Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <818312147.1775.1711670930201@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_1774_820631061.1711670930199" ------=_Part_1774_820631061.1711670930199 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Members: Alan G= reenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jordan Carter, = Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathie= u Weill, P=C3=A4r Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner= , S=C3=A9bastien Bachollet, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert (18)=
Participants: Aarti Bhavana, Avri Doria, Brett Sc= haefer, Cherine Chalaby, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzahen= Badii, Finn Petersen, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman,&n= bsp;Jorge Cancio. Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Khaled Koubaa, Malcolm Hut= ty, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Milton Muell= er, Niels ten Oever, Padmini Baruah, Pedro Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip C= orwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedej= i, Simon Jansson, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thomas Schneider (35)= p>
Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, = Michael Clark, Rebecca Grapsas, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit, Steven Chiod= ini (7)
Observers and Guests: Amy Stathos, <= /strong>Asha Hemrajani, Dierdre Sidjanski, Elizabeth Andrews, John Jeffrey,= Julie Hedlund, Mary Wong, Taylor Bentley
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer= , Grace Abuhamd, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart, Trang N= guyen, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green
Apologies: Andrew Sullivan, Alberto Soto, Giovann= i Seppia, Steve DelBianco
**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/p5uyu1j9t1y/
The audio recording is available here: http://a= udio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-acct-07apr16-en.mp3
1. Opening Remarks
2. Second reading of question respo= nses agreed on previous call
3. Resolution of remaining question= s
4. Next Steps
5. ICANN 56 - Helsinki
6. AOB
Notes
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
2. Second reading of question responses agreed on previous call = TR (Approved =3D will be sent to lawyers as the CCWG response to the questi= on, Agreed =3D the CCWG still needs to confirm).
3. Resolution of Additional questions (first readings)<= /p>
4. Next Steps
5. ICANN 56 - Helsinki
6. AOB
7 Adjourned
Brenda Brewer: (4/7/2016 06:30) Welcome all to CCWG Accounta= bility Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting on 7 April @ 12:00 UTC! Please = note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected St= andards of Behavior: http= ://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:53) hELLO ALL
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:53) Oops dis not mean to scre= am - hello all
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:54) Hello everyone
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:55) Reminder to all to mute i= f you are not speaking - thank you
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:56) Oups thanks you Bernie
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:57) hello everyone
Aarti Bhavana: (06:57) Hi All
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:58) Hello World:-)
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (06:58) Good morning, all.
Cherine Chalaby: (06:58) Hi Everyone
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:58) Good morning from San Francisc= o!
Erika Mann: (06:59) Hi, I joined now as well but still can't hear= you
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:59) Good afternoon from London!
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:00) Hello all!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:00) Working Method as an agenda item pls
Alan Greenberg: (07:00) I will have to leave the meeting early.= p>
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:01) Mathieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:01) My addition to agenda item pls
Erika Mann: (07:01) I'm online
David McAuley (RySG): (07:01) Good morning from Washington
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:01) greetings to all from Montreal= !
Malcolm Hutty: (07:01) Good afternoon all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:01) hi all
Farzaneh Badii: (07:02) hi
Seun Ojedeji: (07:03) hello
Khaled Koubaa: (07:04) Hi everyone
Brenda Brewer: (07:06) Seun Ojedeji is on audio only.
Becky Burr: (07:09) it isn't finished yet Kavouss
Asha Hemrajani: (07:10) Good evening
Edward Morris: (07:11) Good morning Asha
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:12) When do you intend to examine the draft = pargraph by paragraph pls?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:14) Not before we have certif= ication by lawyers Kavouss.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:14) When do you intend to examine the draft = pargraph by paragraph pls
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:16) Does anyone else have a soun= d problem (or is it this computer)?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:16) no sound problem, so...
David McAuley (RySG): (07:16) sound seems fine here
Brenda Brewer: (07:16) Sound is good from my side.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:16) now on Adobe
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:16) Thx, changing computer..
Phil Buckingham: (07:17) Good morning , apologises that I 'm a li= ttle late.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:18) Pls stop at the eand of each question pl= s
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:19) Yes every one has scroll = control
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:19) I haved a comment before going to 5 pls<= /p>
Brett Schaefer: (07:20) I am still puzzled in number 6 why the EC= would agree to turn its consent into a rubber stamp? The EC is the designa= tor and should have to affirmatively consent to removal of Directors. I hav= e been trying to think of circumstances wherein a Director's presence could= be so disruptive that it would require immeidate removal action by t= he Board that are not covered by the bylaws (e.g. feolony convi= cttion) or would not be supported by the EC.
