's on the call. Or is… Okay, thanks for that, Adigo. Adam Peake joined Cheryl: Hi, Adam. You would have made quorum, but Hawa is dropping off the call and is going to be back in in 10 minutes. So I'm going to do one of those horrible things and ask… if Matthias doesn't have a list in front of him so we can establish if we're quorate or not, I'm going to ask for a quick roll call. First of all, Matthias, do you have a list in front of you? I'm assuming you're probably in the French channel? Matthias: No, I'm in the English channel. I only have a list with phone numbers and I don't have all the names. Cheryl: Ah, alright then. Well, that's not going to work terribly well, so I'm going to say who I'm aware of… overtalking 11:35 Sébastien: I, I… Cheryl: …ALAC member, and anyone else can let me know who they are. We have Patrick Vande Walle, we have Sébastien, we have Alan, we have Vanda, we have Carlos on the Spanish channel, we have Adam, and we have myself. Is there any other ALAC member on the call? pause Adam: Who did you have apologies from, Cheryl? Nick: Vivek… Adam: It's Adam. Nick: …uh, Thu Hue, Beau, Fatimata, and José. Cheryl: Vivek. Did you hear the first one there, Adam? Adam: Yeah. Rudi Vansnick joined Cheryl: We have Rudi and Wendy as liaison here. We have Danny. But it's just Hawa has just left us for 10 minutes on the French channel, so until she comes back or someone else comes in, we're seven, not eight. silence - 12:44 to 13:02 Cheryl: Adigo, are you doing any other dial-outs we're waiting for? O: No, not at this time. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. So we're waiting for people to dial in. pause And it's most annoying and frustrating. Nick: Yeah, it was five apologies at the top 13:30. Cheryl: It is inaudible. Adigo, can you dial back to Hawa and say it is critical she rejoin the call urgently? We are only going to be quorate when she is back on the French channel. O: Dialling now, just a moment. Cheryl: Thank you. pause Sorry, Nick. I don't understand "Who do you still need to reach for English?" I didn't think anyone… Nick: Just above that, Adigo said, "Correction, we're still doing English dial-outs." Cheryl: Oh, I see. Sorry, yes. Nick: inaudible 14:31 Cheryl: Yeah, no. pause Alright. Well, in the anticipation of Hawa being back on the French channel momentarily and of the… Sorry, I was desperately trying to redo an important letter for tonight's meeting. We might need to re- order things because inaudible 15:04 not finished off inaudible. Interpreter: Hello to everyone from Hawa. Cheryl: Ah, excellent. Thank you. That means we are now quorate. And thank you, Hawa. I must say it feels only like a few days since you and I have stood on stage at the IGF and I want to thank you publically for the exceptional work that you did heading up the African At-Large contingency with us there, but also to thank you for joining this call back earlier than you had planned. But with you we are quorate, without you we are not. And as we are quorate, we will now move to the matter of the business of the meeting. Nick, because I'm in an indulgent mood and I'm rather excited that we have Heidi with us, do you care to do a very important introduction to someone even more important than I could possibly manage in my hyperbole to describe to our community? Nick: Umm, yes. I'm happy to deliver an encomium on this happy subject. We have found a new manager for At-Large Regional Affairs, who is named Dr. Heidi Ullrich, who joins us on this call from her home in Los Angeles. She is also the first policy unit member of the staff who will be based in the Marina del Rey office, which actually provides us some time zone coverage we would not otherwise have as well as the ability to have somebody there in the Marina del Rey office, which is often useful. Heidi has a career… worked actually with and for many people that I know. Beau is not on the call, but she has actually worked with Beau Brendler in part of her career when she was at Consumers International working on trade issues and at ICTSD in Geneva on WTO issues. And she's also been a lecturer at the London School of Economics amongst other places. We will circulate a bio of her shortly to the lists. Heidi: Good morning. Hello. Good evening. Good afternoon. Cheryl: And in response to that, Heidi, a great big welcome. Heidi: Thank you very much. I'm very much looking forward to working with all of you and getting to know all of you as well. Wendy: And a special welcome to you as it must be only about 4:30. Heidi: Yes, it is. laughter So I'm going to be in listening mode today. Nick: And she's flying to Europe today as well, so… Patrick?: Oh, welcome to Europe. Nick: …a full schedule. You can see we give people a long, slow introduction to their work life at ICANN. Cheryl: laughter They don't just throw in the deep end, Heidi, they give you a couple of heavy weights to hold 18:13. Heidi: laughter My laptop being one of them, yes. Cheryl: Well, and I must say I'm sure I speak on behalf of particularly the RALO reps that have joined tonight the call, the importance of the development of this part of the ICANN organization that you're going to have, growing the At-Large Structures and helping the regions do what they need to do is absolutely pivotal to our success and I certainly look forward and I'm sure the rest of the At-Large community does as well, but specifically the At-Large Advisory Committee people, to working with you. And let us begin. Heidi: Thank you, Cheryl, for your kind welcome. Alan: Before we begin, if you do a group… Cheryl: overtalking 19:00 …a packed agenda tonight, today, this morning - whatever it is. For me it's, oh, not quite yet midnight. We have the first matter, which is our standing matter of the adoption of the agenda, and I did send to the list that I would like to just make clear here, with such a packed agenda tonight it is my intention to not go through reports as such. If there is an exceptional item that is not in your written report, you will have a few moments to raise that matter, but we really have to just have the reports of the liaisons, put it in links. You will note the agenda has had a couple of changes which actually is somewhat more in line with the template that Danny sent to the list immediately after our last meeting, which was our November meeting, but only a fortnight ago, and that is a more report… driven 20:08 just by listing and having the addition of the "ExCom Activities," which now that we have an ExCom, when it has meetings, which it hasn't yet, it should put its activities -be it working group activities, policy development activities, or other activities - into a section which is now a placeholder in our standing agenda items. What we will be moving towards when we begin this meeting is then attention to item 3 on our standing agenda items, which is the adoption of the plethora of minutes from Cairo, and so those of you haven't had time to quickly review them now, I am filibusting for another 45 to 70 seconds whilst you do bring them up and double-check them. We will be having a very quick look at the current status of the ALS applications. We will then move to our items for decision at this meeting and I will respectfully request a change in order. With the death of my laptop, the… Carlos Aguirre joined Cheryl: Hello, who was that? Who was that that just joined us, or is that someone…? Alan: It sounded Spanish but I don't know it was. Sébastien: It was Carlos. It is Carlos. Cheryl: I already had Carlos. Sébastien: Yeah, but it was on the Spanish channel and I guess he joined the English one. Cheryl: Okay. The first item, which is the letter to the Board on public participation, I will ask if that goes to the end of our decisions for this meeting only because I actually haven't had time to upload it to the wiki yet, and I think it's something that I would also propose we look at the draft that I… if I can get it uploaded to the wiki, and then do a short vote in the next couple days. I think you'll find once I go through it, you'll all be in agreement, but I want Wendy to be able to reinforce in the Board meeting our serious concerns. So if I can shift that to the end so I might actually have time to have got it uploaded, but it's actually had to be rewritten and I lost some of the… I guess the venom that was in the original draft. Is there any other items that anyone wishes to put under "Any Other Business"? Male: inaudible 22:52 Carlos?: inaudible Cheryl: I don't think I un-… think I heard that inaudible 23:04. So unless someone inaudible we will continue on. Okay. Wendy: Yeah, can I say something? Cheryl: Go ahead, Wendy. Wendy: As I noted, the Board is going to be discussing ALAC's position, or everyone's inaudible 23:23 role of individual users in the GNSO, and if the ALAC has any input for that discussion, it would be a good thing to get that before the Board meeting. Alan: When is your deadline? Wendy: Well, the Board meeting is on… Cheryl: The 11th of December, Danny. Alan: I'm sorry, I heard two people talking. Cheryl: Wendy, go ahead. Wendy: On the 11th of December. Alan: Thank you. Wendy: Two days. Cheryl: Wendy, you haven't… Female: Sorry. 