ALAC Monthly Teleconference (Held November 25, 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. Name: French 00:29:52 - 0:31:06 We will identify a foreign language in square brackets with a time code for the beginning and end, so that you can quickly identify those passages. At the top of the transcript, we will advise you of the name(s) of the foreign languages you'll need to search for. For example, some transcripts may contain German, so you'll have to search for “German” instead of “[French” to find all the passages. The speaker identification is the same convention as all the others. i.e. If we know the speaker's name we'll include it, otherwise we'll put a question mark after it, or if we can't even guess, then Male, Female or SP. 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. 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. cuts out: Audio cuts out for less than 2 seconds. We may have missed something. We do not put this if it's just natural silence where no-one is speaking. We only put this if we can hear that there was briefly a technical problem with the phone line and/or the recording which resulted in temporary loss of sound. # 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 Brendler, Beau El Bashir, Mohamed Greenberg, Alan Langdon-Orr, Cheryl (ALAC Chair) Langenegger, Matthias (ICANN Staff) Muthusamy, Sivasubramanian Nguyen Thu Hue Peake, Adam Piazza, Andrés Salgueiro, José Ovidio Samuels, Carlton Scartezini, Vanda Seltzer, Wendy Seye Sylla, Fatimata Sherwood, Ron Vande Walle, Patrick Vansnick, Rudi Vivekandan, Vivek Younger, Danny # Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined O: Hello, Cheryl. This is Tanya. Cheryl: Good morning, Tanya. Somehow I knew it would be you. laughter How are our dial-outs going? O: We’re getting ready to start now. I have seven, so let me get started. Cheryl: Okay. O: Alright. Cheryl: Good luck. silence – 00:55 to 03:56 Sébastien Bachollet joined Cheryl: Hi there. Sébastien: Hello. Cheryl: It’s Cheryl. Sébastien: Sébastien. Cheryl: How are we, Sébastien? Sébastien: Fine. And you? Cheryl: Ah, I’m actually cold, but that’s just because of the time of day, or the morning. More to the point, the time of early morning it is. laughter Sébastien: We get snow yesterday here in Versailles and… unknown joined Cheryl: Oh. laughter Snow, oh dear. Vanda: Hello, Cheryl. How are you? Cheryl: Good, thank you. How are you, Vanda? Vanda: Well, I’m very well. Thank you. Cheryl: I didn’t think you’d be joining us until later. You finished your… overtalking 04:49 Vanda: No, I can stay during one hour. Cheryl: Ah, stay for an hour. I thought you’d be delayed for one hour. laughter Vanda: No. laughter Cheryl: That’s a good thing. Hopefully we’ll have all the important bits done by then. Vanda: Yeah, let’s see where we get. Cheryl: We can but hope. silence – 05:15 to 05:31 Alan Greenberg joined Alan: And good evening all. Cheryl: Hi, Alan. Sounds like we’ve got… overtalking 05:39 Sébastien: Hello, Alan. Cheryl: …we’ve got an Executive Committee meeting happening – we’ve got Vanda and Alan and Sébastien and me. laughter Alan: I thought Vanda wasn’t on this call. Cheryl: No, she’s… overtalking Patrick Vande Walle joined Cheryl: Hi, Patrick. Patrick: Yes, good afternoon. Vanda: Hello. Nick Ashton-Hart joined Alan: Hello, Nick. Cheryl: Hi, Nick. Patrick: Hello. Cheryl: It seems like hours 06:08 since we’ve spoken, Nick. Nick: I know, it’s been so long, Cheryl. Good morning, afternoon, evening, whatever it may be for you wherever you are. Cheryl: All of us. Do I really have a meeting with you at 0600 my time? That is what it says in my calendar, isn’t it? Nick: Yeah. I mean, I… Cheryl: Okay, inaudible 06:32. If I don’t dial in immediately, you will feel free to call me, won’t you? laughter Nick: Yeah. So if your other half wakes up, I’ll… Cheryl: Oh, he’ll be well gone by then. That’s alright. He’s out the door by 0530. It’s just I might roll over and go back to sleep. laughter Alan: Talking about meetings, I have something, I have an ExCom meeting on my calendar for tomorrow… Adam Peake joined Alan: …at – what time is that? – 5… 1230 UTC. Is that an old one? Or is that something that’s on? Cheryl: No, that… That’s just a change. Remember we were going to have ExCom in sync with the staff meeting… Alan: Right. Cheryl: …and for an exceptional reason of staff having other things they needed to do, they’ve shifted their meeting to that time. I happen to want to call in and raise a few issues in terms of logistics for IGF and stuff like that and they just wanted to make sure that everyone else in the ExCom knew that in case they wanted to call in. Alan: I thought they were changing it to yesterday. Is it tomorrow? Cheryl: No, no. Yesterday is normal. Nick: That’s the normal one. Alan: I understand. Cheryl: Normally, it will be yesterday. laughter But today it’s tomorrow. Alan: I saw notice saying it was changing to 2000 UTC. Maybe I’m confused… Nick: It was, but… Alan: …and I said I couldn’t make it because I had a conflict. Sébastien: But Nick, you sent… Cheryl: overtalking 08:06 …yeah, it’s alright. Sébastien: …you sent something for tonight for European time. Alan: Okay. Let me ask a simple q-… Do I have a call at 1230 UTC on Wednesday? pause I think the answer’s no. Cheryl: Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. Alan: Okay. Nick: No. Not that I know of, no. Alan: Fine. Then I don’t know how it got there but I’m taking it off. Sébastien: And the call, it was yesterday night, it’s not tonight, the one staff and so on. Alan: That’s what I thought. Vanda: Yeah. Alan: Because I had another conflict with that one. Sébastien: Because what you… Nick sent us, it was on Tuesday 25th – that’s been today. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy joined Spanish interpreter joined Siva: Hello. Cheryl: Hello, Siva. Nick: Hello, Siva. Siva: Hello. Adam: Hello. Siva: Hi. Cheryl: Welcome to your first ALAC meeting. Siva: Thank you. Matthias Langenegger joined Cheryl: overtalking 09:20 …mute that noise inaudible in the background. Beau Brendler joined French interpreter joined Rudi Vansnick joined Cheryl: Who have we got on the French and Spanish channel? pause I’m just interested in doing a role call. Interpreter: Vanda 09:53, there’s no one yet on Spanish and French. This is Jonathan, and we’re trying to get Fatimata only. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. Nick: And Carlos is dialling in himself on Spanish. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. pause Vanda: inaudible 10:22 silence and background noise – 10:32 to 10:54 Vivek Vivekandan joined Cheryl: Hello, Vivek. It’s a delight to have you with us. Vivek: Yeah, am I speaking to Cheryl? Cheryl: You are, and there’s a few of us here. Vivek: Okay. Cheryl: But this is Cheryl and we’ll do our best to make sure that we identify ourselves until you get used to all of our voices. Vivek: Yeah, thank you. Rudi: Hi, Vivek. It’s Rudi here, Rudi Vansnick from ISOC Belgium. Vivek: Okay. Nice to talk to you. Rudi: From what region are you? Vivek: I’m basically from India, the central part of India, Hyderabad. I currently am speaking from Colombo in Sri Lanka. Rudi: Umm-hmm. Okay. Nice to have you here. Cheryl: Okay. Let’s just do a little bit of a roll call. First of all, from the At-Large… the ALAC representatives – so far I’ve got myself, Sébastien, Vanda, Alan, Vivek. Is anyone else here? Patrick: Patrick is here. Cheryl: Ah, Patrick. Thank you. Rudi: Rudi is here. Adam: Adam. Cheryl: Say again? Rudi: Rudi is here. Nick: Rudi Vansnick. Cheryl: Yeah, Rudi, as much as I’d love to have you as an ALAC representative, you’re a liaison so you don’t actually get a vote. Rudi: Yeah, sorry. Cheryl: laughter I need a quorum of ALAC people as well. I’ve got Rudi and Siva as liaisons. Adam: Adam’s here. Hello. Cheryl: Hey, Adam. Welcome aboard. We need one more and we’re quorate. Wendy Seltzer joined Cheryl: Hi, Wendy. Alan?: Welcome, Wendy. Wendy: Hello. Adam?: Hello. Vanda: Hi. Alan: Cheryl, can you go over the list of those present again? I missed someone. Cheryl: I have myself, Sébastien, Vanda, you, Alan, Vivek… unknown joined Cheryl: …Patrick, and Adam. I have the liaisons as Rudi, Siva, and Wendy. And someone else has just joined. Who’s that? pause Who’s just joined us? Thu Hue: Hello. It is Hue 13:25 from Vietnam. Danny Younger joined Cheryl: Oh, hi, Thu Hue. Okay, we are now quorate. Welcome, Danny. Beau Brendler joined Cheryl: Hi, Beau. Beau: Hi there. I had phone problems, so I jumped off and back on. Cheryl: Okay, we’re all up 13:43. Okay, we’re now one over quorum. We have myself, Sébastien, Vanda, Alan, Vivek, Patrick, Adam, Thu Hue, and Beau Brendler as the ALAC representatives. We have the liaisons as Rudi, Siva, and Wendy. And we have Danny. Is anyone else on the call? Sébastien: You have Carlos on the Spanish channel I just read from Matthias. Cheryl: Ah. Thank you very much. That’s excellent. Okay, let’s start our meeting then. And if we can just make sure that Matthias notes anyone else who comes in so that the record is accurate. Is there any discussion or comments or requests on the agenda, having completed our roll call? I would note a number of comments coming in from various guest users at the end of the agenda page, and I would encourage everyone to have a good read of those as well as we’re going through our meeting tonight. Some of those things are general questions which we will deal with as we go through and some of them are specific to certain agenda items. But at the moment is there any discussion or issues someone would like to raise on the adoption of the agenda? Alan: I have a comment with regard to your comment. If guest users add comments, it would be nice if they sign them so we don’t have to divine who it is that’s speaking. Cheryl: I must say that would be extremely handy. I’m less fussed whether they log in in some mechanism that doesn’t have the system 15:29, but just using their initials or their name, you know, Fred Nurks or whatever, would make it very, very useful. Alan: We trust Fred is noting this. Cheryl: I hope Fred Nurks is vetting this, indeed. Adam: It’s Adam… Cheryl: Any other matters for the adoption of the agenda? Adam: Yeah, Adam. I was wondering how was the agenda developed, because my question was first of all why is it not published on the lists? There’s a, you know, rules and procedures which we seem rather excited by that aren’t really being followed. It says we should be publishing the agenda seven days before, which didn’t happen, and if I understand the reading correctly, it should close three days… Sorry. Is it three days after that or four days after that? But it should certainly close, and yet the agenda’s been developing right up until the last minute. This is the problem because it means we won’t be reading and preparing as much as we should. It means the items aren’t getting on the agenda – Danny, one of the anonymous people who’s at the bottom of the page, made a suggestion for the agenda weeks ago which is not on the agenda. So there’s nothing to do for this particular meeting and I certainly don’t want