ALAC and Board Structural Improvements Committee ("SIC") Meeting Tuesday, 27 October 2009 ICANN Meeting Seoul, Korea >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: --Up and move and like my normal practice of trying to get some circulation back to your brain. After the sessions we've had this morning, we are a bit tight on time. We've had a very important and very informative morning of briefings and discussions, which go towards our policy development. But of course, we also have to look at our own development, and that's very much what we're doing here with the Structural Improvements Committee and the discussion on the implementation plan, which I believe is in -- that you have been given in early draft form. And I trust you will all have in front of you now the next iteration of that plan, where you'll see the ALAC and the regional leaders have prioritized and looked at the resources required as we move to a next step. So, I think the first thing to do, of course, is to hand over to the Structural Improvements Committee to -- so we are at your beck and call and looking forward to our discussion. Go ahead. Thank you, (inaudible). >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Well, actually, I was here mainly to listen. And we have done the work that was presented by the working group. It has been -- everything has been approved. Now, we need to go to the implementation phase. And I think that it is important what this committee believes it can achieve, what is achievable, what are the priorities. And after having that, and discuss the input from your part, then the SIC can maybe give an opinion. But I think that -- I interpret my role here, or the role of the SIC here, as listening from the community. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: I do trust it'll also be answering the community, because we certainly want to k now what your reactions are to the aspects of our implementation plan. I think it's probably appropriate to ask any other members of the SIC if they'd like to do an introductory remark or outline how they've had any initial reactions to the early briefings they've had on the plan we have in front of you. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: I need two seconds to gather my thoughts. So, my trick will be to say I will be speaking in French. So, you'll be scuttering (ph) to your earphones and that'll give me just a few seconds. (Speaking in French.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much, Jean-Jacques. And of course, we all know that with great risk is also the potential of great reward. And we thank the Structural Improvements Committee for making that value judgment and, hopefully, we won't disappoint. Marco. And I do apologize in advance. Whoever designed the audio system here to just be pretty much unreachable by the majority of the people around the table, does need congratulations. There we go. Thank you, Marco. >>MARCO LORENZONI: (Speaking in French.) But, let's use English. Let's speak in just one. First of all, about the process. I think the process is very interesting. You started to break down the recommendations in several lines of action, which is absolutely what is needed when you go to implement something. So, I think that is a wise approach. Then, you put comments on the different lines of actions. And the comments were useful to identify several factors, first priorities, which is something that you just did yesterday or the day before, something like that. And second, to understand what are the resources that are needed to implement the different lines of actions. And from this point, you started to work on whether some lines of actions are completely internal for ALAC to be implemented, for the At-Large community; sorry, not for ALAC -- to implement. Or there are interconnections with other communities. And this will help to understand what are the interconnections between this set of recommendations and similar recommendations that have been issued also following the review processes of other communities, of other supporting organizations. For instance, yesterday just we had the session with Nick and we discuss about some recurrent recommendations, like (inaudible) training and so on and so forth. And what the best way could be for the organization to face this kind of challenge in a way which is effective and efficient for the whole organization. I think that this will be a topic for consideration for the SIC, or even for the Board, in the future; how to best deal with similar recommendations for different organizations. So, recognizing the different aspects of the different sponsoring organization first. Second, trying to imagine some processes that can be of mutual benefit. The other remark I would like to make is that I see the process being completely consistent with the set of recommendations. It's important to have this kind of check when you go to implementation. Are the things you are imagining to put in place consistent and coherent with the set of recommendations, yes or no? Yes. I think yes they are. Next step in my mind will be to budget all those lines of action. So we -- sorry if I use the "we," but really I believe in this strong "we." As organization globally, we need to understand what are the budget implications for each of the actions. On some of them we can have some pretty heavy budgetary repercussions, so we have to budget them. We have to consider them. We have to plan them. And in other cases, the budgetary repercussions are almost irrelevant, for instance. And finally, I forget what was the last comment, but it was not the last comment. Another point that I've (inaudible) very much is your attempt to (inaudible) priorities with a timeline. So, priority one being the first one; so short term, mid-term, long term and so on and so forth. I cannot try to make a comparative analysis with another set of recommendations, which is on the implementation for GNSO because they are completely different. I mean, the two review processes were different and the two outcomes were different. But I think you undertook the right approach because, for some of these recommendations, you can have some immediate effects. Immediate means five, six months' effect. In some others you must be patient because you will be able to reach the effects only in one, two years' time, something like that. So, that's the only comment I wanted to give. Thank you. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: (Speaking in French.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Raimundo? No? Okay. As we then don't believe that we've given you something that you are in any particular way disappointed with, perhaps we can look at the additional matters that we've put on in terms of prioritizing and resource. We can only say that, when this work was done on Sunday, we were aware that you would have little time to fully digest the documents. But that's what life's like at an ICANN meeting and I'm sure you're all used to that. So, perhaps a read-through from the top and getting a little bit of opinion, feedback, feeling, whether we are on the right track or whether we simply should relook at some of this. Marco, are you happy with that way forward seeing as implementation's very much under your--? Excellent. But before we move to that, is there any one of the ALAC or amongst the regional leadership who wants to make any comment? And we've got (inaudible) is hiding all the way down there. What on earth are you doing down there, trying to keep a low profile? >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I'm not on the board (inaudible). >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: True. True. Okay. Well, we'll accept you into our half-land of At-Large as an Internet end user and no doubt registrant. But we would certainly value your opinion and like feedback. George, do you have this document in front of you? No. Well, perhaps -- that will be fixed. Okay. Thank you very much. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yes, go ahead. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Since we are in the -- you have already introduced George--. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: He was hiding from us. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: We have another to-be board member sitting at the table. Jonne is the new liaison from the Technical Liaison group, which in fact a double liaison. It's a liaison from a liaison group. But anyway, so it's a different thing. Yeah. What's your name? What's your name? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Oh, dear. It's obviously a shame, and for the record, that we have great difficulties communicating. And we never enjoy what we do when we're sitting around these tables. I think it also helps greatly that we do recognize that people do wear multiple hats. And certainly, I've been in many work groups over quite some period of time. I don't feel like you're a new face at all. I've spent many an early morning with you, so--. So, any calls for comments before we start from the top? Okay. Now, just to let the Structural Improvements Committee know that what we have in fact done--. >>ADAM PEAKE: (Inaudible.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Adam. So noted. What we have done is fully go through this and establish what we think is the priorities, but we now look -- that is a draft. Let's see if we need to do some edits. So, we value your contribution. There's very little purpose in us putting the work in and then finding out, once we've handed our homework in, we've missed one of the questions. Go ahead, Adam. >>ADAM PEAKE: Just stretching because of these morning things. Just a quick response to Jean-Jacques' introduction. Excuse me. With the -- with being -- we're moving towards one voting director, and so that's a sort of rejection in some ways of what the reviewer was suggesting. But, too, could there be more transparency on why that happened? This is a sort of general question that, if a review makes a recommendation, then I think it would be good if we understood more fully why that happened. I don't mean -- I do mean specifically in this case, but I also mean generally, as a matter of ongoing transparency and accountability, that would be a good move forward. And I'm not expecting the answer now, is the other thing. The second is that, specifically about this case, it's a bit like when you have a member of staff and they aren't quite ready for promotion and you want them to do more. Specifically, what we should do more to gain those two seats is a sort of learning exercise, if you like. And we do need to know. We think we do merit those two seats. So, what do we need to do to satisfy it? Otherwise, we're just left in a limbo. And timelines would be helpful. Targets would be helpful. As you would do to a member of staff, for example. I don't mean ICANN staff. I mean, you know, generally, the notion of staff. And also, I have a personal sort of thought, and this is not an ALAC comment at all, that is there any way we could keep the liaison while we move forward to -- so that we have a liaison and a voting director. They do have separate functions. One is representing the At-Large and has a certain role as a director. The other represents the ALAC and would be presenting policy positions in a certain way. And as I said, this is my thought, not something that the ALAC has agreed or asked me to say in any way or form. Thank you. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Roberto. And Marco, did you want to follow on then? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Well, I have a quick, short and blunt answers for this and then probably we can have a wider debate in the days to come. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Both. You can have it. And then, after Friday, you can have it as wild and as wide as--. So, yes, you said the SIC has rejected the -- or the Board, whatever, has rejected the proposal from the working group because instead of two it has given one. On the other hand, the SIC and the Board has rejected the Westlake Report, who was given none. So, I think that by just looking at this thing, by, you know, make a step back and look at the complete issues, then you have the answer to your question. I wouldn't say that it was a negotiation, but it was considered at one point in time by the SIC, given some strong resistance from some members of the Board who were really buying into the zero seat solution, it was considered the only possible way to get the ball rolling. So, it was considered an acceptable compromise. Now, whether the ALAC considers this compromise acceptable or not, that is something that I would like to hear feedback. But I would encourage you not to underestimate the effort that the Board has done. I'm talking particularly of the members who were at starting position zero, no way this bunch of people will get ever a seat on the Board. And they have really changed their opinions. It's not that they gave up because the discussion was longer. Really, there was -- I think that the summit also, the results of the summit in June last year, was something. Well, something that has shown to the full Board that ALAC was a reality and was not an exchange of messages, more or less polite in nature on a mailing list. So, that -- and that answer is partly also the second question. I'm embarrassed here. I'm not a school teacher that has -- in front of kids and has to tell them what to do. That's not my role. I'm here more for learning from you than from telling you what you have to do. But I think that the idea is that ALAC has a role, and the role is to advise the Board on policy. And the more this role of advising on policy is fulfilled, the more work you do by evaluating the documents, by participating in working groups, by participating in the life of the ICANN, including the relationship with the different other parts. And ALAC is doing a good job in having liaisons with the rest of the community that builds a network. So, continue in this way and establish yourself on the field, on the ground, in the practical activities of ICANN and demonstrate that ICANN has a continuing role and an important role, which was the first question after review. So, this is the way to go. And the more it happens and the more you will be accepted by the rest of the community and the more you will have a claim to a further voting -- to a greater voting power, influence on the Board. And I think that I have only to congratulate ALAC for what you have done. There was a tremendous improvement since the day I left. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Wow! I wonder what's going to happen to the SIC and the Board. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: So, I think that -- and the first voting director on the Board is showing the appreciation of the Board for this moving forward. So, I would invite you to see this as a step forward and not a pushing on the brakes. And the third and last question was about liaison and voting director. What you say is absolutely true. But there is an issue that is -- and that comes also up in the Board review working group, that is not -- it is at present not clear what the distinction between the director and the liaison is. And they are assimilated to voting and non-voting director; whereas, on the other hand, the function, the nature is completely different. But that requires also a revision of the bylaws, but a heavier revision of the concept that is behind the liaison. Because it's completely true the director, the ALAC-elected director, the moment that he or she is on the Board, he or she will not speak for ALAC. Will be invested of a fiduciary relationship in the Board and will do the best for the organization; not the best for ALAC. That is what is stated on the bylaws and that is one of the basics of the functioning of -- at least of a not-for-profit corporation in the U.S., which is the current situation for the Board of ICANN. So, the liaison would make sense because it would be the person that can say, "Oh, wait a minute. No matter what the best -- what people think about the best interest of the organization is, nevertheless, ALAC has this kind of position." Two quick considerations. First of all, it was impossible under the current circumstances to propose this because -- although we tried in the negotiation. Secondly, I would invite you to think about -- because of those two different roles, of how dangerous this could be. Because you might find yourself in a situation in which the liaison says one thing and the At-Large director says a different thing. And what are the repercussions about the credibility of ALAC will have in the rest of the Board. In this situation in which ALAC is in the way of establishing itself, it is something that I would consider carefully. But in any case, the matter is out of the table for the simple reason that it needs rethinking about what is the difference between the liaison and the director besides the fact that they are voting and non-voting. