ICANN - Cairo WORKSHOP: AT-LARGE REVIEW Wednesday, 5 November 2008 >>TRICIA DRAKES: Right. Good afternoon, and welcome to this, the first in Cairo, but the second workshop. The first having been in Paris. >> Speak up. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Can you hear? Okay. Thank you. In terms of this session, I am going to run through, briefly, how we are proposing to do it, and if there is anybody unhappy with the format, put your hands up and we will jump in. Basically, I am going to have a few words, five minutes max, to cover where we are and some feedback from the meeting. Then -- in fact, Vittorio and Harald and Thomas, are going to pick up on the issue around, let's call it board seats and related. And Nii is going to pick up in terms of some of the pushing out to the end user. And we're then actually going to have open mic. Our request to you is really we'd like to, and we have been promised, I think, some thoughts on 21 recommendations other than board seats, so we are hoping we are going to be hearing, and on the mic, points around that. And then to really have a few concluding comments of the journey that we are going to go on. So where we are now, very quickly. The working group was formed by board resolution on the 23rd of January, 2008, which also, at the same time, appointed Westlake to do the independent report. We are aiming, as a group, to have our draft final report, subject to courtesy copies and going out, actually completed on the 23rd of January 2009. And for it to be posted at the beginning or in early February with translations by the middle of February, ready for Mexico. So quite an ambitious schedule that will need cooperation from everybody. The members of the group, Patrick and staff are not mentioned as members of the group, because we are a board governance working group, but we have a fantastic team effort with -- I have done the introductions. The only person not here in person is Karl Auerbach who couldn't travel, but he may be, and I hope he will be, listening and able to participate today. Details you know. At the back of this document, by the way, are links to the Westlake report, links to the -- to our midterm report, and also page 4, in case we need it, of the key points. We have been proactively getting -- consulting and getting public comments. And I really hope that that's going to continue between now and January when we complete the report. Where we feel we are at the moment -- and again, perhaps jump up and put your hands up if not -- and we're actually very pleased, we didn't know what to really expect, so we are really very pleased because this is for the community. It seems that there's general support for the general direction of the initial thinking. On the specific feedback, there seems to be general support for ALAC nominated board seats, and that's not just by ALAC but actually by other S.O.s, A.C.s, and people generally, and that will allow ALAC to work within the core of ICANN. Sorry. Somebody should have shouted before. Some discussions on mechanisms, and I hope that perhaps Thomas, Harald's and Vittorio's discussion might pick up on some of the points there. Some reservations that by having the ability to nominate board members lose the rights to liaison. Do we want that? So again. We have had a promise of feedback on recommendations other than on the board seat. So again, really hope today, in the public mic, we might get some input on that. And obviously, the general issues and links around all the other things going on in relation to the GNSO implementation aspect, the board reviews, the NomCom reviews, and other aspects of it. And how is that all going to fit in with us. So again, part of the specific feedback. On other items, importance of planning, but not to get too bogged down in the process. Support for thinking about RALO reform. Support on translations, and not just for ALAC but also for board members and for others so that can happen, taking Vanda's and others example of contributing, even where English is not the first language. Support for the end user voice, and again this is one of the ongoing things within the GNSO process, but at the same time, maintaining the independence and other aspects there. Some of the language in the report where we were referring to the "only channel" for the end user. It wasn't what we intended, but there are points of language we need to look at. Support for deployment. Resources around the edge. And Nii is going to pick up with that in a minute. And, really, in terms of improving participation. And I think speaking for the whole group, the way that you, Cheryl, and the ALAC have grasped the nettle to pick to take responsibility, to participate and to really want to take advantage of this review to help to move forward I think is fantastic, and we all hugely appreciate that. So may that continue. There are some key questions about the board seats, the resources, participation and how this fits in. And perhaps it is a good thing that these other reviews and these other things are happening at the same time. And am though I will be concluding with this at the end, there is public comment out there, 12th of December. We are keen to sit in on any of your conferences or have special ones. Whatever you want, you just tell us and we will actually -- notwithstanding everything else that is going on, find the time to do it. This is really important. And then based on that, we'll prepare final draft recommendations for Mexico, translated. Aimed, we complete our work for 23rd of January, but then you have to allow a week or two, as we did last time, for final things that cop up, but to get them translated and posted two weeks before Mexico. If you pick this up at the site, as I say, there are links of both Westlake and the report itself, and the key points page. So I'm now going to go and sit down here and let Patrick pick up and introduce the team. I have to again emphasize, this has been a fantastic team effort. And notwithstanding Jean-Jacques and Harald being on Board Governance Committee, President's Strategy Committee, everything else, the energy and effort that's gone into this has just been fantastic. And you are balancing that yourselves with what you are doing. So I'm going to have a rest, and hand over. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Tricia. What we would like to do is to try and cover as much ground as possible in the next little while. We would like to start by looking at the issue of the -- of board seats for ALAC and what form they might take and the issues around that. And then to look at the issue of resourcing and resourcing at the edge of the organization as opposed to the center and have that discussion. And then have a more general discussion about any of the other issues that people would like to respond to. To start off our conversation on the issue of the board seats, we're actually going to go to the top table and watch a little bit of a conversation between Harald, Vittorio, and Thomas who will try to cover what we have been hearing are some of the major points, and try and get those out in the open. And then we will welcome comments from the floor about any of those things. So, gentlemen. