Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1937691373.365.1711640226436@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_364_555158526.1711640226435" ------=_Part_364_555158526.1711640226435 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Members: Alan Greenbe= rg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Blad= el, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, M= athieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, P=C3=A4r Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Ei= sner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert,= Tijani Ben Jemaa (21)
Participants: Aarti Bhavana, Alain Bidron, Allan = MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Antonio Medina Gomez, Avri Do= ria, Brett Schaefer, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Ba= dii, Finn Petersen, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman, Jona= than Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Lito Ibarra, L= ousewies van der Laan, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Martin B= oyle, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Olivi= er Muron, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro da Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, = Rafael Perez Galindo, Sabine Meyer, Snehashish Ghosh, Suzanne Woolf, Tatian= a Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw (44)
Legal Counsel: Ed McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Mich= ael Clark, Nancy McGlamery, Rosemary Fei (5)
Observers & Guests: Asha Hemrajani, Ashley Ro= berts, Cristina Monti, Fiona Alexander, John Poole, Konstantinos Komaitis, = Manal Ismail, Michael Niebel, Mike Silber, Navid Heyrani, Nick Shorey, Rahu= l Gosain, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Rory Conaty, Susan Payne, Taylor Bentley, Vi= ctor Charlie (17)
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuh= amad, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Nigel Hickson, Susanna = Bennett, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez
Apologies: Eberhard Lisse
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (at= tendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9s1ntubeno/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.i= cann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-09feb16-en.mp3
= li>1. Opening Remarks=
2. Final reading on&=
nbsp;Recommendation #4 with closure of
waiver/indemnification text
3. Board feedback on= human rights
4. Final reading on&= nbsp;Recommendation #5 (Mission)
5. Consideration of Recommenda= tion #11 (GAC Advice)
6. Budget of the IANA Stewardship T= ransition project
7. AOB
8. Closing remarks=
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through con= tent of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
1. Opening Remarks:MW
Roll call: none on audio only.
No new SOI
2. Final reading on Recommendation #4 with closure of waiver/ind= emnification text: TR
Trickert: history of this item. Our legal= has spoken to ICANN legal and they have reached an agreement.
HGregory: good call with ICANN legal and = Jones Day.
Rosemary Fei: In order to encourage and p= romote healthy discussions in the director removal and Board recall process= : =E2=80=A2 If a dire= ctor initiates a lawsuit in connection with their removal or recall, ICANN = will provide indemnification (e.g., a director claims that they were libele= d in the written rationale calling for his or her removal). =E2=80=A2 = &nb= sp; Indemnification will be available (i) to a member of a Supporting Organ= ization, Advisory Committee, the Nominating Committee or the Empowered Comm= unity (ii) who is acting as a representative of such applicable organizatio= n or committee (iii) for actions taken by such representative in such capac= ity pursuant to the Bylaws (e.g., a chair of a Supporting Organization subm= itting a written rationale for the removal of the director). =E2=80=A2 = ; As requ= ired by California law and consistent with ICANN's current Bylaws, indemnif= ication will only be available if the actions were taken in good faith and = in a manner that the indemnified person reasonably believed to be in the be= st interests of ICANN. I guess it exceeded max chat size:=E2=80=A2 &nb= sp; ICANN will develo= p guidelines to provide guidance as to standards of conduct that will be de= emed to have been in good faith (e.g., conducting due diligence as to the t= ruthfulness of a statement).
TRickert: Entering an Adobe room we have = to tick that we agree to the standards of behaviour, if we abide by those -= if they are modified, we would be ok?
GHolly: yes.
TRickert: This seems to be a smooth solut= ion. Any objections to proceeding on this basis?
AGreenberg: People acting as representati= ves of the org. - would it be sufficient if an ALAC passed a resolution say= ing all members are representatives for such a process. The term indemnific= ation refers to after the fact, is this about being reimbursed?
HGregory: have not addressed advancement = of expenses, but permissive under California Law but must repay if found to= not be in good faith. Good ask and we can work on with ICANN legal. As to = the first question - if you look at what is currently there - members of SO= ACs - we could have the same concept here but this will be part of fine tun= ing the language.
RFrei: an SOAC could decide who represent= s them but need to meet the requirements.
TRickert: Implementation should deal with= financial aid during an action.
KArasteh: If so requested for first quest= ion. As to the first question from AG let us say just representatives.
AGreenberg: originally the offer from the= Board was to indemnify the Chairs of SOACs or those who wirte the reports.= We now have more but we need to have a wider coverage to properly particip= ate in the Community Fora.
Decision - TRickert: No = further comments being made. This seems to be a consensus position and we w= ill ask legal to work out the details. any objections? (none). this is then= our consensus position.
3. Board feedback on human rights LS
LSanchez: history of the dev. of th= e recommendation.
KArateh: Do not like the OR ANOTHER text.= Support deleting the parenthesis text.
TBenJemaa: Support removing this text. Re= placing in core values only.
LSanchez: this have been discussed widely= . We have mechanisms to ensure ICANN stays on mission.
BSchaefer: the second sentence was import= ant.
LSanchez: let us remember these are guide= lines for our lawyers to draft. Also we are only discussing the yellow text= .
AGreenberg: I find it unusual to refer to= a transient WG. Final language should fix.
KArasteh: Lets not change anything and su= pport deletion of yellow text.