to disrupt it by saying that the agenda’s not appropriate for this meeting, but in future we really ought to get this right because it’s about the quality of the work we’re doing, and we should be doing better. Cheryl: And if you look over our normal course of events when we’re not having an exceptional… Ron Sherwood joined Cheryl: Of course 16:59 today is an exceptional meeting. This is a change of date and immediately after… Normally we would have been having our meeting on the 11th. inaudible has been running very much in that the Executive Committee developed the agenda and request for agenda items make it to whatever agenda it’s best put in, and a number of items going to the list are discussed, some make the cut on timing. It’s unfortunate that this one for a number of reasons, not the least of which is limitations of staff, didn’t make it in the seven-day first run and three day for change period. As a matter of courtesy, we’ve always maintained people can make additional comments on an agenda and raise any other business in this one-minute time, and unless the majority wishes us to change, that will continue in that way. We don’t put it to a list as such because we work on a wiki, but the link goes to the list. Wendy: Where is the list of Executive Committee teleconferences publicized? Cheryl: Uh, that… Wendy: I was under the impression it was the fourth Monday of the month, but it was not of course yesterday. Cheryl: No, in fact this particular date and time was switched because we had our Executive Committee meeting when the normal meeting was going to be held on the 11th of December, and we swapped to the normal time for the ALAC meeting but on the day of the Executive Committee, and that was discussed in Cairo. And it’s someone you 18:36… overtalking Mohamed El Bashir joined Carlton Samuels joined Carlton: Hi, good morning. Nick: Hey, Carlton. Hey, Mohamed. Cheryl: Okay. Carlton: Hey, how are you doing, Nick? It’s “afternoon” to you, sir. Cheryl: Not a problem. We’re just moving towards the end of any other items to discuss before we adopt the agenda. Adam: Well, there was… if I may – it’s Adam again – there was one item that I did want to put under “any other business” if we can get to it. I mentioned it on the list but I didn’t add it to the agenda on the wiki because I’d missed the deadline as I thought I understood it according to rules and procedures, and that item was that we actually do not use the wiki for things that should be sent in e-mail. You know, it’s a one-to-many device. Cheryl: Yeah. Adam, you raised this in our face-to-face meeting, and perhaps we can have that discussion in the December meeting under Rules of Procedure. Alan obviously needs to pick up issues there because of the review we’re going to be doing, and we can discuss that under that item later tonight if you’d like to put it in there rather than any other business. Alan: I would be delighted. Adam: Cool, go ahead. Wendy: You sound thrilled. Cheryl: You’re happy then, Adam, to have it come up under that item instead of any other business? Adam: That’s fine as long as we can get to it in the one and a half hours, which is, you know, one hour, 50 minutes now. It’s okay. Cheryl: Well, if we get beyond the now three minutes spent on a one-minute item, I’d be happy to attempt that. Okay. We’ve finished our roll call, we are quorate, and I will… overtalking 20:11 Andrés Piazza joined Cheryl: …Matthias will be collecting any other names as they come on board. We don’t seem to have a link to the last three minutes. background noise Alan: Whoever has the freight train should put it on mute. pause unknown joined Cheryl: It would be very good if you’re in a noisy environment, please mute your phone unless you’re speaking. pause Nick: We are busy muting people, by the way. If you find that you’re speaking and no one is hearing you, you need to press star-7. Cheryl: Okay. If you try and talk and nobody’s hearing you, you do not to… cuts out …because the staff will mute it. Alan: Point of information. Are we automatically recorded or do we need to ask to be recorded? Nick: We’re recorded automatically. Cheryl: As far as I know, we’re recorded… overtalking 21:21 Alan: Okay. sorry. José Ovidio Salgueiro joined Alan: Different conference calls work different ways. Cheryl: Sure. So all of our conference calls usually are recorded from the beginning, so if you have something that you wish to go out of recording, you probably need to make a request for the recordings to be stopped. Alan: That’s fine. Cheryl: Okay. The summary items from the last meeting. The last meeting was in Cairo, and indeed the agenda picks up any of the action items that need to be done for the November period, and some of them will be going into the December period, but a couple of those will… cuts out …under discussion for tonight. The review of current action items comes very much under the same classification as we’re having our first meeting after a face-to-face meeting. Although some of the action items on the working groups, particularly the ad hoc working groups for matters such as the PSC and the ALAC Review, had questions 22:32 raised by… cuts out …be keen to take a couple of minutes to have on the record the ALAC’s responses to some of those questions. Questions in particular are the one by guest user at 4:12am, “Where are the rest of the liaison reports?” My response to that is what a very good question that is. Some of the liaisons however have only just been elected in Cairo and many of those will not have had their first meeting. So I will permit the courtesy of them to give a small introduction and verbal report if they care to in that section of the agenda. The second matter that was raised in the comments on the wiki, “Where are the reports from the new ad hoc working group? Where is the subset analysis of the new gTLD that was promised? Or the report of the ad hoc working group dealing with the PSC?” That’s an extremely interesting question and I would love to hear the answer to it. Alan: Point of order. Cheryl: Go ahead. Alan: You went past current action items without pausing for a breath, so I didn’t have a chance. It would be nice if there are current action items on an agenda, if actually have a pointer to them so we know what they are when we’re on the agenda. Cheryl: Alan, as you well know, that is normally exactly what is there… Alan: I… Cheryl: …and I’m assuming that the staff may not have actually had the minutes prepared from the Cairo meeting. Am I correct in that assumption, Nick? Nick: The minutes are still being prepared. As you know, there were some recordings which needed to be repaired due to improper recording during the meeting, and those have only just come back. Cheryl: And is that why, as Alan rightly points out, we don’t have a link to the short list of summary items and action items? Nick: With regret, yes, unfortunately that is true. Alan: Okay. I would suggest in the future if we have the option that that kind of item should be there even if we don’t have the full minutes yet, even it’s unaudited. Nick: It’s not even a question of audited, it’s that we couldn’t actually… you couldn’t really properly tell what people were saying on the recordings until they were repaired. Alan: I don’t think we need to discuss it, I’m just pointing it out. Cheryl: Yeah. It’s regrettable and we will do our very best to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This brings us to Item 5 – I’m hopefully gaining time here – which is the current status of ALS applications. You will need a Google Documents account to access this spreadsheet, but what it does is give you an ongoing outline of exactly what status all ALS applications are at at any given time. To my knowledge, Nick – and I haven’t opened it, but I’m about to – we have no new or pending applications that haven’t been dealt with in a timely manner. Is that the case? Nick: We have a few that were responded to that were confirmed late by us due to the Cairo meeting. Cheryl: Alright. 25:49 Nick: When applications come in during meetings, it sometimes delays our processing of them until after the meeting is over. But we will catch up the due diligence reports and otherwise so that it doesn’t actually delay the applications. Cheryl: Okay. So we’re not looking at any delay on any of the milestones, is that the case? Nick: That’s right. Cheryl: And I’m just looking to see which of those applications that might be. Can you tell me who came in…? Nick: The Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations, Internauta Venezuela, CETIC AJB, and AUI Peru. Cheryl: Peru, okay. So it’s just that last four on the list? Nick: And our compliments to whoever in the Latin American and the Caribbean Region who’s been busy recruiting. Cheryl: laughter Well, Carlton’s on the call. Perhaps he can take that… Nick: I don’t know who it is, but we’re glad you’re doing it. Cheryl: Well, I’m not saying Carlton did it, I’m just saying perhaps he could take the compliment back to them. That’s great to see. But there’s no expected delay and we’ll be starting the staff due diligence when? Nick: Yes. We’ll be having the… We will have the reports done much faster in order to make up the lost time. Cheryl: Okay, that’s great. Any questions… Nick: In the next few days you should get the due diligence reports. Cheryl: Thanks for that. Any questions on any of those ALS applications from anybody? pause No? Okay, I have a question from the French channel, I believe. pause Adigo? French channel? pause Nick, “question from question”? Is that a request for…? Nick: Umm, just seeing if the French channel is somehow muted. Umm, I don’t actually see a listing for the French channel in the online form. Cheryl: Okay. Well, if whoever wants to raise a question from the French channel, if you just ping me again. Is it Fatimata? Does Fatimata, who I would assume is on the French channel, Fatimata wishes to raise a question? pause Yes, Fatimata go ahead. Interpreter: Hello, can you hear me? Nick: Yes. Alan: Yes. Interpreter: Okay. pause And give me a moment on the English channel, we think you be 28:45 muted on the French channel. pause unknown joined Alan: Who just joined? silence – 29:02 to 29:30 Cheryl: Nick, do we have a technical difficulty, because if we do have…? Nick: If we do, it’s within the French channel, which I cannot hear. Cheryl: Fatimata could perhaps type her question. Interpreter: And just a moment while I get that question, please. Cheryl: Well, every moment counts. Nick: Is it not possible to simultaneous-… Interpreter: Hi, can you hear? Nick: Yeah. Interpreter: Okay. Interpreter: Yeah, she can’t hear me. Interpreter: Then we’ll call her back. Sorry, everyone. Cheryl: overtalking 30:01 …go ahead. We can hear you. Interpreter: One moment please. Nick: I think they cannot hear her is the problem, but I’m not totally sure. Cheryl?: Okay. silence and background noise – 30:14 to 30:54 Male: Uh, orange juice. pause Cheryl: Umm, okay. Thank you, Fatimata. Fatimata was raising the point, for those of you who are not in the Skype channel for this teleconference, that she does not see an application