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: So I might start off if there is sound in this microphone. Good. So we have been working around this issue of board seats for a long while, and what does it mean to have a director whose appointment process starts off in ALAC. And so it means that ALAC tries to find someone who is willing to assume the duties of a director of a California nonprofit, which means that he is willing to accept the duty of care the duty of fiduciary responsibility, the duty of figuring out whether the organization is doing what it should be doing, which is for the public benefit. It doesn't mean that you appoint someone to say what -- say what ALAC means. It means that you appoint someone who will take input from all sorts and provide it to the board and do what's best for the organization in fulfilling its public duty purpose. So Thomas. (feedback noise). >>THOMAS NARTEN: You turned yours off and I tried turning ours on and it was a problem. Going over a distillation of things I have been thinking about, on the topic of voting, I think at this point it's fair to say the working group supports ALAC appointing board seats. This is based on feedback we have gotten from the community and conversation internally to ourselves. And we are hearing this in other places, too. It's worth hearing that the board review report released earlier this week said the same thing. It said ALAC should be appointing some board seats as well. So given all that, I think maybe it's good to move discussion from whether to how, and talk about the details of what would the transition look like, how would they be appointed, who needs to make this decision, what are the implications. So on that topic, just some thoughts on the mechanisms for appointing board seats. One observation is, of course, if you add more board seats to the board, the board gets bigger and that's generally considered to be a bad thing so some discussion needs to go on about do we then reduce membership from elsewhere. Does that mean we have, for example, fewer NomCom appointments and is that a good thing and is that acceptable in the overall scheme of things. There have been discussions about who should do the actual appointment. Should ALAC, the organization itself, do the appointments? And I have heard the concern that that's a relatively small number of people from the perspective of the at-large as a whole and perhaps that's not the best way to do it, and the other is maybe we should turn it over to the ALSs and give them a bigger role here in being members. And then there are some concerns from that side that you may end up picking people who are not really well steeped in ICANN or have been going to ICANN meetings and wouldn't be in a good position to assume the role. So the other possibility is a combination of both where you have one choose, the other ratifies or vice versa. So that's the kind of I think is going to have to happen over the next few months. And the other thing that should be said here is this is something ALAC needs to figure out. The At-Large needs to figure out for itself what is the best way to achieve this. And presumably the board will approve the process for doing so, and there will some sort of an approval process for the individual selections. And one final note. Whenever you talk about doing like this you need a fairly detailed transition plan. How do you get from here to there. Even once you decided how to go about doing it, there are the logistics of when do the appointments actually start. Do you stagger them in? What do you do, if you reduce the size of the board, to make up for it from somewhere else. What happens to those terms? Do they just end and run out or does somebody get terminated early? Things like that. So those are just a few of my thoughts on the topic. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you. And I will conclude this interaction by sharing doubt, because I am very supportive of the idea of having board members appointed by the at-large or by the ALAC through whatever mechanism. But I also listened to what the ALAC was telling us and the main problem, for at least what I listened, we as the ALAC have the feeling that the board is not really listening or taking seriously our advice. And is appointing board members a solution to this problem? Because if it is, we are fine. But if it is not, maybe we have to address this problem in another manner, in another part of the report. So this will be my question to you, and I would like to hear your opinions. My reflection on this is having board members appointed by the at large is certainly efficient to can ICANN because it increases its accountability so ICANN can claim to be more accountable to the general public and to the user constituencies. It might be beneficial to the people who actually get to the board, but is it beneficial to the ALAC as a whole? I'm rather thinking that what we could solve the problem that the ALAC has is something like the mechanism that the GAC has. So having the requirement for the board to explain how the advice by the ALAC was taken into consideration, and if it wasn't followed, why it wasn't followed, I think that this could be much more beneficial to the ALAC and to the at-large mechanism as a whole. So my question to you, is do you agree or do you disagree? Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. >> You want the answer to that? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Yeah. What we're looking for is all of the answers, Cheryl. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Aren't we all. >>PATRICK SHARRY: So what we would like to do, based on that introduction, is take comments from the floor. Cheryl. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Surprisingly enough, and I am saying you want the answer for that, I am going to put my hand up for the microphone. I don't know, Vittorio, how you managed to keep tabs on the ad hoc working group that's been running throughout this Cairo meeting. You must have had bugs in their breakfast cereal or something because what you just said is taken absolute, verbatim, of what is being discussed. It certainly is very important matters. I think it's important, though, and I don't want to interfere in your planning, Patrick, but we really have done this point perilously close to about as far as most of us can manage. We do need to look at the implementation aspects of it, and I think the discussion on hybrid or otherwise. It would be remiss of me to point out one of the advantages to growing more at-large grass-roots input into this organization that comes from having a board member. And that is in consumer world, being able to say that one of the things being an ALS gets you is a mechanism to vet or contribute to the person you put in this governance and accountability role is, like it or lump it, an important selling point. And yes, there are tradeoffs, there are ups and downs, but from what we heard, not from the 15 and the extra 10 that have come from the RALOs and the ALAC itself, but from their member organizations and the organizations that they are trying to encourage to becoming involved, is that it is an important thing. And if that means we have to come up with some sort of hybrid model or otherwise, so be it. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Cheryl. Remember when you're speaking to introduce yourself so the scribes have a chance of getting your name on the transcript. >> My name is (saying name) and I am with the ISP constituency. I'm a little bit surprised if I get the point right here that the working group is proposing to discuss just -- not the point, whether to allocate two members to the board from ALAC rather than to discuss only the point how to do that. So if I get this point right. What I would like to say is, you know, maybe all are discussing this GNSO reform, and in context, we are discussing, well, stakeholder groups, the (inaudible) and so on, and the users -- user side is supposed to also allocate one board member to the -- to the board and it could come up theoretically that also a member of ALAC could be allocated, could be appointed from this house to the board. So I would like to know how that is seen in that context. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: I would make the small comment that the number of sensible people in the world who are waiting to serve on the ICANN board is not terribly large. It would not be at all surprising if the same name cropped up in two different groups. >> May I just refer to your first comment you made. And I hope this applies to all board members, and not only to the ALAC board members. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: Of course. That is drilled into us whenever we join the board, for whatever reason we join the board. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Vanda. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Just to add that for the importance of the model, the (inaudible) stakeholder to have this position in the board. It's very important, especially for the outside view. And this means a lot when we talk about to keep the model and to convince them that ICANN is really bottom-up, and is really taking care of the users around the world. So it's for that, not for the use of ALAC. There is no use for ALAC to have a member of that, but the liaison is very, very important because the liaison really carries on the opinion of ICANN. But to have those seats, it's important as a whole for the ICANN set and mostly for the community to understand that model is working. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Vanda. I need quick responses from the top table there. Izumi. >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. I'm Izumi Aizu from the -- outgoing ALAC member from APRALO. To follow what Cheryl, our chair, and Vanda, our vice chair, said, I think we also have to see the value of having the board members selected or appointed by ALAC not only in the decision-making of voting. But I see the board members are engaged in one way or another to the core business of ICANN, many different areas. Of course, it's mainly policy areas, but also you have some governance of the organization, strategic planning or other areas, so that it gives the far better understanding to the user community at large of how -- what ICANN has been doing or what are the responsibilities. So it's a sort of two-way street game, not that we want the power, but we want to share the work together. In that sense, having the board to be there is much more sort of functionally visible than having one person as a liaison. Of course, we've been debating within ourselves that, yes, the liaison might be pretty functional in conveying the voices from the users' community to the board, because the board, as it's defined, acts in the best interest of the corporation. So we were told if you choose the board, you may lose a liaison. And he was not really convinced of that kind of dichotomy. In theory, it might be true. But, in reality, those two people would react as a good conduit as, again, a two-way street. And also, we start with externally meeting the external world outside ICANN -- that's more listening to the individual users' voices -- as well internally, other SOs. We had a very nice conversation today with our registrars, for example. They take our sort of voices more seriously once you are in and you are perceived as your peer. So these are sort of other elements which are not articulated in the report explicitly, but I think we can share these assumptions mutually. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, excuse me. Thomas. >>THOMAS NARTEN: I'd like to respond to one point. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said. If so, it's worth talking about. You said one of the roles of being on the board is, you're much more engaged in ICANN operations or strategies, like in the strat plan or things like that. If the implication is that by being on the board, that gives you the ability to do that, then I think that that's not the right way to look at it. Because what -- like, to participate in the strat plan, there are ways to do that already. And the purpose is to do that through a mechanism and a board member might be more interested once they're a board member in participating or paying attention. But that's not the vehicle for doing that kind of work. And another -- and along the same line, one of the things that's come out of the board review report is that the board is too large and is doing too much. This is also an emphasis on trying to get the board away from doing that kind of stuff directly. >>IZUMI AIZU: Well, I didn't phrase, perhaps, properly of what I wanted to say. 'Cause it doesn't mean that board members directly engage every -- in every business of ICANN. But somehow closer to sometimes monitor or you have your own committees. I read the first ten pages of the board review, so I cannot tell that much. But, yes, I recognize that there's the need for the shrinking the number, or, if more efficient ways of organizing tasks for the board. But, nevertheless, they still remain in certain strategical areas of business, you have more information, you have more tasks, and shared by -- also this sense of shared sort of responsibility by the user community, just like the ASO or PSO, just sending one or two board members doesn't mean that they don't share the whole responsibility of ICANN together. So these are the areas that we better think about as well. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Izumi. I'm going to take Alan, and unless someone raises their hand immediately, I want to move away from the board member question to the question of resourcing. And I'll ask (inaudible) to speak next. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think part of the issue is where we're coming from. As an advisory committee roughly equivalent to the GAC in terms of the organization structure, but very different in terms of the real essence -- the GAC has a rather special (inaudible) role with respect to the board and is embodied in the assumption that advice from the GAC must be listened to seriously, not necessarily respected. Whereas, in the current incarnation for -- largely due to the history of how it came about, the ALAC has really been a lump on the side of ICANN, not really connected into the rest of the organization. And I think this is one of the ways of addressing that. We're doing a lot of other things also. There's an awful a lot of work going on between the ALAC and the other groups, be it the GAC, the GNSO, the ccNSO, not only on formal liaison terms, but actually individuals within the groups working with each other and trying to come to -- you know, end up with real products. So we're not just talking superficially. We're not talking only at the chairs' level. And I think this is part of becoming integrated into the real body of ICANN, as opposed to a lump that was there for cosmetic reasons or whatever. Sorry for the terminology. >>PATRICK SHARRY: We love it when you talk technical. Thanks, Alan. [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: (inaudible) a few times in the next hour or so. I'd like, for the moment, just to put -- push "pause" on the board seat discussion and move on to the resourcing discussion. I'll remind you that we are only at the beginning of this phase of the consultation, that there's a public forum where we will be welcome comments until the 12th of December. If there's something you would like to contribute, please feel free to put it in the public forum. We can put the Web site up at the end. This is the start of the consultation. We'd like to get more comments over the coming weeks. Nii, can I ask you to talk on the issue of resources and where the thinking is on that. >>NII QUAYNOR: All right. We've been hearing a lot of support for help increase participation, get voice of users well included, get your concerns accommodated, and get them more involved in ICANN. We've been hearing several things of that sort. Now, if you want to, let's say, resource that, then that will naturally be setting expectations or one might look at it as some requirements or interest in conforming and so on. So what I'd like to do is touch on the supports we've been hearing are necessary and then also maybe, by implication, hint on setting kinds of expected requirements as may be appropriate. Now, for many, this statement of increased involvement are interpreted differently. For some, it means