Decision - LSanchez: any= opposition to deleting the yellow text? (none). We will be deleting this t= ext. This will be our CCWG consensus position.
KArasteh: Thanks need to be given to Leon= for doing this very difficult job.
4. Final reading on Recommendation #5 (Mission)- MW
MWeill: History of development. The idea = given this is a final reading is to identify any strong objections. Concern= s?
AGreenberg: core Value 5 and PDP issue. G= iven there was no support for this issue but it is important to note that t= here is still a level of discomfort from the ALAC regarding this.
MWeill: This is important to keep in mind= and there is no intent to generate the potential issue. This needs to be c= onsidered in the implementation phase. Any further concerns (none). We have= a consensus position. Congratulations to BBurr for piloting this very diff= icult project for the CCWG and this is a remarkable achievement.
KArasteh: Becky is a star.
AGreenberg: Judgement Free DNS - what is = technical DNS as raised by ASullivan. Had proposed a small change for this = remove Technical and substitute ITS. Can be note to drafters.
ASullivan: good either way.
Decision - MWeill: this = can be fine tuned in implementation. This will not stop us from closing. Qu= estion from Izumi in the chat: is the Jan 26 language the final? This close= s this item.
MHutty: We are not intending to change th= e mission - but there is the question of PICs and the potential solution wa= s Grandfathering. We are currently saying this is a note to lawyers for imp= lement - what does this mean?
MWeill:BBurr is confirming you proper int= erpretation.
KArasteh: This could be a note to the rep= ort.
AGreenberg: I and ALAC want to be certain= PICs do not get forgotten. But I find the solution proposed acceptable.
GShatan: This is the best we can get at t= his point but I have concerns.
Decision - MWeill: we ar= e providing the lawyers with our expectations. This closes rec. 5
5. Consideration of Recommendation #11 (GAC Advice) TR<= /p>
TRickert: Framing of discussion on this p= oint. Thanks to SDB and CLO and the Stress Team for their tireless work.
TBenJemaa: Are you doing a package for ch= anges to the 3 recommendations or just rec 11.
TRickert: Package.
TBenJemaa: Do not object on rec 11 but ca= nnot accept removing the Board with only 3.
TRickert: standard rules only two times s= peaking and limited time.
KArateh: Agree we are dealing with the pa= ckage.
PDaSilva: Has concerns about this and thi= s goes against inclusion. Very much against the carve out. Many countries a= lso have countries.
TRickert: MCarvell has noted, and I can c= onfirm, that the GAC will always be able to provide advice even if it canno= t participate in the final decision.
JCarter: There is exclusion of any group.=
OCavalli: Commend co-chairs for their eff= orts. GAC is not on equal footing because it does not participate in many a= ctivities in ICANN such as the chosing of nomcom Board members. Our concern= s are the same as many other countries such as Brazil and others.
BSchaefer: RE TBJ part of the issue is th= at we do not need unanimity. In the description of mainly or all and should= be removed in favour of only letting the Board decide if it is based on GA= C advice or not.
GShatan: this is the compromise that can = generate the most support. Concern is technical - this is not final languag= e but rather as instructions to drafters. So a note of caution that the dra= fters consider our complete work in drafting the final texts.
RGross: Need to restate that this is not = a good way forward especially when the GAC cannot even say if it is in favo= ur of this or not, especially considering when the GAC is completely opaque= vs being transparent as other SOACs requirements. This will create more pr= oblems in the long run.
TRickert: We note your concerns. Any memb= ers of other Chartering Orgs on this.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: The UK = Govt supports positive consideration of this compromise proposal which we d= o not consider is intended to exclude the GAC from the community framework.= The UK supports consensus-based advice. There is no GAC consensus support = for the GAC to take a decsional role so solely advisory role is the likely = way forward. Transparency of advice it provides will be paramount and the p= rocess for provision of advice must be predictable and properly recorded an= d open.
SDelBiano: From the BC - agree this is a = compromise our communities can live with.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: Do you per= sonally support it, Keith?
Keith Drazek: I do.
James Bladel: Registrars initially oppose= d Rec 11, as written in the 3rd Draft Support. With the changes in Re= c #11 and Rec #1, Registrars have dropped their opposition and will support= the proposed compromise.
TBenJemma: I support rec 11 but not to he= r changes.
AGreenberg: There are some concerns but w= ould not refuse to ratify.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): ASO would not object= to the compromised proposal
Decision - TRickert: Sup= port has been established in this call. As such I would like to confirm we = have a consensus position for the supplementary report. I would like to tha= nk everyone for the significant efforts.
MWeill: Need to recognize this is the onl= y way forward - and we need to thank and recognize Kavous, Becky, Malcom, S= teve and others. We do recognize there is dissent and we encourage that min= ority views be submitted and included in the report, but it is time to move= on. We should also step back and understand what this means for ICANN - th= e ongoing conflict between the GAC and the gNSO will continue to plague us.= However, we may have only aggravated the situation which is not constructi= ve. All have value to bring to the table and this should be recognized by a= ll. We need to build bridges.
6. Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition project MW=
Decision - MWeill: This = is about looking how to go forward and getting adequate support for WS2 and= that costs are not only a concern for the Board but also for the community= . The Board is expecting estimates and processes for managing elements whic= h have impacts on the budget. We need to find a way to exchange with the Bo= ardFC and the chartering orgs and have ongoing discussions on this. No comm= ents - we will integrate the comments received on list and report on the re= sults of the meeting.
