Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <449797039.1514.1711663207811@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_1513_218240380.1711663207810" ------=_Part_1513_218240380.1711663207810 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Original post: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-14-en<= /a>
WEBINAR #3: CCWG-Accountability = Briefing on Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
CoChairs are organizing this webinar to provide an additional opportunit= y for Chartering Organizations/community members to receive an overview of = the Draft Proposal and ask questions.
The webinar will be run in an = Adobe Connect roo= m. If you are interested in attending the webinar and wou= ld like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to ac= ct-staff@icann.org and= indicate your language request (if needed). The webinar will be recorded a= nd transcribed. Live interpretation will be made available in English, Span= ish, French, Chinese, Arabic, Russian and Portuguese.
Webinar Slides Translation: = P= =D1=83=D1=81=D1=81=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 | =D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9= =8A=D8=A9 | Espa=C3=B1ol | =E4=B8=AD=E6=96=87 | Fran=C3=A7ais&n= bsp;| P= ortugu=C3=AAs
Join the Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/.
Please be sure to contact acct-staff for dial in details if needed.
Attendees: Albert Dan= iels, Alexandra, Alison Hayman, Allan MacGillivray, Annaliese Williams, Ann= e Aikman-Scalese, Ashley Heineman, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David Maher, Everton= Rodrigues, Fabricio Vayra, Fiona Asonga, Glenn McKnight, Gordon Chillcott,= Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, James Bladel, Javier Moreno, Jeff Neuman, Joett= e Youkhanna, John Poole, Jon Nevett, Julia Charvolen, Karine Perset, Kavous= s Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Stubbs, Klaus Stoll, Leon Sanchez, Lori Schulm= an, Mark Carvell, Maura Gambassi, Maureen Hilyard, Megan Richards, Mon= ica Soli=C3=B1o, Nathalie Coupet, Nick Shorey, Nicola, Nigel HIckson, Olivi= er Crepin-Leblond, Oscar, Owen Smigelski, P=C3=A4r Brumark, Paticio Po= blete, Paul McGrady, Peter Vergote, Pua Hunter, Reg Levy, Ryan Carroll, Sab= ine Meyer, Samantha Demetriou, Sandra Hoferichter, Sara Bockey, S=C3= =A9bastien Bachollet, Simon Jansson, Steve DelBianco, Susan Payne, Ta= tiana Tropina, Taylor Bentley, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben= (62)
Transcript:
Alice Jansen: (12/16/2015 13:41) Welcome to the CCWG-ACCT Dr= aft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations webinar! Please note that cha= t sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Be= havior: http://www.icann.= org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:01) <Question> On this we= binar, can you please cover the recent Board comments and the plans to addr= ess (it at all) those comments?
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:03) Hi Jeff, we did not plan t= o cover the Board comments. The purpose of the webinar is to present our 3r= d report
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:03) Thomas - I hear you, but given th= at those comments have been received and they may change the substance of t= he third report, shouldnt you discuss those?
nigel hickson: (14:04) good evening
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:04) @Jeff not in this web= inar
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:05) If the CCWG recommendation change= as a result of their comments, then will there be another comment period?<= /p>
Alice Jansen: (14:05) When submitting a question, you wish to hav= e Co-Chairs/Rapporteurs address please start with a <QUESTION> = and end with a =E2=80=9C</QUESTION>=E2=80=9D. Text outside these quot= es will be considered as part of =E2=80=9Cchat=E2=80=9D .