from Senegal. Nick, can you enlighten us? Is it that we haven’t received it, or…? Interpreter: And question from Fatimata now ready. Cheryl: Go ahead. Interpreter: And Nick, this is for you. There had actually been an application from the African association from Senegal, and the actually name is Bokk Jang, and I did not see this at the end of the list. I’d like to know why. Nick: The name is Bokka Jang? pause Sébastien: It’s Sébastien. May I suggest that it will be answered next… not on the call in that we proceed because we see that there is something missing and the staff need to look at, and… Cheryl: Yeah, I’ve just typed back to Fatimata that Nick will follow up offline on this if necessary. Which moves us to our liaison reports. We have a couple of liaison reports already linked to… Female: French – 32:44 Nick: Not in this channel, please. Cheryl: We have a couple of liaison reports already linked. We have the IDN report, and Siva, you will see from the standard of the IDN report… background talking Cheryl: …Hong has inaudible 33:09 to us which our monthly meetings… Nick, mute those please. Nick: I’m trying. pause Somebody is obviously getting on a plane. background talking Cheryl: overtalking 33:23 …on a plane, but I don’t need to hear about it. Siva: Hello. Siva here. Cheryl, you were saying something? Cheryl: Yes, I was. I was just competing with the airlines. Siva, you would know you’re going to get a face-to-face hand-over from Hong when you meet her, myself, and hopefully Vivek as well at the IGF meeting, but you will see by the standard of her IDN reports, her monthly reports, the type of material that she has been producing. But perhaps you could take this opportunity to quickly introduce yourself, and I do mean quickly introduce yourself as you are our new IDN liaison. Go ahead, please, Siva. Siva: Hello, everyone. I’m Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. You can call me Siva. I’m from India. And in particular, we have… I come from a country with 22 official languages, so I’m particularly interest in this issue. I am from ISOC and I have a keen interest in the internet governance office 34:47, inaudible. Cheryl: Thank you, Siva, and we look forward to looking with you. Wendy needs to leave – clears throat pardon me – in under two minutes because she has a competing meeting or requirement. The Board liaison report linked has raised the very important matter of poor, shall we say “inadequate” is the best we could define it as, public participation and remote participation, with specific reference to the public forums at the Cairo meeting. We have the beginnings of a reasonable draft of letter to the Board regarding this matter in response to requests for the list. I will continue with the executive to refine that letter to make sure it captures all of our angsts and annoyances. And obviously, Wendy, that would be one of the things that we would very much like to make sure you pass on to the Board, but we will send you any other matters that need to be raised at the next Board meeting. And your next Board meeting is on, what, the 11th of December? pause Nick: I’ll check… Cheryl: I’ve already lost her. Nick: I think we’ve lost her, but just a moment, I’ll check. You go on and I’ll interrupt you. Cheryl: Thank you. I was just concerned that the Board meeting… No, Vanda, I can’t hear Wendy either. She may have just left us, although I didn’t hear the leaving. No, she’s typing. The next Board meeting might… Oh, she’s muted? Siva?: Cheryl, I’m here. I just muted my phone because it’s a bit noisy and I didn’t want to disturb the meeting. Cheryl: Thank you. We need to unmute Wendy, though. Cheryl: Star-7. Nick: Star-7, please, if you’re muted. pause Wendy: Hello? Nick: We can hear. Cheryl: Yes, Wendy. Male: inaudible 37:11 Wendy: Oh, splendid. Love these conference calls. So I was simply going to note, and I will note quickly, that the Board next meets December 11th. If we have items we wish to add to the agenda, it would be timely to get those to the not Board 37:32. Now there has not been a great deal of substantive discussion since the Cairo meeting, and I will let you know further, although there were significant complaints and moves to deal with those complaints through the new Public Participation Committee. Cheryl: Yeah. So I think whilst the Public Participation Committee may get there eventually, it’s important that our concerns are specifically annotated and recorded. So I’d… we will… overtalking 38:03 Wendy: Indeed, I would very much like to help us do that, and I think everyone… Cheryl: I’m sure At-Large will… overtalking Wendy: …is interested in making those processes move more smoothly. Cheryl: laughter Indeed, indeed. Okay, thanks, Wendy, and we’ll send that across to you. We’ll just have to make sure that we get a hook-up with you before that. Wendy: Excellent. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy left Cheryl: Yes, go ahead. Wendy Seltzer left Cheryl: Sorry, who was that trying to speak then? Nick: That was Siva leaving. Cheryl: Oh, okay. Sorry. Well, that’s fine. He probably got dropped out. Okay. Now the GNSO liaison report has been posted, but Alan, is there anything in your report that you wish to mention now that is not in other business listed later? Alan: The report that I have there is just a very brief summary. It’s not the full report which will be posted. The major meeting was last Thursday and I haven’t had a chance to get back to that yet. No, there is nothing there that needs to be… that is not on our agenda somewhere else I believe. Fatimata Seye Sylla joined Alan: Yes, everything else is there. Cheryl: Fantastic. And just for those new liaison positions, SSAC is a continuing one, but Beau, NCUC, and Rudi with ccNSO, when you have… cuts out …to raise or even issues you’d like to poll with us at a meeting, if you simply link it to this report space and obviously discuss it online as well, that’s the most efficient way of dealing with things. Now I’m sure we all know Beau quite well, but this is the first time Rudi has been here as one of our liaisons. So I’ll forward him the same brief introduction for himself and his role as our new ccNSO liaison. Go ahead, Rudi. pause You’ll have to star-7 if you’ve been muted. Rudi: So I hope everybody hears me. Nick?: We do. Rudi: Yeah. As I stated in Cairo, I will try to work on a few issues which are directly related to our community. We are representing the internet user and we know that a lot of things are going wrong from the side of registry and registrars. We have discussed this during the meeting with… which was chaired by Beau Brendler 40:49 regards the responsibilities of registrars in registering domain names. So that’s an issue I would like to bring up fairly soon. I will enjoy the input from my colleagues so that I can state that it is not only the registry or registrars in Belgium who are failing but there are probably some others. And another surprising thing I’ve discovered in looking through the membership of the ccNSO is that a lot of greater 41:25 ccTLDs are missing in the list of members of ccNSO, and I would like to discover the reason why they are not there. So if someone else has other questions, please bring them up. I have a first conference call on the 11th of December, so I would like to have some questions to bring to the table to prove that ALAC is also trying to get involved in ccNSO, so for my input. Cheryl: Thank you, Rudi, and I’m quite sure there’ll be many questions coming your way. There is a space on the wiki for each of the liaisons and I would encourage you all to use that space if it suits you to do so and perhaps… Sivasubramanian Muthusamy joined Cheryl: …correspond directly – welcome back, Siva – and correspond directly with the… Who’s best there? Nick? Matthias? Nick: Yes, either one of us, or we could get you some time with Bart and Gabby 42:26 who staff the ccNSO – that would probably be good. Cheryl: Okay, that could be very worthwhile I think, if we organize sort of an orientation and an upfilling call. I’ll leave that in your to-do list and we’ll follow up at the next ExCom meeting. Okay, that brings me to the first of our items for decision tonight. And I’m going to go to Alan for the first matter, which is the proposal for the formalization of an Executive Committee. Alan? Alan: The first item that’s currently on the agenda is geographic working groups. Cheryl: Well, that’s interesting, because I just wondered what happened to that and I just refreshed. But I’ll be more than happy to deal with that. Alan: It was there about a half an hour ago when I refreshed it. Cheryl: Okay, I’m just refreshing. Probably… Okay. Alright now. Yes, you’re right. We won’t throw to you just yet then. The Geographic Regional Review Working Group will be a two-person from each of the AC and SO – that’s Advisory Committee and Support Organizations – of ICANN, coming along a very similar line to the IDN’s fast track for ccTLD process that we ran a couple of month back. It will be an intensive working group with quite probably weekly meetings if not at a higher frequency, and it will be the Chair and one other, and we’ve had some discussion on list as to us. One of the concerns with the agenda is that I had linked I thought the report from APRALO, but obviously my wiki skills have failed me. Just to let you know that if the APRALO report was readable as an attachment, one of the things it would have said is that in our meeting earlier today, APRALO endorsed and supported the suggestion that Carlton from Latin America and the Caribbean Regional At-Large Organization would be an ideal fit for this second position because the members of the Pacific Islands chapter, some 38 countries represented by that single chapter and therefore single At-Large Structure, felt that some of the knowledge Carlton would bring from island states would reflect their own concerns and interests, and also that from the region he has experience in, he would have a good understanding and be able to proxy on behalf of the least developed countries. So that’s me taking off my APRALO hat and now asking for discussion on the appointment of a second representative to the Geographic Regions Review Working Group, the start date of which I do not have. So Nick, if you’ve got a date for it, I’d appreciate it. Any comments? Any discussion? Any proposals? Alan: It’s Alan. I have a couple of comments. Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan. Alan: First of all, I’m curious of how did it come about that de facto the Chair is the first representative. I’d like to understand the process. Cheryl: Quite simply 46:09, they came up to me in Cairo and said, “It will be the Chair of each AC and SO and one other.” So I said, “Okay, fine.” Alan: Because that isn’t my understanding from the GNSO, so that’s one of the reasons I was asking the question. Cheryl: Well, has Avri declined the position, because…? Alan: No, my recollection – and I’d have to go check the records – is that it wasn’t on the table. But I may be wrong, and I didn’t think about it much until I asked the question. Cheryl: Well, if Avri chooses to decline the position, that’s a GNSO matter, but being the endorsed representative for Asia Pacific on this matter, the Chair will not be declining the offer. Alan: I wasn’t challenging you, I was asking what the process was. Cheryl: Well, that was the process. Alan: Okay. And the second one is I would like to make sure that, particularly in this case because it has very significant impact on the very structure of ALAC as opposed to some of the others where it’s just a moderate interest, that we get good interactions in both cases to ensure that our representatives are in fact representing us and not working as free agents. Cheryl: Absolutely. And seeing as you’ve acted as our representative in a recent important working group… overtalking 47:29 Alan: laughter Cheryl: …is to know that not only will the liaisons or representatives from the ALAC on this working group be attending the working group meetings, they will be attending the additional ALAC meetings which are the briefing meetings. And from the Asia Pacific perspective, they will be having specific briefings to look at their views from the 17 ALSes in that region, and I’d encourage each of the RALOs to do the same. Vanda: Cheryl? Cheryl: Yes, go ahead, Vanda. Vanda: Well, I’m a huge opposer 48:12 for this review of geographic regions since I was on the Board. And we started in some way doing that in the Fellowship Program independently of the traditional divisions. We found out that it was much more important to have a inaudible 48:42 cultural division around the world and make sure that people that really participate. If I am understand, we are also need another representative – if nobody else want to enter, I can put myself in. Cheryl: Well, sorry. coughs Carlton has in fact expressed interest. Excuse me. coughs Sorry, just breathing a problem. Carlton has expressed an interest, but… Vanda: Oh, good, good, good. Cheryl: …one other thing I wished to mention to you all, and that is something that I would be happy to forward as a concept, the Government Advisory Committee has some problems inaudible 49:38 who the second representative other than Janis as Chair should be. So their way forward is to say that it will be a committee of the whole who will brief another to attend each of the meetings. So one person will be proxying for the whole. And to ensure that all of their participants have a working knowledge of what is going on in the working group, they were going to have the… Mohamed El Bashir left Vanda: I’m great that for 50:22 inaudible because the people in the Caribbean have really different kinds of view. Cheryl: overtalking …I think you need to mute. Nick: I’m… Because he’s leaving. background noise Nick: Just once again if I can remind everyone, if you’re not speaking, please do mute yourself with star-6, unmute with star-7. unknown joined Nick: It will make the call run much better for everyone. Cheryl: Okay. So seeing as the GAC will be subscribing its internal list to the working group list, I’d perfectly happy to propose that the ALAC-Internal list is also subscribed to the geographic group list. Female: Yeah. Vanda: Okay. Go ahead. 51:22 Cheryl: Alright. Any other discussions or comments? pause Now I have not checked the list since my dinnertime several hours ago. Is there anyone else who’s put their hand up for this role or is it at the moment Carlton, the person who wishes to take this second position? Nick: I’m not aware of any others myself, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Cheryl: Carlton, are you still willing knowing the workload of this and the fact that you’ll be briefed by every one of the regions and you’re going to have to try to clone all sorts of views into some meaningful response? laughter Nick: You will need to unmute yourself, Carlton, if you wish to speak, with star-7. pause Cheryl: Star-7 to unmute, Carlton. pause Carlton: cuts out …about it and so I will not just be a listening person, but I certainly will be arguing for the positions that we have, the views that we have. Cheryl: Excellent. Well, unless someone has a damn good reason to argue otherwise, welcome aboard, Carlton. We’re going to very busy, and I’ve already had some rather astonishing discussions with people within the Asia Pacific region where what I would have thought was their desires is not the case. So it’s going to be quite a learning curve for both of us. Carlton: I think so. I do think so, yes. Male: Spanish – 53:25 Cheryl: Okay. Do we have a problem with the Spanish channel? Can they hear me now? I am speaking up. pause In the absence of anybody telling me otherwise, let us now move on to Item 2 for decision at this meeting, which is now Alan, ball in your court, the “Formalization of the Executive Committee” matter. Alan: Okay. It struck me in Cairo as we were… various conversations were going on, and in particular the one on performance criteria where the reference was made in the draft policy since… the one we discarded to the “Executive Committee,” that in fact the Executive Committee was not mentioned anywhere else in the Rules of Procedure. And I think that if such a group is to exist, and if there’s a rationale for it to exist, then it should exist formally, and as importantly, if it is to be given any rights to take action on behalf of the Committee, those be explicitly described. It was also noted by people in the last year’s Executive Committee that having people from different regions was useful. It was not part of… is not part of our current rules, it just happened that way last year and it again happened this year, but it has been a useful effect. So I am proposing that we create the concept of an Executive Committee, that it include the four officers, and we specify that the four officers must be from different regions. We’ll need to come up with a process to make that happen, but that doesn’t have to be done today. And I am also suggesting that since we have four of the five regions represented, that we add a fifth one from the unrepresented region onto the Executive Committee. And that in substance is what I am proposing. The rationale for why is not nearly as clear. Certainly, Cheryl has been working with an Executive Committee and has felt comfortable with it, which is why it came into existence. I believe as long as we’re in a state where the ALAC is not in the position to on the fly make… have good conversation, active conversation on the list and come to decisions on a regular basis or at least opinions on a regular basis, that we really need an Executive Committee to oversee the process. Should we ever become robust and active enough, that may change, but today I think it is very clearly the case, and if we are going to have an Executive Committee I think it’s important that we specify exactly what their rights are. So based on that, I am proposing that we create the concept of an Executive Committee, the four officers that we already have defined, specify they must be from different regions, add a fifth member of the committee who must… who will be from the fifth region. At this point, I’m specifying no specific responsibilities for the Executive Committee. We obviously will put some together, but they don’t have to be done today to create the concept. And it has the right to make decisions on behalf of the ALAC in urgent situations, and these decisions must be reported back at the next ALAC meeting and ratified or not. And that’s the whole substance of the proposal I’m making today. Cheryl: Thank you, Alan. There’s been an extensive comment by Carlos, and if Carlos is able to hear me on the Spanish channel, I am assuming he would like to raise some of these points here at the meeting. pause Interpreter: Yeah, this is the Spanish channel. We have a comment. Cheryl: Go ahead. Thank you, Carlos. Interpreter: I disagree with Alan… in terms of creating… Alan: Excuse me, did you agree or disagree? Interpreter: I disagree. Alan: Disagree, okay. Interpreter: I disagree in terms of creating an ExCom. At least not at this moment because first of all, we need to ask ourselves a number of things – for example, if this is really necessary, what is going to be the cost of it, whether this is not an additional bureaucratic level for ALAC. Especially, I think that ALAC is already an executive committee of all the internet users. We have to improve the communication with RALOs. In my opinion, the answer should come from the bottom up. It is necessary to know whether these changes or these amends 59:49 is supported by the whole committee. Especially I don’t think this is the right way to do this thing, to expose it as a fact. I would like to know what is the will and the idea of all the members of the committee… of the committee. This is it, I’m done. Cheryl: Thank you, Spanish channel, and thank you, Carlos. If your question in part two is specific to the current Executive Committee, each of them can make their own responses. Is that what you desire, or would you…? Alan: Well, I’d like to ask a clarification of Carlos first. Cheryl: Sure, go ahead. Alan: With the exception of adding the fifth member and specifying the regional diversity, I am not proposing anything other than what is happening today and has happened for the last year. So my question is, is Carlos suggesting that if we do not decide this is a good idea, that we should continue with the ad hoc Executive Committee or that we should disband the concept of an Executive Committee? I’d like to know what he thinks the alternative is to adopting my motion. Cheryl: Carlos and then Vanda. Interpreter: Yeah, Carlos. I don’t want to disband the committee. I only want that it should be very well explained within the operative principles of ALAC. Alan: And I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with him on that. Interpreter: Because otherwise it wouldn’t be legal. Cheryl: Yeah, we all agree with that. Vanda, go ahead. Vanda: inaudible – muffled 1:02:20 Alan: I, I… We can’t hear you. Vanda: We have exchanged some ideas, Alan, Carlos, and I in the e-mail, and I believe there is some kind of a misunderstanding here. One thing is to include ExCom into the bylaws. This is not we are talking about now. So to do this, certainly we need to have a more huge discussion about that and define what is supposed this ExCom to do and what are limits and so on. And what I understand Alan has proposed is completely in my opinion easy to do and very well received for the general administration of ALAC, it’s to have one more people from this not legal aspect of our ExCom. So I don’t understand why. Probably because Carlos is thinking about to have this formally working, and this could be done in a more long process. Now the only thing we need is to continue to work and open up a little bit our ExCom to add another region representative to this. It’s just that. So I’d like to reinforce the idea that it’s very important to have Africa with us and to allow Carlos to think about the idea independent of the legal aspect. Thank you. Alan: I have one other comment when other people are finished, Cheryl. Cheryl: Okay. Any other comments, and then back to Alan? Vivek: Can I speak, Cheryl? Cheryl: Of course you may. Go ahead. Vivek: Vivek here. Hello? Alan: Yes, go ahead. Vivek: Yeah. This is in continuation with the discussion of Carlos and others. Just I would like to check with Carlos that if he says this need not be disbanded 1:05:03 now, then probably a little more deliberation. If there is some kind of time-bound thing you’re thinking so that this gets functional as an appropriate ExCom. Cheryl: So Carlos, did you hear Vivek’s question? pause Interpreter: Yes, I did. I think that the first idea is to see if the whole committee wants this change. If it is so, we have to develop a process to include this rule within the operative principles. But first, always first, if we want this Executive Committee, because so far it has worked as de facto and we have to make it legal if we want it to work. Cheryl: Yeah. Thank you, Carlos. Interpreter: Thank you. Cheryl: Vivek, did that response…? Vivek: Yeah. Yeah. I will just comment back on that. Cheryl: Go ahead, Vivek. Vivek: Yeah. So I’ll mention I’m quite new to these discussions. I’ve been getting involved in the last two weeks, so I don’t know how far I grasp the issue. But the question in front of… Cheryl: Yes, you’re another lawyer. laughter Vivek: laughter I’m a inaudible 1:06:52. We are different from lawyers. Cheryl: Oh, well, you know what I mean. Vivek: Okay. I was just… Cheryl: You’re not inaudible. laughter Vivek: Okay. This is my loud thinking, that on one side it’s not good to run some things de facto, it’s better to become de jure. That is more responsible one way if you really look at it. The other way is to… if some of the members have genuine concerns in terms of legal position or more clarity, I think we should set some time-bound thing to that, but de facto thing becomes de jure inaudible 1:07:35. That’s what I feel. Otherwise to the first question, is we abandon, I don’t think anybody wants to abandon this. So in principle they agree, but then we need to get faster, clearer about making it actual. Cheryl: Certainly, and I think we need to note that of course another one of our items – assuming we actually get to it, which I’m now very doubtful of – is that we are going to be conducting under Alan’s remit a review of Rules of Procedure, and this is one of the more obvious parts that needs repair. Does someone else wish to speak? Who is that? Fatimata: Fatimata. Cheryl: Go ahead, Fatimata. Fatimata: Yes, I just… I can’t understand Carlos’ point. At least I didn’t understand his answer to Didier’s 1:08:32 question about wanting to delay maybe, you know, the fifth member from another region, because from what I understood, from all the decisions going on now, that it’s okay to have the ad hoc committee and have it run, but it’s not okay to add a member. Am I right? I just want to understand more. Cheryl: Fatimata, I don’t believe that’s Carlos’s intent. I think Carlos is… He will speak for himself obviously in a moment, but my belief and understanding is that Carlos is concerned about the due process and the rules of procedure and the legali-… 1:09:23 Fatimata: Yeah, yeah. I got that one. Cheryl: …are properly… Fatimata: Yeah, sure. Cheryl: Carlos, if you could just clarify for Fatimata, is it that you are concerned about the addition of a fifth member representing Africa into an ad hoc ExCom? Is that an issue or is that not an issue for you? Fatimata: Thank you, Cheryl. Interpreter: Can I make a comment? Cheryl: Uh… Interpreter: This is Carlos. Cheryl: Oh yes, please. If it’s Carlos, that’s exactly what I’d like, a comment, I’d like an answer. Interpreter: I think that we cannot talk about fifth member just yet. I’m not talking about a fifth member because we haven’t decided just yet whether we’re going to have an ExCom or not. That would be the first question. But we have to have a process… Male: overtalking 1:10:30 Interpreter: …and introduce this in the operative principles to make it legal – that’s the thing. Once we have the Executive Committee, we will decide whether we have, we need a fifth member or not. Cheryl: Okay. Interpreter: That’s why it is important to have everybody’s opinion on record of the need to have an ExCom or if ALAC by itself… Cheryl: Yes… inaudible 1:11:15 Interpreter: …it is an Executive Committee. That’s it. Cheryl: Okay, thank you. Alan: I considered a friendly amendment to split it into two different motions. Cheryl: Okay. I’m happy to hear that, Alan. That’s one of the questions I was going to ask. Is there any more speakers to this matter, for or against… Alan: Yes. Cheryl: …before we look at the friendly amendment? Go ahead, Alan. Alan: I put my name on a list. Cheryl: Yeah, I know but I also… overtalking 1:11:47 Fatimata: That’s another question. Cheryl: Go ahead… Who’s the other person? Fatimata? Fatimata: Yeah. Yes, I still have a question for Carlos. So does that mean that we should suspend the actual, the ad hoc Executive Committee’s work? I just don’t get it. Should we stop the activity going on with the… I mean, with the Executive Committee, should we dissolve it? I mean, even though it’s ad hoc, there is no bylaw behind it. Is this the issue? Cheryl: Carlos, do you wish to respond to that question? Interpreter: Yes, I want to respond. Cheryl: Go ahead. Interpreter: I think that we have give it 1:12:45 strength to that Executive Committee if we want it. And we are going to give that strength first of all asking ourselves if we want it and then taking the proper actions to do so and who are going to be the members of that Executive Committee. pause In a vision 1:13:31 to the other questions I post in my comments. And that’s all. Cheryl: Okay. Thank you, Carlos. Any other discussions or statements on this matter before we go to the APRALO on this matter and then Alan’s comments? pause Okay. In that case, despite my inability to link the documents to a wiki page, as Thu Hue and I and Siva were in attendance at the APRALO meeting today, it was discussed at length and it was the view of the APRALO that they do support a regionally-balanced Executive Committee. That said, I will now move to Alan. Go ahead, Alan. Alan: Okay. I have several points. With regard to Carlos’s point of that we need to work from the bottom up, I totally agree and I don’t think this changes anything whatsoever. The Executive Committee is simply facilitating some of the actions that the ALAC does have to take regardless of the organization under it. And as I said, I’m quite happy to split this into multiple motions. In terms of putting it in the Rules of Procedure, I think that’s exactly what we’re doing by making such a motion. Once we make the motion a concept, we’ll have to craft some words to go into the words of procedure that go along with it. I need to say something about my own position on executive committees. I don’t know who if anyone else has read the independent review of the Board which was out at the Cairo meeting. They take a very strong stance saying the Executive Committee of the Board should be dissolved. The reasons they do that is they say executive committees will very often form two levels of people on a group on a board or a committee – the important ones who are on the executive committee who make all the real decisions and the rest of the board that just rubber-stamps things. It is for that kind of reason that I normally object strongly to executive committees, and it is that reason that in this motion I specifically limited, did not give a huge range of responsibilities. But I think at this time in the life of the ALAC, I think we need such a body. That may not be the case in the future, but I strongly endorse what we are doing at this point and I think it’s not only necessary but it’s important that we do it partly to make sure that the ad hoc Executive Committee is not in a position to take action and then the ALAC is accused of not using the rest of the ALAC and the RALOs to make informed decisions. So I agree with what Carlos is saying about bottom up, but I think this is part of the answer, not the problem. That’s it. Cheryl: Thank you, Alan. Are you able to then split this matter into easily-digestible separate pieces… Alan: I am. Cheryl: …tonight, or shall we take this to an online vote? Alan: I believe I can do it at the moment. Cheryl: Okay. Alan: Okay. I make one motion that is we create an Executive Committee composed of the five officers, and we give the Executive Committee the right to make decisions on behalf of the ALAC in urgent cases. Such decisions must be reported at the next meeting and ratified. Period. The group obviously has other responsibilities like putting an agenda together, but we’re talking about the serious ones here. So I’m suggesting we have an Executive Committee of the four officers and the rights are severely restricted. Period. Cheryl: Okay. They would encompass the rights of the Chair and any Deputy Chair acting as Chair that are currently in the Rules of Procedure? Alan: Of course. They don’t take any rights away from the individual officers. Cheryl: Thank you. Carlton: Can I ask a question? Cheryl: Please do. Go ahead, Carlton. Carlton: If you say the decisions of the Executive Committee is to be ratified by the full ALAC, it means that the full ALAC can only vote yes. It means that you would have to have… make sure the Executive Committee has… If you don’t want the possibility of going into confusion where there might be where there might be a no vote on a decision that is already taken, then you have to build in somehow a majority vote on the ExCom. Alan: To be honest, my answer to that is if an executive committee wants to make an irrevocable decision that cannot be retracted two weeks later in any way and do it on behalf of the ALAC and face the chance that… Cheryl: Recall and get rid of them. Alan: …that there is recall, yes, the Executive Committee can do that. I think anyone who makes decisions on behalf of a group which has to be ratified has to do that carefully at any given time. Cheryl: That’s just vote ‘em out. Just recall them and vote in a new lot. Alan: So I would not favour putting a lot of verbiage on exactly how the ExCom makes these decisions and quorums for the ExCom. We have recourse. And to be honest, most of the decisions that ALAC makes are not that quick 1:20:16 moving. Cheryl: I would also suggest… Adam: It’s Adam. Cheryl: Sorry. Okay, Adam, you’re next. I would also suggest that this fine-tuning is something that must be looked not just by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure but to get some regional input from the RALOs as well. Yes, Adam, go ahead. Adam: I was going to say, just a little following on from what Alan was saying, I don’t think the decisions made usually, you know, would reach the stage where we’d want to recall an ExCom, we’d just be sort of angry with it. And my concerns about ExComs are exactly the same as the ones Alan mentioned that the Board review had commented on. So some kind of… If we are frightened about what the ExCom might do, perhaps we could put in an extra sentence saying that, you know, “And any ExCom decision taken on an urgent basis must be