Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (24)
Participants: Alain Bidron, Alissa Cooper, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Keith Drazek, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Malcolm Hutty, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Paul Szyndler, Paul Twomey, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Seun Ojediji, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thomas Schneider, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (32)
Advisors: William Currie
Legal Counsel: Edward Morris, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit
Visitors: Alex Deacon, Antranik Hagopian, Asha Hemrajani, Benny Nordreg, Beth Bacon, Boyoung Kim, Caroline Greer, Catrin Dwyer, Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Cake, David Johnson, David King, Francisco Obispo, Heidi Ullrich, Helen Han, Holly Raiche, Jim Prendergast, Kate Perl, Kevin Murphy, Konstantinos Komaitis, Luca Urich, Lynn St. Amour, Mark Buell, Monika Ermert, Nurani Nimpuno, Ole Jacobsen, Stephane VanGelder, Wendy Profit, Wisdom Donkor, Larry Strickling (31)
Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Kim Carlson, Leana Rahim, Mary Wong, Jim Trengrove, Emily Pimentel
Apologies: Akinbo Adebunmi
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
- AM: Transcript CCWG ACCT Working Session 1 - 19 June AM.docx
- AM: Transcript CCWG ACCT Working Session 1 - 19 June AM.pdf
- PM: Transcript CCWG-ACCT Working Session 1 - 19 June PM.doc
- PM Transcript CCWG-ACCT Working Session 1 - 19 June PM.pdf
The Adobe Connect recording is available here:
- Part 1 (AM) https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1568bzabs9/
- Part 2 (PM) https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p832ov5ifrd/
The audio recording is available here:
- Part 1 (AM) http://audio.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/ccwg-accountability-1-19jun15-en.mp3
- Part 2 (PM) http://audio.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/ccwg-accountability-2-19jun15-en.mp3
1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)
2. Drafting response to public comment received (08:15-10:10)
3. Drafting response to public comment received (10:30-11:15)
4. Debate on enforceability: for and against (11:15-12:15)
Lunch Break (12:15-13:15)
4. Drafting response to public comment received (13:15-15:15)
5. Drafting response to public comment received (15:30-16:15)
6. Responding to NTIA query on timeline (16:15-17:15)
5. Preparing for community engagement at ICANN 53 & establishing Buenos
Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)
Part 1 (AM)
Roll call: no remote participants.
Robin Gross attending.
Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us to consider as a reply. The public comment tool has been populated. CCWG meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear from the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,
Review, and then a dive into details.
Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting. Questions received in the comment need to be explained. We as a group are deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of the community.
The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step. The board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying, rather than the community trying to work together of solutions. This process has brought to community together in seeking consensus on improving ICANN. And this reflected in the comments and review of the powers we want to bring to the community. A lot of consensus on the basis proposals.
Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN. co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group
We should review the models we have been considering. The reference model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we are asking those who want to speak to a particular model for community empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented. plan for the day:Review of the public comment: hear the models; and review these in the afternoon.
Order of speaking for the models:
Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan, Sam, Greg.
The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues point of view.
Request to hold a random draw for speaking. Request that new voices make their thoughts about the model. New chairs of working groups and open the membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership
A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reform was top-down, the initiative of a few board members. The process not yet process but we have moved a long way forward.
Review of public comment report.
Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the comments Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support
Need work on ICANN's defined powers. Suggestion to consider Human Rights, a sub group working on that.
Contract compliance should part of the core values. A balancing test.: A change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core values against each other
Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead, but may need to be reconsidered.
Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening
Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical part of public interest. Some new ideas and some missing aspects.
Notion of fundamental bylaws. Some major themes. String support for having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental, and some additions. Clarification on who can change and how. Question if the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.
The headquarters issue important for the group.
The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process more accessible. Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.
Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound by binding arbitration.
Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment. Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be
independent. There needn't be a compromise of independence, and group needs to rethink this. And also comments about the selection process.
Roll of the ombudsman. The board reviewing itself, and conflict of interest issues. To avoid frivolous requests.
Next step: the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.
And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do a consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.
Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our further deliberations this week.
Comment: Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.
Some issues about the binding nature. About the number of panel. About the way selected. And the issues of diversity of geography.
Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP. Anglo-saxon dominance of ICANN processes. Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.
Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation
Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational. A critical task to seek out the right persons. Agreement on the need for diiversity, but how to achieve is out challenge.
Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground of what we agree to and move forward.
On the issue of the IRP, further consideration of enforceability.
The impact assessment review from the Board received last night. And need for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal
to explain what they think the answers are. So the answers can be shaped into the public comment.
As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passed on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which will cause the group to rethink.
The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this. The board does not have answers to those questions. And the Board has no preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was no intention to be anything other that constructive.
Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking for answers. The point of the questions was to say how you considered from this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not the board itself.
What do you as the board think the answer's should be? As they have just read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions?
Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday 3pm.
WP1. High level community feedback was positive. Responses on the community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions were on the webpage until late in the process.
Amendments to the planning process to make sure concerns taken into consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned. The response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable.
Standard bylaws: request for more time to review. Something for the group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review
Fundamental bylaws. Mostly in favor.
Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have a consistency of process and thresholds.
Real of the board. Request for higher threshold.
AoC: concern about location. What happens in the future to the AoC,
should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition. And composition of the groups and to ensure diversity
Mechanisms: generally supported direction. But comments show need decisions around enforceability.
1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2. The model presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable
approximation of the community. Members favored over designators. Concern about implementation. Concern about the voting weights. RSAC and
SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would give that power.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would give that power. And hard to judge the range of around the model, further
discussion by the CCWG is needed. Importance of avoiding insider capture. Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who
watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for a forum.
Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policy process, and ensure that the responses address accountability
Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view of accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go
to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want. GAC unsure. Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might it look more and more inward looking. End result may be a devaluing of the ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.
If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. But community feedback doesn't suggest that.
When discussing replacing the old mechanisms. Remember the community mechanism we are seeing up. The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, and key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all. The community mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa
There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need to address those. The models are complex and there must be clarity.
Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at. Now should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, more accessible to outsiders.
Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model. A different analysis now and what we would do in a crisis mode. In a crisis model, where we question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such a time.
Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all those other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, which has some similarity. Private international organizations, such as FIFA, a negative example. And then the key question of who is the global mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to. Can the IGF set iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that represents the global public interest.
There are general ares of agreement. We are arguing around details. Now we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.
Break - thank you
NOTES Part 2 (AM)
Items for WS2
Suggestions made by contributors:
- Assess efficiency of proposal (our mandate or ATRT2)
- Bylaw that would require ICANN to disclose Goverment related activities
- Vast majority of comments were supportive
- Recommendations are seen to be improving accountability substantially
- 2 commentors are opposed to process: Roberto Bissio (provide a clear rationale) and .NA (challenges process)
- Criticism for truncating comment period (40 days for second comment period)
- Specificity needed on public interest term
- Impact analysis request from Board
Turning tables around: presentation of perspectives regarding membership / cooperative approach
We need to bring ICANN's accountability to a level that is sufficient for transition to take place. We need consensus on proposal.
Two rules for this discussion: 1.Timing (5 min) - 2 Factual (avoid slogans)
This agenda item is an opportunity to explain benefits of options.
Fundamental differences between models where we see authority sitting whether with community or with Board. I have worked with not-for-profit both with members and without members. Without members it is Board centric - with members it is members centric. Membership is a natural tool to give power to community. Speaking as member of CWG, change between CWG models puts greater reliance on ability to give authority to the hands of global multistakeholder community. Accountability needs to flow through ICANN to the community. Model that uses members is the tool that provides community with real basis in governance to exercise and to obtain ultimate judgement we believe the community should have. If we don't trust community, none of our models will yield results we want.
We have been working with set of Bylaws up until now that probably should not have existed. They don't follow any pattern in not-for-profit. I propose that we continue with same model where we put proposed powers in Bylaws. Budget power would be similar to what we do with GAC. Enforceability that I am proposing is removing Board directors. Process would have to follow agreed processes. Recalling Board will give us accountability we want but how do we remove Board without individual members? The threat of removal should give us everything we need. What of ACs who choose not to participate in membership model? We have small part of community calling all the shots and will look bad. Tying our entire governance structure to California law does not serve us well. Concerned about timeframe.