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:06) @Jeff we need to asse= ss all comments and if that takes us to substantially change the proposal t= hen we might issue a suplemental report or continue discussion which would = ultimately lead to a 4th comment perios
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:07) Question 1
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A NEGOTIAION WITH= CONCERNED PARTIES
Glenn McKnight: (14:08) I liked the surevey
Glenn McKnight: (14:08) one of the better surveys by ICANN<= /p>
Glenn McKnight: (14:08) one of the better surveys by ICANN\=
Glenn McKnight: (14:08) should put the links in the chat
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) Please record this question as a formal = question from Kavouss Arasteh
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:09) @Kavouss what do you = mean by negotiation with concerned parties? There is no negotitation going = on as far as I know
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:09) Question 2
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:10) At the begining of each Recommendation i= t is mentioned that the text proposed for Bylaws are of conceptual nature a= nd the final text will be drafted and finalized by the external council and= ICANN legal Department.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12) I do not agree with that to the extent t= hat we would be at the merci of the external counsel and legal Department o= f ICANN. I strongly suggest that any such final text must be get the approv= al of the CCWG or any replaning entity for that please confirm my understan= ding
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12) Pls receord this as formal question7 com= ment from Kavouss Arasteh
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:13) Kavous your questions are= noted above
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:14) @Kavouss that is the = idea. Whatever comes from external counsel would come back to the CCWG for = final approval
Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (14:14) <Question> = ; "The thresholds assume that 5 SO/ACs will participate as Decisional Parti= cipants. It appears that they choose to participate on a case by case basis= - is this correct? What if more than one SO/AC abstains? Is there a point = where it becomes unviable? Related to this, can an SO/AC participate part w= ay through the process but remove itself before the end decision? <Quest= ion>
Greg Shatan: (14:16) <Question> Do changes to the Articles = of Incorporation have the same approval requirement as the Fundamental Byla= ws? </Question>
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:17) @Greg It is being tak= en into account by external counsel and I believe the answer is yes
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:18) @Greg para 136 in the mai= n proposal
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:19) 3rd black bullet
Lori Schulman: (14:19) could yo please advance the slides to full= y see the required thresholds? thank you
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:20) qUESTION 3
Keith Drazek: (14:21) The RySG has identified a concern with rega= rd to the timeframes in the escalation process. RySG comments will state th= at more time will be needed to ensure that SOs and ACs can properly consult= with their members at the various steps. Just a heads up.
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:21) Indeed, I apologize f= or that
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:21) Why the IANA bugdet which is of major co= ncverns of Naming Community is subject to the approval of the entire commun= ity?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) The other communities' interests may be = entrely irrelevant to the IIANA interests why they should be em= powered to act.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) Pls record this as Q3 from Kavouss Arast= eh
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:25) done
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:25) Question 4
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:26) Public policy issues are exclussive powe= rs and area of responsibility of the Governments .Why other community enter= to this area which may not be relevant to their responsibility.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) ST 18 is an example of this intrusion in= the area of authority of Governments .
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:28) @ Keith: agree that 15 = day window is unrealistic for GAC whose member reps woudl need to consult i= n capital and revert to GAC chair who then has to determine a GAC consensus= .
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:28) WSIS 2003 AND wsis 2005 IN WHICH MORE TH= AN 19500 PEOPLE OF ALL CATEGORIES PARTICIPATED ,confirmed that exclussive a= nd authority of the governments on public policy issues .x
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) WHY ccwg did not respect that fundamenta= l issue
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) @Mark -- can you say what w= ould be the minimum number of days for GAC to respond?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) Pls record this as Question 4 from Kavou= ss Arasteh
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:30) <QUESTION> How again = would nominating Committee Appointed Board members be removed?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:30) Mark abd Steve, what do you mean by that= deadline?
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:30) @ Steve: is an issue GA= C needs to discuss - I guess at minimum 30 - 40 days.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:31) GAC ,like other chartering organizations= is expected to comments between 7 to 21 January once the results of public= comments are available.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:31) I know some of you pusshing GAC to reply= eralier
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:31) I am still not online=
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:32) On what basis you propose that?
Sabine Meyer: (14:32) "not online" =3D in line to see Star Wars? = ;)
Keith Drazek: (14:32) @Kavouss: I think the discussion was on the= timeframes in the escalation path, not on the comment period.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:32) Keioth
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:32) Ohh I = would be keen to join that line Sabine
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:33) I was absent when you made the famous co= mpromise on ST18,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:33) w'end activi= ty for me includes gold class ticketting to The Movie!