Brett Schaefer: (07:21) I diagree with the answer on 6.
Milton Mueller: (07:21) How does the EC approve ?
Matthew Shears: (07:21) yes, how is consent determined for 6 and = what is its value?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:22) It's automatic. Same= as when the EC validates e.g. the ccNSO appointing one of its directors.= p>
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:22) so the method is alr= eady there elsewhere.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:23) as to why it should = apply to this - nowhere in our report did we propose subjecting Board remov= al of directors as can be done today to a community decision process
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:23) we would be changing= our report's conclusions if we added a new community power of that sort
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:23) that's my 7.6 cents = :-)
Philip S Corwin: (07:24) If consent is automatic it seems rather = meaningless
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:24) it's meant to be mea= ningless.
Becky Burr: (07:24) isn't this really a technical issue? we= never said anything about changing the Board's power, but in order to leav= e that power intact under designator model, we need something like this
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:25) Becky: exactly.
Milton Mueller: (07:25) Well is this just meaningless text, or do= es the EC actually have to approve? If so, how does it vote?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:25) Could we have the exact t= ext of the report on screen or in the chat?
Becky Burr: (07:25) you have scroll control Jorge
Becky Burr: (07:26) question 6
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:26) Milton: in a model w= ith a designator, they have to authorise changes to the board. BUT we've no= t argued for any change to the Board's power. So it just has to be pro form= a.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:26) Jorge, the report does no= t mention it - does not change current situation
Milton Mueller: (07:26) this is my question: what does pro forma = mean?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:26) it means the same as= how it "approves" the director appointments of e.g. the ccNSO.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:27) i HAVE A COMMENT ON 6
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:27) thanks Mathieu: if that i= s the case, we should not add issues not covered by the ccwg report, right?=
Milton Mueller: (07:27) how many ways can you come up with to not= answer my question? ;-)
Avri Doria: (07:27) isn't this the same notion of pro forma as we= have when the EC passes on the selection of new Board members by the SOs &= amp; AC
Milton Mueller: (07:27) Does it vote or not?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:27) Milton, I don't have= the text of the bylaws in front. But no, no vote.
Milton Mueller: (07:27) can it vote No?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:27) no, it can't.
Milton Mueller: (07:27) then it does not really approve
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:27) indeed.
Avri Doria: (07:27) I think it is necessary becasue this is not a= pwoer we gave the EC in our proposal.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:28) but since it is the = legal entity that HAS to approve such changes, there must be a work around.=
Milton Mueller: (07:28) so this is all a meaningless feint
Milton Mueller: (07:28) it is not even a rubber stamp
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:28) otherwise, the remov= al would not be lawful.
Brett Schaefer: (07:28) But we have change the legal status of IC= ANN by creating a designator.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:28) yes, it is a less-th= an-rubber-stamp-to-meet-legal-requirements.
Milton Mueller: (07:28) Why not just have the EC Vote?
Edward Morris: (07:28) +1 Milton
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:28) Because we have no m= andate to do that from the proposal that was approved on 10 March.
Milton Mueller: (07:28) It doesn't meet legal requirements if it = is not a vote and not an approval
Philip S Corwin: (07:29) So even if the EC believes that the remo= val of the Board member is unfair and unhustified, it is powerless to block= it?
Milton Mueller: (07:29) We have to fill in gaps that were left
Milton Mueller: (07:29) if the original proposal mispelled a word= do we have to leave it that way?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:29) that's not a gap. It= 's a substantive change that Brett is proposing.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:29) @Milton I recall the explan= ation from the lawyers on Tuesday's call differently
Brett Schaefer: (07:29) COrrect, Phil, short of spiloing the enti= re Board or reappoining the dismissed Director.
Avri Doria: (07:29) +1 Jordan
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:30) +1 Jordan
Milton Mueller: (07:30) If the proposal failed to specify how to = do something that needs to be done, the gap needs to be filled in
Avri Doria: (07:30) the pass through, as with elections, is what = is filling the gap.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:31) +1 Avri
Philip S Corwin: (07:31) I am unconfortable with the concept that= a "legal requirement" can -- indeed, must -- be totally meaningless
Milton Mueller: (07:31) What is difficult Thomas? You just have t= hem vote
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:31) Agree, Phhil.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:31) aLAN+1
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) consent opf designator is required
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:32) On page 41 of the ma= rked up bylaws, it's this sub-clause of 7.2, on page 42: The EC shall desig= nate each person nominated as a Director by the Nominating Committee, the A= SO, the ccNSO, the GNSO and the At-Large Community in accordance with this = Section 7.2.