7. AOB- LS
Decision - LSanchez: Sta= ff accountability should be considered in WS2.
GShatan: Need to reintegrate what was in = the second report for staff accountability.
LSanchez: Agree.
KArasteh: form and way forward of supplem= ental report?
LSanchez: trying to finish by EOB Friday,= Review by CCWG over the Weekend and Freeze the supplemental on Monday.
HGregory: Congratulations to all. On the = final review will we have time to review.
Decision - LSanchez: yes= .
MWeill: we will publish a detailed timeli= ne for all the elements over the next few days. Congratulate staff for exce= llent support.
LSanchez: recognition for staff work. Any= other items? (none). This concludes the meeting. We look forward to to sen= ding the final supplementary for your review EOB Friday for your final revi= ew over the weekend.
Adjourned.
none
Brenda Brewer: (2/9/2016 05:30) Good day all and welcome to CCWG ACCT Me= eting #83 on Tuesday, 9 February 2016! Please note that chat sessions= are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/new= s/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Antonio Medina Gomez: (05:39) good morning
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:53) Hi Dear Brenda ,the fithful ICANN sTAFF = TO ccwg
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:54) good morning
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:54) Brenda
Brenda Brewer: (05:54) Hello Kavouss!
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:54) Hi all!
Brenda Brewer: (05:55) Hello all!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) I AM CALLED BUT NO INCOMING VOICE<= /p>
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:55) Hello!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) MAY YOU CK PLS
Harold Arcos: (05:55) Hello all
Markus Kummer: (05:55) Hello all
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) dEAR bRENDA
Brenda Brewer: (05:56) We are calling you back Kavouss.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:56) tHE OPERATOR CONTINUE TO DIAL BUT THERE = IS NO CONNECTION
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:56) mAY YOU PLS CK
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:56) THre is incoming ring but no voice
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (05:57) Wow....someone is beating up thei= r keyboard
Rosemary Fei: (05:57) Good morning again, all.
Aarti Bhavana: (05:57) Hi All
Phil Buckingham: (05:58) Good morning from the UK .
Andrew Sullivan: (05:58) Good day, all
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:58) Hello everyone!
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (05:58) Hello everyone
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:58) Hi everyone!
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (05:59) Hello everyone!
Tatiana Tropina: (05:59) Hi everyone!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:59) Hi all
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:59) Good morning (4am) again!
David McAuley (RySG): (05:59) Hello all
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:00) Robin, good morning, pls advise why you = selecting Magenta colour to be more distinguished?
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:00) You are a very distinguished lady alread= y
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:00) morning. 1am Robin!<= /p>
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:00) Thanks, Kavouss, pink just makes= me happy! :-)
Rahul Gosain GAC-India: (06:00) Hi Everyone!
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:01) Yes me too
James Bladel: (06:01) Good morning, apologies for being late.
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (06:01) I am on Adobe, but will be audio = only in a few minutes
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:02) dEAR mATHIEU cO-cHAIR
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:02) are you present 5today , if yes
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:02) Bonjour diplomat
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:03) hi all
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:03) Thank you Kavouss, bonjou= r !
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:04) Brenda, Is the meeting started as I have= no incoming voice
Aarti Bhavana: (06:04) It has started, Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:04) I have no incoming voice
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:04) Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:05) Pls tell the operator that I have no inc= oming at all
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:05) I hear nothing
Rosemary Fei: (06:05) In order to encourage and promote healthy d= iscussions in the director removal and Board recall process: =E2=80=A2 = ; If a director initiates a= lawsuit in connection with their removal or recall, ICANN will provide ind= emnification (e.g., a director claims that they were libeled in the written= rationale calling for his or her removal). =E2=80=A2 &nbs= p; Indemnification will be available (i) to a member of a Supporting = Organization, Advisory Committee, the Nominating Committee or the Empowered= Community (ii) who is acting as a representative of such applicable organi= zation or committee (iii) for actions taken by such representative in such = capacity pursuant to the Bylaws (e.g., a chair of a Supporting Organization= submitting a written rationale for the removal of the director). =E2=80=A2= As required by= California law and consistent with ICANN's current Bylaws, indemnification= will only be available if the actions were taken in good faith and in = ; a manner that the indemnified person reasonably believed to be in the bes= t interests of ICANN. I
Chris Disspain: (06:05) maybe your speakers are muted Kavouss
Rosemary Fei: (06:06) And here's the rest -- I guess it exceeded = max chat size:=E2=80=A2 ICANN will develop guidelin= es to provide guidance as to standards of conduct that will be deemed to ha= ve been in good faith (e.g., conducting due diligence as to the truthfulnes= s of a statement).
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:07) I HAVE NO AUDIO
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:07) Kavouss, we are trying to= reach you. Thanks for your patience
nigel hickson: (06:07) good afternoon
Rosemary Fei: (06:08) Bernie, please add final bullet to the note= s.
Brenda Brewer: (06:08) Kavouss, the operator continues to dial yo= ur phone...there seem to be phone difficulties.