notified to the ALAC list before that decision is made” – I mean, you have to inform us in other words before you take your executive decision, whatever it may be. And that would at least give us a heads-up that you’re not heading into troubled waters as it were. Cheryl: Sounds fair to me. Alan: Are you suggesting notice with time to say, “Don’t,” or just notice in parallel with it being done? Adam: It wouldn’t be necessarily time to say “Don’t,” I think that would be someone that you as the… that the… sorry, the ExCom, not “you,” would judge by the reaction. But if you say, “We need to take an urgent decision on X. We are going to do this within two or three days,” if you then see a massive reaction saying, “Don’t do that,” you know it’s probably not a… you know, you can reconsider. If there’s just a “Go ahead” or “No comment,” then you go ahead. Alan: I consider that a friendly amendment, that the ExCom must give notice and preferable advance notice of the intent to do this. Adam: Yeah, that was my intention. Thank you. Alan: Fine. Carlton: I actually think that preserves the open meeting intent. I believe that would be a reasonable adjustment to the resolution. Alan: Done. Interpreter: This is the Spanish channel. Can I make a comment? Cheryl: Please, go ahead, Carlos. You were next. Interpreter: I have some questions for Alan. Cheryl: Go ahead. Interpreter: If we decided to have ExCom, don’t you think we have strengthened the operative principles? That is to establish the operative principles. So the first question is do we want an ExCom? Secondly, based on what Alan said, that the ExCom would deal with the urgent matters, what are the urgent matters? And in addition, based on what Alan said as well, if these ExCom decisions should be ratified by the committee, wouldn’t we be working twice about the same issue? That’s all. Alan: My answer to tha-… Female: inaudible 1:24:18 Alan: Sorry, I don’t know who’s speaking. Male: He’s not here? Alan: Cheryl? Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan. Alan: My answer to that is very simple. As soon as we have an ALAC which can respond to a query from the outside world and give an answer moderately quickly, like within a day or two if it is required, and we have 15 ALAC committee members who respond to e-mail and we can get a consensus quickly, I will suggest, personally suggest that we disband the formal Executive Committee. pause I was finished. Cheryl: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this matter, or can we read the current part one motion into the record and take a vote? Interpreter: Yeah, I have a comment. This is Carlos again. Cheryl: Go ahead. pause This is the final round of comments, just by the way. Interpreter: What are the issues that Alan thinks are important and in which ExCom should participate? Alan: As an example, and it is only an example, when I was participating as the ALAC representative on the GNSO restructuring working group, we were having two conference calls a week and questions were being put to me about “What is ALAC’s position” on something and I wanted to come back and say, “This is ALAC’s position,” not “This is Alan Greenberg’s position,” and that is one of the things I have used the ExCom for in the past. It was a de facto ExCom, but that is an example of the kinds of things that happen. Cheryl: Alan, it had in fact included more than the ExCom, but to be totally and brutally honest, the only people who turned up consistently to those extra briefing meetings were the ExCom. Alan: Well, no. Izumi had volunteered to work on it and he did turn up when he could. Cheryl: Umm-hmm. Well, thank you for naming people. I was avoiding that. Alan: Well, but Izumi was the only one who volunteered to work on the GNSO restructuring when I asked for volunteers. Cheryl: Yeah. But in the absence of ExCom, you wouldn’t have had any briefings. Alan: So that’s an example. It is not the only one, but it is an example. Cheryl: Now can we have a motion read to the record to be put to a vote? Yes or no? Interpreter: I just have one more question, the last one. Cheryl: No, sorry. Closed. Interpreter: Okay. Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan. Alan: Okay, clearly we’re going to have to work on the wording, because I’m reading off the screen making changes as we go, but the intent of the motion to be wordsmithed is that the ALAC create an Executive Committee composed of the five existing officers of the ALAC. Cheryl: Four. Alan: …four existing officers of the ALAC. Sorry. And until there is a more refined definition in our Rules of Procedure, the Executive Committee will have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, save that in urgent situations, the Executive Committee may make decisions on behalf of the ALAC such that… such decisions to be… notice of such decisions to be given to the ALAC and such decisions to be ratified at the next ALAC meeting. Cheryl: How do the ALAC members who will be going yay or nay on this if we put this to a vote here feel about that? Are they comfortable with the wording, or do they want a second reading? pause Matthias or Nick, did either of you catch the intent in a way that can be read back to the record? Alan: The intent is the motion number one, part number one as specified, as written with the making it a four-member Executive Committee, adding in the notice given, and removing the additi-… you know, making the four-member, four officers and adding in the additional requirement that notice be given. It’s essentially number one with those two changes. Cheryl: But your number one actually talks about creating a five-member Executive Comm-… Alan: Yes, I said… But number one, change making it four, just the officers; number two, issuing notice when a decision is made, or prior to it. Cheryl: Where does that bring regional balance? Alan: It doesn’t address that, it just takes the existing four officers, regardless of where they come from, and making an Executive Committee, which is legitimizing what you did a year ago essentially. Cheryl: Alright. Alan: You happened to have some regional balance, but that was accidental. Cheryl: Are we planning on looking at regional balance as a part two? Alan: Well, Carlos said we first decide to have an Executive Committee or not, and that’s what I am… I separated them out as a friendly amendment. Cheryl: Is everyone happy with that? If we read that now into the record – nobody else is rushing to do it – that the ALAC create a four-member Executive Committee with membership representing… No. Alan: No. Cheryl: The four… We just ratify the current officers of the ALAC as an Executive Committee, simply ratifying the current officers of the ALAC as an Executive Committee, and that the Executive Committee shall have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, save that in urgent situations the Executive Committee may take decisions on behalf of the ALAC, which will require notification to the ALAC that such decisions are being discussed and made, and which will then be required to be ratified at the next ALAC meeting. Does that capture it correctly, Alan? Alan: It does indeed. Cheryl: In that case, I will call for anyone who wishes to vote against that motion, please say your name. pause Interpreter: I would like to make a comment. This is Carlos again. Cheryl: No, I’m calling for a vote. Interpreter: My vote is no. Cheryl: Thank you. Beau: I’m sorry. This is Beau. I need to hear the motion read again if we’re doing a voice vote. I’m sorry. Cheryl: No problem. Alan: Let me… Did someone record or do you want me to do it again. Cheryl: Do it again. Alan: Staff? No? Cheryl: I would have hoped staff had… overtalking 1:32:16 Alan: Okay. I move that the ALAC create a four-member Executive Committee composed of the four ALAC… Cheryl: overtalking Alan: Sorry? Cheryl: No. If you’re going to do that, you need to simply ratify the current officers of the ALAC as an Executive Committee. Because then you don’t… you’re not talking about regions at all. Alan: I didn’t say anything about regions. Cheryl: Okay. Well, if you want to name two vice chairs and a chair and rapporteur, do it that way. I just think ratifying the current officers is cleaner. Alan: We will need to wordsmith this. The intent is that we create or ratify a four-member Executive Committee composed of the existing four officers of the ALAC. The Committee shall have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, or in urgent situations the ALAC may take decisions on behalf of the ALAC… the Executive Committee may take decisions on behalf of the ALAC, notification of such decisions to be given to ALAC and must be ratified by the ALAC at its next meeting. Beau: Yeah. Well, I vote against that. This is Beau Brendler. Cheryl: Okay. Anyone else voting against? Anyone wish to have their name recorded as an abstention? pause I see two against, no abstain, and eight for the motion. Do we have a second motion, Alan? Alan: Can we record who the eight are at this point? I don’t know who’s on this meeting and who isn’t. Cheryl: Yes, we can. It is Cheryl, Sébastien, Vanda, Alan, Vivek, Patrick, Adam, Thu Hue. Interpreter: This is Carlos. I’m voting against it. Cheryl: I put you against. Carlos, I’ve noted you against. Beau and Carlos are against. Siva: Hello. Siva. I inaudible 1:34:35 the responses. Cheryl: Thank you, Siva, but unfortunately liaisons don’t get a vote on this. Okay. Do we have a second motion, Alan? Alan: Yes. I move that the Executive Committee composition be altered such that the five officers… that’s that the three officers must be selected from regions other than the region of the Chair and that we add a fifth member of the Executive Committee from the unrepresented region, to be elected from the unrepresented region. Cheryl: Umm… Alan: Essentially, that numbers two and three added on to the expansion of the committee. Beau: This is Beau Brendler. I vote against. Alan: I don’t think the motion was called yet. Is the motion seconded, by the way? Cheryl: Is someone seconding that motion? Perhaps if you read it again. Adam: I’ll second if no one else has. Adam. Cheryl: Thank you, Adam. Do you want it to be read again? Adam: I should think so. Alan: I will try to do it more coherently. I move that the ALAC Executive Committee… that the composition of the ALAC… Sorry, I’m not sure I can do this. I move that our procedures be altered to ensure that the five officers of the ALAC are from different regions and that we add a fifth member of the Executive Committee from the as yet unrepresented region. Cheryl: Okay. So “that the ALAC redefine the Executive Committee to ensure that it has regional balance” – would that wording address that? Alan: That would address it. Cheryl: Well, maybe that’s simpler for all of us to understand – “that the ALAC redefine the Executive Committee to ensure that it has regional balance.” Would you take that as your friendly change of words there, Alan? Alan: It needs a bit more substance in that the order has to be that we select the chair and then the vice chairs and rapporteur must be from other regions and separate from each other, but we can wordsmith it afterwards if the committee allows. That is the intent. Cheryl: Adam, how do you feel about that? Fatimata Seye Sylla left Cheryl: Okay. Adam, how do you feel about that? And if we can get Fatimata back, that would be most useful. Adam: Yes, the second still stands. Cheryl: Thank you. I forgot to count Fatimata in the other vote, so that is in fact a nine inaudible 1:38:12 in my listing there. Okay. Is there any comments, discussions, or debate on the second motion? Some of this has been discussed in our earlier deliberations. Carlos? pause Okay. Being no comments or discussion, I will call for those who wish to vote against this motion. So far I have Beau. Fatimata Seye Sylla joined Cheryl: Welcome back, Fatimata. We’re just taking the vote on the regional balance for the Executive Committee. Timely for you to return. At the moment I’m calling for anyone who is voting against the motion. Interpreter: Okay. Yeah, this is Carlos. I am voting against it. Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos. Beau, you’re still voting against it, I assume? Beau: Yes. Cheryl: Okay. I’m now calling for anybody who wishes to have their name registered as an abstention. pause And the results of that vote is the same as the first. Alan: Fatimata is off, I believe. Cheryl: Yes. No, she’s back. Alan: Oh. Fatimata: I’m back. Cheryl: overtalking 1:39:45 …Fatimata, Vanda, Alan, Vivek, Patrick, Adam, and Thu Hue. inaudible sign for. Is there a third or final motion, Alan? Alan: No, there is no other motion at this point. There’s a point for dis-… Cheryl: Thanks, Alan. Alan: There’s a point for discussion later, if we get to it, on the fifth member. Cheryl: Okay. That was quite a marathon effort, but a very important discussion and I trust that everyone will understand my indulgence in the extension of time on that. It’s extraordinarily important… overtalking 1:40:24 Sébastien: Cheryl, it’s Sébastien. Just one point. Cheryl: Go ahead. Sébastien: Cheryl, it’s Sébastien. Just one point. I am not sure that we called for a second for the first motion, and I would like, not to have any trouble with the procedures, to say that I second the motion even if it’s late and that the procedure could have gone in the right way. Cheryl: Sébastien, I’m perfectly happy to note you as the formal seconding of that, because these minutes go on for perpetuity and it’s important, as you say, that they are absolutely inaudible 1:40:59. Now I note we are at our closing time with a pretty large part of our agenda ahead of us. I will now ask for the meeting’s opinion on how they wish to move forward, pardon the pun, on the next item for decision at this meeting. Is it your will that we extend for another 10 minutes to deal with the matters of the RAA, the way forward proposal? Beau: If I may comment, this is Beau, I don’t think 10 minutes is sufficient really to deal with it, so I’d like to… Cheryl: Okay. How much time do you believe it needs, Beau? Beau: Well, I don’t… See the thing is I don’t have time now, I got to go to work, so I would suggest we reconvene it somehow. Cheryl: Okay. Is it… I’m happy to take that as a suggestion. Alan: I would really like to ask a question of Beau before we let him go. Carlton Samuels left Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan, just before Beau leaves. Alan: Yeah. Beau, the question at this point is if it comes down to a decision, that we accept the current RAA amendment package pretty well as it is or it goes back to square one and we start a PDP which we know will take many months and probably several years before we have any change. As the person who led the RAA effort for the ALAC, which way do you believe we should go? You’re not committing the ALAC, but I’d like your personal opinion. I thought I understood the answer, but it’s been brought into question. Beau: Well, that’s because I’m not entirely sure of… I don’t think any of us are entirely sure of the factors at this point. And by that I mean as far as I know there has been no formal response to the statement that we made in September that was ratified by the ALAC, that, you know, there’s been some back and forth on the lists on. So I guess since then a couple of people have told me that the way things kind of look and you may know differently, Alan, because you are closer to the GNSO than I am, but I’ve had some people tell me that basically, you know, there’s very little appetite in the registrar community to negotiate any further on the RAA. So… Alan: And that’s probably correct. Beau: So if we agree to approve the package of amendments that is already on the table, then we’re probably not going to get a chance ever again to… well, not “ever again,” but we probably are not going to get a chance to negotiate for anything else. And so if that is indeed the case, then just based on the response that I’ve seen from the user community as administrator of the RAA working group mailing list, I would have to say that we need to reject it and ask for a PDP. Alan: Okay. Let me try to make something clear. The process we’ve gone through right now on this one has been a negotiation and is not a PDP… Beau: Right. Alan: …in today’s sense of it. Beau: That I know, yeah. Alan: If the GNSO goes ahead with a PDP, that number one, some of the things in this current RAA package may well not be on the table again because they’re not going to be subject to consensus policy and therefore I don’t think will be able to be on the table in a practical way – that’s number one. So there’s the chance that even a PDP will not get some of these back. An example of that is ICANN’s ability to take action against a registrar, against violation of the contract in smaller chunks than just de-accrediting them. I don’t think that’s a policy issue that the GNSO will be able to discuss at all. Number two, a PDP process is not a negotiation. A PDP can be approved with the registrars completely voting against it. That’s the whole concept of a consensus policy, it may be imposed on them whether they like it or not. So let’s not confuse negotiations with the concept of a PDP. At this… Beau: Well, I’m not. I’m just saying I think it’s a moment. Just sort of saying, “Well, you know, we should just approve what we’ve got because we may never get it again,” I think that’s actually bad negotiation and I think we’ve got a real problem here if we just go ahead and say, you know, we’ll agree to the package as-is because clearly the user community, whom we’re supposed to represent, say they’re not satisfied with it. Alan: Okay. L-… Beau: So we need to explain to them what you just tried to explain to me before we go ahead and say, “Oh, you know, let’s just go ahead and jump on this.” I mean, clearly… Alan: At this point… Beau: …you know, clearly there’s, you know, there’s even comments on our meeting thing here. Cheryl? overtalking 1:46:01 Alan: Okay. At this point, we’re not negotiating with the registrars, we’re negotiating, to the extent we’re negotiating at all, with ICANN legal counsel. Beau: Oh? Alan: Okay. Beau: Perhaps it will be a bit more open. Alan: If the will of the ALAC is that we would prefer to see this whole thing dumped and we start again from scratch without any real understanding of where it will go or how long it will go, I will pass that message on. Cheryl: Alan? Alan: The GNSO may or may not honour our feeling, but I will certainly pass that message on. Yeah. Beau: Well, is that how the ALAC and our RALOs feel? Alan: Well, that’s the question I’m asking. Cheryl: Yeah. Alan? Alan: Yes. Cheryl: I honestly believe that time is against us now. Alan: Okay. Cheryl: inaudible 1:46:46 important a question. The Skype chat has had a couple of people, not the least of which was me, suggesting that this is something that needs really a single-topic briefing and discussion call where some of our RALO and ALS people can make their voices heard as well. And so Nick has suggested that would it be helpful to have a teleconference where the relevant staff is on hand? My response was I believe so. What is your response to that, Alan, as our GNSO liaison? Alan: If we can do that quickly, that’s fine. Cheryl: Okay. What sort of time course do we need? Alan: I mean… Cheryl: What sort of time course do we need to look at? Alan: Do you mean how long a call or how quickly can we do it? Sorry. Cheryl: How quick-… cuts out Time and date. How quickly? Alan: That’s up to staff. I can do it immediately. Cheryl: No, no, no. What is our deadlines? Alan: Ah! We don’t know what the deadline is. It is unclear based on the established FAQ 1:47:47 whether there was a three-week clock that started ticking in Cairo or a three-week clock when a motion might be made, which has not been made yet… Beau: So we got time. Alan: …to adopt the RAA package as currently has been negotiated. Beau: Can I… Alan: My suggestion is that we… that a motion like that… that we try to arrange that a motion such as that be put to the GNSO Council and that there then be a three-week constituency… period for constituencies to consult. Cheryl: Okay… overtalking 1:48:28 Alan: That’s not my call to do but that is what I’d prefer to see at this point. Cheryl: Okay. Two things then. We need to do something within the next three weeks, which means it can go to a final vote or a decision at the December meeting. We will put a Doodle up and get some times and dates that is going to work within that… overtalking 1:48:52 Alan: Well, excuse me. If what I just described happens, the next GNSO Council meeting is not till later in December. Cheryl: Well, that’s fine, but if we were going to make… have a discussion and then have a decision, the natural opportunity for the decision is at the next ALAC meeting. Alan: If we can do that, that would be fine. Cheryl: So we will try and do something… Beau: overtalking 1:49:12 …request. Cheryl: …between now and the next ALAC meeting. Beau, does that fit with your…? Beau: Yeah. Yeah, I think that will be fine. I just have one request for staff and whomever – I mean, could we just like get some immediate feedback on where, you know, was the statement on the RAA that was ratified in September? Was that… I’m sure it was received, but there’s been no comments on it. So we’ve basically already stated a position on what we think of the current RAA and, you know, if we just go now suddenly decide we want to ratify it, that doesn’t really make sense until we hear what… Cheryl: Response. Alan: Well, but the point is the question that is being put now is a different question. It only came up in Cairo. Beau: Okay. Well, I still think we need to know what the response to our statement is 1:50:00. Alan: I, I… Cheryl: Okay. Nick, you have an answer to the question that was raised by Sébastien on the list, which is to do with… Well, you can cover it off when you answer it. Go ahead, Nick. pause You have to star-7, Nick. Alan: Maybe Nick’s not with us anymore. Nick: Sorry. I thought I was unmuted. Actually my response was to what Beau had just asked. Cheryl: Go ahead. Nick: The RAA amendment statement was included with the other community input in the summary given to the Board