Brett Schaefer: (07:32) Edit -- spilling, not spiloing, and reapp= ointing, not reappoining.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) consent of designator is required<= /p>
Milton Mueller: (07:32) Kavouss, if you believe consent of the de= signator is required, you don't agree wqith Alan
Avri Doria: (07:32) to do anything else would be a substantive ch= ange of our proposal
Milton Mueller: (07:33) Filling a gap is not a substantive change= .
Edward Morris: (07:33) Phil has hit on an important legal require= ment.
Milton Mueller: (07:33) It's not like we are opening up a new iss= ue
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:33) NOT ec BUT THE DESIGNATING SO/AC is requ= ired
Philip S Corwin: (07:34) It seems to me that creating the EC crea= ted certain implicit requirements
Milton Mueller: (07:34) it's not a new community power, it'= s a legal requirement of the designator model
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:34) right Jordan
Brett Schaefer: (07:34) This is a legal requirement, we are discu= ssing how to apply it.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:34) you are indeed tryin= g to open up a new issue, if you're saying the EC should be able to void a = Board's removal of a director along the lines it can do today.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:34) I disagree with those that wish to waive= the power from the designating authority on the ground that that has not b= een discussed.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:35) The EC because of wh= at it is has to validate that Board decision
Milton Mueller: (07:35) the CCWG report did not take a position o= n that, Jordan
Philip S Corwin: (07:35) Agree with Milton
Brett Schaefer: (07:35) In my mind a rubber stamp is not appropri= ate to fulfill a legal requirement.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:35) the dispute is about= whether it has any restriction or not
Milton Mueller: (07:35) which created a legal problem that needs = to be resolved
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:35) any discretion, that= is.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:35) this is a legal requirement we= need to fill, irrespective of what our report said.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:35) It is essential that the consent of the = designating SO/AC IS EREQUIRED
Milton Mueller: (07:35) Yes, Jordan, you can't solve this problem= by defining board removal as automatically approve by the designator, that= raises all kinds of potentially dangerous issues
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:35) p 4
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:36) Milton: the report d= id not take a stance, precisely. It was silent on the question. That means = we can't invent something that pretends there was anything other than silen= ce.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:36) Milton: how does it = do so? How is it any change from today?
Milton Mueller: (07:36) If the silence was an oversight, we can= p>
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:36) but it wasn't an ove= rsight. It's perfectly reasonable not to change that situation.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:36) pARAGRAPH 98 APPLIOES
Milton Mueller: (07:36) You do not deny that the "silence" create= d a legal inconsistency?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:36) there isn't a legal = inconsistency.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:37) apparently CCWG doesn't need t= o follow the law now. only reports.
Avri Doria: (07:37) Question if this is a pwoer that needs to be = fulfilled it it the case that the EC also neeeds to go through a voting app= roval of an election of a Board memeber by the SOs or ALAC?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:37) finding a remedy to a legal= inconsistency also includes the automatic consent option. which seems to b= e the only one which does not deviate from the provisions of the report. co= rrect?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:37) The bylaws can legal= ly either a) grant the EC discretion, or b) apply the same automatic pass-t= hrough applied to appointments in the first place.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:37) +1 Sabine
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:37) the lawyers proposed= a); the proposed response to question6 proposes b).
Avri Doria: (07:38) and could the EC refuse to allow for a Board = meber elected by an SO or ALAC?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:38) No, Avri - it has no= power to do so.
Milton Mueller: (07:38) The SOs and ACs are the designators Avri<= /p>
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:38) Milton: de facto. De= jure, the EC is.
Milton Mueller: (07:38) there is no legal inconcsistency there
Avri Doria: (07:38) btw: i would also consider that a substantive= change of our proosal which took the statuatory rights of a designator and= constrained them in the byalws.
Milton Mueller: (07:38) the proposal is very clear that the EC do= es what the ACs and SOs tell them to do
Milton Mueller: (07:39) stop reaching for bad analogies
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:39) yes Milton. And that= 's what we are saying it should do with the Board on removal.
Avri Doria: (07:39) I am not reaching, it is a natural analogy
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:39) The new bylaws are v= ery clear in s 7.2: (a) As of the effective date of these Amended and Resta= ted Bylaws, the EC shall be the sole designator of ICANN and shall designat= e, within the meaning of Section 5220 of the CCC, all Directors except for = the President ex officio.
Milton Mueller: (07:40) And how is the EC composed, my friend?