23:59 Cheryl: There's been a number of discussions certainly at the regional and at the ALS level on this. As the Board is going to be wanting a definitive response from all of us by then, or… I would have thought that if the petition's closing on the 13th of December, we, other than reiterating every one of the statements we've made to date - and we've made them again most recently in our Cairo meeting in the joint user house - what else can we prepare? I mean, we've been… Alan: Cheryl, it's Alan. Cheryl: Yes, go ahead, Alan. Alan: Yeah. I would just reiterate that participation in the GNSO should be… the main issue should be groups that want to participate actively in all gTLD issues should have a home in the GNSO regardless of their lineage in their other parts of their life, if they have a lineage. I think that should be the… Cheryl: On that 25:10 we did agree inaudible quite specifically in our last meeting was that, as we have said again and again, the same thing again and again, this opportunity for everyone else to have their say. So if you need a specific briefing, perhaps a Cliff Notes version of our views so far, I might leave that to Alan to correspond directly with you to ensure that you've got on a full and proper briefing to take to the Board. Alan, are you happy to do that? Alan: I'm happy to do that, but I think it comes down to we don't want to restrict people who are interested in playing a very active role in that domain, and that comes down to the critical thing, we don't see that as being the ALAC or a RALO who have a more… wider focus, but other than that I don't believe it should be restricted. And I think that's what we've said time and time again, but it doesn't usually come out in the summaries very strongly. Cheryl: Yeah. Now Alan, if you could… Wendy: inaudible 26:06 Cheryl: …if you could prepare something, send it to Wendy and copy it to the list… Alan: I will do that. Cheryl: …so that we're all aware of exactly what she's been asked to say on our behalf. Alan: I'll do that. Cheryl: Thank you. Okay, any other matters? Danny: Cheryl, could I just chime in briefly on this last point? Cheryl: Certainly, Danny. Go ahead. Danny: Over the years, there's been a strong interest in the formation of a registrants' constituency. We've had groups such as the IDNO, the Independent Domain Names Owners Organization - that came into being for a three-year period of time - we've had groups like ICANN, At-Large, dot-com, dot-org, interested in the role of registrants in the process, and at no time were any of those groups thinking of themselves as being artificially divided by either a commercial or non-commercial construct. I don't see any value whatsoever in the current arrangement of houses that arbitrarily splits the registrant community into two distinct groups. Alan: I think the horse has left the barn on that one, whether we like it or not. Danny: That doesn't matter, Alan, I think we have to express the point of view, whether the horse has left or not. All the current arrangements… Alan: Point taken. Danny: …with regard to the individual houses were established by the incumbent parties. We're talking about trying to get a non-incumbent party put together. Adam: It's Adam. I was particularly concerned with the Business Constituency's statement about how they were defining essentially small business users, which was incorporated, if I remember Philip Sheppard's… you know, it can be individual businesses or individual business owners, but they would be incorporated. And it sounded like a particularly almost industrial definition rather than something that would incorporate people who perhaps would be using, you know, domain names for occasional business or inaudible 28:11 sellers who would not be… you know, whatever it may be that would come through in a new type of business environment. Alan: But jurisdictions with incorporation is too onerous… overtalking Adam: Exactly. And it seemed to be, you know, restrictive, and I think a comment about that would be very valid. My impression is that the non-commercial constituency is reacting against that rather than trying to cre-… you know, it's being more welcoming than we're seeing from business, yet is not being as welcoming as perhaps we'd want it to be. But my concern was actually about that business definition which was restrictive. Cheryl: Okay. Right, well, Alan, if you've got sufficient additional information there, to also include those sentiments, I think that's important 29:06… Alan: I will make a comment on it. I'm not sure that that's the focus of what the question is they're asking. Cheryl: No… overtalking Alan: The comment is valid. I would think it should be separate from it and not confuse the issue. Cheryl: Well, Wendy perhaps could speak to the matter if she's given the opportunity, but we want to make clear… Alan: Perhaps if Adam and Danny can send me just one paragraph or one sentence - whatever's appropriate - on their issues, I will make sure to incorporate them. I wasn't taking notes as they were talking. Cheryl: No, that would be great and I'm sure they will. Danny: Will do. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. Okay, let us move now to… Can I assume that the roll call Matthias is in charge of, the apologies have been listed and that Matthias will have also noted any dropouts and rejoins so we will have a proper chronicle of who is here and when? We have our PSC people, Pierre and Marilyn, joining us in about five minutes, so at the very least I would like to have standing agenda items listed under number 3 completed. Sébastien, I'm going to ask you to take the chair for the next two or three minutes and go through each of those… adoptions of each of those minutes. Please note I am voting for the adoption of each of those minutes, but I am desperately trying to upload the letter for us to look at later in the meeting. Nick, it might be coming to you for you to upload I think, if you don't mind. And yes, I'll hand over to you and I'll take it back at the top of the hour when our guests arrive. Thank you, Sébastien. Sébastien: Okay. Thank you, Cheryl. And we are in point 3 of the agenda and we have to adopt the minutes of the last meeting by phone, that was the 25th of… Vanda?: November. Sébastien: …of November. Who moves? Patrick: Patrick moves. Sébastien: Okay, second. And somebody's against? Abstention? Thank you. Now we have the summary minutes of the different Cairo meetings. May I ask if somebody has something to say on those minutes? And I would like to suggest that we take all the minutes for the Cairo meeting in once and vote for or against for all. But first, have you any comments on one or the other minutes? pause Adam: This is Adam. I'm going to abstain, and the reason I'm abstaining is because I wasn't a member at the time. I don't know if that's normal procedure, but I thought I'd do that. Does that affect the quorum? Sébastien: No, no, that's okay. No problem. Adam: Thank you. Sébastien: The quorum is already there and we have to… It's a majority vote, but that's okay. No problem with that, Adam. Any other questions, proposals, remarks? Okay. Then… Alan: Alan. I move that we adopt them all. Sébastien: Okay. Thank you, Alan. Patrick: Second. Patrick seconds. Sébastien: Patrick seconds. Okay. Somebody against? Adam: Just note my abstention please. Sébastien: An abstention. Adam: That was Adam. Sébastien: Adam. Okay, all those minutes are adopted. We are a little bit early but I guess we can start the next item, item 4. And let's have a look to the action items on the 25th of November. Nick, may I ask you if there is something in those items we needed to do and we are still missing? Alan: Well, we didn't do the one as far as I know on the RAA, which we have a decision to make today. Nick: Sorry, I was muted. Sébastien: Okay. That's all? 33:58 But that's on the agenda, then we can wait for… overtalking Alan: Yes, but we were supposed to actually have had a meeting prior to the agenda item, but it didn't get done. I'm just speaking on that one. Nick: Yeah, but I can address that. I have requested that meeting more than once. There are some other communities that are also seeking clarification from the services staff about aspects of the RAA amendments process and I believe they are also waiting for some answers - in particular the GNSO, Alan, may have further news on that. So it's… Alan: Well, that's why I need my answer. laughter Nick: Yeah. Yeah, we haven't got them either, so no w- 34:37… Alan: No, I'm not as worried about that. I'm perturbed that Beau isn't here because he's our expert on that, but I guess we'll have to keep going. Adam: Well, you know, there's five items, isn't there? "Organize a single-topic teleconference," "create a web space for the RAR"… "RAA," I'm sorry, "produce and overview document for the new gTLD handbook," "organize a briefing session for Rudi," and "discuss how the ALAC meeting agenda should be developed and when it should be published," and that I think is on this agenda. So I don't know how many of those five we can tick off. Nick: We can tick off the… There is a web space for the RAA amendments process and also for new gTLDs that has been updated. There is an unofficial overview document which I had sent to Cheryl and Beau. Alan: Is there any content on the RAA I should look at? Nick: Umm, nothing… No, because we have asked for updates as I said and we haven't received any news, so… Alan: Okay. Sébastien: Okay. Then we have to keep for the first topic to ask a teleconference on ARR… RAA and we… Male: inaudible 36:19 Sébastien: …as soon as… an overview document on that new gTLD guidebook, it's sent… Male: inaudible Alan: Excuse me, but depending on what the GNSO decides, that might be moot at this point. Cheryl: Sorry, can I ask Nick or someone to mute whoever is not speaking, and obviously not me, now? Pierre Dandjinou joined Cheryl: inaudible 36:48 background noise coming through… Pierre: Hello, this is Pierre. Cheryl: Hello, Pierre. Welcome. Nick: Pierre! Ça va? Cheryl: We will just wait for Marilyn to join us, and we're just finalizing one of our… overtalking 37:01 unknown joined Pierre: Okay, no problem. Danny: Nick, when do you see the briefing coming to pass? Nick: Unfortunately I have no information to give you on that. Danny: Are they giving us the cold shoulder, or what's going on? Nick: It's not clear what the situation is precisely. I think there's a desire to have a more complete picture than they may have - rather than in releasing incremental information, they may wish to release something more complete - but I couldn't really say unfortunately. Not for lack of trying. Sébastien: Okay, then… Nick: overtalking 37:53 …also experiencing this, so… Sébastien: I think we're done for the 25th of November. Maybe we try to do the next item of the previous, yeah, in Cairo meeting if we have something left, and… "the bios on the website." Okay, maybe it's not… it's important to do it but it's not the central item we need to take time today. There are a lot of things that need to be updated in the website. But maybe each one of us can see what is maybe changed. Somebody join us now? Did Marilyn join us? Nick: Umm, I've just asked her. I… unknown joined Nick: I know she's imminently joining us. Marilyn: I'm here now, and thanks, Nick. Nick: Hello. Sébastien: Okay. Alan: With a huge echo. Marilyn: I will go off speaker. Alan: Thank you. Marilyn: Is that better? Sébastien: Okay, thank you, Marilyn, and thank you, Pierre. It's Sébastien speaking but I will give back the chair of the meeting to Cheryl. Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien, and I've got about half a sentence to rewrite on the sadly lost letter before I send it to Nick, so I will be typing away and definitely paying plenty of attention while we discuss this next very important item. Pierre and Marilyn, thank you so much for taking your time to join us for a short while at our meeting. It's terribly important that the regional representatives who are on the At-Large Advisory Committee are enthused and ready to encourage their regions, their At-Large Organizations, and of course they might want to put in some personal comments back on the President's Strategy Committee's current work. I do recognize that we did have an opportunity to meet together in Cairo, but what we haven't done, due to a fairly packed set of demands on us - there seems to be an awful lot of public comments and, gee, this other small thing called an At-Large review going on - we didn't want to lose the momentum. And I think to have an opportunity to revisit some of the matters and open for a short period of time some discussions and questions from this group tonight and ensure that the regions are well and truly clear that it is their role to create the opportunity for the At-Large Structures to have some comment on the work that you're doing, to encourage those At- Large Structures - in other words the grassroots part of our organization - to comment directly, where if possible to feed those comments through the regions so a regional-specific view might be wrought, and for the regions via either their NomCom appointees giving a general opinion or the two elected appointees from each of the regions forming the ALAC bring those regional views - the diversity or similarity of them - to us so that we can have a global one. Marilyn, did you or Pierre wish to speak in any particular order, or…? Alan: Cheryl, before we start, how much time is allocated for this session? Cheryl: I would assume probably 10 to 15 minutes, if that's suitable for everyone. Alan: That's including the questions and comments from the committee? Cheryl: Unless there's some extreme energy, that would be fine. Pierre?: Cheryl? Cheryl: But Marilyn, did you want to kick off? We do have some new members in the At-Large Advisory Committee. Unfortunately, not one of them is with us tonight and you're actually not speaking to the new people whom we had hoped you would be speaking, but I can assure you that the transcript will be something we will be directing them to, so it is perhaps an opportunity for the small introduction and background as well. Marilyn: Terrific. I might… My name is Marilyn Cade and many of you know me. I might just say that in addition to being a member of the President's Strategy Committee, I do define myself as one of the chief advocates of the model that ICANN represents and I do promote myself as an architect of that model. So I'm going to announce first of all that my e-mail is marilynscade@hotmail.com - I know Pierre will do the same - and to say that for anyone who is not able to be with us today and who has questions for the PSC, we would welcome your asking those questions either through your normal channels or even individually to us, if I might say that first. The PSC process, the PSC was established to provide broader advice to the Board on strategic challenges. Now I want you to understand that that was the purpose of the PSC, and the reality is we perhaps have not promoted that purpose very well, but we should make it very clear that strategic challenges are what the PSC is to advise the Board on. We do not define the outcomes - finally that is up to the Board - but we do provide advice. And a key issue that emerged was the transition. After the… During the JPA Notice of Inquiry public session hosted by the US Department of Commerce, Peter Dengate Thrush, the Chair of the Board, tasked the PSC to undertake the outreach to the community about how to meet the community's interest related to the transition. The PSC has put forward some ideas and concepts, but we are dependent on the community to provide comment on those concepts and to tell us where those concepts are adequate and where they are inadequate. And I will say one further thing. We do not as the PSC determine the rest of the work of the organization, but we may be able to carry key messages to the rest of the organization such as the Strategic Plan that, if the transition is to be successful, these other changes are necessary or these highlights are necessary in the rest of the work of the organization. So let me give you a concrete example. In the conduct of outreach, we have heard as the PSC that we have not done enough outreach with the PSC members into the community. If that is the view of the At- Large, then that is what you need to make clear. If you want specific kinds of outreach, that is what you need to make clear. We as the PSC are chartered with then trying to devise how to meet the expectations of the community about the transition. Many people who have spoken today already about the transition have said that ICANN does not yet have suitable accountability mechanisms and that should be a priority. Your voice on what suitable accountability mechanisms would be would be very important. I don't want to take a lot of time on the specifics, but just to say that I really encourage and respect the fact that you are focussed on this, but I also want all of you to understand you should speak with your individual voices, not only with your aggregated voices. And by that I mean I really welcome the participation at all levels of the ALAC. If people are waiting to submit an aggregated comment into ICANN, that sometime loses the individuality and the important understanding of the individual or the regional or the national perspective of an organization. We will not be able to address all of the expectations, but we can listen to them and try to understand and reflect that understanding into the larger PSC comments. Danny: Marilyn, it's Danny with a question. Marilyn: Should we… I'm happy to take questions, but should we hear from Pierre first? Danny: Sure. Pierre: Well, yeah, maybe I should briefly add on to what Marilyn has just said. I'm Pierre Dandjinou, a member of the PSC. First, I'm also… actually within AfriNIC, which is the African internet registry, I'm on the board. And I do attend to some other issues pertaining to internet development, you know, in the Africa region. Thank you very much for inviting me to this and as I always say, you know, ALAC is my home, and I also sympathize with what Cheryl has just said, that well, we need to hear more about the regions. It's quite important. I will not go over what Marilyn has just, you know, said, which is quite true. It's about the role of the PSC, we only put advices there and then the Board decides it. I also… I agree totally with what Marilyn said, that we should not just wait for an aggregate, you know, response from the ALAC per se. Maybe we need to hear more of individual voices from different parts of the ALAC. I do agree with that. I want to put two things into perspective, which is the end of the JPA, which is September 2009, and also some of you have probably attended the IGF and the end of it, at least the first round will be 2010. So in between, things will be happening certainly, and to go back to this idea of transition, the PSC has conducted a few sort of… you know, we try to hear more and more people. We did have a few regional sort of meetings. Now what we are seeing is that maybe we didn't conduct enough of those outreach, you know. So as Marilyn said, then maybe you need to voice this out as the ALAC that we need more of these. I'm not going to go through the key issues, but inaudible 50:14 there were five of them and that actually the PSC tried to work around. And briefly they are capture, and I wish you be aware that when we mean "capture," it can be internal but it also can be external, and the role of institutions 50:30 such as ITU inaudible be playing and it's important to actually circumvent those know exactly what it's about and what it means for ICANN. The other issue is about accountability, and the one that is quite important, especially to developing countries, is internationalization. So the whole thing… And then how ICANN itself could stay financially, you know, financially 50:57 secure. And finally what role you have to play when it comes to inaudible internet. These are the key issues. Of course we may have others. So basically