Samantha Eisner: (06:08) The guidelines would be more tailored to= board removal
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:10) NOW IS OK
Greg Shatan: (06:17) "Indemnification" is a general term. I= ndemnification should be expressed as an obligation to "defend, indemnify a= nd hold harmless." But this can be left to implementaiton.
Rosemary Fei: (06:17) Agreed, Greg
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:17) tHOMAS, wE NEED TO JUST TAKE THE INITIAL= bOARD'S LANGUAGE
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:18) sORRY TO TYPE IN CAPITAL
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:18) Thomas. Very wise conclusion you made
Alan Greenberg: (06:19) To be clear, I was not requesting that th= e words be changed, but I wanted to make clear that if the end-point was no= t sufficient, the power would have no value.
Alan Greenberg: (06:20) Appoointing a "spokesperson" will be suff= icient for the "statement", but not the process of convincing others to sup= port the action.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:21) I do think there are= some self-imposed limitations here beyond what is formal. Any Board member= that tried to take legal action where that was clearly not supported by a = reasonable interpretation would be assuring their removal.
Tatiana Tropina: (06:23) I agee with Alan's arguments about using= a general language about the group for WS2 - mean, the latest email = exchange
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:23) and if they tried to= take action that was widely seen as reasonable, then they would never have= been removed anyway
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:23) so while a waiver wo= uld clearly have been better, we are where we are and we should be able to = live with it
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:24) to liaise with the CCWP-H= R will be important...
Tatiana Tropina: (06:24) It is important, but there is no need fo= r a separate group for HR in WS2
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:24) Agree, Leon, it should be in CCW= G's charge.
Tatiana Tropina: (06:24) it shall be a part of a broader group
Tatiana Tropina: (06:25) Yes, +1 to Leon
Aarti Bhavana: (06:25) Agreed, +1
Avri Doria: (06:25) +!
Avri Doria: (06:25) +1 i mean
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:27) Agree with all those mentioned in the ch= at
Tatiana Tropina: (06:27) avri, +1! looks even nicer
Avri Doria: (06:28) Tatian, not that excited by the compromise.&n= bsp; +1 is about as far as I can go.
Tatiana Tropina: (06:28) @Avri, am excited by the possibility to = reach closure
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:29) Greed with Leon
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:30) Support this CCWG takin= g forward implementation. The new GAC working Group on HR and International= Law chaired by Peru, Switzerland and UK will monitor progress and contribu= te to the work as appropriate. Thanks Leon for all work on this Rec.<= /p>
matthew shears: (06:30) + 1 to CCWG taking the work forward
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:30) Thank leon to NOT OPENING THIS VERY DELI= CATE AND SENSITIVE
Tatiana Tropina: (06:31) Brett, it is covere in the second senten= ce
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:31) Thank leon to NOT OPENING THIS VERY DELI= CATE AND SENSITIVE AGAIN
Tatiana Tropina: (06:31) covered
Tatiana Tropina: (06:31) "seeking for the enforcement" clause
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:32) happy to delete the = yellow highlighted text
Brett Schaefer: (06:33) @Holly and Rosemary, I would just like to= highlight the previous exchange with Leon that there is explicit intent fo= r ICANN not to enforce or protect human rigths in the final bylaw text.
Rosemary Fei: (06:33) Understood, Brett
Brett Schaefer: (06:34) Thank you.
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:34) Let me sincrely congradulate LEON for hi= s hard works during many months
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:35) Well done LEON
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:35) well done!
Niels ten Oever: (06:35) Great work everyone on getting conensus = on HR
matthew shears: (06:35) excellent!
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:35) Thank you very much Kavouss= ! I am only the messenger with the message coming out from the work of many= people including you!
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:38) Bien Leon! Buen trabajo!
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:38) Kavouss +1
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:38) Le=C3=B3n is a star!
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:38) +1 - well done Leon.
Rahul Gosain GAC-India: (06:38) Kavoouss+2
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:39) this sets the bar at a ve= ry high level for the co-chairs :P
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:39) Thank you very much everyon= e! It is an honor and a privilege to work with you all :-)
David McAuley (RySG): (06:39) +! Thomas
Rahul Gosain GAC-India: (06:39) Very Well done Leon
Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:39) 2016 is mexico year = for IG :-)
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:40) +1 Megan!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:40) Unless meetings get = moved because of Zika...
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:40) May I confirm my understanding that = we can agree with the 26th Jan text I suggested on the number resources par= t of the Mission?
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:40) tHANK YOU aLAN NOT TO PUSHING ON THAT PO= INT SINCE THAT COULD BE TROUBLESOME TO REOPEN THE CASE
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:40) Indeed Megan! :-)
Rahul Gosain GAC-India: (06:41) I echo Jordan's concerns
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:41) May I confirm my question?
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:41) with the Co Chairs?
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:41) Matjhieu+ 1
David McAuley (RySG): (06:41) Agree, thanks Becky
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:42) Yes, kudos to Becky!
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:42) and Mathieu!!!
matthew shears: (06:42) yes, well done
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:42) Great work Becky!
Phil Buckingham: (06:42) absolutely thank you Becky
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:42) Indeed Becky is a super sta= r!