at the end of the RAA amendments consultations. I think… Wendy is not here, so I do not know what if anything the Board has done subsequent to that. Alan: I’ve checked the minutes. It appears to have not been discussed in any substantive way in the Board since then, but it may be omitted from the minutes or agendas, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that they discussed it. Nick: Probably it relates to the… They probably haven’t discussed it if it’s not there, because that’s too major a topic to be unminuted. Alan: Yeah, I may have missed it, but that was my review. Beau: PDP man, let’s go nuclear. Cheryl: laughter Well… Beau: Or n-… Sorry, “nucular,” as our outgoing president… Alan: But that does mean ICANN has no way of reprimanding registrars for the next few years, so… Beau: The market won’t allow that happen, the good registrars won’t allow that to happen I don’t think. But anyways. Alan: It’s happening. Cheryl: We need to have this full and frank discussion. Okay, let’s see what we can work out on a single-topic briefing and discussion on this. I think it’s a very important one and, indeed, we would probably like to discuss, Nick, online, probably in the next 72 hours and no later what our date options and indeed who the appropriate staff may be to be there for that sort of… overtalking 1:52:15 Alan: Can I ask for a clarification? Is this a briefing on the RAA or is it a briefing of what ICANN staff believes our options are at this point? Nick: Well, it depends on what you want. I would say that the later is probably more relevant. Cheryl: overtalking Beau: Yeah, I think you need… overtalking Alan: So would I. So it’s Kurt Pritz that we’re really talking about. Cheryl: I was hearing from Beau that it’s the responses and discussions such as you were raising that he would like to make sure everyone else is raising issues here 1:52:46. Alan: Well, Nick can check this, but my belief is they have answered and said, “There’s nothing we can do about those at the moment. This is the package that we think we can go ahead on.” Nick: Well… overtalking Alan: That may not be a nice answer, but I thought that was the answer. Nick: Now I note that Danny has… you know, the staff have said that they believe that the way that must… that the way to operationalize implementing the package or any part thereof would be via the GNSO. Danny has said that he disagrees with that analysis. Presumably, if Danny is still on the call, he would be interested in attending a briefing where the subject could be raised along with the rest of the issues surrounding what happens next and what the various options are. Alan: I have not heard a briefing where ICANN legal counsel debates issues with people, but maybe. laughter Nick: Well, not debate, but I mean just explain what they believe the situation to be. Beau: I have to run guys… overtalking 1:53:49 Nick: overtalking …have Kurt, we could have Kurt… overtalking Cheryl: Okay. We’re having the discussion that we’re planning on having… Beau Brendler left Cheryl: overtalking …that’s the discussion. Alan: No, the only question’s who do we call, who do we ask from ICANN staff to be here? Danny: Kurt Pritz and Tim Cole. Cheryl: Thanks, Danny. Okay, so I think that’s a good way forward because this is a far too important matter to letter the pressures of time get the better of us. Is there anything in the remaining part of tonight’s agenda that cannot be held over to online discussion, as most of them are listed for decision or vote at the next…? Yes, “User input into GNSO structure,” that’s another phone call opportunity. Alan: Have we had an extension on that? I’m assuming since the Board wants to discuss it at the December 10th meeting, we do not have an extension. Danny: No extension, the deadline is still the 28th for comments. Alan: That’s three days from now. Cheryl: That’s correct. Nick: Just a question, if I may. Cheryl: Yes, go ahead. Nick: I could be wrong, but ALAC has probably more comments into the Board and in public on the engagement of users in the GNSO than any other community in ICANN. You could I think do one of two things. You could basically send a statement saying that, that your comments are quite detailed and extensive… Cheryl: Yes, “Go read our comments.” Yeah. Nick: …and that you would prefer to leave this consultation for others. Or you could simply recap those comments you have made in the past which you believe are still relevant and send those in. Alan: Nick, based on the discussion at the GNSO the other day, the default, if you don’t say anything it is presumed that your prior statements stand. Cheryl: Well, I think we might just do at least a covering letter and give Wendy clear instructions to that effect. pause Okay? Danny: Cheryl, wouldn’t this be… overtalking 1:56:22 Cheryl: Is there anything else on the items listed, on the items for discussion that needs to be dealt with tonight? Nick: May I suggest one thing? With the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook… Cheryl: Yes, which was divvied up and we haven’t seen any responses from the working group. Nick: Well, and I’m… they’re also… I’m also part of the problem because I said that I would compile together, from my understanding of what the community cares about, notes on what pages and what paragraphs items are on that people may wish to consider. And I have not finished doing that because like everyone else, it’s 250 pages and I have other things I do for you too. I know a number of other communities are asking for an extension. There is also some doubt as to whether or not the one-month consultation period for English is for the other languages one month from their date of publication. If that were to be the case, then the comment period would actually extend at least partly into January. So we just 1:57:31 may wish to just say that due to the various holiday periods, it would appreciate an extension for all languages until 30 days from the publication… overtalking Alan: Or take our statement and translate into French and then it flies. Nick: Yeah. Alan: laughter Nick: That would be another way. Danny: Cheryl, may I ask a question? Cheryl: Yes, you may, Danny, but just before you do, Nick, in my notes to tonight’s agenda, I did particularly say “And ask for an extension on this matter,” so I think that the ALAC needs to know that was our intent. Go ahead, Danny. Danny: I would like to know who are the volunteers working on this particular ad hoc group and where do we find their workspace so that we can contribute to the discussion? Cheryl: Nick, is the minutes from that group and the membership of that group, which was formed in Cairo, how close are they being put together for not just answering Danny but also I’ve got the executive director of our ALS having digested all 200-and-odd pages ready to join as well? We need a workspace. Nick: I will make a page on the new gTLDs workspace, which is… overtalking 1:58:47 Cheryl: And a… Nick: …page and circulate it. Cheryl: And get them to use the gTLDs list, or…? Nick: Yes. Cheryl: Have we got a list for them to use? Nick: Yeah. I mean, we’ve had one for a while, so I will recirculate to everyone those instructions and locations. Cheryl: Okay. Danny: Okay. And the last question, Cheryl, is why do we need to proceed on the basis of a subset analysis when the rest of the user community is addressing this point by point? Cheryl: Simply because that was the mechanism the ALAC discussed and agreed upon in Cairo. Nick: The idea, Danny, is that people would take on different sections and then combine them together for an overall comment to be compiled. Danny: Okay, thank you. Cheryl: Okay, so do we have a time or likely number of days that’s going to take before that happens, Nick? Nick: Before my part’s done? Cheryl: Yeah. Nick: Probably a few more days. Cheryl: Okay. So we could look at by Tuesday of next week? Nick: I hope so. Cheryl: Okay. Well, it looks 1:59:59… overtalking Nick: overtalking Cheryl: …on Wednesday of next week. When we circulate to the Announce list, can we give an extra nudge to the executive of each of the RALOs because this is something that the regions and the ALSes must be involved with? Danny: Cheryl, one last comment, if I may? Cheryl: Go ahead, Danny. Danny: We’ve had a number of people write in to the RAA working group with very, very specific issues on their mind. It would sure be nice if the ALAC could take up their concerns and at least pose some type of response as to what they are doing to try to deal with the issue that was raised. I don’t see much point in grassroots participation if at the executive level nothing is being done to respond to those concerns that the public has brought forward. Nick: Beau was just addressing that. Cheryl: Couldn’t agree with you more, and I’m going to have to toss that straight back to the ALAC lead for that working group, who unfortunately has left us. Who else do we have on here other than yourself that’s involved in that? Umm… Nobody’s jumping up and down saying they’re here. Danny?: laughter Cheryl: Can the executive take that on board now you’ve got one and pursue that somewhat more aggressively? Male: Yes. Alan: I have to make a statement, a very quick one, that with limited resources, I don’t think we can be in a position where the ALAC guarantees to respond and take up the charge on any point raised by someone. We’re just not going to be able to respond to everyone like that, so somehow… Adam Peake left Alan: …we need a process of vetting things and deciding which we’re going to be… which we’ll take up and which we’ll be happy if a RALO puts a position forward on or whatever. Danny: Well, that’s a fair comment, Alan, but… Cheryl: All very true, Adam, but… Alan, but we do in fact have an ALAC liaison or lead into each working group for a reason and they need to be seeding back into our meetings. Alan: No, I’m not questioning that. I’m just pointing out that the end result is not going to be that we take up every charge that somebody decides is important. We’re just not going to do a very good job if we try to do that. Cheryl: Okay. I believe we’ve extended well past our hour… well past our extension, and more importantly, if I did a headcount, I think we are probably no longer quorate. So I am going to take everything else online. Staff, we’re going to have to have a little chat at 0600 hours my time to tidy all of this up. So I will be dialling in, and of course any of the other executive are welcome to dial in to that meeting just to tidy up things for this. Thank you for your indulgence, thank you for your energies, and thank you for I think some very useful and interesting discussions tonight to this morning or this afternoon, depending on where you are in the world. Welcome to those of you who have joined us both as liaisons and of course as Asia Pacific Regional At-Large Organizational representatives. This is an exceptional meeting inasmuch as it has run much longer than normal, but it was exceptional discussion on important matters. Thank you all, and good evening. Vanda: Thank you. Bye bye, Cheryl. Nick: Thank you. Bye everyone. End of Audio