maybe what we need to know now is the next step when it comes to the work of the PSC, so that if you want to send any comments, any contributions that you figure that inaudible 51:20 into your agenda. I understand the next step once that we… we've already produced a few documents. Some of you may have come across these institutional, you know, confidence building, which is the document inaudible. We are now running through 51:37 what we are calling the design phase of kind of draft implementation plan are part of discussion. So generally… and generally we're supposed to have, you know, this inaudible and publication of the draft implementation plan sometime in March 2009, inaudible 51:57 for this we'll table to the Board, that will take a decision. So which means that we don't have apparently much time on this. So yeah, I wanted you to know about this timetable and eventually see how you could inaudible contribute on that. I think that's basically what I would like to say here. Of course, there are a few issues… Marilyn: Pierre, if I might just add one point to what you said about the five areas, in addition to the five key areas that Pierre has mentioned, because of the input that we have received from the community so far we've actually added a sixth category or topic, and that is the reinforcement of the model, the multistakeholder, bottom- up, consensus-based, participatory model that ICANN was built on, and the re-acclamation of that model. So the future documents that you see from the PSC have the five key issues that Pierre has mentioned and a sixth topic which says… so, you know, which is the reinforcement, re-validation of the model of private sector - using the broad definition of "private sector" to mean everything except government and IGOs, international governmental organizations. So… But by that we mean with the participation and advice of those entities, but built on civil society, technical, commercial, with the advice and support of governments. And we're doing that because, as you may know, the model is under attack in certain other settings, and the community to date has sort of reinforced their support for the original concept of the white paper in that area. Pierre: Yeah, Marilyn is right. And briefly, if you remind, I was alluding to the IGF as well. We call this a multistakeholder approach, also is what IGF is doing, and at some point we need to link it with whatever development we are seeing. We would like to put up there when it comes to transitional phase 54:29 of ICANN. Yes, I think Marilyn is right that this also is going to be part of our thinking in the coming days. I think basically that's what I wanted to say, but maybe I should leave it to… maybe if you have questions and then inaudible 54:44 elaborate more on the issues. Thank you. Cheryl: Thank you, Pierre, and thank you very much, Marilyn. I'd like to call for anybody who has a question now. You can ping me on Skype or you can give me a "Hello, I'd like to speak now." Danny, did you have your question queued? Danny: Yes, I have a couple questions for Marilyn. Cheryl: Okay. Seeing as you're first in the queue, go ahead. Danny: Number one, as a business person I'm sure you understand the importance of documents coming out that are fairly easy to manage. When the most recent Strategic Plan was given to the community, we saw no highlights indicating what changes had been to the prior year's document nor did we see any specific contributions that could be pegged to your particular group. As you move forward in the process, perhaps you could make it easier for all of us by perhaps generating redlined documents or at least forwarding that request to appropriate staff. The second, more urgent question that I've got is on the topic of capture. I'm one of many that views ICANN as having been captured by the contracted parties. I see multiple regional registry/registrar gatherings funded every year by ICANN with no equivalent for non- contracted parties whatsoever. Has the committee started thinking about recommendations to deal with the internal capture issue? Marilyn: Both excellent questions, and I might sort of say that I would really welcome input to the PSC about these issues that link these two topics to the successful transition, and let me explain how I see the relationship. First of all, in the PSC, we are providing advice and guidance and asking for that advice and guidance to be thought about within the normal processes of ICANN - so that would include within the planning for the PSC. I do note and agree with Danny that I can't find in the Strategic Plan at this point the financial support for the transition. I will tell you that I have raised that issue within the PSC and it is a topic yet to be discussed. I believe the transition of ICANN will have a budgetary figure next to it and must have a budgetary figure next to it, and I say that because to do effective outreach between now and 2009, I really believe that the PSC members need to be present in each of the regions, they need to be listening to the community just as they listened to the community in the Washington, DC event - very, very different from having me or Pierre or Jean- Jacques individually go with ICANN staff to a meeting that is taking place. I think the majority of the PSC needs to be listening, and that means events that are organized - whether they are conference calls or video conferences or they are face-to-face, they're events that give the broader part of the community access. So that has a dollar amount to it. I don't know what that dollar amount is. I think that also the analysis of the comments that the community has already provided put into easy-to-understand documents and translated into multiple languages is essential so that the community can read those documents and say, "Okay, I agree with this, I disagree with this. Here's my further comment." And that I think is something that the PSC has ca-… I can tell you the PSC has asked for that. I can also acknowledge we haven't yet delivered that to you. On the question of capture, I think we are faced with a really interesting challenge, and this is something that I really need to understand from all of you. As someone who architected and contributed to the original design of ICANN, I wrote the words "with the advice, support, and participation of governments" because I fully believed that we would not succeed without the advice, support, and participation of governments. I also stood strongly in front of the idea that governments would be more than advisory. I continue to stand strongly… as an individual who does work with governments in many intergovernmental settings, I stand strongly in support of the advice, support, and participation of governments, but I stand strongly opposed to a change in the role of governments. That is my personal commitment and view. I, however, believe that we must enhance the participation of governments and we must participate in our engagement and discussion with governments. That is the best way to avoid capture. It is the best way to incorporate and achieve a fully multistakeholder environment. To Danny's point, it is also the best way, I believe, to support the capture of… in any individual group, by interacting and participating with the governments and with each other and by ensuring that no party has a predominance over the equal voice and input of other parties. Today I do think we have been captured by the contracted parties, but I believe that we can overcome that and I believe that that is in the best interest of the contract parties as well. Cheryl: Thank you, Marilyn. Any other questions to be raised? Vanda: No. This is Vanda. Hi, Marilyn. Marilyn: Hi, Vanda. Vanda: How are you? You just answered my first question, it was about the governments and the relationship we should have with them, and I do believe there is an important role to the government in this game, but in my opinion they are growing too fast comparing to the other stakeholders in how they want their opinions to be considered. So it's something that really we need to get more feedback from the other side to guarantee that we will find out in a more balanced way. That always has been my concern as you remember. And well, let's try to… my direct suggestion to outreach is here in Latin America, for instance, I will talk with Raimundo and try to make the Latin American… least 1:03:20 that we have about ICANN is 100-odd people in that, to really discuss these issues and give then some feedback. We can do that in Spanish and in English and people will understand better what is going on. It looks to me that we need to make some special movement, you know, direct enforcement to get this feedback from the communities. People are afraid to comment because most of the case, they have no full understanding of the issues and the implicants 1:04:08 of these issues for the future. Marilyn: So I'm going to make two comments that I would very much like to hear from you guys on. Some time ago, quite a long time ago when I was on the GNSO Council, I insisted that we change the PDP, the Policy Development Process, to start with the delivery of a well established white paper which explained the issue very clearly - regardless of what group you came from, whether you were a government, civil society, business, technical, a white paper which is understandable, which is neutral, and which then empowered each group based on… because the documents need to be translated, it empowered each group to think about what their views were and what their understanding of the topic was, and then to generate questions that needed to be answered before we then began the development of a public policy process. As I meet with governments around the world, and