helping ICANN make better choices because of input. For some, it's to participate in the actual decision processes. And for others, is to have a means of, you might say, constraining the extent to which certain things may be or may not be done within the overall environment of ICANN. Now, rationalizing these, of course, will require maturity in the roles, because these are very complicated issues that are being referred to there. There's been also quite a mention that the edges get more discretionary authority and resources, including money and funding and staffing and so on over time. It is also understood that small groups at the edge can grow and can do very good contribution, make very good contributions, presumably if allowed some resources and given the trust. So the issue, to an extent, becomes we trust you to do good things with these resources, but we also wish you would show us the good things that you are capable of, if I may put it that way. To grow the at-large structures in participation, including diversity, their reach, but also the accountability, okay, that's also a theme that I keep hearing, now, that will require maybe the community to -- that may require the community to approach things maybe differently or maybe more emphasized the way you are going. We'd like to have these resources, naturally, utilized in a manner consistent with the ICANN environment, the ICANN goals. And in this regard, you may consider this as concerns being expressed by the wider community. This will need some good guidelines and accounting, you know, methods may be needed in this instance. One presumes that the structures and the actors will assume more responsibility and commitment and leadership as well in order to grow these things over time. Likewise, it is presumed that real individual users will take some ownership, especially at the edges, in order to get the inputs you want regarding policies for your contribution to ICANN. This also suggests that we will value the meager resources -- I mean, we don't know exactly what costs are required and so on. But you need to value those resources and be active with them, as well as genuinely focus on the at large in ICANN. This is not to say that you are doing other things. But it will naturally be expected that as you are being resourced, we will be addressing the issues at hand. So the question is, how do you want to be resourced. And I'll leave it there like that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Nii. Are there any comments from the floor on that question of resources? I've got (saying name) there. Any other hands? And then Wendy. Have we got this microphone up? >> The scribes were having a problem hearing your feed. So we're switching cables. There you go. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Much better. Thank you. Hang on. I don't think we've got -- thank you. Thank you. >> My name is (saying name). I'm chair of the North American Regional At-Large Organization. I want to repeat here what I've said in previous meetings, and that is, I really want to commend Tricia and the group for the work that you've done. You've been extremely thoughtful, and there's very wide agreement on most of your comments, your thoughts. I really think we've got the best of what Westlake did and what you've done to change some parts of it. And I really think that you've done an exemplary job. In regarding to the issue of the resources, I want to ask about, specifically, issues of outreach. And that is encouraging new ALSs and that kind of thing. One of the things, for instance, we did within the North American region is, we actually identified certain events, certain things, certain places where we wanted to go and sort of bring the news about being part of -- ICANN being part of the RALO into the public. And the solutions ranged everywhere from being at NGO conferences, like NTEN, to actually being at something like the CES show and really try and get at-large involved into ICANN. And the good thing about this was not just that we wanted to throw staff at this. Volunteers were prepared to go. But we needed some minimal resources and support from ICANN, whether it was buying a booth for us and sending travel support for one person to go, that would still be a lot less expensive than if ICANN officially had to do the whole thing itself. There's a lot of volunteer resources. And I think there's also a good way offing to a hybrid between volunteer resources and contributions from ICANN. Similarly on translation, the idea of perhaps having ALSs assist not on a volunteer basis, but on a paid basis, to do translations for noncritical documents in a way that would save ICANN money by not having to use professional translators for everything, while at the same time, showing some very real commitment to its own ALSs. I'd just like your comments on that. And I'll leave it at that. I have some other comments about recommendation 12, but that's not here. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Evan. We'll get back to the others in a moment. Any comments from the top table? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: I'd like to comment on that issue. I personally think that if the ALAC is going to be able to function going forward, we have to say that the decisions for what to fund and where to go get taken in the ALAC or within the at-large structure. I'm not going to suggest that we have a predefined notion of how the at-large structure creates its budget or allocates its budget. But I think that having those decisions made outside of the at-large structure is just not going to work. So some of the recommendations include that. There should be an agreement between ICANN and the at large on a budget, and that there should be spending authority. I mean, -- well, I -- I have had serious discussions with my kids about the fact that if you can't tell me where you spend your money, you're not going to get any more. And, I mean, it worked for some of my kids. Not all of them. It might work for growing organizations, too. They now get more money. Not to suggest that there are any other similarities between -- [ Laughter ] >> Careful, careful. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: I am sorry. I have a bad habit of making bad jokes. But, yes, I do think that we need to have that work be done within the at large. And there are specific recommendations in the report. And I would really like to have your help in sharpening those recommendations so that they say exactly what they should. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Harald. I'm going to go to Thomas in just a moment. And I've got Wendy next on the speaking list, and then a hand up, two hands up there. Terrific. Thomas, thank you. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Just to follow up a little with what Harald said. I agree with what he said. The one thing I would also say, speaking here from a position of not having knowledge, I don't know quite the history and the experience you've had. But my experience is the way you get money and resources, one of the standard answers you will get is to go through the strategic planning process, go through the operational planning process, because that's where big chunks of money are allocated on a year-to-year basis. There are other ways you can go, to go specifically to the board on individual requests, but that's not something that will always go through, because it's not budgeted at that level. So that's an area that, you know, if there's problems working, you know, in working that, then you need to sit down and work through a and understand how that needs to be made better. That may be separate from this general discussion we're having here. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Thomas. I'll go to Wendy and then we have quite a few hands at the front there. >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks, Wendy Seltzer, serving as at-large liaison to the board, speaking for myself individually, to note that frequent conflicts of ALAC in the past have come over budget and resource issues. So I appreciate the suggestion that ALAC should be given more opportunity to work with ICANN in developing its resource needs and then be given those resources to work with rather than be dictated to like children, as has often felt in the past. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Wendy. Let's move to the front here. Fatimata. >>FATIMATA SEYE SYLLA: I should speak in French, with your permission. Thank you very much. I would like to -- my name is Fatimata Seye Sylla, from ALAC (saying name). I would like to thank the members of the working group for the work that they have done close to the ALAC people. And I'd like to thank Tricia, in particular, who came to attend one of our meetings and was willing to discuss with us the review and to answer our questions and to listen to our expectations. As far as resources are concerned, I believe that for the African region, what interests us most is capacity-building so as to be able to undertake outreach activities at the regional level and not -- subregional, really, not all of Africa, because we have several languages, different languages in Africa. And perhaps that when it comes to discussing with the budget people, we should raise these questions. As for all of the other matters of interest to us, we are working with (inaudible), working with the ALAC. And these concerns will appear in ALAC -- in the ALAC document in general. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Fatimata. Alan. And after Alan, we'll and Cheryl and then Vanda. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I support what Harald and Thomas said. I will also add a bit of caution that just throwing resources without a good plan on how to use them is not what we need. It may be what we want. [ Laughter ] >>ALAN GREENBERG: You know, we may need help getting support in the field. But, again, I don't think we want to go out and simply recruit ALSs. We're in it for quality, not quantity. We've already discovered some problems of the first pass when we were just looking for numbers. And the same goes for staff, you know, supporting the ALAC proper, perhaps in policy issues and things like that. Yes, we'll always take more bodies. But I don't think that's the -- I don't think that's our need. Our need is to make sure that we're using additional staff in ways that will really progress the ends. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Thank you for those -- is it on? Thank you for that. And let me actually, just to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, when putting the final report together -- and I think, as I said at the beginning of the ALAC committee meeting, we came in, we're looking for responsibility, and also to help on planning processes and doing it properly. So guiding here, getting the voice out. So I don't think in any way we're suggesting allocating and going and doing it. I think you will find that there will be recommendations of things that you might consider doing before that might happen. So just for the avoidance of doubt, wanted to do that. And before passing the mike back, Nii has got to go and meet the minister at some point, so won't be with us for the rest of the afternoon. So if there are any points you want to address to Nii, perhaps you could do that shortly as well. Thank you. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Just going straight to the recommendation, think about how to have more economic approach in ICANN and link it with what Fatimata said. Regionally, we need mostly is capacity-building. And the outreach work that people from -- hired from ICANN are read is (inaudible), is completely disconnected with the ALAC. Why not put those guys working together with our planning and make it happen together with the ALAC, the ALS in each region. And this is our date. The guy is there. So this improves a lot the capacity-building and how to address some issues from ICANN, because people that are hired from ICANN is well expressed in any language in that region so they can communicate, they can express all the intentions, all the issues, and so on. So it's a full proposal to be addressed to reduce cost for ICANN and reduce cost for ALAC, at the same time, give us some answer to get to the roots. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Before I go to Cheryl, I'll just let Thomas make a response there. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Not a response. I have a clarification question. Can you give some example or explain a little bit more what you mean by "capacity-building"? Because that's a term I understand in other contexts perhaps more than in an ICANN context. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: We need to educate people from the ALS about all the issues we are talking about. It's not easy for the people around the world, especially in developing countries, to get an understanding and contribute and get -- and give, then, some feedback from the roots to us from ALAC in some way add to our comments and advice to ICANN. This process, and this path must be followed. And for doing this, we need someone to tell the guys what is IDN properly, what is the GNSO, why the new GNSO -- gTLDs. It's important, not important, what is consequence in the roots, et cetera, et cetera. There is -- there is -- and, for instance, in my region, Pablo is the hired guy that's supposed to outreach and get people and teach people the issues of ICANN. But he is not linked with our planning. He is not linked with all ALS. That is I'm talking about. And that is people around all the regions. >>NII QUAYNOR: Yeah. My observation is that these are actually activities in your business plan or in your budget, and I kind of feel like you should own it. And you should debate it, and you should figure out what goes into that budget. Although I must say I support the idea of capacity as an important ingredient of getting people engaged in policy. And so that one, there is no issue. But I just think that we should put it in the framework of you are building your own business, your own organization. Yes, you negotiate on the budget, quantum setting kinds of things and so on, but you should have a plan. And that plan will include, depending on where you are, more capacity building, less capacity building, and so on. More outreach, less outreach. Depending on the area and so on. And I think that is what I see. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Wendy, did you have an issue? >>PATRICK SHARRY: That's fine. I will go to Cheryl and I have got Wendy on the list. >> (inaudible). >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. I will come straight away. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Boy, that's a Pavlovian response. I am highly impressed. I want to take two points and only one is directly related to what we are talking about now but I am an opportunist and I am not going to miss the opportunity. I have spent a considerable amount of my day being criticized and shall I say being retrained to not talk about the ICANN strategic plan, to not talk about the ICANN directions, but to talk about my organization that I am chair of, ALAC, the RALOs, and the ALSs at ICANN. And what are we doing here right now? We are doing the bump on the side of the model again. And I have just had my wrist slapped. I have learned my lesson. I am going to talk about us as an integral part of the whole thing that is ICANN. And if that's the case, then part of this resource argument is totally moot, because we look at equity, we look at needs being met, we look at regional budgetary and planning allocations, we look at clear accountability and transparency, and we look at three to five year planning that's involved in it. That said, I also wanted to take the opportunity to just make sure everyone realizes that every single regional at-large organization, that's all five regions, spent a considerable amount of time their putting forward in a timely manner, on deadline, their internal regional plans which were outreach, mechanisms of outreach, costings for that. Drill down completely, properly organized. That, then, went through another process, which is where I am going to hand the microphone to the person who has the only knowledge about it, because we get disconnected once we pass that piece of paper on. >>NICK ASHTON-HART: I am Nick Ashton-Hart, the director for At-Large. I'm sorry, I was focused on helping Karl's chat comments make it onto the microphone and I missed that. I am guessing you are talking about input into the business process? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Output from. Input I just described ad nauseam. The regional intellectual property into all the efforts we made. The output from is the other thing. >>NICK ASHTON-HART: With respect to the output from it, like all the other department heads, I put forward all the proposals that I receive and all the other department heads do the same thing. And those are all combined together into a draft budget which is then reviewed by the community as a whole through the budget and planning process. And that then comes -- we all see what we see, and the board then decides how to allocate, as we saw last year, the level of proposals was vastly higher. It was something like doubling the overall budget, and that wasn't seen as sustainable, so the board chose the various priorities according to the strategic plan, and that's how it came back. But I can confirm that ALAC is very engaged in the planning and budget development process with me long in advance and very detailed proposals are put forward by them in connection with all of these goals. So if there's any doubt about that, I would certainly like to dispel that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I now want to go down to Wendy so I can get some of the online chat comments into the forum. I would just ask Harald to perhaps speak. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: Just a comment that fighting for resources between departments of organizations is a very common theme across. Been there. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Until lunch today I was yet to be (inaudible). >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: It doesn't make a very large difference whether you are inside or outside. You still get a fight. >>TRICIA DRAKES: And I think also, one thing that we might be able to figure in the report, picking up one of Jean-Jacques, and Jean-Jacques has been very quiet so far, is actually looking at some of the mechanisms there. So once you have actually passed it over to Nick to go in the budget of actually looking at the mechanisms of being able to perhaps help support you in your departmental struggles in getting allocations there. Perhaps there are mechanisms to help. But your input on that would be appreciated and fed in as well. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Now what I would like to do is just read into the forum some of the online comments we are getting. Some from Karl Auerbach back here who is a member of the working group. Actually in California at the moment. With regard to the idea of resources to the ALAC, my belief is that resources should be sent all the way to the edges to be used according to their discretion, but within bounds. The idea is to build trust. Right. Now, is there any other comment on the topic of resources? We'll take Cheryl, and then we might move to -- given that we only have 15, 20 minutes left, we might move to any general comments about the report and related issues. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: In no way intending to monopolize, but it is vitally important, and it comes out of some of the discussion we had when we were looking at our own analysis of this report. And that was let's assume every one of these 22 recommendations goes ahead, a big tick across the board. It was we are all volunteers, how is this supposed to work? And there are certain skill sets that need to be developed. There is certain internal development right from the edges into the region, and certainly within the At-Large Advisory Committee that is going to be a resource issue. We need to learn and all know what we talk about and what we mean when we're using words like strategic planning, accountability and KPIs. And we have to do that certainly as far as the regional nodes. Those RALOs are really where it all happens. And I think that's a very considerable piece of the resourcing. Professional upscaling. So we are all on the same level. And that's certainly within the skill sets of sorts of people that ICANN has access to, if not on staff. >>TRICIA DRAKES: I think while you are handing over the mic over to Patrick, when the GNSO review was going on, and Roberto, who is sitting quietly behind you, would confirm this, in fact there were estimates being prepared of likely resources to implement that then went into the next budget. And that was quite separate from, let's say, the GNSO budget or, in this case, the ALAC budget. So I think again, in this period between Cairo and Mexico City, it might be -- and we have actually said we want to try to engage -- we want to engage with staff to try to look at some of those things, because we do need to be mindful of that. And the other -- just completely other different point, Jean-Jacques is sitting very quietly at the end and hasn't said anything yet. So it might be that just a few words before -- even Karl from California, but before we move to the open mic questions, perhaps a few words of wisdom in your usual way to us. Jean-Jacques keeps us on the straight and narrow and is very fantastic in wisdom and guidance there. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: After an introduction like that, I think I can either perform on the stage with a TU-TU or hang myself. [ Laughter ] The reason I was keeping quiet was that we had agreed on a certain sequence who would be speaking, et cetera, and now the time has come. Fine. Two or three things I can say at this stage having listened carefully to the exchange or the discussion. The first is over the past two, three years, I have been, as an Internet user, been looking on the Web sites at the discussion about the whole issue of at-large, at-large representation, the tasks you are facing, how you are going to do that, resources, et cetera. But I must say that being in the organization and having the good fortune of being selected to work in the ALAC review working group is quite another thing. It has given me another more precise, I hope, view. Perhaps the advantage I have is that my recent intake into this working group has left me not oblivious but at least less implicated in the historic view which several of you have brought up. So I am perhaps a bit more neutral in this sense. What I would like to pick up at this stage is two or three things. I think that resources are, of course, necessary. I have a general feeling from the discussion that additional or more significant resources are necessary. What I find also from the independent review report and from discussions is that perhaps there is a feeling that increased focus would be probably more conducive to better use and more satisfaction for the at-large structures. I would underline also that I have a feeling that we are in a transitory or transition period, as I think Patrick or Tricia said earlier on. We're going towards a more organized system. That's the whole point about the working group and the independent review, which we are looking at. Which is there not to impose upon you a certain set of rules to which you would not or could not adhere. It is there having taken on board, or still