Becky Burr: (06:44) its judgment free administration of the DNS= p>
Becky Burr: (06:44) ok by me
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:44) We have agreed andf I wish not to open= p>
Avri Doria: (06:44) this effort has been full of stars, some supe= r staes and regualr stars and some divas
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:44) primadonnas among th= e divas
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:44) We have agreed to the text by consensus = . No change
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:44) only now and again t= ho ;)
Paul Rosenzweig: (06:44) I would keep the language that the NTIA = uses ... which includeds "technical"
Alan Greenberg: (06:45) My point was that once pointed out, the c= hange to "its" improves the clarity.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:45) agree
Becky Burr: (06:45) also fine by me
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:45) great thanks Mathieu
Greg Shatan: (06:46) I think the NTIA language originally referre= d to "technical DNS functions." We removed the word "functions" along= the way, which left the word technical modifying DNS rather than functions= .
Malcolm Hutty: (06:46) What about rest of items on Rec5?
Alan Greenberg: (06:47) The NTIA also included the term IANA whic= h framed the issue.
Greg Shatan: (06:47) Malcolm, we are on the Accountability bullet= train.
Malcolm Hutty: (06:47) Chairs never called the remaining items li= sted on Rec 5 - when are we going to table them?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:48) Malcolm I called for any = objection on all items ? Which items did you want to reopen ?
Greg Shatan: (06:48) Alan, true -- by picking some words and not = others, we have not necessarily captured the NTIA's meaning....
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:48) Dear co-chairs: please in= clude the clarifications -which are useful- into the recommendations' texts=
Malcolm Hutty: (06:48) You only called for objections on the item= under discussion
Becky Burr: (06:48) Greg, the current language is exactly t= he NTIA formulation
Malcolm Hutty: (06:48) I wanted to ask about the grandfathering c= lause
Becky Burr: (06:49) we got an objection to the earlier formulatio= n which may have referenced functions
Paul Rosenzweig: (06:49) FWIW, I agree w/ Malcolm -- you went too= quickly Mathieu -- I also wanted to at leastask a question about FG ....= p>
Malcolm Hutty: (06:49) whether this notion of "note to lawyers" e= mpowered them to create a grandfathering clause if they feel necesary
Becky Burr: (06:49) FG?
Paul Rosenzweig: (06:50) GF =3D=3D grand father .. type ... same = question as Malcolm just wrote so I will defer to him
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:51) Thanks Malcolm and Paul, = let's ensure clarity on this after Rec11
Malcolm Hutty: (06:52) Thank you
Alan Greenberg: (06:53) Becky, on DNS, te NTIA words were "The ne= utral and judgment free administration of the technical DNS and IANA functi= ons".. So IANA and functions were omitted. If may be reasonable for the IAN= A link to not be in our bylaws, but I read the phrase to be the technical&n= bsp; DNS functions and the IANA functions. So there have been changes. I ca= n live with them, but that doesn't change what we wrote
Becky Burr: (06:54) Malcolm - the discussion on grandfathering in= the text includes your fix to the order of the words
Becky Burr: (06:54) if that is the question
Malcolm Hutty: (06:54) It's not
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:54) ;-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:54) let's come back to t= hat after this
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (06:55) I do not object to t= he compromise language
Becky Burr: (06:55) it may be that NTIA formulated this different= ly in different settings Alan. I was seeking to capture that, and I h= ave no particular fixed position
Malcolm Hutty: (06:55) My question is what the effect of the "not= e to lawyers" is, in terms of empowering them. Are they empowered to create= a grandfather clause, by this language? If so, fine. If they are required = to maintain PICs by changing the Mission, not fine.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:55) Rec 11 and the proposed pro= cess for carve-out in Rec 1/2
Greg Shatan: (06:55) @Alan, thanks -- that was the language I was= thinking of as well.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:56) The display now shows Rec 1= 1 changes AND the process for carve-out
Becky Burr: (06:56) I am fine to see the grandfathering language = go, to be clear
Brett Schaefer: (06:57) Diagree with Tijani, the thresholds wee l= owered to avoid requiring unanimous support from the SOACs to exercise comm= unity powers. Exercising it would require 3 of 4 in support. 2 objecting wo= uld block. It is consistent with thresholds in other powers.
Chris Disspain: (06:57) the Board still has serious concerns abou= t any reference to grandfathering in the bylaws
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:57) Agree with Brett.
Becky Burr: (06:57) correct Brett
Keith Drazek: (06:58) As a reminder of NTIA's position on Rec-11,= here's recent language from NTIA's 5th quarterly report to Congress: "In l= ate November, NTIA circulated a brief publicstatement to the CCWG-Accountab= ility group reiterating its position that the CCWG=E2=80=99s proposal foram= endments to ICANN=E2=80=99s Bylaws must preserve the current practice of th= e ICANN Board providing special consideration of the advice of the Governme= ntal Advisory Committee (=E2=80=9CGAC=E2=80=9D) only when such advice that = is based on consensus with no GAC member raising a formal objection."
Paul Rosenzweig: (06:58) Can we get Rec 11 back on the display pl= ease?
Becky Burr: (06:59) agree Kavouss, no one is thrilled
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:59) +1 Paul
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:59) Kavouss +1
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:59) we are working on it, Paul=
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:00) Did I just get a +1 from Joreg? :-= )
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:00) Jorge ...