Empowered designator model: we talked about powers - agreements we want these powers. 2 of these powers (strategic plan and budget approval issues) will be challenging but they are not enough to cause upheaval and great change we are going to have to go through. There is going to be a lot of issues before we can get to membership model. It is not enough to push in the other direction. We can have ways to require way for community and Board to work on these two items together. Board also has knowledge that may be recalled which creates a strong incentive. The membership model does not work for those outside of community. Empowered designators model can be more open. We risk making mistakes we would be stuck with if go for membership model.
Fundamental understanding about nature of human society: when we have something that is important, a separation of powers is needed. We divide authority. We take steps to protect our organizations by distributing powers by ensuring no one has single point of authority. This is a constitutional point. We will distribute it through SO/AC structure. It changes where authority lies away from Board of Directors and bakes it into community. That is what will make it trustable. We should embed the authority. I support membership, designators. Membership: we are going to rely on all.
It is very clear that most community members agree to foreseen powers. We are looking too much at things that already exist. This industry has become what it is not because of all legal processes but because of lack of processes around it. We have to be very careful about situation that might not happen but we need to protect ourselves. We won't get enough people and structures that will agree with this and we will end up empty-handed. Let's be creative.
I don't come here with answers. We are working through proposal along with you and have questions. We have characteristics of a model (designators, membership, creative etc). It is important that ICANN not for profit does not get affected. We need to look holistically at ICG's proposal. There should be further looking if membership model that we understand it is model to use when collective interests. We need to ensure secure, stable internet. Membership model makes sense in organization of interest. Any model we go to needs to leave open pathways to new participants. We need to see what membership model is to a new participant: do you have a voice? Can you meaningfully participate? Are there pathways without immediately aligning themselves with a group? Model that needs to be tested. We need to make sure that we are holding up values and stability of certains part of organization. We need to hold out to global community that we are a stable organization. Does this mean membership is off table? No - there are still questions we can answer - if lesser changes that wind up not giving results the community wish to see happen.
We need it to be holistic review. The solution does not have a name. Accountable, diverse, equal multistakeholder which give confidence - my gift to community. It is important that wherever we go, we need to make sure we don't put any legal characteristics between relationships between any groups of ICANN. We don't need US legal jurisdiction to be involved in setting discussions. We have to remember that all groups are us even Board. If we ask accountability, I want us to be accountable at all levels and that remains to be seen. Trust should be our motto. Important for us to find a solution where we can leave organization open to all, not just to those who know but open to creating/merging new structures. If too solidified (and we already are), it will difficult to have solution. We don't know what will be future - we need to be open to that discussion but how can we create it and who give agreement etc? Diversity is an absolute need - real diversity (culture, gender, age). HQs in US: one way to solve diversity problems is presidency from other region.
I support the model Internet has been created on. It is the same one we have been using to find solutions for accountability. It has been a successful model. Like all models it is one that benefits from constant refinement and improvement (ATRT). If we get reconsideration improvements, fix IRP and can remove recalcitrant directors, then we have reinforced model. I believe in notion of perpetual refinement. By constantly doing outreach, we have a much better chance.
I would like to bring up variation that is worthy of exploring. We have got a group of people who think enforcement is key to process. For this group, it will be hard to build consensus. Those people have been told that ability to go to court is way to get enforceability through membership. It leads to strong membership model but it does not have to be membership model This creation of UAs is very complicated, creates new structures and unforeseen consequences. We need to address this. My suggestion is to have membership for everybody - under that model, Board have duties to their interests, they would have ability to go to Court. There may be other statutory powers we would need to look at. No harm in making that available to world at-large. We owe it to ourseleves to see if that can be resolved. A point of membership application e.g. accept that we don't get to wind up company if not 99% member. They would agree to a process, concept we create. It would not create complex structures but would allow for all to hold it to commitments.
At time request came from US gov was very much focused on technical services, not on accountability issues - which were viewed as distracting. This community came together and insisted for accountability to be addressed. Concerns are real and persistent. We are hearing objections that accountability might delay transition. Nobody wants that to happen but concerns should not lead up to compromise our shared determination to resolve this. We can do both. It should lead us to bridge gaps between legitimate perspectives. Membership model is a complex model and who watches watchers? We have come up with empowered SO/AC model: essentially comfortable with SO/AC structure but let's empower bodies by giving SO/ACs authority - it does not involve creating new entities. To accomplish this, the only thing that needs to happen is for SO/ACs to articulate status quo (powers, authorities). This intention can be expressed in SOP for each SO/AC, it can be expressed at any time, whenever we are ready. Intention is to work together to accomplish goals.
I like empowered SO/AC model but we would have to articulate principles. We should pay attention to HQs: California gives stability. Governements have concerns but there are no alternatives. We have to find best model - principles would have to fulfill global public interest. Governements in finding right model have difficulties in identifying the best way forward. Let's not confuse it with model we have to find.
Combination of Alan and Becky. Community has not done a bad job from changing discussions. This model strongly stands against Board membership model. Membership is not the same as participation.
Institutional resistance to accountability has shown itself in many different aspects.
Methods of dealing with problems and desire to drive through anecdotes is persistent through organizations
There are instances where high leverage - ATRT as part of AoC - agreement to make US have oversight role. If look at recent evolution at resisting - there was delay and resistance to process when talking about model in past.
It gave community leverage to sway Board and change course the organization is taking. Model I want to propose is one of leverage. If we want to empower overall community, there isn't institution that has arisen. Method of operation needs to be tested and leveraged from time to time. It is not goodwill that will get that done. I am supportive of leverage in hands of community.
We now have a greater understanding of where aiming at - will be extremely valuable for next steps.
Is there any statement that could potentially mislead? Word of caution - not everything will work.
--> It is difficult to comment on underlying assumptions. All different models are workable in some fashion but devil is always in details.
Which requirements we are advancing with particular models so we can explain why we are making changes.
--> Have we considered hybrid of various models?
There is no assumption that we have looked at all models. We can call it creating model or hybrid. This discussion is not over.
--> There would be letter from Board members that would represent interest of community. How would we hold them to these commitments? How would you resolve paradox?
We will need to be clear about this. It is quite possible to have irrevocable letter to be signed saying that it will step down if certain characteristics are met. Contract that could be made enforceable.
Robin suggesting empowered designators model. It also required a UA or legal entity - it has same problem.
Empowered designators model - we would use UAs. What is difference between empowered designators models and empowered So/Acs
We are recognizing and empowering to SO/ACs by articulating intention to come together to exercise powers. It essentially creates entity you need for enforcing those. There is no requirement that anybody file a UA - they could do designation by same model - Get rid of middle man and who watches watchers. SO/ACs would have same powers.
If move forward membership model, please be careful about how you define what a member is
Let’s not confuse open membership model
Empowered SO/AC gets rid of middle man - even when had those in place, - joining UAs was never part of proposal - it needs to stop being an issue. It would never have affected any of the powers, roles of SO/ACs - wherever we go, we have to be clear that in building accountability general principle should be that anyone can participate, remains free of obligations
Part 3 (PM)
NOTES Part 3
A collection of requirements
To what extent we think the requirements are being met by the various
The chart attempts to capture key concerns mentioned during the morning's
presentations. Mapped this on screen to see what we may have missed,
Presenting the requirements we heard about in the presentations.
No single point of failure. Separation of powers. Provide leverage to
the community, through removal of directors or through the community
having authority. The ability to adjust, to be open to newcomers, to
desperate interests. Diversity requirements on all parts of ICANN,
diversity requirements that would be enforceable. U.S. legal not dependent
on the US legal system as little as possible. Not to delay the
transition. Answer the CWG requirements.
Issue of ICANN HQ
Over complexity. Continue with what works. Avoid creating new entities,
and unknown territory. Avoid acting outside good governance mechanisms.
Goodwill is not sustainable.
Call about diversity - an absolute standard or more than the status quo.
Is it open, is the requirement to improve on the status quo.
The requirements best treated as starting points, not yet close to
adopting. Sync with the IANA stewardship, noting the quality of our work
but aware of the need for progress.
Saying open to new participants, should also be mandated as open to all
current participants. Feel that should have the bylaws passed by the end
of the calendar year. Which suggests a tight timeline.
Impact - on CWG requirement.
Note, the mind map is a checklist of what was heard this morning.
Take on board the notion of improving diversity. And recognizing the
Structure discussion around the models. Look at a model, member model
with UA. Designator model. Cooperative model. etc.
caution about ICANN not losing it not profit status, importance of
Pros and Cons of each of the models,
Pros and Cons of each of the models. Complexity, the watch the watchers,
perceived implementation challenges, unintended consequences, openness.