I met with… in… recently at the IGF I met with Tanzania, with Cameroon, I met with several other governments, India, every one of those governments asked me the same question - "Where is the initial neutral briefing on a topic that I can then take back to my community? And secondly, do you understand your timeline is wrong?" So I think that to the PSC, while this is not perhaps, you know… Here's our challenge, we cannot have a successful transition unless your community, unless the GAC, unless the business community understands the challenges and questions and the policy issues that ICANN is going to address. If our timeline is wrong because we can't meet 30 days or 28 days - and I will tell you I can't meet that timeline - if our timeline is wrong, if we're not giving proper, up- front information as ICANN, while that's not a PSC issue, where we can help is to say to the Board, "These are the barriers to an effective transition." So if you believe that things like this are critical to your community fully participating - and that is what the GAC is telling me - then tell us that as the PSC because those are the kinds of things we can help advise on changing. Pierre: May I add a few words here, a couple of words quickly? And Vanda, thank you very much for bringing this Latin American perspective. I have… I don't know whether it's the question, but I'm throwing it to all of us 1:07:16. You just mentioned that governments would like to have their opinion, you know, heard. Well, we also know that some governments it's not just… it's not about opinion - they would like to have a say, they would like also to be doing a few things. And I believe it all boils down to maybe a change in culture. You know, governments, you know, are used to, okay, give orders, you know, control things. So maybe we need to engage with those governments. So maybe at a local level, there's something to do. At the regional level, there's something to do so that the individual users, for instance, are in the position to talk with the governments, you know, so that somewhat 1:07:58 they also understand the need for a change in culture. Because if you don't do that, I don't see… I mean, probably it would still be complex, you know, and we all need some sort of education on those issues. So my issue is, you know, what are we doing on the ground to actually help educate some of the governments? And I believe that ALAC should be doing some good there 1:08:21. But that was something that really for me is key if you really want to inaudible in this transitional phase for ICANN. Cheryl: Hmm. Thank you, Pierre. I have Adam next, and I'm aware of our timing, so unless there's… someone pings me on Skype, Adam will be the last question. Go ahead, Adam. Adam: Hi, Marilyn, Pierre. Thanks very much for joining us, and especially so soon after Hyderabad. Quickly, I think the ALAC's issues certainly on response times, on translation must be very similar to the issues to the issues that the governments are facing, so it's a very good idea that we try and… actually probably try and work with them and identify our community's similar needs. Marilyn, your point about governments and partici-… Well, I suppose it wasn't… Let me start that again. It was really the issues we've been hearing recently, complaining I suppose about government's role in ICANN and people saying that they… "It was almost cosmetic" was I think a quote. When I see that, I always wonder that people are looking at the bylaws and the fact that the governments are the ones who have to be listened to. You know, it's in the bylaw that their opinion has to be listened to by the Board. I'm not so sure that it's a… It seems like a very strong position to me and I wondered how clear the power of the governments with… you know, that that gives governments potentially within ICANN is clear to them - if, you know, the people you're talking to are aware of the bylaw conditions. Marilyn: I'm very happy to respond to this because when I look across the community broadly, I see that I seem to be one of the only individuals who is privileged to work at ICANN, at the IGF, and at the ITU. That is a privilege because I represent a multinational company who has a presence as a sector member at the ITU and because I have a advisory role in relation to that. At ICANN, I'm free to participate. So the ITU quite frankly - and we must be clear - it is not the same kind of multistakeholder environment that the IGF or ICANN is. It is a sector… It does have 191 countries as members, it does 770 sector members. At the agreement of a chair of a committee or the secretary general, NGOs or civil society can be invited to participate, there are some working groups related to WSIS which are open to anyone, but broadly it is an expert agency of the UN. And that is I think an important thing to remember and that it is very important to understand in my view - this is merely my view - I seek a coexistence and a cooperative, coherent, collaborative relationship between intergovernmental organizations of the UN - that is not just the ITU but that includes WITO and UNESCO - and that is where I think the ALAC can provide an incredibly important message. That is "The role of governments' advisory in ICANN is a powerful role. We take it seriously and we wish to work with the governments from every stage, in talking to the government representatives, understanding their views, and presenting our views, whoever 'our' is, whether 'our' is the ALAC, the business community, the technical community, the contracted parties, but we engage and interact within ICANN in an interactive way, welcoming the participation of government representatives at all levels." We haven't given that message. In my view, we have not given that message. You are willing to give that message, I am willing to give that message, but I think we need to work together to give that message and to work together to encourage government attendees to understand who we are and to interact with us. And while I really applaud the leadership that Cheryl has demonstrated in encouraging an interaction at the chairman level of the SOs and the advisory committees, I think at our next meeting we should be thinking jointly between the business community that I speak for and you, we should be thinking… with Pierre's participation, we should be thinking about an interaction that is deeper, that involves interaction directly, welcoming interaction and dialogue between the government individuals who come to ICANN and each of us so that we are in fact embodying and changing how governments participate in ICANN. Until we do that, we are vulnerable to outside organizations that have a lot of resources. Until we reach to the government representatives that we know that are not participating and welcome them into ICANN, we are vulnerable. But we each know government contacts, and if we don't know government contacts, we can work together to identify government contacts and find a way to invite them and welcome them into the ICANN family. I think we need to make that step real. Cheryl: Sébastien wishes to make a short point. Go ahead, Sébastien. Sébastien: Yes, very short. It's to say that the organization of the summit of the users and At-Large Structures, it's a very good point or time to elaborate on this discussion also. And I think it's important also for the post-JPA to show to the community that At- Large, it's really a group of people engaged in the future of ICANN. Thank you. Marilyn: So Pierre, might I ask you to join me in inviting the ALAC to invite the PSC to the summit? Not only the Board, but the PSC? Pierre: Yes, I think that is… Yeah, I think we should. Why not? It would be a good thing. But Cheryl, will you guys consider this, what I was saying, that we should find a way in actually engaging with the governments at some point, as individual users or ALAC? Cheryl: It seems to me, and this is my personal opinion, that when we have a structure that from a grassroots perspective has national points of contact, it would be quite crazy not to. Danny?: Cheryl. Cheryl: If we have At-Large Structures, which are in my mind as perfect opportunities to utilize these national points of contact, yes, we need to be working to make genuine multistakeholder model that I believe we might just get to if we get it right, actually a best practice one. Marilyn: You know, Cheryl, if I might just say that I think we haven't built a good enough bridge between the ALAC and the business community broadly. And… Cheryl: I agree with you. Marilyn: And I will say that because I just built a bridge, that is what I used to do for AT&T, and I just built a bridge between a shared interest of business and 22 countries on a particular issue involving a UN conference. And one of the things that is really clear to me that I'd like to support doing more of is the interaction, early interaction between the ALAC and the regional groups and the business representatives broadly distributed around the world, not to identify the things we don't agree on but to identify the things we agree on. And then to Sébastien's point, figure out how we elaborate on that discussion and how we come together to strengthen ICANN. If I were to describe the diamond - and this is a new concept I've just been thinking about since being at the IGF - you know, the diamond model to me, it is not a pyramid, it is not a triangulation, it is a multidimensional dependency. We need to address the needs within the IGF, we need UNESCO, we need the ITU, we need ICANN, we need WIPO, we need the private sector, we need the NGOs, we need civil society, we need individuals. It is in fact a multidimensional diamond of dependencies and that means we have to draw new relationships and new