Keith Drazek: (14:33) I stated that the RySG has concerns with th= e tight timeframes in the escalation process. Mark responded saying he also= had concerns.
Keith Drazek: (14:33) Then Steve asked Mark what an acceptable ti= meframe would be for the GAC. Hope that helps.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:34) What was the basis that the representati= ve of Verisgin proposed amendmnets 7 compromise on the issues relevant to G= AC?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) correction
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) amendment/ COMPROMISE
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) Question 5
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:36) @ Kavouss: talking abou= t the escalation ladder - e.g. step 2 on supporting a petition.and step 6 f= or objectng to use community power.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:36) Seems my Mic= is NOT working SO SORRY
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) May the Co-Chairs express their view on = diving the Mission in twom parts , One part very concise and high level dea= ling with Mission and
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) THE second part is moving the rest of th= e Mission texts into Scope?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) Please record this as Quetion 5 fr= om Kavouss Arasteh
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:37) zLeon and I = are unable to be dialed out to OR to dial IN to any of the Adigo Numb= ers ( we think we 'broke their system' :-( we have been w= orking frantically behind the scenes to fix all this but to na avail = :-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:38) Dear Co Chairs
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:39) Pls give the Floor for further exporing = the Question 1 already raised
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:40) Dear Kavouss, can you= please clarify to which negotiation do you refer to?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) Negotiation made in CCWG Members
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) Between CCWG and ICANN
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:41) @Kavouss ther is no n= egotiation that I am aware of. Can you please provide details?
Keith Drazek: (14:41) @Kavouss: After NTIA posted its most recent= statement on its expectations for ST18, I suggested that a compromise woul= d acknowledge the GAC is in full control of its own operating principles, t= o include how it develops consensus advice, provided the definition of cons= ensus is the UN language. It was an effort to find a compromise path forwar= d that would secure the support of all chartering organizations.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:42) icann attended all CCWG meeting after LA= ,
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:43) tHEY WERE ALLOWED TO RAISE QUESTIONS, CO= NCERNS AND ccwg made ever efforts to take those questions into account and = meets the Board's concerns, We did not expect that they now as the case tha= t theyx vnever been consulted not r participated at any meeting
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) ICANN basically object to many issues th= e principles of which were deliberately and extensively discussed .
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) Raising these questions at this last mom= ent is not productive
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:45) @ Keith: your efforts m= uch appreciated by the GAC contributors.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:45) Mark
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:45) It is helpless to opposing to my comment= s
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:46) Leon
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) DISCUSSIONS AT ccwg IS A GINUINE NEGOTIA= TIONS BETWEEN ccwg participants? Do you disagree with that?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:47) Has the GAC had a structural revi= ew?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) What is Structural Review?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:48) <Question> What is th= e CCWG rationale for including the 2/3 vote provision in this stress test?<= /p>
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) ST18 WENT FAR MORE THAN IT SHOULD
Lori Schulman: (14:49) Does this means that if the Board ch= ooses to accept the advice it doesn't have to have a formal vote?'
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:49) Stress test is designed to proposed reme= dial action in case that some abnormal situation occurs. The current GAC ad= vice was ans is workin for 17 years if we maintain the current situation.= p>
Lori Schulman: (14:50) its odd language
Lori Schulman: (14:50) if not rejected does that mean its accepte= d?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:51) This language implicitly requires= the ICANN Board to vote on every piece of GAC advice
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:51) Should the condition based on which the = consensus is made is changed then we may need a stess Test . Cosequently ,w= e should maintain the current Byl=C3=A9aws if the current princuiple to rea= ch consensus is changed
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:51) different than current
Lori Schulman: (14:51) Didn't Fadi say to Congress that this is w= hat would not happen:?