As the goal is a successful transition, does the proposal meet NTIA
Empowered SO and AC. Pro, it gives new powers to existing structure.
Once in place, the IRP may be easier to use. Watch the marchers, no
better or worse than today. Unintended consequences such as issues of the
staff legal memo. Adoption of the proposal. Lower overhead for
implementation with this model.
Complexity to implement: seems very low?
Swimming pool of complexity: the member model came from legal advice.
Status Quo is to build on what we have today.
A member model based on unincorporated associations. The UA not intended
to make decisions, but the be a delivery mechanism of decisions made by
Cons: inspired fear.
Complexities need to be resolved. Watching Watchers, no worse than today.
Perceived implementation challenges seem long.
Flexibility and openness, diversity - as good possible. Implementation
time: simple and short it can be established in the same time as So/AC
If empower the SO/AC then don't believe the stick of removing the
directors is necessary
Was noted that when we spoke this morning reconsideration and IRP not
mentioned, but assumed they were there.
Sense that a number of this morning's speakers were saying similar things.
Sometimes different terminology, but overall common ground.
inspired irrational fears. Turns an American system into an intensely
American system, based on courts in the governance system. New structures
when created. Some hesitation, complexity in the member model, where all
SO/AC are given an extra power. What is the equalization effect on the
GAC: equal footing etc, do we give GAC beyond superiority if they also
have their own special bylaw.
RSAC and SSAC have chosen to stick to their advisory role, and GAC might
do the same. So avoiding some of the complexities we are offering them
Empower designator: lack of complexity. Flexibility and openness, But
does not offer tight control over the board.
Becky's model, with mid-term board replacement and spilling of the whole
board. A form of rep democracy here. Issues on SO and AC, not just the
At Large, which picks up the many diversity requirements. Easy to
messages. Similar to what we have, but unintended consequence of people
reacting to a fear of being replaced.
Marry the diversity point with the empowered SO/AC.
Con of designator model is lack of power over the budget and plans
Open membership. All powers we are proposing go to the SO/AC. members of
the public can join ICANN, and enforce the bylaws. No change of status
required. It is an enforceable model. The least American solution.
Cons: everyone member of ICANN, give rise to unwarranted expectations of
what the members can do. Complexity. Implementation issue is to now
allow the members to gain additional powers.
Anyone can join ICANN. Note, anyone can participate in ICANN. People
have to apply and meet some criteria, so join is not true.
Con Malcolm member model. Could be high admin cost, an organizational
burden, complexity and admin burden.
We didn't represent the member model tightly enough and the fears come
from that poor explanation.
Any model based UA will prevent some from participation. Some will sue
and therefore be sued. Escalation is to the courts, and model should not
be managed by the courts.
test here will the community powers be effective, under whichever these
models. Need to be exercised. Importance of vertical accountability
between the community and the board. Must be robust in terms of our
About the member model. Decisions takes place in the SO AC. Liability:
only the UA gets sued, where today the SOAC and individual could be sued.
Managed by courts is baseless. Court unlikely. Note it would the SO/AC
that would have to decide to go to court.
Notes part 4 (PM)
CWG stewardship linkage
- ICANN Budget: Feedback we are getting from public comment shows this is still very much an achievable goal
- ICANN Board: While there were concerns about implementation, it is still on agenda
- IANA Function Review: no issue there
- CSC: we have had back and forth discussions with CWG-Stewardship and there are no objections
- IRP: Consistent with CWG
- Fundamental Bylaws: no objection either.
--> We will suggest that the scorecard of our current progress against CWG conditions currently shows that we are on track and none of comments we have received would reveal serious concerns about feasibility and achievability and that should be revealed to SO/ACs as they consider CWG-stewardship proposal.
- Concerns that we are not there yet (column 2)
- All 4 mechanisms as fundamental Bylaws: clarify that it is not just about fundamental but carries a process based on weighting voting
- CWG cognizant of implications of Fundamental Bylaws.
- There have been concerns about ability to consider proposals. It is important that this message be conveyed throughout week
ICG and CCWG were recipients. Details on timeline were received through ICG - there is a need for coordination.
ICG discussed NTIA letter: the reply should not be in contradiction to CCWG response.
It is important to consider proposed bylaws for public comment: will that be developed by CCWG or separately?
We are aiming for approval by SO/ACs in Dublin - implementation to start at that point or maybe before. Conclusions will be reach in June 2016. We have received comments asking for more details but no comments on pace.
WS 1 requirements need to be committed to but don't need to be implemented. We have changed our approach on what the community model is going to be and will need to check what impact on timelines will be. We will need to conduct more outreach to have concrete day.
ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to liaise with relevant groups on timeline
We could release pressure on timeline if ICANN were able to assign resources to working on language, details after this meeting.
A suggestion made in ICG session considers that we need to wait to have full picture prior to starting drafting Bylaws changes.
ACTION ITEM: Issue to clarify with ICG
ICANN legal has started considering how can move forward with implementation ASAP - we are on same page.
In terms of timeframe, we have constraint to have report for sign off by Dublin - that relates to degree of drafting - this is a project management related task. We need to keep in place the caveat that we are going to do our best to get to Dublin meeting.
- Plan is not to provide final Bylaws wordsmithing as part of our final proposal. That is too challenging of a task. We are not in a position to fully assess implications of wordsmithing with regards to overally architecture or references to these Bylaws in contracts etc. We need to be careful that we don't set expectation it is going to be perfectly wordsmithed.
Outreach during ICANN53
This session will be chaired by Markus Kummer. We have apologies from Bruce Tonkin. Discuss how we can communicate between CCWG and Board in efficient fashion, reach understanding and iterate around this. How can we move forward with questions we have received? How could the Board allocate resources to starting consideration of setting proposals into details as soon as possible so that we lower pressure on timeline for end of year/early next year?
Final drafting of Bylaws is duty of ICANN. It is an issue that is separate from CCWG public comment.
We are going to introduce history of our works, including technical proposal - brief background. We will then discuss where we are. Our group will be host of this meeting - we will be chairing everyhing. We update on progress made and will invite CWG Cochairs to talk about dependencies.
We will provide legal memo information and ask questions to inform our second public comment document.
Working Sessions 2 & 3
Items on agenda: NTIA letter (substantial proposal by then), empowered SO/AC model (based on written submission), start discussing new items requested by public comments: accountability roundtable, SO/AC accoutability, Stress Tests, diversity enhancements, human rights, WP2 refinement, Board/staff accountability discussions, refine WPs work prior to public comment 2.
We need a clear understanding of when WPs will meet this week.
Timeslots are still open
ACTION ITEM - Staff to find a slot with SO/AC
ACTION ITEM - Staff to recirculate program and crosscheck rooms
We have reached out to everyone and welcome any additional outreach suggestions the CCWG may have.
Legal requested clarification on empowering SO/ACs. Steve to send remarks for communique.
- Broad support for overall architecture based on 4 building blocks. Most comments consider it as an improvement
- CCWG revisited various models being discussed and acknowledged commonalities of views - UAs viewed as too complex - CCWG worked on refined model.
- CCWG considered comments on CWG dependencies. Each of items related received overall support from community
- CCWG will share outcomes with other groups during ICANN 53
We have reviewed results of comment review. Specify that complexity of legal implications
Communique will be published ASAP.
ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to liaise with relevant groups on timeline
ACTION ITEM: Issue to clarify with ICG
ACTION ITEM - Staff to find a slot with SO/AC
ACTION ITEM - Staff to recirculate program and crosscheck rooms
Adobe Chat Transcript Part 1 (AM)
Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 05:11) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud. All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:52) Greetings all. Nice to be here in person. Looking forward to connecting faces with names. Come say hello.
Rosemary Fei: (05:53) Good morning, all. Looking forward to today's session.
Michael Clark (Sidley): (05:53) Good Morning
Stephanie Petit: (06:00) Good morning
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:04) Hello from Amsterdam. I am sorry I wasn't able to be in BA today. I'll be there with you on Sunday :)
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:05) Izumi sends her apologies. Will join you later on
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:07) Hello everyone
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:07) Buenos dias!
Brenda Brewer: (06:08) Audio line is working.. Ready to go!!
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (06:08) Hello everyone!
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:08) kia ora
Greg Shatan: (06:11) Hello, all!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:13) applause from here too
Becky Burr: (06:13) good morning
Matthew Shears: (06:16) morning
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) morning all...