interactions. Just within ICANN we must define our own diamond of interactions. Danny: Cheryl, a follow-up question on Adam's point? Cheryl: As long as it's extremely short at this, go ahead, Danny. Danny: Okay, fine. In the multistakeholder environment, when one group of people has more power than another group, the process falls apart. We've got bylaws that state that the… when the Board takes an action that's not consistent with GAC advice, it will "inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice" and then it will try in "good faith … to find a mutually acceptable solution." We don't have that language applying to any other advisory committee. Why on earth are we giving excess power to the governments? Marilyn: Oh. I… Danny… Cheryl: First, can I suggest the forum, it is important that we continue. I'd like to think this is not our last conversation either, so why don't… Marilyn: Quite right, but Cheryl, I think there's a call to act there. Let me just quickly say in the accountability mechanisms that the PSC is calling for, I think you must put forward the idea of… Look, one of the things the PSC called for was a mechanism for the community to change a decision of the Board. Danny's point is right on. How does the community broadly… And Danny, I don't mean… I mean broadly. How does the community broadly force a change of a Board decision? We must have that as an accountability mechanism. The community must be able to trust that if they reject a decision the Board has approved, it doesn't matter if it comes from the GNSO or the ccNSO or the ALAC, but broadly the community rejects it, we must be able to change that decision. If we cannot do that, the community will not trust its power and legitimacy. What is the mechanism by which we do that? The PSC has proposed an idea. You guys need to look at that idea and say does that idea meet your expectations? Does it give you the trust that you're looking for? Cheryl: Marilyn, can I just say - and it pains me actually, because this is something that as you well know I'm quite passionate about as well, that we have such a limited time to discuss this at this meeting tonight - I would like to think this is not a last conversation on this between the PSC and our At-Large Advisory Committee and the At-Large community, but it's simply a next step. With your permission, I would like to have staff, and they've said they can do it, extract this part of our recording for… and it will go in from all the languages as well, so it's a resource for all of those who are not with us tonight, inaudible 1:22:23 what's been said here and what's been said here in all too short a time I think is vital for helping each of us at the edges to formulate the individual and group and then regional and then of course the ALAC responses, that unless we hear it as a chorus of voices may not have the power that a single letter under the name of the ALAC would do. Are you in agreement with that, both Pierre and Marilyn? We can extract this and use it… overtalking 1:22:56? Pierre: No problem for me. Marilyn: I… Pierre: It sounds like a good idea. Marilyn: I think that's a good idea. Yes, Pierre. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. If our community was to desire yet another opportunity to talk to you, it may happen, I would like to think you're both still able and willing and more than welcome back. Pierre?: Yeah. Marilyn: Certainly. Cheryl: And if there's no other discussions on this matter, what you've heard, please, regional representatives of the RALOs, take exactly what you've heard back. You'll have the tools. We need to foster these conversations at the edges, at the grassroot level, and get as Marilyn was saying individual comments as part of the voice as well as the wider committee views. Thank you so much bother of you. Pierre: You're welcome. Cheryl: And Pierre, thank you… Pierre: Did I hear it's night, Cheryl, at your place? Cheryl: I'm sorry? Pierre: There 1:23:59 it's night? Cheryl: Night? It's a little bit… It's 20 to 1 in the morning, Pierre. Pierre: Okay. Sorry for that. It's 2 o'clock here. Cheryl: laughter But it's usually later than this when we have our meetings, so I'm quite delighted it's so early for me. Thank you very much, and you do realize that all of our At-Large Advisory Committee meetings are open and so you're more than welcome to drop on in at any other time - in particular Pierre because we want to develop a much closer working relationship with you… Pierre?: Yeah… Cheryl: …and to that end, I will be getting Nick to follow up with what we discussed in Cairo and we have a particular regional representative, the chair of NARALO, who is happy to act as a single point of contact, and ongoing single point of contact between ourselves and you, so I'll get Nick to pursue that. Thank you both very much for the… Pierre: You're welcome. Cheryl: …energy and time you've taken with us tonight, but we have a couple of policy discussions that we need to get back to. You're more than welcome to stay, but we will be returning to our agenda right now. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have a number of items for decision at this meeting, but we have a couple of standing agenda items which I am going to propose we go over. To my… By "go over" I mean skip over. To my knowledge, there is no current ALS application that is ready for the vote. Nick, say yes or no. Pierre: Hello, this is Pierre. Cheryl: Yes, go ahead, Pierre. Nick: No. Cheryl: Thank you, Nick. Pierre, you had a final word? Nick: I think he's left. Sébastien: I guess he left. Pierre Dandjinou left Cheryl: Okay, good. Okay, not a problem. I thought he was trying to say something else. So I think if we can just get people to have a look at that current status of ALS applications rather than spend now on it, that would be good. If we go perhaps in reverse order… Because of the importance and not wanting to run out of time in the now less than 10 minutes we have left, can I take it in the reverse order for decisions at this meeting by going 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1? Does that work for everybody? Nick: A countdown. Cheryl: Yeah. I think a countdown's quite appropriate. In which case, the first one is going to be the "ALAC position on whether the proposed RAA amendment package should be approved by the GNSO." Alan, I'm going to toss to you on that one. Alan: Okay. To make it clear, the ALAC does not have a vote on this, however our opinion was the first one asked for at the first discussion of this. To summarize the current situation, ICANN legal staff has come to the conclusion that for the RAA amendments to pass, they have to be treated as a consensus policy, which according to the current registrar agreement means they have to be voted on by the GNSO in addition to some other activities which either have already happened or will happen. The implication that the GNSO does not need to go through a PDP process as defined today, but all it needs to do to legally meet the qualifications is to take a vote. So essentially the GNSO has a binary decision - either they approve the package as it stands today with virtually no changes or they embark on a PDP process or not on some aspects of the RAA. It is reasonably clear that we could not simply open the RAA as whole since large parts of it are out of scope for the GNSO and therefore would have to be treated in a separate way because out-of-scope things require a much larger vote and there's probably less interest in the GNSO of looking at the out-of-scope things. The current RAA amendments are neither complete in most people's view and there are some objectionable parts of them, but they also include a large number of terms such as the ability to better enforce current agreements and to monitor current agreements and to make sure that one cannot sell registrar accreditation, that some people believe that we need to get these on the books will all their flaws. I need to point out that at least some of the terms in this contract, in these amendments are ones GNSO… it would be almost impossible for the GNSO to look at, that they are really contractual terms that have been negotiated with the registrars and they're willing to accept them and would probably not come out through a PDP process. My understanding in Cairo was although the ALAC and At-Large was not happy with the RAA amendments, the general consensus was they were better than nothing and if it's a binary decision - that is "Yes, we accept them"/"No, we reject them and start from scratch" - that the answer was "accept." Prior to and at the last ALAC meeting, it was clear that not everyone agrees with that. There is a GNSO meeting on the 18th of December where there will likely be a motion on making a decision - it may be deferred but at this point there will be a motion - and I would like to be able to state what the ALAC position is, whether it confirms what I said in Cairo or whether I withdraw that and say, "The ALAC does not want to see it passed," or I say, "The ALAC is not determined whether they do or not." Cheryl: Thanks, Alan. How did you want to establish which of those three alternatives you just outlined? Did you want to… overtalking 1:30:21? Alan: Well… Cheryl: I mean… overtalking Alan: …I believe the position was, at least I thought it was, and certainly my position is ICANN is better off passing this package, approving this package as the consensus policy than starting from scratch with the understanding that some of the items probably won't be touched at all, some of the important items. And, you know, one such as enforcement where you're going to have to be… almost certainly have to be negotiated separately and again with the registrars. So I would like to see the ALAC ratify the