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yes. Thank you, Roberto. Vanda? >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I'd like just to remember that ALAC has a good opportunity now with the AOC because the public interest is one the most important point on that AOC. So, the voice of ALAC should be listened -- with At-Large at least, should be listened. And we have a huge work to do and to help the whole organization right now and giving some feedback for what we work on that. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Ramaraj. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Just to complete Roberto's thinking. One of the inputs that was there was the size of the Board itself. And the working group recommendation was that at some time that needs to be reduced. And this was if he left both positions, that would have been, again, an addition and contract to the general direction. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. Now, we do use -- I'm sorry. Evan, are you indicating -- yeah, I'll note you in the speakers list. Yes, please. Go ahead, Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Only to -- in my opinion, or my understanding is that the -- these things should be (inaudible) and modification of the bylaws in any way. The modification of bylaws is a long process, so--. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Cheryl, we can't hear. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: In my opinion, both things, the new director and the liaison have to pass through a process of changes of the bylaws. So, we'll say there's a process for discussing that. The modification of bylaws is always a long process because the Board has to vote a decision to send the bylaws for modification to a public comment, which is (inaudible). So, in the following months we should go through that process. And I think that is the opportunity to clarify if the (inaudible) is maintained or not (inaudible). >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. I think -- of course, we also will have another ALAC review. It's on the cycle, so--. Yes, go ahead. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Just one very quick thing because I'm reading the comments from the field. There's a question of Danny Younger, who would like to know who are the Board members who prefer the zero seat solution. I have to -- honestly, I don't have that in mind. But what I would like to say is that, in the beginning of the discussion, there were Board members who were in favor of the zero seats solution. And then, at the end, it was a quasi-unanimous affirmation from the Board, a consensus from the Board about having the Board seats. And so, it is a little bit irrelevant what the starting position was. What is important is that, during the discussion, we achieved consensus. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. And thank you for noting -- I was about to read to the record, as I promised Danny I would, his question. But your eyes and attention are far better than mine because I'd have difficulty reading it down there, Roberto. We do also want to note that we do have a number of remote participants from particularly Latin America and from other parts of Asia who are not in this room, which are in the Adobe Connect room. So, we will be taking questions as they come. And at the moment, I see Alan and then I see Evan. Go ahead, Alan. And then Marco. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Just to follow up on Adam's question, the -- we understand this is a compromise. It was what was possible now and that's fine. We also understand that anything in the future is subject to the reduction of the size of the Board and, clearly, that's a separate discussion. However, if the GNSO were to come up today and say we think we need a third Board member, that would probably not be viewed as the proper thing to do in light of everyone else having two. I'd like to understand what you perceive -- and this is not a commitment for the future -- on what the process would be for At-Large to go to two. Is it wait for the next review five years from now? Or do you envision that, if we do a good job and we get A-pluses in everything we do, that there's some opportunity between now and the next review, or is it really a done deal until the next review cycle or until the next Board cycle or something? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Who's going to take that? Roberto? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Well, since I'm on the hot spot, I will answer. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And you won't be here. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: And I won't be here. Well, you never know. There are cycles in history. And I could be back on a different side. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: We will be talking later, Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: No, but seriously, I don't think -- my personal opinion is that it will happen at the next review. This is my personal opinion. But there's really an indication that I want to make here, is -- excuse me -- is not to focus on this. It's not to focus. The seat on the Board must not be perceived as the purpose of the action that ALAC is doing. The action that ALAC is doing has to be based on what is good for the At-Large community. So, the work that you are doing in terms of development of the policy is the priority. What will happen is that, if the work that you are doing has value, this increased value will be -- thank you -- will be -- I wouldn't say recognized because it's putting in a bad--. The ICANN community will feel the need of giving a stronger voice to ALAC because the things that ALAC is saying are important. So, it's not ALAC -- the next step is not ALAC to push for an additional seat, but ALAC to do things so that the rest of the community say, hey, these guys, we should hear more from them and they should have a stronger voice in the community. That's my personal view. And it's the same that I'm applying now in talking to the different parts that are at the table in the framework of the GNSO, or the view, and specifically in the framework of the implementation of the non- contractual house, is not to focus on a formal seat in the council, but to focus on how to organize the work in a way that everybody will say, hey, guys, we should benefit from having this or that or that particular constituency in the council because we want to -- because it's beneficial for the whole house. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Roberto. Jean-Jacques with a point back to this matter. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Merci. And while you adjust your earphones -- give you time to do that. (Speaking in French.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. Alan, you have -- oh. Okay, Raimundo, go ahead. And do make sure you keep focused on the mic. I have to do this sideways thing, so--. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Okay. Only one remark. I think that ICANN has been quite successful in the idea forum in showing that this is really a multi-stakeholder organization. And the fact to have supporting organization is to identify stakeholders; also, strong stakeholders. And it means that every -- it's my opinion, every stakeholder in that logic has to be treated on equal basis. So, could we not -- in my opinion, it's not consistent that in the medium term in the IDF we could -- should (inaudible) ICANN who has the -- more or less what will be the single society stakeholder treated not in an equal basis with our stakeholders. And I think that's a very strong point, the consistency of that. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Personal opinion. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yep. And because this is transcribed and recorded in three languages, it is important to make those things. Everything we do is in a goldfish bowl. Alan, you have another follow-up point then it's to Evan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think I pretty much agree with what Roberto said, that the target has to be to do the work and not just to do it so we get a board member. So, I want to give the context in which I asked the question. Since the words have been used by various SIC and Board members that this was the decision at this time, or it was a compromise because of the positions, the first question that many, many people ask is, okay, when do we get the second one or what do we have to do? So, I felt it was important to raise the question. I agree with you completely that the focus has to be on the work. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Alan, may I suggest that heretofore you use the term S-I-C members. Thank you. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Noted. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Indeed. Using letters that mean a number of other words and then making another word out of it can be very confusing, not just in the context here of what it means in some languages, but it also probably doesn't translate or transcribe very well, either. Evan, go ahead. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: My questions have nothing to do with how many people are on the Board. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Evan. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: But I have one detailed question and one general question. And this may be the right or wrong time in this meeting to do this, but I figure ask them now. One has to do with the regional makeup of the Board. It's my understanding that there is a mandate for regional diversity within the makeup of the Board. How does that affect our decision-making process? If we are putting forward one person, is that process, which I guess we're going to talk about in a moment, is that going to be constrained by the regional diversity issues on the Board? Are we going to have a situation where what we may believe to be the right person to be on the Board may not be that because there's already too many people from that region already there? That's my first question. The other one is a more general one about recommendation six. Is there -- should I defer that to later on? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: No, read it now and then maybe if it's a general question we can deal with it. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Okay. On the recommendation number six, it's a bit too obtuse for me when it talks about developing accurate cost models. One of the things that has been a recurring theme within our discussions, and frustrations, is the lack of awareness within At- Large, and at least definitely within our region, of what is being spent on At-Large and to what extent does At-Large have any input into how that money is being spent into -- for instance, if staff is being hired, to what extent does At-Large get to direct how that staff is being implemented, as well as other resources. I don't know if point six is intended to cover that. But I just wanted to get an idea from the SIC of how you felt, both as a matter of transparency and both as a matter of allowing ALAC and At-Large to do the work that it's being entrusted to do, how you see us having -- this isn't a matter of asking for more money. It's a matter of seeing what's there and allowing us some greater say into that process. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Raimundo's taking your first point and Ramaraj is taking your second. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: I will take the first point in Spanish. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Grazie. Grazie. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Yes, yes. (Speaking in Spanish.) >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (Speaking in Spanish.) >>RAIMUNDO BECA: (Speaking in Spanish.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Ramaraj. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: There are two parts to answer that question. One is The Way Forward. And I think that is a strategic plan timetable that kind of ends in December and, therefore, inputs to that from this group would be valuable. And from that comes an operating plan that links to different activities and where monies want to be spent. The first draft would come up in February of '10. So, that's the second place where you start budgeting where you want to spend money and link it to activities coming out of the strategic plan, operating plan and cash required. So, that's The Way Forward. On the accounting and visibility of where monies are being spent, is I think you need to look at the functional reporting. It's up on the dashboard. If you need more clarity on that, Kevin or I could help you in understanding that. But there are two pieces in that. One is direct costs associated with what ALAC is getting spent, the actual staff member, and then there is a portion that's the allocated costs of ICANN overheads to ALAC. So, that's what you will see in that pie chart. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And of course, we have noted previously when this new type of reporting came out that our community in particular really appreciated those extra analysis opportunities. So, we look forward to building on that and Kevin has been most helpful in doing that. So, we will certainly continue that conversation because more drilled-down analysis is possible as well. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Actually, that's the feedback we're looking for, as to what else do you need for better understanding. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yes. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: So, thank you for that. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: No problem. Marco? >>MARCO LORENZONI: So, there's so many doubts, so many activities running into the review context. So, I would like to give you some heads up. And to ALAC, we do some of the opportunities that are coming. First, the information of commitment. As you know, we undertake an obligation towards the whole Internet community to processes of clear and transparent reviews of the organization. The first of these reviews is about accountability/transparency. It will be tough. Not because we are not accountable. I am sure we are well positioned, but this will be the output of the review, so is not to me to say what will be the result of the review. It will be tough because of the timeline. So, we must deliver this review by the end of next year, which means that we must start immediately to think about the processes, to think about how to conduct the reviews, how to select members for the review teams and so on and so forth. So, this is an opportunity for all the communities. The communities are asked to participate with volunteers. Of course, we have together to identify criteria for people to be presenting the review teams. We have together to find an appropriate size for the review teams. We cannot have parliaments discussing data. We cannot have very large-sized groups discussing, analyzing data, analyzing indicators, putting on the table ideas on indicators. But we have to include a process of public consultation in the key parts of the review. So, please participate tomorrow to the session right at the end of the afternoon on the OC implementation because it will be very important. And please be there at the open microphone the following day because there will be opportunities on this. Second point about the review. You may want to participate tomorrow in the meeting in which the Board will be working with representatives to draft a final report. I think it will be very interesting also because this is one of the clear examples in which the inputs received from community members has facilitated a process of taking a decision from the working group. Basically, at the beginning of the