Avri Doria: (06:34) if sales pitch is offensive we can call them elevator pitches.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:36) I hope never to be in an elevator for six minutes :)
Avri Doria: (06:37) i thought it was 3-5 minutes.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:40) Confirmed 3-5 minutes. Jordan don't try to expand !
Greg Shatan: (06:41) Elevator might get stuck between floors....
Rosemary Fei: (06:41) Is there any way to allow the document being displayed to fill the window, so more of it can be viewed at larger size?
Alice Jansen 2: (06:44) Hi Rosemary - There is a full screen button on your presentation pod (4 arrows) -
Avri Doria: (06:50) please repeat that prooisal?
Avri Doria: (06:51) oh, not a consensus call, but talk of a consensus call. ok, thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:52) someone has an open mike
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:53) please ensure mikes are off unless you are the current speaker
Avri Doria: (06:56) us jewsih folk don't thik of ourselves as anglo saxon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:57) not sure I do either :-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:58) Anglo Stralian?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:58) It's about english mother tongue isn't it ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:58) closer. though less Anglo roots in AU than ever before in pop dynamics ATM
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:05) would it be helpful for Sidley and Adler to look at the questions from the Board and ICANN legal?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:07) @Holly -- yes, it would be helpful. And it might well be very expensive.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:08) my POV is yes @Holly
Rosemary Fei: (07:08) Counsel will be sure to await formal direction.
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:08) We will not do anything @Steve unless certified to us
Rosemary Fei: (07:10) Is there a link to the Board's questions, please?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Some of the questions are very helpful
Keith Drazek: (07:12) No one said we wanted to ignore the Board's questions. I think the issue is more about time allocation. 60+ questions will require a substantial amount of work on top of our current load, so there's a potential impact on timelines.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Others of the questions areentirely loaded
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:13) as Thomas said, it would be simpler to just put on the table from the ICANN Staff's point of view, what it is that they actually DO want. (Chris D just confirmed that it was not the Board that prepared them.)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:15) @Jordan: I noted Sam is on the pitch list
Samantha Eisner: (07:15) I'm in the room if anyone would like to speak with me
Samantha Eisner: (07:16) And we do not have "the answers"
Alan Greenberg: (07:19) @Sam, wasn't claiming that you do, I just wanted clarity on what was said.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:20) not the "answers" about what to do but more fleshed out concerns about what the impacts might be
Greg Shatan: (07:21) The questions are rather negatively phrased, oriented toward risks, with terms like barriers to entry, chilling global participation, risks of capture, unintended consequences, potential adverse consequences, etc.fff
Greg Shatan: (07:23) Speaking as a lawyer, I recognize the approach. We tend to look for risks and worst case scenarios. The next step would be to try and solve for them.
Greg Shatan: (07:24) I would hope that no matter what proposal we came up with, even if it was one that was perfectly aligned with the board's desires, that the list of questions would have had just the same risk-probing approach.
Greg Shatan: (07:27) We'll never know if that would have been the case, or if an entire piano keyboard of questions was generated because the Board or management of ICANN has deep concerns about aspects of these particular proposals.
Robin Gross: (07:40) Greetings, everyone. I finally got on the network in this room.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:40) Well done Robin !
Keith Drazek: (07:41) Kavouss raises an important point concerning the dependencies between the CWG proposal and the work of the CCWG. The CWG proposal makes certain assumptions based on securing fundamental bylaws related to a number of items, including PTI. We should ensure we understand those dependencies, or the CWG transition work may be undermined.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) @Keith : we have planned to prepare how we can indicate our progress regarding CWG dependencies during the week/ later today
Keith Drazek: (07:42) Thanks you Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) I agree fully on importance
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:43) I indeed it is essential
Matthew Shears: (07:44) + 1
Avri Doria: (07:47) i do not understand Pauls'point - which 8 people?
James Bladel - GNSO: (07:48) I'm wondering if there's any basis for Paul's concern. Is this fear of a narrow group of "insiders" reflected in te public comments?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) A bit, yes
Kevin Murphy: (07:49) The audio streams listed here (https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ccwg-accountability) don't seem to be working.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) that's why I referred to it in the summary
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:50) Audio broken?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC) 2: (07:51) AT some point, those who feel unrepresented bear the burden of participation. No one can be entirely passive. Our constant attempt to act "in the interests of" those who have not yet spoken can be just as dangerous as a lack of diversity
Keith Drazek: (07:52) ICANN is both a multi-stakeholder model and a global multi-stakeholder community. It's current SO-AC structure is the multi-stakeholder mechanism. It is open and inclusive. The current proposal recommends empowering the SOs and ACs. It is the definition of transitioning authority to the global multi-stakeholder community.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (07:57) We are closing the queue for questions/comments with Avri
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:04) Holly and Rosemary -- can you react to Tijani's question just now?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:04) Tijani: I think that it's required by California law for members/designators to have that power
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:05) @Steve, could you state the question?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:06) +1 to Sebastien in this sense - submissions / comments "are for reading not counting"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:09) sell said @avri
Matthew Shears: (08:09) agree with Avri - we are close on the powers we just have to figure out the implementation mechanisms
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) I would just add to Sebastien's comment that divergence does not undermine the process but on the contrary, it enriches it as it allows us to get feedback on different points of view
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) +1 @Avri
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:10) good point, Leon.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:10) Agree with Avri, +1!
Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (08:10) Well said Avri!
Alice Jansen 2: (08:11) We are now on a break and will convene at 10:30 ART
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:41) Reconvening
Matthew Shears: (08:48) its not just about assessing eficiency of the CCWG proposal its about monitoring the effectiveness of the community powers, are they fulfilling their intended purpose, etc. I believe that some review of the mechanisms and enhancements is important
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:49) @Matthew sorry if my summary was misleading but agree with your better description
Matthew Shears: (08:50) Thanks Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:52) Why is the screen so appallingly set out?
Matthew Shears: (08:53) can we move hte chat and notes to the side?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:53) (in the adobe room, not in the room)
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:53) +1 to Matthew's request
jp: (08:54) +1
Mary Wong: (08:54) Hello all, this is the ICANN meeting setup so it may look different from the usual meeting setup.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:55) That's for sure.
Greg Shatan: (08:55) It makes the document illegible.
Avri Doria: (08:55) we need to find a satificing point, to say we are all eqqually dissatisfied is way too negative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:55) OK Mary but for e.g. now we are all well 'in sense/sion' we could ditch the Session Info pod for eg, gaining space to reorganise as requested
Avri Doria: (08:56) satsificing - meet minimal equirements at least though it may not meet all hopes.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) one of the more useful terms to emerge from the discipline of economics
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) (if that is where it came from?)
Mary Wong: (08:57) @CLO, we're requested to not change the AC setup as much as possible so as to leave it the same for other subsequent users. Let me ask (sorry, I'm not primary support for this CCWG so I'm just pitching in a bit here).
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:57) So for the excercise we need to guide our interventions with the "skirt rule" long enough to cover the subject but short enough to make interesting
Greg Shatan: (08:58) Can you at least mount the document so that it can be enlarged across the entire space allotted to it in this set-up?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:59) SIGH OK @mary but AC rooms are delightfully flexible
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) it's very disconcerting to see all this stuff moving
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) I am going only to speak in slogans
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:59) The AC room has a life of its own
Mary Wong: (09:00) We are trying to make the document more legible :)
Mary Wong: (09:00) And the chat
Greg Shatan: (09:01) AC room has developed sentience and is trying to run the meeting on its own.
Mary Wong: (09:02) All, hope this view/screen is better. If you still can't read the document as clearly as you'd like, you may want to try the Full Screen mode.
Rosemary Fei: (09:02) If it got us to legible, I'm fine with some moving around on the screen.
Matthew Shears: (09:03) in both screen modes the doc does not fill the screen
Rosemary Fei: (09:05) And full screen means you can't see chat or notes.
Brenda Brewer: (09:05) correct Rosemary.
Tech: (09:05) Everyone - i will move the pods around, please bear with us for few mins.
Keith Drazek: (09:06) Greg's point about the connection between the CWG and CCWG work and assumptions is very, very important.
Matthew Shears: (09:06) + I Keith - it is critical!
Brenda Brewer: (09:09) How is the view now?
David McAuley (RySG): (09:09) this view is better for me
Rosemary Fei: (09:10) yes, better
Matthew Shears: (09:10) better thanks
Brenda Brewer: (09:10) Good to know. Thank you.