position I took, but if that's not the tone of the ALAC, I would like us to come out with a position yes or no and not simply sit on the fence and say, "We're not saying anything." Cheryl: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. How do you want to go forward with this? We would be able to put up a BigPulse poll - yes, no, or "sit on the fence" - or do you want to have it done here? Alan: We have four minutes left. I haven't had any… No one else has had a chance to say anything. Cheryl: I'm painfully aware of that. Alan: No, no, I'm not trying to rub it in. I'm saying does anyone else have any comments to make at this point? Danny: Alan, it's Danny, a brief comment. At the last meeting we decided to hold off on staking out our position until such time as staff accorded 1:31:46 us a briefing on the subject, at which time the broader At-Large community could participate and put forward their objections, concerns, what have you. I think it would be imprudent for us to move forward until that event occurs. Marilyn: Cheryl… Alan: As was discussed, that was supposed to have happened before this meeting and it hasn't, so we don't know when it's going to happen. Marilyn: Cheryl, it's Marilyn. I hadn't dropped off yet since you had invited us to stay on. I'm just going to make a… Cheryl: No, no, you're all open, Marilyn. Go on. Marilyn: Let me just make a comment. Guys, is there a way for you to express your point of view that you have serious concerns, you would not want to see binding agreements that did not allow you to come back in and seek changes further on, and that you have not received the briefing that you asked for in order to inform your position? Alan: We can certainly ask the GNSO to defer the vote. That's the only option we have. Marilyn: Well, and I would just say… Would you want to seek support from other constituencies to seek deferral of the vote? Cheryl: My reaction is yes. Wendy?: No. Marilyn: You know, the reason I'm speaking is as a PSC member I do not find the press 1:33:22 process for informing the community or providing them the kind of information they need to make informed decisions nor the public comment period satisfactory to meet the needs of community, and therefore I consider it a vulnerability of the organization. I think it has to be fixed. And what I've just heard before I've been able to drop off just reinforces my concern that you're a core part of the community, you are greatly affected by changes in the RAA, and… Alan: Okay, but can I interject for a moment? Wendy Seltzer left Alan: I thought that the briefing we were talking about was not on the RAA as such but on the current position of staff that it has to be ratified as a whole or we go back to stage zero. Maybe I was in error on that. Danny: No, that's correct, Alan. Cheryl: No, that is correct. Danny: We were looking for an explanation as to why they have chosen not to invoke the amendments and waivers clause nor the right to put forward a substitute agreement. Cheryl: It doesn't lessen Marilyn's point in any way. Alan: No, no, I know, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same briefing if we're waiting for a briefing. Cheryl: Yes, we are. 1:34:44 Alan: So essentially we want the briefing that the GNSO got. I point out that there is an MP3 that anyone could listen to, but is that what we're asking for? Cheryl: It flies as a whole. Anyway, are we going to ask for a deferment? We are now… overtalking 1:35:07 unknown joined Cheryl: I will ask for a 10-minute extension. Is it the will of the meeting that we extend for a further 10 minutes? Wendy: I just got disconnected and I imagine others will have the same problem. Cheryl: You're back now though, Wendy. Nick: We haven't heard any other disconnections. Cheryl: You were the only one I heard drop off. Okay, nobody disagrees with… overtalking 1:35:32 Sébastien: It's okay, yes. Cheryl: You disagree, Sébastien? Sébastien: No, I agree for 10 minutes more. Cheryl: Okay, right. Let's continue on then. Can we look at item 6 as a request for the deferral and encourage the wider the support for a deferral so that we can have this briefing? Alan: I will… Wendy: I would argue against deferral, you know, as I was trying to say when I got cut off. Alan: I'm just worried that the next GNSO meeting I'm presuming is going to be in January. Are we going to have time for a briefing between then and now? Cheryl: Well, there's Alan's point 1:36:12. That's why we're raising them. Wendy's suggesting no, deferral is not the way forward. We've got a suggestion for a deferral and we've got a suggestion of take the original position as the way forward and continue in that way. How do you want to establish this? Will we put a poll together or not, or continue this for the last 10 minutes? Alan: We… Just to follow on on Danny's comments, I did look at those clauses he talked about. I don't think they're applicable. I think he is misreading them. That's my opinion and I'm not a lawyer. Danny: The contract gives them rights, Alan. Alan: Pardon me? Danny: The contract gives them rights. GAC 1:36:54 does have the right. Cheryl: We're now degenerating to a conversation that we would have had if we'd have had a briefing that we haven't had. I want a resolution. How are we going to instruct our GNSO liaison to put our views forward at the meeting on the 18th of December? Alan: We have three choices - ALAC supports, ALAC rejects, or ALAC asks for a deferral. Can we have a roll call or whatever to see what the opinions are? Cheryl: We can do but I suspect we have lost Hawa. Is French channel able to let me know is Hawa with us? Interpreter: Hello, one moment. Cheryl: Thank you. She wasn't able… She was going to have to leave. Sébastien: Well, frankly, can't we have a poll quickly done in the next day with… Alan: Sure. Sébastien: …just a little explanation and then we poll? Cheryl: I'm sure I can instruct inaudible 1:37:52 a poll together. I think that would be the way. Thank you, Sébastien, I'm glad someone heard me suggest that three times so far. Right, that's how we're going to deal with number 6. Alan: Okay. Cheryl: We are going backwards. Adam: Hello, it's Adam. Could I just ask that when that explanation is made, can we be clear what the implications of a deferral are? Because that's the way I'm certainly leaning, but if a deferral is in effect a no vote, then I have to reconsider that. So could you… Cheryl: Well, perhaps because Wendy was able to say that she would advise us against this, I'll let her a few minutes now to explain that. Wendy? Wendy: I simply don't see what we gain by asking for a deferral. Either we think that these provisions are an improvement over what we have now or we don't, and I don't think our view will change by a month more of putting into 1:38:54 not looking at them. I've been happy to offer lawyer-tinged analyses of any of them that have come up for discussion and… I don't know. If ALAC is seen only as an instrument of delay, I don't think that helps our position among any constituency. Cheryl: Okay. Alright. Well, is the feel of the meeting to have a poll inaudible 1:39:25 as Nick has outlined in the Skype chat? "(1) Defer because the briefing is required to understand the context; (2) accept the current package provided further work on amendments on issues remaining continues; or (3) reject the amendments package on the basis it is not sufficiently robust." Is that… Alan: Option 2 is not within our full control. The GNSO could decide to accept the package and defer till some unknown time in the future further work. Cheryl: So how would you reword option 2, Alan? Alan: I don't… With the… I would say "with the possibility of future work." Cheryl: Okay. Well, I'm sure we can take that as sort of a… I was doing a motion of the extending 1:40:18 as a friendly amendment. Nick, you captured that? Option 2? Nick: Umm, I just asked if adding three words at the beginning of each of the three options inaudible Alan's point. Cheryl: Which is to add up front "recommend the GNSO defer…" Alan: Yeah. And the… As the staff opinion stands right now, and it is very strong, my understanding however is it's not gone to the Board, therefore the Board could override it. Wendy, am I correct, this has not been discussed at the Board? Wendy: Correct, it has not been discussed. Alan: Okay. So barring the Board taking up the issue unilaterally and overriding ICANN legal staff, which I don't think is going to happen but that's just an opinion, at this point it is… the third item is "reject the amendments package and start from square one" or some words like that. Cheryl: Alright. Well, that poll… Nick, if you would be so kind as to put the poll out as a draft for the ExCom just to dot the I's and cross the T's tomorrow sometime before it goes out. That should go out within the next 24 hours, though I'm just keen to make sure Alan looks at the wording very closely 1:41:49. Alan: Okay. And I do have a section that I'm pointing to in this agenda, the "RAA, the way forward," which does delineate the options. Cheryl: Yes, and that should be attached to the poll in the same way as we would attach regional advice, okay? With now three minutes left of our extension, I'm also going to propose if we're going to be going to a poll, so we're going to vote, that items 5 and items 4 are also dealt with in that poll. Any objections? Nick: Are those the questions to be put, though? Cheryl: We'll do that fine-tuning as we usually fine-tune things at the close of this call when people with real lives and real work have gone back to it. Nick, you and I will just continue on. And therefore I'd like to move to the most important, time-critical matter of the ratification of an appointment of an ALAC member to the GNSO OCS. The meeting of this