Andrew Sullivan: (07:01) I believe that the interpretation of the= text currently being offered is simply wrong. I believe the proposal= isas balanced as it can be
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:01) The carve-out does not excl= ude GAC from the decision making process. The GAC can discuss and advice th= e empowered community, but cannot object in order to block the challenge of= a board decision
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:02) yep, Paul: to your sugges= tion to get the text back on screen :P
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:02) @ Jorge :-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:02) consensus starts w s= mall steps ;)
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:03) On screen is the 'package' = text, Jorge.
Philip Corwin: (07:03) In regard to the proposed modifcation of t= he Table in Rec 2/Annex 2, what happens to the thresholds in the likely sce= nario that the GAC is unable to reach consensus for or against the question= before a Decisional AC? Would that abstention in any way hobble the progre= ss and utility of the accountability escalation process?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:03) WRT the notes: while many c= ountries may also have countries, I think in this case Pedro was talking ab= out concerns ;)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:03) I feel that, as Mark has = suggested, whenever the carve-out is applicable, there should be a formaliz= ed procedure for the advice coming from the GAC to the rest of the communit= y
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:03) Jore
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:04) Thanks, Sabine ;-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:04) That text is there
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (07:04) Thanks Olga!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:05) The CCWG now provide almost equal footin= g for GAC
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:05) Pages 2-3 in the Adobe Wind= ow describe a process for the carve-out
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:05) This was worked-out on the = dedicated Rec 11 calls we had
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:05) Not at all, Pedro. I trust = that this will still be corrected.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:06) GAC may participate, and ma= y contribute. It just cannot block the exercise of a comm= unity power challenging the board's implementation of GAC Advice
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:07) Olga: That is because GAC don't = want to participate in NONCOM ect.
Keith Drazek: (07:07) The GAC's position within ICANN is enhanced= as a result of the CCWG's work. It becomes decisional in the empowered com= munity AND gets a higher threshold for Board rejection of consensus a= dvice. Any suggestion that the GAC is being disadvantaged by our work= I believe is incorrect.
matthew shears: (07:08) agree Keith
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:08) the GAC joins the re= st of the community as one of five equal votes on exercising significant ne= w accountability powers, Keith, so I agree with you.
Avri Doria: (07:08) Brett +1 on both points
Keith Drazek: (07:09) Agree with Brett
Jonathan Zuck: (07:09) agree Keith
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:09) cURRENT STATUS OF gac HAS BEEN DRASTICAL= LY IMPROVED BY ccwg ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:10) @Brett -- if a petitioning = AC/SO did not agree with the board's attribution of its decision, that AC/S= O could still file a petition challenging board action based on GAC advice.= It's then up to the EC to support that petition
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:10) @Keith: you did not mention = that the GAC is now required to give advice only based on full consensus wi= thout formal objections...for many GAC members, this is a step back.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:11) @Pedro -- but that is exacl= ty how the GAC has aways developed formal advice.
Brett Schaefer: (07:11) @Steve, yes, but that would also be the c= ase without the mainly or solely language.
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:11) +1 with Brett -- especially w/r/t the "m= ainly or solely" lanugage which almost purposefully invitees disagreement a= nd litigation. The process should be that the GAC designates its advi= ce as "full consuensus" advice triggering the 60% and mandatory neogotiatio= n rules and the Board, as required responds to that advice by adopting = ; (orr rejecting) it. Of thereafter, if the EC is din disagreem= ent witht he Boards decision (whehter to accept or reject) and if an EC mem= ber petitions identifygin the gGAC advice as the challenge will the careve = out apply. Let' waovid undefined and undefinable terms if we can ...<= /p>
Keith Drazek: (07:11) @Pedro: It's not a step back, it's only con= firming current practice, as required by NTIA.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:12) gac CURRENTLY MAKES IT ADVICE BASED ON u= n principle of Consesus
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:13) let us be together and not divided
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:13) @Steve: But the GAC has curr= ently the ability to change that in case there is misuse of objection by on= e or a few countries...with rec 11 that ability is gone
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:13) @ Robin -- you are right ... the only in= diccation of GAC views are its statement that it lacks consensus on Rec 11.= I should add that there were 5 commentators as individual nations th= at opposed the ST18 test -- and that's about it ...
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:13) ..... for the exerci= se of the narrow (albeit significant) accountability powers this group has = specified.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:13) @Robin, review the transcri= pts of the DUblin communiqueand you will see how many countries oppose ST 1= 8
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:13) @ Pedro -- it still can ... and if it do= es then its advice will be considered in the non-mandatory/non 60% system a= nd the carveout would not apply when/if the Board acted
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:13) The UK Govt supports po= sitive consideration of this compromise proposal which we do not consider i= s intended to exclude the GAC from the community framework. The UK supports= consensus-based advice. There is no GAC consensus support for the GAC to t= ake a deciosnal role so solely dvisory role is the likely way forward. Tran= sparency of advice it provides will be paramount and the process for provis= ion of advice must be predictable and properly recorded and open.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:13) dublin meeting I meant sorr= y
matthew shears: (07:14) thanks Mark
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:14) ASO would not object to the compromi= sed proposal
James Bladel: (07:14) Thanks, Mark. It is good to hear all = perspectives from GAC participants.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:15) If CAG CHANGED ITS CONSENSUS TO SIMPLE M= AJORITY THEN IF icann is obliged to negotiate with GAC advice based on Simp= le majority ,that will=C3=A9 casue serious difficulties as the Board is obl= iged to negotiate with half of the CAG on the expense of another half
Keith Drazek: (07:15) I'm confident the RySG will support the cur= rent proposal.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:15) Do you personally support = it, Keith?