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:11) Much better
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:12) Is anyone else having connectivity issues?
Mary Wong: (09:13) @Leon, are you having trouble with AC or with the wifi connection?
Brenda Brewer: (09:21) Techs are working on streaming connection. please stand by.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:22) hope that that made some kind of sense :)
Rosemary Fei: (09:23) Made sense to me, @Jordan.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:29) @Mary I seem to be having problems with wi-fi. Very unstable connection
Mary Wong: (09:30) @Leon, the techs are checking on things - stand by
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:36) There is so much commonality in all these pitches, which is really reassuring
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:37) @Jordan there is much more agreement than disagreement overall as I see it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:38) only thing I wished I had said that I didn't say: with the end of the NTIA Contract, which is a real tooth (remember 2012?), the world in which our current 'voluntary' model evolved is ending..
Keith Drazek: (09:39) +1 Jordan
Matthew Shears: (09:42) agree
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:49) "Empowered SO/AC model"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:50) "No Perfect Headquarters" - +1 Erica
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:51) +1 to Erika. The Grass is not always greener.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:52) very true
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) so what is the difference between the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model? Aren't they the same things?
Malcolm Hutty: (09:57) @Paul Twoomey, Thank you for being clear about something you think would not work about a broad membership model. I certainly wouldn't want that outcome either. You assume that members would elect directors on a pure plebescite; that would be undesirable, but also unnecessary.
Malcolm Hutty: (09:58) I see the model I suggested as a variant on Becky's "Empowered SO" model: most of the powers are held, under the bylaws, by SOACs. Broad membership only have ultimate power of enforcement (individually, not just collectively) and the Board duty is owed to them.
Keith Drazek: (09:59) +1 Mathieu, this was a very constructive session. Thanks to all contributors.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:03) please consider my hand raised.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (10:04) @Robin you've been added to the queue
Keith Drazek: (10:05) At some point, in addition to the proposed benefits, we'll need to consider the potential risks of each suggested model. Addressing the risks, as the Board has suggeted in its recent memo, might help us find common ground.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:05) thanks
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:05) Couldn't they just tear the letter up?
Chris Disspain: (10:06) well, phsically, Jordan, of course
Chris Disspain: (10:06) but legally no
James Bladel - GNSO: (10:06) Right, Jordan. If they think they have met the circumstances as Board member, why step down?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) because it is legally enforceable
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:07) @James: we have some legal advice on this. Need to research it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:07) who'd have standing to enforce such a thing?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) Holly has previously confimred that such a letter would be enforceable
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:08) The empowered designator model does NOT rule out UA's. The lawyers said we need UAs in either model.
Chris Disspain: (10:08) but Matgieu I right that we need to confoirm all of this stuff
Chris Disspain: (10:08) Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:08) by whom?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:09) certainly not by SOs/ACs unless they become legal persons
Paul Twomey: (10:09) @malcolm Thanks for your clarification. One thing I do worry about is not just votes for the board but also the ability for a mobilser to develop member blocks in a range of SOs/ACs to prusue a common policy outcome
Paul Twomey: (10:10) We already see the challenges in the GNOS of having contracted parities that are now both registries, registrars and in some cases ccTLDs.
James Gannon: (10:10) If we dont have legal personhood under this model then the legal enforceability woud remiain as it is now which is the California AG no?
Samantha Eisner: (10:11) is there a possibility that enforcement could also stand with other individual Board members? or could we identify an enforcement path in the letter?
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:12) Also enforeceable by any individual member of the ICANN board
Malcolm Hutty: (10:12) @Paul, That's a point worth addressing, but I think my proposal is entirely orthogonal; essentially, I am suporting Becky's "Empowered SOAC" model, but whereas people are arguing about whether SOAC rights are enforced through SOACs appointing members, or acting as designators, or not at all, I'm saying allow broad members the power to enforce. I'm not proposing transferring existing or proposed powers from SOACs to members
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:12) sounds me to like we are talking about the same thing: the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model.
Chris Disspain: (10:14) I admit to being confused....isn't the reason we moved to discussing UAs because we acknowledged that some SOs would not be happy creating legal personhood
Avri Doria: (10:15) what makes an empowered SOAC, different from a SOAC?
Keith Drazek: (10:15) I think a key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is it changes virtually nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN and the community processes. It introduces virtually no risk. It is not at all complex. It allows for future SOs or ACs to join the community. It is the LEAST disruptive option, in my opinion.
Paul Twomey: (10:15) Thanks Malcolm. That is clearer for me.
Avri Doria: (10:15) i do not understand what Jordan jsut said about not needing to join a SOAC inorder to be part of a member.
Rosemary Fei: (10:16) The director does not hold his/her conditional letter of resignation; some trusted representative of the community holds it. Once community believes triggering condition has occurred, the community would no longer recognize that individual as a director -- for example, not allow attending board meetings . So if conditions are clearly met, and letter is published, should be "self-enforcing"
Chris Disspain: (10:16) but doesn't it still invovle to SO becoming a leagl entity?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) Some people had said there was a perceived barrier around the UA system
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) an assumption that one might have to "join" a UA to become part of the applicability of the accountability powers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:16) as I understand it the resolution / inclusion of the statement of intention to come together to discus' that becky outlined is an elegant alternate to the UA
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:16) I think Alan may be asusming that SSAC and RSSAC decided not to seek voting because of the Member Model. But I do not believe that is true. We should ask them
Keith Drazek: (10:16) @Avri, my understanding is that an SO or AC only needs to explicitly state its intention to participate in the community process, under its existing bylaws, to gain the powers.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:17) I was trying to clarify that that was never intended and never part of the model
Chris Disspain: (10:17) I shall ask Becky
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:17) The fact that virtually the whole CCWG and almost all commentors on our proposal agree with the powers we forsee, but that we receive a lot of comments from in- and outside on a model requiring the creation of legal entities to enforce the powers, to me indicates that many are not convinced that this is the only workable option. So either, we convince them, or identify a workeable alternative
Avri Doria: (10:17) if the US is the meber, how can one not a meber of that UA has a say?
Adobe Chat Transcript : Part 2 (PM)
Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 10:22) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud. All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Brenda Brewer: (10:24) Hello all and Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 -afternoon session.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:15) Are we back on? I don't hear any audio
Keith Drazek: (11:15) Not yet, Josh.
Brenda Brewer: (11:16) The call has not resumed quite yet Josh.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:16) understood, thanks
Keith Drazek: (11:23) About to begin....
Brenda Brewer: (11:26) recordings are started.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:27) Possible to get the speaker a little closer to a mic?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:27) better @josh?
Rosemary Fei: (11:30) Cant read far right text on chat
Rosemary Fei: (11:31) Thanks!
Malcolm Hutty: (11:32) Mattieu points out that only mention of enforceability on this chart is in relation to diversity requirements
David McAuley (RySG): (11:36) Good question Steve
Becky Burr: (11:37) Thomas, Mathieu - i don't need to speak, was just going to address the timeline issue
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:37) perhaps "objectives" rather than requirements?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:37) ok thanks Becky
Robin Gross [GNSO-NSG]: (11:37) "Requirements" is also concerning to me. "Diversity" could be meant in many different ways.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:43) but...it was mes cadeaux, right? as in plural?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:44) (that's my inner Dudley Dursley speaking)
Avri Doria: (11:50) i still dont knwo what makes a SOAC and empowerd SOAC. Can a beleiver please explain.
Becky Burr: (11:53) the bylaws provide that the SO/ACs have the powers of members under California law. Each SO and AC has the option of declaring its intention to work together to exercise those powers. voila
Keith Drazek: (11:53) @Avri: I believe it only requires the SO or AC to make an affirmative statement (via adding a paragraph or two to charter, bylaws, website, etc.) stating intent to organize and conduct business consistent with the current ICANN bylaws. I'm sure Becky or someone will correct me if I'm mistaken.