working group will be some time this week and Vanda has made herself available for this. This is a high- level working group. The real work happens in the I guess four, five, or six subgroups that come out of it, and that is where we will need to have very active participation I would like to think by ALS and by RALO members. And Alan, is there a time course that you're aware of on when calls for working group membership might be coming out? Early in the new year? Alan: Within the OSC, I'm not aware of the details. I suspect the working groups are being chartered and looking for members as we speak, but I'm not aware of it. In the PPSC, the policy and practices working group or steering committee, there are only two working groups. One is on the new PDP process which I have said I will take, the other is on working groups - so there's a working group working group - that will look at how working groups are to be structured and operate in the future. Since it is expected that virtually all of the policy work be done at the working group level, this is an important group and we really should have someone sitting there, someone who is familiar with ICANN processes, someone who is familiar with the concept of working groups in the larger sense, not just the ALAC sense, because this group I think will end up setting the structure and the rules which indicate whether ICANN's going to be successful in future policy work. Male: Cheryl, Cheryl… 1:44:36 Cheryl: Okay. Alan: So if someone… We need a volunteer from that, but it's got to be someone who really can play the game with the big people. Cheryl: It's the working group working group you're talking about there? Alan: Yes. And that… Cheryl: Yeah, okay. That's not on our agenda right now though… overtalking Alan: It was not on our agenda, but it's a related item which is perhaps one of the more important ones. Cheryl: Okay. Right. Well, at the moment Vanda is willing to take this role. It will be a commitment of a one-hour… a minimum of one hour per week, but should be one hour per week call, and it will be occurring at a time zone which is 16- or 1700 UTC. So I just want the ALAC to endorse or otherwise that proposal. Alan: Can we do that right now? Cheryl: Yes, please. Alan: I move that we have Vanda fill that position. Cheryl: I will second that. Is there anyone who wishes to object? Say your name clearly. And I've got someone pinged. Oh no, that was somebody else. Alan: For those who aren't aware, the Operations Steering Committee is the one that really is looking at how does the new GNSO operate and how does it transition to its new form and what are the issues related to it working internally and externally with other groups within ICANN. Cheryl: It's not policy per se… overtalking 1:46:07 Alan: It's not policy but it's GNSO effectiveness, essentially. Cheryl: Absolutely, and that's why we need an active and high-level participant. Okay, so have I heard any objections? Do I have anyone who wishes to have their name recorded against… sorry, as an abstention? pause If not, I'll declare that carried and we will ensure that the list of participants' names is included in the record. Matthias, if you can make sure you've got that. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of items that have not… we've not had time to get to tonight, but what we have done in today's meeting has been vitally important… overtalking 1:46:56 Carlos Aguirre left Cheryl: …to our future but the future of ICANN in terms of the inaudible discussions. The letters to the Board on public participation is now linked to the agenda page. I would seek your feedback on that. In the absence of anyone saying I have not captured the disappointment, the anger, and the disgruntledness that I heard on the list and in conversations, let us know. I will modify that letter but I think it's pretty well captured how very underwhelmed and unimpressed we have all been, and in the absence of alterations to that letter, we will ask Wendy to speak to it at the meeting and I will forward that within I guess… When's the last amount of time, Wendy, 24 hours before the Board meeting, that latest I could send that letter? pause Nick: She may be muted? Cheryl: Wendy? She might have… Alan: Cheryl, I would suggest that it's not going to be discussed at this meeting, I'm assuming, and therefore I question how important the timing is. Cheryl: Okay. Umm… Alan: I don't… Nick: I thought it was being discussed at this meeting. Cheryl: I think it is. Alan: Well, maybe it is. Cheryl: Yeah. Alan: Can Wendy answer either on Skype or in voice? Cheryl: Is Wendy muted? Alan: She said she thought she's… she thinks she's been muted. Nick: I didn't mute her, so I don't… Cheryl: So star-7, Wendy. pause Alan: Or Skype. Cheryl: Type at us will do. Interpreter: Would you repeat the question please, from French channel? Alan: The question is, is the issue of public participation at the ICANN meeting on the agenda to be discussed by the Board at the meeting this week? Wendy says she can't be heard even though she's not muted. Cheryl: Okay. Well, can she just type, please? Alan: Okay. She says it's not an agenda item but she'll gladly raise it. I think it's sufficient then if she raises the point that a letter is forecom-… a very strong letter is forthcoming from the ALAC. If it's not on the agenda, it's not going to be discussed per se… Nick: I… Cheryl: overtalking 1:49:42 Alan: …so I would think we would be better off getting it to them for the next Board meeting when it really shows up in their packet. Nick: For what it's worth, I understand that there have been letters to the Board from several other sources on this subject. Cheryl: I think we'd lose a sort of impetus and be very much Johnny- come-lately if it didn't go before this meeting. Alan: Okay. Then let's get it out in the next day. Cheryl: Okay. So I'll ensure that it goes at the last possible moment for the Board meeting and I'll correspond with Wendy as to how close to the Board meeting I can send it. But at least then she can speak to it but it will have been received in a timely manner and when they do discuss it, they can go back to the referencing on it. Alan: I'll send you in my comments. Cheryl: Thank you. As you know, I had to rewrite it today so I'm more than happy to have the I's dotted and the T's crossed. The only… Interpreter: If I may? This is Carlos. I just want to say because my time is up. Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos, and thank you very much for joining us. The only other items which are for discussion will be, I like to think, discussed online, but we obviously need to deal with all of those. The gTLD guidebook, we had the question of do we wish to put the English language comment in on time and then a set part 2 comment in after the other languages. Danny has maintained that everyone else in the community - I would hasten to add "English-speaking community" - gets these things done within the public comment period and ALAC, part of his mantra of continuing failure, that we never do. I think we can justify putting our comment in by the January date after the multilingual feedback closing time and I will suggest with Nick that we could put the English one in if we need to. What's the view of the meeting? Do you want an English version insert or a single document as a statement once all regional views have come in? inaudible 1:52:07 Nick: May I just note that I've informed the staff that ALAC will be making its comments up to the deadline on the basis that all languages are being treated equally? Cheryl: Well, that is certainly what I would have thought. Umm… Alan: And I would suggest a comment in by the English deadline saying that, to put it formally on the record. Cheryl: Yeah. And I'm more than happy to do that. So if that's your will, I will do that and I will thank you all… Alan: Be… Cheryl: …very much for the… Alan: Cheryl, can I have 10 more seconds? Cheryl: If you want to take your own time, go ahead. Alan: On the gTLD, I volunteered to do the monetary part. There was an extensive discussion, originally led by Vittorio, but there was quite a lot of discussion on the list. And I plan to base my comments on that. If anyone else has any other comments… Nick: I know Beau… Alan: …before… any other comments before they look at my draft, send them to me or send them to list. Nick: I know that Beau is also working on some… on a set of comments along with Danny, I believe. Cheryl: Yeah, yeah. And can I ask… Alan: On the same subject, or…? Nick: On gTLDs. Cheryl: Can I ask that we organize a single-purpose call to mull all of these back into some form of coherence and we might put up a Doodle to look at the appropriate timings for that? Okay? Alright. Thank you all very much. And for those of you who are in the… concerned of the matter of questions that we didn't get to, that we had the comments at the bottom of the agenda page, those things that are questions I'm happy to take on notice and respond to both on this page and to the list. Not all of them are questions, but Danny has listed a number of questions. And if you would care just for the transcript record, the answer to question 1, "Were at-large funds expended on IGF activities? If so, how much?" the answer's very simple: No, they were not. They were mainstream ICANN funds. They did not affect the At-Large funding at all. And yes, the workshop transcript and I assume the archived webcast is already available, and the presentations will also be available. I will take all those other questions, where they are questions, on notice and the ExCo will deal with those at their meeting. Thank you all. Good morning, good evening, good day, or good night, depending on where you are in the world. Bye for now. End of Audio