taking on board, your views in order to help you to become more efficient in the best use of available resources. I think one of the most important things in that respect is the input -- obviously there was an exchange between Cheryl and Nick. The input -- and I understand that it was done in a timely fashion. The input to the strategic plan process. I don't know how recent that is because the strategic plan, as I saw it, evolved recently has changed quite substantially. So maybe one has to take into account that transformation as well. And finally, the last point I would like to make, having listened to use discussion, is the regional or subregional aspect. It is of prime importance. And I agree with Fatimata and Cheryl and Vanda and others who have pointed out two things about subregional dimension. One is that you all have the sentiment that we are far from having made the best use of this crucial, of this essential element in the at-large representation process. And the other is that maybe you should tell us even more accurately, more precisely in what way you think you should be, because it's not up to ICANN to do that, but the way you hope to or want to use that echelon in the future to make your act even more convincing and more far reaching in the sense of outreach. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Jean-Jacques. On the speaking list now I have Evan and then Izumi, some online comments from Karl, and is that Harald's hand I saw up a moment ago? >> I would like to jump down to your comments on recommendation 12 from Westlake which is about the definition of the user and how ALAC should be seen within ICANN as the voice of the individual user. I would like to get some feedback from the thought processes that went through your group on the whole issue of what is a user, who speaks for who, distinctions between ALAC and NCUC, and what were the thought processes as you were going through. It's a short answer, but it's something that, at least within my group, has been the subject of an awful lot of discussion. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: I'd like to say that I disagree with exclusivity language. I think that was bad drafting. I'm confused. And I'm not sure how to fight my way out of that ticket, because it's clear that the at-large is intended to be a voice for the users of the Internet, all of them. One billion plus. And five more billion to come. Probably six by the time we get all of them collected. And we still want the ability for individuals to participate and contribute in other parts of ICANN, not necessarily having to be authorized and sent by some structure connected to the at-large. So I still don't know how we can achieve that properly and without causing endless confusion. If we waste our time in turf wars about who owns this user, the user is going to run away screaming. >> I just want to make the point that within the North American region we do allow, welcome, and love the participation of individual participants who are part of our discussions, part of our decision make process. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: Bravo. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Perhaps, Evan, I can just help, because as I said in the little note, that's one we need to refine the drafting. But I think -- and colleagues and Karl, remotely, please jump in. But I will have a go here. In terms of the wording and on the key points of discussion page, what we were trying , I think, to say is in terms of the organizational home or framework where you have got a collection of people coming within a group, that actually that organizational home is the ALAC. And if I am listening to Cheryl and some of the discussions in the user house and elsewhere, that came out in practice. So our drafting might have been -- need sharpening up, but that's what we meant there. And certainly, and Karl, I'm sure, is jumping up and down in Santa Cruz at the moment, in no circumstances were we looking to exclude the individuals that wanted to come along with individuals or to participate in any way, whether it was in a business constituency or any other way that's there. So I think what we were looking to do, and we were trying to keep it all on one page for the key points so maybe that's why it got a little bit lost. There has to be, as there is with the GNSO or ASO or any other group, or the GAC, an organizational home within the organization to pick up a category. So that wording was for the organizational home, is the At-Large Advisory Committee, not NCUC, not other -- whatever you want to say there. However, what we didn't say explicitly, but was certainly in our working detail, was the individuals can participate either as Karl Auerbach or Evan or Cheryl or whatever, or in some other part of the ICANN structure. But in draft two, we will do that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Now, we have reached that stage of the meeting where we only have had about seven minutes left. I have quite a few hands in the air. If we can make our comments brief and we will get through all of the voices. I have Izumi, I have Karl online through Wendy if that okay, and then I will come to the comment there. >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you, Patrick. Just to relate to what Tricia said, that, first of all, ALAC is now preparing our statement to public comment for the key 12 points in the first one-pager, which a draft is already here. It's about five pages, including the how we defined ourselves, that we be the main channel for the individual Internet users. We may not be the only channel. That's sort of a rough consensus. So we see the need or merit to having the users, including individuals, but also academia or domain name registrants or business owners acting in their own capacity for their participation in the GNSO. That's the sort of draft language we are having. So we may debate more internally, but also for your knowledge. Aside from that, because I, with Roberto, designed the first At-Large in the membership Advisory Committee in 1999, I feel like we have come a long way now, and Vittorio was the first chair of ALAC. That's ALAC version two. Version one was at-large, that was the election thing. We are saying the ALAC 3.0. And I am very glad that since I am just leaving ALAC now, the only reason I wanted to stay when RALO made a formation was so that we can all learn the lessons from the past and make it better. And I see some big change, because in the beginning of the report there's a clear recognition of the legitimacy or the value of the at-large as an integral part of the organization. That sets all the other issues sort of easy for us to discuss with this. Before, we are not sure whether we are recognized as such or not, and we had constant debate, you are wasting money on stuff like that. So we express that we will consider in the policy areas in the many months to come. And we are getting much more stabilized within ALAC, as well as within ICANN. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I am going to go to Wendy's laptop so we can pick up some of Karl's comments online. Karl's response to Evan. I don't agree with the idea of the ALAC as the sole channel for input. It may be that the ALAC is the channel for choosing the board seats. In other words, to borrow a DNS term, I wouldn't want the ALAC to be the authoritative voice of the people who care about the net. I wish I could jump up and down. [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Karl. I'm going to go to -- Huang, is it? >> (Saying name) from Taiwan. And actually, I, just like Izumi, we participate in the ALS and the ALAC in the very, very beginnings. And actually, I still question by myself about what is the position and function of the ALAC. Because for example, the GNSO or ccNSO, the constituency, what they represent is very clear. For the ALAC, we always say we are representing individuals. As myself, we are one of the ALS in Taiwan, but Taiwan have 23 million population. We have about 40 million Internet user. And in my own ALS, we have maybe just roughly about hundred, but I don't know how many of you have. I always question myself, do we have enough? Because I only have about 100 people. I really can't represent individual of the Taiwan Internet user, but if you look at the function, like Izumi is saying, the version one, version two, I don't know we really represent the majority of individual around the world, Internet user. So I always keep asking myself how to make the ALAC really perform well and to perform correctly instead of just less than 001% of the Internet user speak out, say, "I represent the individual of the worldwide Internet user." That is always the question to me. And I agree we keep improving the functionality of the role of the ALAC. But I would say we still have long way to go. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Terrific. Thank you. Now, in the speaking list I have Alan and then Adam, and that will take us almost neatly to the hour and I will hand back to Tricia at that stage for a final comment. So Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I will be quick. If we had a lot of time, I would expound on the concept of representing the 1.3 billion users in the world to ICANN. I'll do it in writing later on. When having these kind of discussions, it's important to keep on remembering that the different parts of ICANN have different missions. I'm not sure what it means for the ALAC to be the channel of users into ICANN, but I know for sure that the responsibility of the GNSO is to build policy for gTLDs, which is a very different thing than represent user on any ICANN-related subject. So as we're talking about where someone fits, remember that some of these groups have different missions. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Alan. Adam. >>ADAM PEAKE: Thank you. In the recommendations, it's recommendations, excuse me, 14 and 15, it says: "Regular ALS compliance reviews." What exactly are we going to be in compliance with? Is it the simple criteria that people sign up to when they become ALSs or is it something else you have in mind? Or am I completely missing the point is the other option? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Well, what I thought when we wrote that was that ALAC -- the at-large organization will have some criteria for what is a reasonable organization to be a member. That might be -- And you have to define them. You have them. And whenever you have a requirement, you will find that some organizations don't fulfill them. And you need to do -- and in that case, something needs to happen. Either organization changes or they have to leave. So that's what I was thinking when we wrote that. >>ADAM PEAKE: Well, there are some simple criteria. So we do have them. I just wondered if there was something you had specifically in mind. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: No. >>ADAM PEAKE: Thanks. >>TRICIA DRAKES: I think there was a general feedback to us that a lot of the rules were not being followed and that that was an area that needed to come in >>PATRICK SHARRY: Now, on the second to last word, given that we're now a minute past our hour, a quick response from Cheryl, perhaps as chair of the ALAC about next steps from an ALAC perspective, and then to Tricia for a closing word. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: This is really a very exciting, very profitable, and I think very rewarding process, if we look at where we were discussing these topics, gee, the last time we met, in Paris, and where we are now. If we are going back to our childhood modeling here, I think we're rapidly getting our driver's license -- >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: I apologize. [ Laughter ] >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: However -- and I think that's a reflection of how well the job that you've done has gone, your interaction with us, us genuinely feeling that we have been heard, and, of course, recognizing that we are part of a larger bundle of parts that is ICANN and, I think, is a very important output of this whole process. In terms of something I really want to make clear, and to thank you all for, is your continued effort to bring this home at the same time as we are planning our one and only get-together for an individual representative of every one of these at-large structures in Mexico. The nexus, this opportunity to have what 3.0 is going to look like get discussion, get ownership, and get this secondary aim, I suppose, of the summit, to get totally involved and ready to go out and do whatever the recommendations say needs to be done at the edges, is a once-only opportunity. If we miss the timing, we really have missed an opportunity. That would be very sad, indeed. And if you can keep powering on, we're having the summit, we'd really like to have this as part of our agenda. Because what we're doing at the end of the summit is assuming that all of these groups on the edges are at the same in-serviced point, they understand policy, they understand process, they hopefully understand what a new bicameral GNSO structure is and they hopefully can be input, working groups, and everything else. So let's try and make that deadline. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. A quick word from Tricia. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Very quick one. Patrick, you're always so patient with me. I think, firstly, answering Cheryl's point, it's actually your future, your choice. We can't do this on our own. And I think that's a really important aspect there. Secondly, just picking up on Alan's point, you know, why is the ALAC here, what's it for. GNSO is very clear. I think there's two reasons why it's very clear for ALAC. One is really being that organizational home to collect the voice of the individual user, but particularly now, as we approach September 2009 and the conclusion of JPA, and also in terms of IGF in Hyderabad, one of the key purposes of ALAC is, actually, as a key accountability mechanism, which always comes up. But, actually, now I think can be showing that it's going to be very, very real as we move towards the second (inaudible). And I think bearing that in mind is very important. Wrapping up, on the slides in next steps, which you can link to under today's meeting, it's very clear, one public comment, in whatever language you'd like, by the 12th of December. Carry on feeding in to us relevant input, because it is your future, your choice if we meet that first birthday on the 23rd of January, 2009. And we will continue with enthusiasm, with Karl jumping up and down in California and everybody else working schmear doing all the other things to actually try to deliver a good report in languages for discussion at the Mexico meeting, and then to deliver, to, whether it's BGC or some new reviews committee, that report, which will then go to the report. That's what we'd like. But it can only be done with you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Tricia. Can I say thank you to all of you are for your time. A particular thank you to nick and Wendy, who kept me honest on getting the online comments from Karl. Thank you to our interpreters, who have done a magnificent job today [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: And as always, I'm no longer surprised but completely amazed by the ability of our scribes over here. So thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Now, in the best ICANN traditions, the next meeting is the strategic planning meeting. If you're not going to stay for it, please get away quickly. And if you come in for the strategic plan meeting, come in, take a seat, push someone who's going away out of the way, and let's get moving again as quickly as we can. Thank you.