Holly Gregory (Sidley) 2: (11:55) To clarify , no registration is required
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:55) that is how I also understand it @keith
Rosemary Fei 2: (11:56) @Keith, correct
Seun: (11:58) I will hold on to Holly on that. So it hopefully means SO/AC are not exposed to being sued
James Gannon: (11:58) Totally disagree the advice was excellent for the questions that we had asked
Becky Burr: (12:01) Seun - i personally don't think that is a real big issue but ICANN can indemnify
Sébastien (ALAC): (12:01) @James and I totaly desagree with you
Holly Gregory (Sidley) 2: (12:04) Would like clarification from proponents on how the empowered AC/SO model differs from membership model in terms of legal personhood for SOs and ACs
Seun: (12:04) @Berky indemnify @the expense of..... will be good to utilize those resources on things that further improve stability of the internet ecosystem
Adam Peake: (12:05) Flexibility and openness, diversity - as good possible. Implementation time: simple and short it can be established in the same time as So/AC model
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:05) i think the implementation time for any of these models is about the same
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:05) the biggest drafting challenge is in defining the powers, and those are "stable"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:06) clipping on an SO/AC bit of membership or whatever is relatively trivial in the implementation scheme of things
Rosemary Fei: (12:07) Is it possible to show in Adobe Connect room what's on the screen live in BA? Text on screen is very small, unreadaable for me from my seat.
Becky Burr: (12:09) yes, but my empowered AC/SO model is enforceable if SO/AC declares intention to come together to exercise bylaws powers
Becky Burr: (12:09) last @ Alan
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:09) @Alan What does "empower" mean in your proposal? What are the SO/AC's 'empowered' to do?
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:09) dear Becky: I arrived late today and I'm wondering what alternative you proposed... could you please sum it up in a couple of lines?
Greg Shatan: (12:10) I doubt the courts will have any more involvement than they do now.
Greg Shatan: (12:11) Unless we need to exercise the last resort....
Edward Morris: (12:12) Agree Greg.
Becky Burr: (12:12) Bylaws provide that the SOs and ACs have rights and powers of members. SO/ACs can adopt (e.g., bu council resolution or however they do so) a statement that they are coming together to collaborate and exercise the powers under the bylaws. No requirement to do so, that statement of intention can be taken now, 6 months from now, etc. But to the extent it is made, the SO/AC has enforceable power
Holly Gregory (Sidley) 2: (12:12) Important clarification: Registration as an unincorporated association is not required for legal personhood, but an intent to associate as a legal person is required -- whether under member, designator or empowered SO/AC model
James Gannon: (12:12) Avri is now on the no fly lists of the world
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:13) lol
Rosemary Fei: (12:14) Agree with Holly -- intent to associate as a legal person is essential.
James Gannon: (12:14) Kavouss can you speak closer to the mic
Sivasubramanian M: (12:14) Avri's concerns about Accountability being subjected to an American Judicial process could be addressed if the ICANN community could workj on creating its own judicial process which can be established in simple ways. The community could 'pick' persons for roles of adjudication the same way the Plaintiff and Defendants pick Jury in an American trial. In the ICANN process, the 'picking' could be for a term, not for a particular issue, and the persons for Judicial roles could be drawn from across the world, not only from Judiciary.
Matthew Shears: (12:14) @ Holly - what does "intent to associate" entail?
Becky Burr: (12:15) intent to have enforceable powers under the bylaws
Sivasubramanian M: (12:15) Then it becomes a Global process, that would fit into the multistakeholder model
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:15) @becky: that solution would mean that you may defer into the future the decision, but once you would take it you would still be faced with the need to establish an UA in order to be able to enforce your member rights, right?
Becky Burr: (12:15) you never need to file, register, etc. you do need to state your intention to exercise enforceable powers
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (12:16) Participation of the GAC is a topic that will be discussed in the GAC during this week
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:16) and thanks becky to your first clarification :-)
Holly Gregory (Sidley) 2: (12:16) Agree with @Becky re intent to have enforceable powers;
Rosemary Fei: (12:16) The legal person would need to exist at the time the claim arose, to be able to enforce that claim
Becky Burr: (12:17) Siva is correct - we have looked at this issue and believe that it is entirely possible to resolve disputes regarding enforceable powers through an ICANN independent review process
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:17) can't hear in the back
Becky Burr: (12:17) Rosemary - that means that you need to state your intention to exercise enforceable powers before you attempt to do so.
Becky Burr: (12:18) seems entirely reasonable
Rosemary Fei: (12:18) @Beck, almost. You need to state your intention before the source of your claim occurs
Avri Doria: (12:18) So the cons I mentioned for meebrship that would be noce to see on the table: - makes the policy mechanisms more subject to American rule than the NTIA contract ever did. 2. the new structures add new accountabilty proboems, trying to sole the top level ICANN accountbilty problems by moving them down to the SOAC level.
Rosemary Fei: (12:19) @Becky, in other words, if claim arises, then declare personhood, risk you will not have standing to enforce because you didn't have personhood when the harm occurred.
Avri Doria: (12:19) and the complexity with both meembership and empowere SOAC is giving the GAC pwoers that when compiunded with their spacial bylaws status makes them more equal than all other SOAC. one of the NTIA no-nos.
Becky Burr: (12:21) I think we are understanding each other Rosemary. The declaration of intent is key
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:21) Avri can you clarify "giving GAC powers"?
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:22) @avri today the GAC is not equal to other SO and Acs
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:23) in fact the GAC is advisory...
Seun Ojedeji: (12:23) Sorry which one is Mygift and whats Co-operative option
Becky Burr: (12:23) Avri I think you may be making assumptions about where the GAC comes out - the current proposal permits it to choose to become empowered, but it could also choose to retain its advisory role. that at leas t in my opinion is something the GAC has to decide for itself. But the consequences of a decision to become empowered on the GAC's special stautus re advice under the current bylaws has not been addressed
Matthew Shears: (12:26) @ Becky - how is the "intent to associate" agreed in the SO/AC? What mechanism would be used?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:26) staff/someone, the electricity seems to have gone off on the tables on the left hand side of the room (left when facing the panel)
Matthew Shears: (12:26) yes. no power
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:26) I would add as a "pro" to the Empowered Designator Model that it doesn't require the creation of new structures (which can create accountability problems of its own).
Sivasubramanian M: (12:28) @ Malcolm How is it feasible for powers of members to be rationalized to minimize unintended consequences ? Is it possible to have tiered powers across membership categories?
Rosemary Fei: (12:29) @Matthew, a resolution of the SO/AC would work
Becky Burr: (12:29) @Matthew - depends on how the SO/AC does business. Could be a resolution of the GNSO Council for example, based on input from SGs and Constituencies
Becky Burr: (12:29) what Rosemary said
Matthew Shears: (12:29) thanks
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:29) I'm good with Thomas's suggestion
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:29) thanks for confirming @rosemary
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:30) dear becky, I'm not sure whether you were able to kindly answer this question: @becky: that solution would mean that you may defer into the future the decision, but once you would take it you would still be faced with the need to establish an UA in order to be able to enforce your member rights, right?
Seun Ojedeji: (12:30) @Robin Empowered designator sounds like combiation of 2 models...cool ;-)
Seun Ojedeji: (12:30) +1 to Avri about distinctions between joining and participating
Matthew Shears: (12:31) what do we lose if anything if we take the membership model off the table?
Sivasubramanian M: (12:32) The issue of non-commercials not being non-commercial etc. is a serious problem which would bing in unforeseen issues if the membership model is adopted
Avri Doria: (12:32) in terms of my statement, i said not anyone can join, anyone can particpate.
Rosemary Fei: (12:32) Veto budget/strat plan, @Matthew
Becky Burr: (12:32) @Mathew - clear certainty consistent with established law and precedent
Malcolm Hutty: (12:33) @Sivasubramanian We understand, from advice, that members can agree as to how they would exercise their powers (through a document they have to sign at the time they become a member) so that would solve the problem - provided the lawyers get it right of course. But not a question of "policy", just of legal execution.
Becky Burr: (12:33) Rosemary - we are leaving the empowered SO/AC model on the table. Just the everyone registering UAs model is proposed to take off the table
Seun Ojedeji: (12:34) @Rosemary that for responding to Matthew, i think we can live with that, i actually won't want community to veto such. I would want the community to ensure that board listens and do the needful
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:35) Do we @ people in this because of Twitter or because of something else?
Sivasubramanian M: (12:36) @ Malcolm Even with such a document in place, the membership model is prone to dangers, and Capture becomes a likely scenario. If it is a document that members sign without an option to negotiate terms, ICANN being a global organization singularly incharge of a global resouce, such limiting terms could always be challenged,. or worse igonored.
Becky Burr: (12:37) Siva, under the empowered SO/AC model, the avatar issue goes away
James Gannon: (12:37) @Jordan originally from IRC no?