Keith Drazek: (07:16) I do.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:16) Thanks, Keith
James Bladel: (07:16) Registrars initially opposed Rec 11, as wri= tten in the 3rd Draft Support. With the changes in Rec #11 and Rec #1= , Registrars have dropped their opposition and will support the proposed co= mpromise.
Victor Charlie: (07:16) Would GNSO agree to a similar carve out?<= /p>
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:17) the GNSO has no powe= r to give advice as per GAC, so there'd be nothing to carve out?
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:17) @ Victor -- of course not, since as we h= ave discussed at many many instances the two are not equivalent
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:17) DK is ready to support the compr= omise
James Bladel: (07:17) @Victor: Those parts of the GNSO that= opposed Rec #11 are now supporting (tentatively). Those who supporte= d previously appear to continue to support. This, on the surface, appears t= o lead to unified GNSO support for the compromise.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:17) Tijani: I think we f= ixed that
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:17) @Paul: what makes the GNSO n= ot "eligible" for a carve-out?
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (07:18) Consistent with our previously advis= ed position, the SSAC will not express a view on this issue. Accordin= gly, this issue would not prevent SSAC supporting any ultimate proposal.
Avri Doria: (07:18) I do not beleive that the NCSG has deteremind= what the SG concensus on Rec 11 is yet. Our council memebrs are not = bound in their votes. NCSG should, in my view, be seen as mixed, thou= gh of course have only one member.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:18) it hasn't got the po= wer to do what GAC does, Pedro, as you know
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:18) @ Pedro -- Becky has written literlally = 3500 words in the list explaining the difference I get it that you do= n't like the answer, but you have yet to actually suggest a reason why her = analysis is wrong.
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:18) +1 Jordan ...
Alan Greenberg: (07:19) @Jordan, we fixed it (removal of board by= 3 in favour) in the general case, but re-added it in the case of entire bo= ard removal triggered by GAC advice.
matthew shears: (07:19) + 1 James
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:19) if the gNSO could of= fer advice on GAC matters that, if offered by consensus, the Board was boun= d to implement or otherwise try to negotiate an agreement... well, there'd = be a basis for a compromise.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:19) SORRyt - for a Carve= Out, not a Compromise.
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (07:20) I would like to state for the = record that I, as one of the GAC Members of the CCWG will "step away" as th= ere are differeing views in the GAC, incl. At the same time I would to unde= rline the importance of finding a compromise in order to allow for a timely= transition to take place. At the same time I would like to ask whether it = would be appropriate to send the proposal for another comment period as it = is materially different from the proposal in the 3rd Draft?.
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:20) @ Thomas -- you should note several gove= rnments on the call UK and DK that I saw are in favor ....
Brett Schaefer: (07:20) @Alan, in the circumstances of a GAC carv= e out, retainign the 4 supporting threshold would require community unanimi= ty to exercise. That is something we have sought to oppose.
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:20) @Paul: I acknowledge Becky's= reasoning but I still don't see why the GNSO or any other constituency wou= ld not be subject to the carve-out...
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:20) Paul, I did!
Brett Schaefer: (07:21) Edit, sorry, oppose should be avoid
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:21) Pedro: because the d= on't do what GAC does
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:21) they have no power t= o.
Alan Greenberg: (07:21) @Brett, I was not questioning whether it = was reasonable or not. Just addressing Jordan's message that
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:21) so there's nothing t= o "carve out".
Alan Greenberg: (07:21) @Brett, I was not questioning whether it = was reasonable or not. Just addressing Jordan's message that "we had fixed = that"
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:21) Alan: thanks for tha= t clarification.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (07:21) Indeed a big round of appla= use to all who have tirelessly worked on shaping this reccomendations!
Brett Schaefer: (07:21) @Alan, ah, got it.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:22) Mathieu, what is the process for= getting the minority views in the record?
Victor Charlie: (07:24) The rationale for the Rec. 11 compromise = is not related to the status of the GAC Advice and there lies the problem.<= /p>
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:25) In french, it is said" LE TEMPS VOUS DIR= A LA VERITE"
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:25) Very well said Mathieu ....
Keith Drazek: (07:25) +1
Andrew Sullivan: (07:25) I think the chairs deserve a hearty than= ks as well for patient and cool chairing
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:25) Nice words Mathieu, = agree.
Avri Doria: (07:25) they are a dynamite tag team.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:25) +1 Andrew
Andrew Sullivan: (07:25) Keeping everyone on track was plainly ha= rd, and they did a good job
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:26) Very well spoken Mathieu!
David McAuley (RySG): (07:26) +! Andrew
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:26) +1 Kavouss
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:26) I believe the Co Chairs have done an= amazing job, to lead us this far.
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (07:26) Yes, well said Mathieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:27) iIt should be as a note to the report as= well as to Laywer
Becky Burr: (07:27) no!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:27) everyone involved ha= s been, well, remarkable, as Fadi might once have said
Becky Burr: (07:27) they cannot change the mission.
nigel hickson: (07:28) @Jordan - I am sure Fadi can still say tha= t!