process the working group was unsure about the issue of Board size and composition, whether to go for a reduction or to stay with the present composition, with the new adjustment of course. And following a really long thoughtful process of consideration of the different options, and following the several inputs received from the community, the working group concluded on the need not to change at the present time the size of the Board, but to reconsider the size of the Board in two years' time, if I'm not wrong? Yeah, three years' time, when the other measures that are recommended to increase effectiveness of the Board will be productive (inaudible). So, I think it would be interesting for ALAC members to participate to this presentation and the following debate. And then another meeting in which you may be interested to participate is the presentation of the draft report from the NomCom review. There are some open issues on this. The working group has concluded on several points, but still requires input from the community on size and composition of the NomCom. It is a very open question. And you know ALAC is represented in the NomCom with a solution that was envisaged several years ago. Now, things have changed and the NomCom wants to hear the voices of community on this specific -- but not only on this specific point. Just putting on the table the one that maybe is the more relevant for ALAC. And also, this meeting will be tomorrow. So, very happy to see you in those meetings. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Marco, just before I give to Adam and then back to Evan, what probably is useful for information purposes, and like anything we do, it's on our Wiki and in our meeting notes from this meeting, is we actually have a list of exactly who is in absolutely every meeting going on that is open. So, if you don't see some of us in some of these meetings, it's because they've been allocated to other spaces. So, it is not -- there's no argument here. There are names and there's reporting. So, from the 7:00 a.m. breakfast meetings yesterday morning, we had regional leaders sitting there watching transfer policy discussions. That's the reason that people come to these meetings, because they have to take that information back to their regional ALSes and get that sort of feedback. So, if you don't see us in a room, Marco, as opposed to if you do see us in a room, it's because we're actually in another room. Adam, back to you. >>ADAM PEAKE: Is it appropriate to comment on the NomCom review now? May I? There's two things, in that case. The first is that for quite a long period of time one of the inputs that the ALAC has had is that there needs to be a recall process of some kind, which will be extremely difficult to work out, but we believe there needs to be a recall process. I know that you have a process in there for the -- how to recall non-functioning NomCom members, but there isn't a way to recall non-functioning NomCom appointees. And we have been saying this for a couple of years. We think it should be in there. So, that is the sort of negative criticism, which I hope you'll take onboard. The other, actually, I think is extremely positive in that review is the emphasis on gender and recognition of the gender imbalance in ICANN. And I think with the new NomCom starting, if the Board could make a positive statement about gender and the importance of gender to ICANN, that would give the NomCom a direction in its selection because the -- sorry, in its candidate recruitment because that's the problem. Looking at the percentage of candidates from the poll who were selected, it's always a higher percentage in terms of--. So, they do try their very best to select people -- to address gender balance. But it has to be in the candidate recruitment and the whole community has to be aware of this issue. And there's some good numbers that you can look at from the Beijing platform on action, the Beijing conference on UN, on women from some years ago which was a 30 percent target for parliamentarians, for example, which was adopted by governments some years ago in the UN. And I think some percentage-based target over a period of time, if the Board could adopt that as a general resolution, not as a binding type of bylaws thing but something like a direction from the Board that would give encouragement to the community to, across the board, address this, it would be very helpful. Thank you. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And of course, there is extensive studies putting women on boards and diversity beyond boards hat, which I'm very active in within country, that we don't -- need perhaps to talk less on gender and more on balance. And you have perhaps a 60/40 or 55 -- whatever rule you choose, but it's -- the aim is to keep it in balance rather than necessary mechanism of affirmative action. >>ADAM PEAKE: Yes. At the moment it's 6 percent. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Indeed. Evan, go ahead. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I just wanted to do a bit of a follow-up to my question, which I think got a little bit lost in some of this. I had asked about participation in the budget process and allocation. And there were some answers back about improved reporting procedures. I just wanted to make the point that, while this is very welcome and very necessary, it's only an initial requirement. You need to have good reporting in order to have proper engagement, but it's only the first step. The proper engagement still has to happen. The reporting is a necessary first part of that. But please keep in mind that that's only the very first part of that and not the ultimate goal of what you want. Just telling us what's being spent is not the answer. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to respond to that? I think it's -- Raimundo, go ahead. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: In Spanish again. (Speaking in Spanish.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you. Alan? Oh, sorry. Roberto, you wish--? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Well, I don't want to let the question of Adam unanswered on the NomCom. Just for information, even if this is not in the agenda of the NomCom, the problem is that while the nominating is for sure one of the tasks of the NomCom, the de-nominating is not necessary a task of the NomCom. But I would like to inform you that a discussing has been going on in the Board Governance Committee and now in the whole Board. And also some points that are being discussed in the Board review in order to have some element that are the evaluation of the Board members. Now, this element of evaluation of the Board members, there's still not a recall mechanism, but is something that can provide the first step in this direction. And for sure we have in mind -- the Board has in mind that we need to put in place a mechanism in the framework also of the accountability requested by the AOC. We need to have some clear transparent mechanism for dealing with situations that are related to performance. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you. Marco just wants to make a response to that. No? >>MARCO LORENZONI: Just underline that also the NomCom review working group has worked and spent some considerable time in thinking about process for recalling nonperforming members of the NomCom. In the case of the NomCom, it -- I'm sorry. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Just for clarification, the issue Adam was raising is not nonperforming members of the NomCom. It's nonperforming members the NomCom send to people. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Sorry. Sorry. The point is well taken. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And we--. >>MARCO LORENZONI: --But in any case, just to finish the information, also the issue of nonperforming NomCom members is very important. And it could be difficult if it's a process for their substitution because the term is just one year. So, by the time when a member would be nonperforming, and the end of the NomCom term, it could be difficult just to find a second -- a replacing member, but some recommendation will be issued in any case in this sense. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. And we certainly do want to have the other pieces of work in progress. Alan than Evan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Quickly. In comment to what Marco just said, we understand it may not be possible to replace the person, but it would be nice to tell the sending group they shouldn't re-nominate them again. In regard to the original question talking about recall of people, I note that in the bylaws there is no provision for recall of NomCom appointees and such. There is implied a provision for recall of the SO people and liaisons. However, the Board does have the right to vote to remove someone, with one single exception. And in fact, we are talking about ALAC and our own people liaison. We're speaking on it this afternoon, as a matter of fact. And one of the things we are considering is a process by which the ALAC could remove ALAC members for a substantive reason. Of course, that would probably need a bylaw change or something. And if we decide we want to do it, we'll have to discuss how to do it. But that certainly is on our books. And that makes a lot more sense than asking some other group to remove them, which may or may not be able to function to do that at that point in a timely manner. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Just before Evan, Vanda has a -- Marco, can you give the microphone back? Vanda has a quick point relating to the NomCom matter. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Just a quick one. What I don't see is a kind of point that all organizations inside ICANN should follow to appoint people for NomCom. Because we should pay attention (inaudible). Who is the people we have appointed. And how to do that is completely different approach, perhaps, in each organization here. So, probably we'll need some kind of profile, some points to follow and to really consider when you appoint that. Thank you. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you all. Evan has stated his point. Thank you very much, Evan. What I'd like to do now is suggest that, in the time we have left, you've now got the information in front of you in terms of our resources and our priorities. We would like to know that we can get feedback from you. And just asking what way and when on this particular implementation might we get feedback from the Structural Improvements Committee so we can start on our work of implementing our implementation plan. And then move to the community discussions to pretty much report to and ask for your opinions and your reactions to the progress we've had so far to how we would be making the appointment of an At-Large director. So, if you're happy with that way forward, do we just continually annoy Marco to get back to us on this or is there a formal time when you'll give us some feedback on our implementation priorities? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I can take it. It's easier for me than for Marco, because Marco stays. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.) >>ROBERTO GAETANO: No, that definitely is one -- just for your information, I'm planning to hand over with the future chair of the SIC that is unknown at this point in time. But on Friday afternoon we are going to have this -- and this is one of the items that is going to be pending and there's going to be in the agenda for the next SIC meeting. The idea is to get back to you as soon as possible, as soon as feasible. And I -- this document has been circulated. When -- the list of the participants of the SIC is going to be updated because there's going to be some changes. Then the document will be re- circulated again and put on the agenda for the next SIC meeting. There was one scheduled for the middle of November. I don't know how -- you know, that's the next chair that has to decide the date. But definitely, in the second part of November there's going to be an SIC meeting and I would expect this to be on the agenda. What was the second question? >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) so Marco will stay. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: It's -- do you -- are you happy for us to now move onto the discussion of the At-Large director? And will you be giving us some feedback here or should we be working in isolation? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yeah. No. I mean, whatever you feel it's a priority we should raise the issue. We don't have a lot of time left. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: In which case, let us move -- and all of a sudden the -- oh, there we go. We are now up to election of the At- Large voting director. As exciting as being able to read the agenda is, I'd really like to be able to read the community call Wiki where we've discussed -- it was up there just a moment ago. Perhaps we could have it back up again. I'm unaware if -- Nick, you mentioned -- when you briefed the Structural Improvements Committee, did you cover off the progress in the community call on the matter of how the At-Large community has looked towards selection of a director today? Nick. >>NICK ASHTON-HART: I talked for a pretty brief time. It was a brief update. And basically said that there was a very constructive dynamic across the community to come up with various options related to how the process could be run and left it at that. Because I figured it would be more useful for you to explain it to them than for me to do that. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: No, that's fine. I just need to know what assumed knowledge we have. So, it's going to be of use to take the Structural Improvements Committee through what we have at the moment, our current stand of draft for the steps that we would be considering our implementation for an election process. And I would also ensure, Marco, that we make sure you've got all the links because these are dynamic Wiki pages. And as we change, obviously, the Improvements Committee will need to know how that changes. The first step as our regional At-Large organizations, the ALSes who've been involved in their community calls and the ALAC call, we've come up with the following several step process. The first one is a proposal that At-Large selects members of an ALAC Board Selection Working Group. This is regionally referred to as a nominating committee, but we thought it was funny that the nominating committee does selection and we would be having a (inaudible). It was just a little interesting thing in nominations. The method of selection for this particular group has not as yet been discussed in detail. But one of the obvious options that the regional At-Large organizations would be making an appointment to elect two people to the BSWG, having now said it in full, I'm allowed to use the letters. But it needs to be well in advance of the election. That group is then tasked with create -- I really cannot read from that distance -- with creating a list of candidates which is then made public. Now, if someone -- thank you very much. That is far better. There's been much discussion amongst the community that this doesn't need to be just put out to calls in the way the NomCom do. We don't want to just put something up on a website and say, "Expressions of interest are out there. Please feel free." We would expect the BSWG to be far from passive. They need to be proactive and actually look at non-ICANN and ICANN known individuals within the type of things at our candidate. Later on, we actually have what we would expect the candidates to have as well. Evan, with the diversity choices of the candidates, we have got the issue excluded because there are too many. Can you just speak to that for me? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Again, this was going back to the diversity of the NomCom people that are appointed to the Board and the issues of that. We had a concern about -- that while we want to have a diversity in our choices, we're only sending one person. So, it's critical that we have the right person amongst the people who are available. And while we want a diversity, for instance, in the slate of candidates to be put for election, that the person who gets elected shouldn't be constrained at the very top. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And I'm seeing nodding heads, but that's the sort of thing we need right now to hear back from you. Are we heading in the right direction with that approach? We don't want to have to pick for a female simply because the Board doesn't have enough of them on there. We want to make sure that our one candidate at the end of the election process is the very best person to represent all of us At-Large, ALAC, the RALOs and everything else. Alan, did you want to speak to that point before I go to Roberto? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I will point out that in the bylaws right now for the SO-selected Board members, there is a requirement that they ensure the minimum/maximum regional diversity, although there is absolutely no mechanism for them to do this given that they're selected in secret in parallel. But the words are in the bylaws. I don't know what happens if two people select a European and there's too many of them. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I would like to be short also because we have at 12:30 another meeting. What I would recommend -- well, there's nothing in the bylaws that would prevent you to -- there's not constraint and gender in there. I would leave it to your best judgment on also putting a person -- in case you have a tie between two different people, to select geographically and gender in order to ensure a better balance. What my recommendation would be is, in order not to be the victims of whatever happens in the other SO and so on, is to time your election at the moment in which the elections of the SO are timed so that you get all at the same time and then -- because if you come one month later and they have elected all Europeans and then -- or all Americans -- yeah, exactly. >>ALAN GREENBERG: A quick follow-up question. Is it clear or when will it be decided when this person is seated and what the repetition rate is? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: It's not decided yet. It will depend. When we have a mature mechanism, then it will need another Board vote and then the timing will be decided. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: We're very short on time. Evan, Raimundo, Sebastien. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Roberto, that means that it's within the SIC's ability to set the election happening at the same time that the SO send the people. Well, as you just said, to recommend that the At- Large person gets selected at the same time that the SOs send theirs, if the Board is now -- or the SIC is making the process and determining when we will seat somebody, do we not have that ability to synchronize that? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: But the Board has not taken any decision about the timing. It's -- the only thing that has been discussed at the Board is that we need to be comfortable with a process that is acceptable. And we assume that within the process we will also have indications about the dates. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: On this subject, will the -- the bylaws will be changed to consider. And the bylaws in the case of the SO indicate when they are seated. In this moment, they are seated six months after the AGM, which in this case is on the 30th of April of next year. So, I imagine that it would not be a bad idea to have your (inaudible) aligned with that on the 30th of April. Seated the 30th of April. And one other recommendation. As you can imagine, the ASOs, they have (inaudible) and they have -- and every one of them has their own procedures. They're all different. But it's interesting for you to look at them. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Okay. Quickly then Roberto. Sorry--. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: No, it's just a quick thing. Be aware that, as Raimundo pointed out, that now it is six months before the AGM. But there is something that is pending in terms of the review of the Board recommendation that would recommend the seating happening at one meeting. So, this is very likely to be the second meeting in the year. I know that if I say the summit meeting, that Raimundo will kill me. So, it's the second meeting of the year where this is going to probably happen. So, between now and then, we will probably go to the change of the bylaws and the date will move from the end of April, whenever it is, to the beginning of June or whenever it is. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: And specifically -- it's absolutely true. And specifically on the ALAC director, there is a draft recommendation of the Board Review Working Group that a person should be seating by AGM in 2010. So, considering the time that it will take to adopt the process for election and the time that it will take to run the process for identification -- yeah, in fact. Okay. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Wait one moment. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: So, from the top of my head, I think, but you can check it on the text, that the text say it's at the latest by the AGM 2010. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Sebastien? >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: My thinking was to have it on the AGM and not the middle of the year. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Well, when the seating happens is not as important as when the election happens because that's what biases the outcomes of how the regional balance goes. >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Yeah. But then we elect a liaison for one year and then we have to answer to a lot of other consideration. And I think -- I don't see why we need to change our pace today, but maybe we need it. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Okay. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: It's really up to you. It does not have to be discussed--. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'd just point out that, as in any transition bylaw, when we get seated for the very first one need not be when the repetition be done later. The first term could be two and a half years or three and a half years or whatever to get in synch. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And we will need to do that. If we could just scroll down for the couple of moments we've got left. And across to the left so I can see -- there we go. The next step would be to have an additional -- a double check so that the regions and the At-Large membership have the opportunity to put forward and have added to this list a candidate that they feel should have been on the BSWG list but, for whatever reason, didn't make it. So, we've got a loop back and check to make sure that the regions ought to say, hey, you forgot about Mrs. XYZ. So, we're just making sure that we have as much interaction and opportunity for community input along the whole line. And you can see the rationale on that. Moving down then to number four, which -- thank you very much. The RALOs then reduce and/or order the preliminary list of candidates and forward the results to the ALAC. This is -- there's a lot of explanation as to why this is on our discussion agenda. And what I might do -- Alan, do you want to speak to this or will I ask Evan to speak to this with the RALOS? Evan? Go head. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: We'll keep it brief, but essentially the intention is that, at this point, you're going to have a slate of candidates that had what the working group did plus perhaps a couple more than are added by the RALOs in exceptional circumstances, at which point it now goes back to the RALOs that, will between them, create a slate that will be elected on. We can spend a lot more detail on this, but we've got a lot of other things to do. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: But it's a cross-regional activity. Notice we haven't got to the ALAC yet. We're still talking in the At-Large field. Scrolling again. Thanks. Then we get to the interesting part, the actual electoral -- how we defined the electoral group. And we have A to I think G options. We'll just quickly go down and then we'll come back to what the community so far has decided upon. Option one is ALAC elects a Board representative from the final list of candidates. Option two -- yes, go ahead, Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: A very quick remark. I suppose this has been vetted and so there's no problem. And I come late. But the word representative seems to me slightly misleading in that, as was mentioned earlier, the person selected by the At-Large structures will not represent ALAC. He will have a general--. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: --Yes. Excellent point. And next time you look at the Wiki, I can assure you that word won't be there. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: This is great. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: (Inaudible.) So then, option two is that the regions elect the Board member from the final candidate list. So, you've got option one, the ALAC do it; option two, the RALOs do it. Option three, the combination of that. The ALAC and the RALOs are the electorate. And at this point there is an explanatory, which I would very much like Evan to speak to. Alan, did you want--? Okay. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: So, the intention here is that you have input from the 15 people who are on the ALAC, each of which gets one vote. In addition, every region gets a vote itself. Every region has its own internal procedures for indicating preferences in voting. What would happen is that, either on a mechanized basis or as a directed vote by the chair of the region, the region itself would be able to express a preference in addition to those of the individual ALAC members. So, each region would itself indicate a preference. That preference would then pass through to a vote. We've been told that this can be done by automated procedures. If not, the chair of the region casts it on the region's behalf. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Just a note; not a statement pro or con, that some of our RALOs, but not all, direct their two ALAC appointees on how to vote. So for them, this would be giving them another vote in the same direction. Possibly. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yes. So, it is important that you understand the nuances there. The next option we're considering is all participating ALSes and individual members cast votes. And we'd make the note that this is brought forward by Wendy on October 8. And as other notes there with individuals in the community have brought this forward. The next one is each ALS casts a vote. Patrick brought that forward. And I think we're at the end of the list are we, Matthias? >>MATTHIAS LANGENEGGER: Yes. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: That's the end of the list. Now, going back up to the top because that's where community agreement is. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: (Inaudible.) >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: It's 5-C. Yes. I did five -- oh, sorry. Back up to the top, yes. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Simply to mention that we've -- that in various discussions that have been had, both within the regions, where regions have expressed a preference for one of these six choices. I'd say by far right now the preponderance has been for what you see there, that is the choice where each of ALAC has a vote and each region also casts a vote. So, a number of the regions have had their own meetings where they've been asked to indicate a preference. Those who have, have preferred this one so far. Obviously, the debate isn't over, but at this preliminary level, this is so far the choice of preference from those who have been polled. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much, Evan. And in fact, when I said to go back up to the top, I was going to inform the SIC that, of all of these, only the first three have been discussed seriously. And it is option 5-C that is on the table with support right now. So, that's where we're up to. Hopefully, we have shown that we are a fair way into what I think is a very intelligent way of looking at the procedure. We have a community call going to be organized for us to look at the mechanisms of vote. At the moment, the ALAC uses an instant runoff. There are other options, including what's done by the Olympic Committee. We're getting expert advice and our communities will consider the next steps. But the electorate is a fairly pivotal point and we thought one that you definitely wanted to know where our preferences were. So, when you look at this document, option 5-C has current favor. Yes, Marco? >>MARCO LORENZONI: What is your all-time plan? What -- when do -- I was thinking to finish the process of consultation in order to present a few options for discussion with the SIC, for instance, before presentation to the Board. Or were you considering just to present your preferred option for the SIC? I don't know what are the different approaches that you prefer, either to present it -- I don't know, two alternative proposals for discussion or to present directly the option that will be considered the preferred one for consideration? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Certainly. In terms of the whole of the implementation, that's one thing. But in terms of this part--. >>MARCO LORENZONI: --No, no--. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: --Of the implementation, we have no reason to believe it will not be a single option with consensus behind it. That said, could I thank the SIC very, very, very much because we really have appreciated working with you all. S-I-C. I'm so sorry. The S-I-C. Part of trying not to do something pretty well guarantees you will do it. I do apologize. But one thing in particular I think that everyone of the At-Large regional leaders and our community here would like to do is give a huge thanks to the current Chair of the SIC. You have been so instrumental in making us feel that all our work is worthwhile. Thank you very much. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. Thank you all. I think that this meeting has been very instructive for us and we had the information that we needed. And just continue the good work that you have been doing up to now. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Marco, we'll (cut in audio). Can I just do some housekeeping before those of you who are able to escape do so? Housekeeping. We have -- the fact that the gala, these are information cards and a really, really good little bookmark. (Cut in audio.) They aren't required for entry, but I think they're so cute you should all get one or two anyway. Regarding the gala, the shuttle starts leaving at -- I think that says 17:30. And they will be leaving every five minutes from outside the Lotte Hotel. So, from 17:30 shuttles will leave. Anyone who hasn't ordered their APRALO lunch for our lunch meeting, tough, because it's already on. But there are (cut in audio). --Are going to be linked to the agenda page and on the online schedule. And printouts, which could be very useful for your regional people, they're something to take back to your region. Printouts of the relevant documents for the sessions today are available by the door. Thank you all. We will see you back here at -- somebody wants to say something (inaudible) -- 14:00. And go ahead, Nick. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Clarification, please. You said the busses start leaving at 17:30. It says that the gala doesn't start until 19:00. Is it really that far away? >>NICK ASHTON-HART: Yes. Sixty to 90 minutes. I sent an email about that. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Oh, my God. >>NICK ASHTON-HART: On the housekeeping front, don't forget that the next meeting is with the GAC and ALAC in Sapphire 13 on the third floor at 2:00. Not in this room. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And the words "representative" have already been purged from the Wiki. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Figured it might be. So, Sapphire, third floor. Done. 2:00. >>UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And the GAC is expecting discussion on the AOC and new gTLDs. Do we know that? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Well, I hope so seeing as we set the agenda and send it to them.