James Gannon: (12:38) Thats where I used it first anyway
Malcolm Hutty: (12:38) @Sivasubramanian I think you are overcomplicating things. All Open Membership means is "the same powers and mechanisms CCWG has proposed, to be exercised by SOACs - but PLUS members of the public have the right to enforce
Becky Burr: (12:38) I do it (@) so they know i am responding to their comment
S: (12:38) we might need to differentiate somewhat more clearly between the "if" and "how" of a membership model (I think Sivasubramian is talking about the former, not the latter)
Edward Morris: (12:39) Good point Greg.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (12:40) sorry, that if and how comment was me. don't know how that "S" thing happened.
Becky Burr: (12:41) @ Greg - possible to limit to IRP, not "court"
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:43) @Greg, the single member was considered some time ago, and we did provide some analysis on it. The general feeling was that just pushed the problem of accountability and "minding the minders" up another level. So duplicating the accountability process and checks/balances
Matthew Shears: (12:44) good points Jonathan
Rosemary Fei: (12:45) I've never thought of Uncle Sam in motherly terms.
James Gannon: (12:46) If Uncle Sam is the mother of the ICANN family, wonder who the father was? =)
Rosemary Fei: (12:46) Not going there
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (12:47) think of Columbia, then.
Becky Burr: (12:47) Ira
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:47) Sabine: that room ate your name?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:47) *the
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (12:47) maybe, Jor
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (12:47) :D
Seun Ojedeji: (12:48) @Jordan, i do use that when directing my comment/question to an individual...like i just did ;-)
Seun Ojedeji: (12:48) @Greg i don't think its far fetched, you can't actually imagine how this can be used until when people see it as an option
Becky Burr: (12:49) +1 Thomas
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:49) Helpful summary Thomas
Keith Drazek: (12:49) +1 thank you Thomas
Greg Shatan: (12:50) Good point, Thomas.
Becky Burr: (12:51) Criticizing Avatar model Malcolm
Sivasubramanian M: (12:51) @Sabine Meyer Was wondering who S was
Becky Burr: (12:52) at some point we should discuss Willie Currie's "accountability round table." I think that is a valuable concept
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (12:52) agreed, Becky
Sivasubramanian M: (12:53) @ Malcolm What if the IRP process could be so defined to allow an individual to seek redressal even in the absence of an Open Membership model? If IRP is so expanded, is an open membership model required?
Becky Burr: (12:54) ballot box stuffing happened in 2000
Sivasubramanian M: (12:54) (with adequate safeguard for the IRP panel to dismiss trivial or motivated pleas)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:54) ia big way
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:55) taste
Becky Burr: (12:55) Siva, don't think that solves the enforceability issue - th
David McAuley (RySG): (12:55) Agree @Becky, a good concept the roundtable
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:55) grrr tt taste f mine war@Becky's 2000 point
Malcolm Hutty: (12:55) @Siva, probably not. If we can find a way to achieve that, AND if it reaches consensus (i.e. the objections to the other proposals that Open Membership seeks to address are dropped) then that would be satisfactory, and Open Membership would not be needed
Becky Burr: (12:58) Cheryl, i do not understand your encryption
James Gannon: (12:59) CLO512
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:59) blasted keyboard and auto crret playing havoc... I was agreeing with you...naught more
James Gannon: (12:59) Even the NSA cant break it
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:00) :-) :-) :-)
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:00) this even beats Holly's autocorrect ;)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:01) So - empowered SO / AC model, and a Public Accountability Forum / Roundtable
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:01) what do we do with te community "mechanism" - does the public accountability forum thing replcae the gathering of "voters"?
Becky Burr: (13:01) AVATAR UA
Greg Shatan: (13:03) Members will have to go naked and cover themselves with blue paint?
Becky Burr: (13:03) and red hairs
James Gannon: (13:03) Does that need to be a fundamental bylaw?
Greg Shatan: (13:04) No, a fundament bylaw....
Avri Doria: (13:06) Malcolm, would membership be open to corporate individuals as well as the natural kind?
David McAuley (RySG): (13:07) Agree w/Thomas
James Gannon: (13:07) Avri thats a good point, and my understanding is that you cant be a member twice under Clifonia law, so would someones employer being a member exclude them from indivudual membership (Including people who are directos and officers of corporatations etc)
James Gannon: (13:08) Or vice-versa
Avri Doria: (13:08) in the US corprations are people too. I do not see how we could exclude them.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:11) the complexities are mind-boggling
Becky Burr: (13:13) doesn't pay to over analyze
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:14) We didn't need to worry about enforceability when we had a mechanism that ICANN had to respond to
Greg Shatan: (13:14) James, I don't believe that an individual joining as an individual would prevent their employer from joining as an entity.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:14) i.e. te pulling of the IANA functions contract
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:14) I agree Alan that if there are indivisuals who wants to be involved in the ICANN process they can do that through ALAC
Avri Doria: (13:15) and the particpant in ICANN will still have the power to pull the contract with the IFR if they decide that ICANN is not living up to its accountabilty obligations..
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:15) Can we also have a requirement in place in our accountability stuff about avoiding volunteer burn out?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:15) Avri: as long as the framewrok is enforceable, we can have that confidence ;)
Becky Burr: (13:15) aspirational or enforceable Jordan?
Avri Doria: (13:15) if you stop volunteering you will be voluntold.
Greg Shatan: (13:15) RALO MoU's would very possiblyf be seen as a contract between ICANN and each of the individual members of the RALO at the time it was signed. For that matter, the RALO may be a UA...
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:15) Becky: LOL
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:16) I just had a vision of seven parallel ATRTs
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:16) Avri: I am used to being told what to do, particularly on email lists
James Gannon: (13:16) @Greg How would corporate membership work then if the person execercising the vote on behalf of their corporation was also an individual member, could that be accounted for?
Stephanie Petit (Adler): (13:16) Members must be persons (human or legal).
Stephanie Petit (Adler): (13:17) For that reason, UAs have been proposed, so SO/ACs can be members.
Greg Shatan: (13:18) @James, they would be acting in their official capacity (ex officio), and not as an individual. It's the corporation's vote, not theirs.
James Gannon: (13:18) @Greg ok if that was the case then thats fine.
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:19) Just to clarify, what Becky is describing is that the SOs and ACs would be UAs -- there would be no "avatar" UAs
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:19) If we went down the individual member route, that problem would be highly solveable
Edward Morris: (13:19) Just want to point out that UA's are only one form of legal personality members could take.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:19) +1 Ed
Greg Shatan: (13:19) +2
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:20) Correct Ed
Greg Shatan: (13:20) That includes "natural persons" (i.e., people).
Becky Burr: (13:20) correct Ed - the issue is legal personality expressed by the intention to come together to collectively exercise the authority. the name of the legal personality is not the key point
jorge cancio (GAC): (13:20) so there is still a UA (with its implications, right?: "what Becky is describing is that the SOs and ACs would be UAs -- there would be no "avatar" UAs"
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:20) right Jorge -- and there would be no registration of UAs
Becky Burr: (13:21) no registration, the so/ac has the choice to elect legal personhood
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:21) I support a symbolic death of the reference model
Becky Burr: (13:21) or not
Keith Drazek: (13:21) If I'm not mistaken, the CWG Transition is expecting the CCWG Accountability to deliver an accountability mechanism where the community can force the activation of PTI and the transition of IANA. If that is not legally enforceable, I'm concerned that the CWG Transition work and PTI falls apart, or would need to be radically redone. Can someone on the CWG confirm or correct me?
jorge cancio (GAC): (13:22) The thing is: registration and formalities are the least of problems, the issues are the implications of creating, participating and operating that UA (be it overt or not)
Becky Burr: (13:22) but no so/ac has to elect legal personhood
Becky Burr: (13:23) and there is no external organization to the so/ac
David McAuley (RySG): (13:23) That's what I thought @Becky, a sort of springing status if needed
Becky Burr: (13:26) you participate in ICANN Jorge, and ICANN is a California corporation. that does not make you a member of the corporation, however.
Brenda Brewer: (13:32) On 15 minute break. Please stand by.
Alice Jansen: (13:52) We are reconvening
jorge cancio (GAC): (13:56) dear becky, but still if you want to exercise your rights as member and enforce them you have to gain legal personhood - right? and that brings in all the related im-complications
Seun Ojedeji: (13:58) Membership powers has been excercised within RIR communities without any need for legal personhood.