Rosemary Fei: (07:29) Understood -- the lawyers will not change I= CANN's mission
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:29) Thanks Rosemary
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:30) We have decided on Rec. 5
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:31) this has been a very= good call
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:31) I am so optimistic w= e are basically, nearly, closed
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:31) jORDAN+ 1
Alan Greenberg: (07:31) Grandfathering was a technique to ensure = contracts could stay in force (and unsigned contracts could be signed). I p= resume that suitable wording will be found and it is best that we not try t= o do the wordsmithing here.
Keith Drazek: (07:31) Agree Alan
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:31) yES IT WAS BUT.....
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) kEITH + 1
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) mATHIEU + 1
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:33) Turning over to your= self sounds complicated, Mathieu.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:33) "Rec 5 closed" - time for a huge vote of t= hanks/congratulations to Becky as rapporteur for this crucial and difficult= item
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:33) Grand work Becky et = al
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:34) Sorry, I have a hard stop no= w...thanks everyone for the discussions...bye!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:34) ciao Pedro and thank= s! :)
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:34) Enjoy canrival!
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:34) Obrigado! Will do!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:34) nOW WE JUST SAY " SUPER sTAR " beckie
Malcolm Hutty: (07:35) :-)
Becky Burr: (07:35) group work
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:36) I, too, must leave now. Congratula= tions on succeeding in a challenging endeavor. On to Marrakesh ....= p>
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:36) YES gROUP wORK UNDER bECKIE LEADERSHIP= p>
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:36) bye Paul!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:36) bye!
Becky Burr: (07:37) many thanks to all, including especially hard= working co-chairs, for getting us here!
Keith Drazek: (07:37) Can the Co-Chairs summarize next steps for = the group?
Keith Drazek: (07:37) Expectations for finalization and delivery = to the chartering orgs, etc.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:37) Yes Keith : Finalize repo= rt ASAP, review from group, confirm, send to SO/ACs
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:38) I think Leon might have s= ome tentative dates
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:38) sounds easy M.
Keith Drazek: (07:38) Thanks Mathieu. Expected timing? Apologies = if I missed it.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:38) You have not missed it
matthew shears: (07:38) expected hand over to NTIA?
Keith Drazek: (07:38) I'm asking in part so Kavouss and I can upd= ate the ICG.
Avri Doria: (07:38) confirmation please: have we decided th= at it IS part of WS2?
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:39) Leon confirmed staff accountabil= ity is back in WS2.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:39) @Matthew : we are still i= n a timeframe where Chartering Orgs approve in Marrakech at the latest
Avri Doria: (07:39) thanks Robin
Tatiana Tropina: (07:40) @Robin, thanks. also for bringing it to = the list
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:40) yes keith I will do my best to do so
matthew shears: (07:40) agree - thanks |Robin
Brett Schaefer: (07:40) Yes, good catch Robin
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:40) Supplement timeline (tent= ative) : finalize report by EOB Friday. Review over week end. Freeze on Mon= day.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:41) Chartering Org approval M= arrakech at latest
Keith Drazek: (07:41) Thanks Mathieu, sounds good to me.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:41) Action item for chairs to= cireculate a timeline that includes also Minority view submission deadline= etc.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:42) Keith+ 1
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Mathieu + 1$
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Matheiu + all
David McAuley (RySG): (07:44) +1 Mathieu, staff have been excepti= onal
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:44) +1
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:44) +100 for the staff s= upport, above and beyond for sure
Keith Drazek: (07:44) Major props to the ICANN staff supporting t= he CCWG. Very impressed, but not surprised.
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:44) Well said, Mathieu
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (07:45) Thanks staff for all the effort= , +1 Mathieu
matthew shears: (07:45) agree - fantastic support
Rory Conaty [GAC - Ireland]: (07:45) +1 Mathieu
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:45) Indeed Mathieu, staff support has be= en excellent and constantly keepin up with the level of work load!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:45) good work everyone!!= !
James Bladel: (07:45) Thanks, all. Great progress.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:45) Great work! Thank you very much.= p>
David McAuley (RySG): (07:45) Thank you chairs, rapporteurs, staf= f and all
Keith Drazek: (07:45) Congratulations, one and all.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:45) Thank you, it was very good progress=
Brett Schaefer: (07:45) What am I going to do to replace the 1am = to 4am calls when this process is done?
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:45) Huge Thx all!
Rory Conaty [GAC - Ireland]: (07:45) Thanks all.
Tatiana Tropina: (07:45) Thanks all!
Greg Shatan: (07:45) Congratulations and thanks all!
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (07:46) Thanks everyone bye
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:46) thanks
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:46) thanks and bye
Andrew Sullivan: (07:46) bye
matthew shears: (07:46) thanks
Brett Schaefer: (07:46) bye all
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:46) Thx to the co-Chairs
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur): (07:46) bye
Markus Kummer: (07:46) Bye all -- comgrats and well done!
Avri Doria: (07:46) bye
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:46) Thanks, all, bye!
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (07:46) Thanks all:-)
Harold Arcos: (07:46) Thanks all, bye
Asha Hemrajani: (07:46) Thanks and bye
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:46) Thank you everyone!
nigel hickson: (07:46) thnaks; great Call
Theresa Swinehart: (07:46) Thank you all
Niels ten Oever: (07:46) thanks all
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:46) Good afternoon from London!
Rahul Gosain GAC-India: (07:47) Thanks all and Bye for Now