Lori Schulman: (14:51) If implicit then we should make explicit s= o there is no confusion
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) In that case we should carry forward the= existing Bylaws text and adding the eventuality of a change in the Princip= le 47
Greg Shatan: (14:52) <Question> This Bylaw currently makes = no reference to voting. The revision states that GAC Advice can only = be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board. This appears to cre= ate an obligation for the Board to vote on every piece of GAC Advice?</Q= uestion>
Keith Drazek: (14:52) @Jeff: the 2/3 only applies to consensus ad= vice.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) Steve
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:52) @Keith - Understood, but why was = it put in there
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) Pls note that ST 18 went far from that i= t should go
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) There needs to be limitations oth= er than it being agreed by a consensus
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) that is even more than the G= NSO is given
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) The GNSO is only given that right= when part of a FORMAL PDP
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:53) And I too ha= ve finally got through to an AU dial In number to cinnect to audio phone br= idge :-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) Please read the chat ,my comments
Alice Jansen: (14:53) link to public comment period https://www.icann.org/p= ublic-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) If the GNSO Council approves some= thing unanimously, but it is not part of a formal PDP, the board does not h= ave to be deferential
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:54) We are doing= so Kavous they will be included with all other questions when = we do the Q&A at the END f the presentaion...
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) The board does not need to negoti= ate with the GNSO
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) it can ignore the GNSO
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) So if the GAC gives advice which = the community believes is beyond its jurisdiction, then why should it have = the 2/3 standard applied
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:54) Leon
Greg Shatan: (14:55) <Question> After this revision, what i= s the status of GAC Advice if (a) no vote is taken on it or (b) a vote is t= aken to reject it but the 2/3 majority is not achieved? Is this GAC Advice = now binding on ICANN in either or both cases? </Question>
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:55) I totally disagree with the way that you= explain the time line
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:55) Pls read my comments in chat pls= p>
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:56) There needs to be a clear definit= ion of public policy to which the GAC advice gets this deferential treatmen= t
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) Grec
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:56) if outside that limited scope, it= should be treated the same as any advice from the community
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) I do not understand the term " Binding "= There is no binding.
Lori Schulman: (14:57) Does transparency include transparency in = contract enforcement?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:57) There an obligation for ICANN to get int= o negotiation with GAC if ICANN disagree with the advise .Consequently gett= ing involved in discussion does not mean to be binding
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:58) I do not know from where the term 2 Bind= ing 2 emanated in this particular case
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:58) @Kavuouss - that deferential trea= tment should only apply to subjects appropriate in the jurisdiction of the = GAC and only where there is consensus
Lori Schulman: (14:58) I understand that the discussion/negotiati= on requirement essentially puts the advice in limbo
Lori Schulman: (14:59) so there could be a "no vote" outcome
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:59) Consensus building and its defintion is = totally remain within the mandate and authority of GAC.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:59) Did you entered in the way that IETF OR = gnso ARRIVE AT CONSENSUS ?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:00) Actually Kavouss yes the GNSO and= IETF have definitions of consensus
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:00) Why for GAC everbody is so sensitive and= whants to tdetermine what is the definition of consensus.
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:01) That definition is the sole authority an= d mandate of GAC and NO OTHER COMMUNITY
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:01) @Kavouss - because GAC advice can= place all policies that the rest of the community wants into limbo for man= y months
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:01) pLS INDICATE DOES GAC entered in the bus= iness of how other SO 7 AC make their consuensus? Pls reply
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:02) @Kavuouss - when the GAC gives ad= vice (unlike when other SOs or ACs do), the ICANN staff stops everythiing.&= nbsp; Look @ all of the new gTLD issues, the 2 characters, category 1 and 2= strings.....
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:04) leon
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:04) <FOLLOW UP QUESTION> Can we= have a community call to discuss any changes that the CCWG is thinking of = making as a result of the Board Comments>
Keith Drazek: (15:04) The GAC can determine its own operating pro= cedures. But the entire community can contribute to discussions around the = threshold for ICANN Board obligations in response to GAC advice. We can all= be impacted by that obligation.
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:05) YOU DID NOT ANSWRE MY QUESTION AT ALL
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06) Leon
Alice Jansen: (15:06) Please mute your lines if not speaking
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06) I thought ICANN is an organization in wh= ich every body is duly and timely listened
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:07) @Kavouss whish questi= on. You have raised several questions
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:07) which of your questio= ns Kavouss?
Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (15:07) thank you Steve
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:07) All was not answered
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) Leon
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) Pls do not play with the words
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) I meant rehjection of IANA bUDGET
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) Leon
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) i WANT TOTALLY DISAPPOINTZTED BY YOUR RE= PLY
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) cO-chairs
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:11) @Kavouss I am not pla= ying and I am sorry you are dissapointed
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:11) I tried to answer you= r question not to dodge it
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:11) Either intentionally or due to lack of p= roper answer you did not reply my quesions ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:12) Thomaso
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:12) yOU DO NOT READ THE MAILS
Greg Shatan: (15:12) This question relates to the Board's comment= s.
nigel hickson: (15:13) Leon; it is not you that is being slow, Ka= vous is being really difficult!
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:13) yes 18
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:13) and why 2/3?
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:14) I do read mails Kavou= ss. I am sorry for your frustration
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:15) @Steve: But the Board only = has to reject FORMAL PDPs with 2/3rds vote not all decisions of the GNSO
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:15) Pleae kindly review the e-mails exchange= between Bruce ( MBoard Member) and the rest of the aCCWG to understand my = question
Greg Shatan: (15:16) It's the new language that's the problem.
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:16) Steve
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:16) Pls read my comments for your Famous ST = 18 AND REPLY TO THAT
James Bladel: (15:18) Presuming that the Board determines whtheer= or not its actions are compliant with GAC advice, and not the gAC?
Lori Schulman: (15:20) <question> Does the transparen= cy work contemplated in workstream 2 envision transparency with regard to d= ecisions made regarding contract compliance? <question>
Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:21) @Lori the scope of th= at work should be defined within WS2 so there's no clear answer to your que= stion at this stage Lori
James Bladel: (15:22) (1) GAC issues advice. (2) Board agre= es, takes action. (3) GAC does not believe Board's action is al= igned iwth advice, requests a vote.
Lori Schulman: (15:23) Thank you Leon
Greg Shatan: (15:23) I had a second question.
Greg Shatan: (15:24) That's one.
Greg Shatan: (15:24) I also had a third question.
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) lEON
Greg Shatan: (15:24) <Question> After this revision, what i= s the status of GAC Advice if (a) no vote is taken on it or (b) a vote is t= aken to reject it but the 2/3 majority is not achieved? Is this GAC Advice = now binding on ICANN in either or both cases? </Question>
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) i RAISED 5 QUESTIONS
Greg Shatan: (15:25) Articles are even more fundamental than fund= ament bylaws....
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:25) nONE OF THEM WAS ANSWERED BY YOU`?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:25) No, Greg. Not binding= . But if the board does not get 2/3 to reject GAC advice, then = that implies the board is not rejecting GAC advice
James Bladel: (15:26) Thanks Thomas, Leon, Steve & others.
Lori Schulman: (15:27) <question> My concern with Steve's a= nswers is that the bylaws should not be implicit but explicit. It's t= oo important. Why not use explicit language?<question>
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:28) WAS INTERRUPTED WHY'?
Lori Schulman: (15:29) Understand. Thank you for your consi= deration and for all of the very hard and thoughtful work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (15:29) We had to en= d the call
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:29) @Lori - from the report= p>
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:29) 42  = ; Note: The language proposed in recomm= endations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are conceptual in nature at this stage.= The CCWG-Accountability=E2=80=99s external legal counsel and the ICANN leg= al team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of In= corporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws).
Kavouss Arasteh: (15:29) i FULLY RESPECT THE CO cHAIRS
Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (15:29) Thank you
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (15:29) THNKAS
Gordon Chillcott: (15:29) Thank you.
Greg Shatan: (15:29) Bye all.
nigel hickson: (15:29) thank you co-chairs
Alice Jansen: (15:29) Thank you for joining the call - archives w= ill be available at: https://community.icann.org/page= s/viewpage.action?pageId=3D56986256