James Gannon: (13:59) exercised vs enforced is a big difference
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:59) That isn't right, Seun. The participants in RIRs are individuals or organisations. All have legal personhood.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:59) And I know that APNIC *is* a membership organisation.
Becky Burr: (13:59) if you want to enforce your rights under the bylaw - you need to state your intention to work together to exercise those legally enforceable powers. Properly structured, a court would likely determine that the group has the legal personhood necessary to enforce those rights.
Becky Burr: (14:01) the name given to that legal personhood will vary from place to place. There is no registration requirement, and if you are uncomfortable with stating the required intention, you do not have too.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:01) well i think it depends on what we mean by enforcability, my point is that taking board to court to enforce a members right is not what i have experienced within the RIR communities even though its a members based organisation
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:01) Seun: exactly.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:01) That's how ICANN would work with membership as part of it.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:01) Nobody resorts to the courts, because everyone understnads the rules under which they are operating, and the rules are clear
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:01) (aka enforceable)
jorge cancio (GAC): (14:01) ok - "Properly structured, a court would likely determine that the group has the legal personhood necessary to enforce those rights." - this would (if really acceptable by a court, taking inter alia into account the specificity of some ACs where its participants are for instance public authorities...), this means we can obviate the creation step, but we still would have a new "legal body" with its implications
Becky Burr: (14:02) i don't think anyone is really talking about taking the Board to court in any circumstances. Remember, with respect to sovereign governments, there are lots of issues about binding arbitration, courts in foreign jurisdictions, etc.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:02) @Jordan i think we should not under-estimate the interest in ICANN compared to RIR...the USD figures and stakes are just different
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:03) yes, but those are all about the actual work of ICANN, and nobody is proposing to change any of that
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:05) Jorge: so I guess that is part of what the GAC is discussing? Whether it wants to be advisory only or be a direct part of these additional powers, given what is needed to allow that to happen, etc?
Keith Drazek: (14:05) Correct Jordan. ICANN's day-to-day operations and community engagement will not be impacted by Empowered SO/ACs
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:06) we really need to have this proposal on paper so we can have substantive discussions on it this week.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:06) I am in for empowered SO.AC (without turning them into a legal entity/membership model)
Becky Burr: (14:06) Putting aside the GAC for a moment, my suspicion is that the SOs and ALAC probably have already made a statement of intention that would be legally cognizable if ICANN recognized members. The question of whether individual governments are "members" of the GAC as opposed to participants in an advisory function is a little murky to me, I confess. But the question of whether or not the GAC can articulate the intent to enforce rights under the ICANN bylaws exists no matter what type of organization ICANN is
jorge cancio (GAC): (14:07) @Jordan: exactly, that is the issue - my personal interest is to be as well informed as possible on the implications the "legal personhood" path entails... in order to be able to pursue a fact-based debate
Matthew Shears: (14:08) + 1 Robin
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:08) perhaps a few of us can get together tomorrow to hammer this proposal out on paper?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:08) @Becky do you care to refer me to that ALAC statement you refer?
James Gannon: (14:08) @Robin thats a great idea
Becky Burr: (14:10) to be clear Seun, ICANN does not currently recognize members, so it doesn't have immedicate impact. Also, I said I suspected that I could find relevant statements. I have not actually undertaken that exercise
Keith Drazek: (14:11) Apologies but I need to depart for another meeting. Great work today. Very encouraging.
Matthew Shears: (14:11) Agree need to get some work done on the proposal
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:11) bye @keith
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:12) Robin, if the group certifies, Rosemary and I are available to assist
Rosemary Fei: (14:12) Helpful clarification, Becky
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:12) great, Holly. I'm available tomorrow to work on this draft. Any one else? Becky?
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:13) + 1 Mathieu, would be useful to start work on what is being supported
James Gannon: (14:13) @Leon I think that having legal support for a discussion tomorrow on the new model would be invaluable, can we get explicit instructions for our firms?
James Gannon: (14:13) Robin I'll join tomorrow yes
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:13) Are there any rooms available tomorrow? Happy to devote some time to this
Matthew Shears: (14:14) likewise
David McAuley (RySG): (14:15) I am happy to help as well with hard stop in time for GAC pm session
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:15) staff, can we get a room tomorrow to work on this draft?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:17) Okay thats fine @Berkey, sure i know ICANN does not currently recognise members i am just asking about your ALAC information. Thanks
Samantha Eisner: (14:17) With apologies, i was not in the room when Becky introduced the Empowered SO/AC model. Does it still identify members of ICANN?
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:17) sam, it is my understanding that it does not.
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:18) Also a waste of resources to draft bylaws until there is fair agreement on what the agreement on direction is (and what the bylaws should be)
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:18) but we need to get this all down on paper so we know we are on the same page.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:18) yup
Becky Burr: (14:19) it would recognize the sos and acs themselves as having the powers of members so long as they stated an intent to come together (associate) to exercise those powers. but i am happy to walk you through it in person rather than in the chat
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:19) I support this direction
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:19) explained by Mathieu
Becky Burr: (14:21) did you miss all of the pitches. Sam?
Becky Burr: (14:26) Agree Robin - we need to be very clear and ensure that everyone understands what is proposed and what it means for them
Seun Ojedeji: (14:27) @Becky i thought that was the co-operative model...no?
jorge cancio (GAC): (14:27) +1 Becky
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:28) +1 to clarity
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:28) don't think it's the cooperative model, no
Seun Ojedeji: (14:28) i don't know the reality of having all SO/AC to come together under 1 umbralla....but its worth exploring further
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:29) what's that in ref to, Seun?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:30) @Jordan here is what Becky wrote: Becky Burr: it would recognize the sos and acs themselves as having the powers of members so long as they stated an intent to come together (associate) to exercise those powers.
David McAuley (RySG): (14:30) Agree w Jordan, that's not the suggestion as i understand it
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:30) Seun, it is my understanding that it is different because the powers can be enforced with the empowered model.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:30) i interpreted the coming together to mean that...but perhaps it is an indication of the need for more clarity
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:31) She means that within the SO or AC
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:31) not them all coming together, as it were
Seun Ojedeji: (14:31) ah...okay. Thanks
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:31) but it is important we get this written down now, so we can start to ask and answer exactly those questions.
Edward Morris: (14:32) I agree Robin. The devil certainly will be in the details.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:32) staff, can we please get a room tomorrow?
James Gannon: (14:33) And instructions for the legal firms
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:33) right
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:33) +1 Ed -- Are you qoting me? :)
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:33) @Ed "quoting"
Edward Morris: (14:34) @Holly, perhaps subliminalyð
Becky Burr: (14:34) I propose to banish "devil is in the details" as a slogan ;0
Seun Ojedeji: (14:34) will that discussion be streamed? would still be on the road to BA by then
Samantha Eisner: (14:34) @Robin, we're looking to see about room availability
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:35) thanks!
Edward Morris: (14:35) @Becky, Think we'll need a consensus call on that one. :)
Seun Ojedeji: (14:35) @Samantha i will like to join remotely if possible
Becky Burr: (14:36) @Ed - no one is paying attention to my banishing proposals anyway ...
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:36) we are in a huge conference centre which isn't fill up tomorrow so I am sure we will be able to sort out something
Samantha Eisner: (14:37) @Seun, we can pass along the request for remote participation abilities. I just wanted to confirm to this group that we're working on the request.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:37) Thanks
Seun Ojedeji: (14:44) braod support for overall architecture may be too definate especially as model is still being considered
James Gannon: (14:44) Irish =)
Seun Ojedeji: (14:44) *braod = broad
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:49) but there is broad support for the overall architecture
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:49) that's established wihin the group and validated by the public comments
Rosemary Fei: (14:51) Where is the communique available to be viewed?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:51) well i see the model is a foundational backbone of the CCWG's work and if there is no definate diection on that yet then i don't think broad support is approriate. Nevertheless i have no strong opposition on this
James Gannon: (14:51) Rosemary I forwarded it to you
Seun Ojedeji: (14:52) It was sent to the list
Rosemary Fei: (14:53) Thank you.
Rosemary Fei: (14:53) Seun, counsel is not on that list
James Gannon: (14:53) Support the motion to close the meeting
Seun Ojedeji: (14:54) Ops ;-)
Robin Gross: (14:55) can we please certify that the lawyers can come to the drafting session tomorrow?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:55) Bye
Alice Jansen: (14:56) Thank you for joining this session - the meeting is now closed