Milton Mueller: (07:40) what is it composed of?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:42) jUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
Brett Schaefer: (07:42) We are discussing 2 and 25 at the end?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:43) aDD THE FOLLOWING
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:43) Milton: the EC consi= sts of ICANN Sos and ACs, some of whom designate, some of whom don't. Not s= ure where that takes you
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) tHE REQUEST FOR THE SECOND COMMUNITY FOR= UM SHOULD PROVIDE REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION AND ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Matthew Shears: (07:44) I thought the community forum came as a r= esult of a petition
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:45) In the approval, there is= no petition.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:45) \o/
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) tHE ANSWER IS no =C2=A8$
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:47) has my email on that point = already made it through?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:47) Yes Sabine
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:48) Brett, that was our thinking i= n drafting.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:48) I agree with Brett.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:48) NO IT SHOULD NOT AT ALL
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:48) Brett, it is directly on targe= t
Pedro Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (07:48) There is nothing in our repor= t about this restriction, Brett. At least I can't recall.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:48) given the bylaw section quo= ted earlier by Jordan I would think all directors are in fact appointed by = the EC. not sure how that meshes with the NomCom idea.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:49) tHERE ARE THREE OTHERS WHO AUTOMATICALLY= AGREE TO ANY EXTENTION OF CARVE OUT
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:49) tHIS IS NOT CORRECT
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:49) This is the essence of the "GA= C carve out" - its intent
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:49) That does not apply
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:49) Sabine: they're all = appointed by the EC on the direction of the various appointing bodies. They= have to be, because the Designator is the sole authority to appoint a dire= ctor.
Samantha Eisner: (07:51) From the ICANN drafting side, we were no= t clear on this point based upon the rationale stated earlier by Thomas/Tij= ani, and were unclear if there were to be situations where the GAC carve-ou= t were expected to apply here
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:51) How would it be determine= d that a GAC advice is the cause?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:51) I'm a bit lost here
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:51) Also while looking at the r= esponse given in the document
Matthew Shears: (07:51) would it be possible to add the proposal = para references for these questions so that we can easily fnd the text in q= uestion
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:52) Which I understood as the c= arve out shouldnt apply because any removal is "without cause" in the techn= ical sense
Becky Burr: (07:52) I thought the GAC was in fact permitted to pa= rticipate in the NomCom?
Pedro Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (07:52) Exactly, Alan
Brett Schaefer: (07:52) Alan, it is obviously unclear how we deci= ded to apply it or the lawyers would no thave raised the question.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:52) there is a distinction between= voting board members and non-voting board members.
Samantha Eisner: (07:53) @Becky, there is a GAC liaison to NomCom= allowed for in the Bylaws
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:54) +1 Alan
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC SPAIN): (07:54) I think Alan is right= p>
Suzanne Radell (US GAC): (07:54) Becky, the GAC is permitted to p= articipate but has not done so since 2008 due to the confidentiality requir= ements of the NomCom (e.g. there is no way for a GAC member to consult with= the GAC membership, or even its own government)
Alan Greenberg: (07:55) @Brett, the question asked is do we deem = the removal a direct result of GAC advice. There question has nothing to do= with the wider removal of a NomCom director.
Brett Schaefer: (07:55) Individual appointing SO/ACs have authori= ty over removing their directors because they appoint them. The NOMCOM voti= ng members should have similar exclusive authority to remove their Director= s.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:55) We should not be rewritin= g the report
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:56) This task was not given to the dra= fter
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:56) The removal has nothing to do with carev= -out
Brett Schaefer: (07:56) Jorge, it is not rewriting. It is applyin= g an exisiting provision consistently.
Philip S Corwin: (07:56) @Brett--in many cases the decision to re= move the NomCom Director may occur when the composition of the NomCom has c= hanged and the appointing individuals are no longer there
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:56) Carve-out is totally IRRELEVANT
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:57) the only guidance is what= is in the report. If there is no basis there we should not include new iss= ues here
Becky Burr: (07:57) I think we are confusing the carve out issue = - the question here is that the GAC isn't involved in appointing members of= the Board so what's the authority to be involved in removal
Brett Schaefer: (07:58) @Becky, correct.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:58) Well, the carve out is brou= ght up in the response to q. 29.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:58) maybe this does need to be = refocused
Becky Burr: (07:58) @Sabine, we may have been confused
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:58) I'm perennially confused so= I can hardly ever tell with others ;)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:59) Agree, Becky.
Alan Greenberg: (07:59) If the ALAC initiates a removal of a dire= ctor because they wear red pants, how does that invoke the GAC Careout, and= without invoking it, the EC powers apply as written, and the GAC participa= tion in the EC should not be altered.
Becky Burr: (07:59) I think we are in radical agreement folks
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:59) Agree, Becky. That is ho= w we read it.
Becky Burr: (08:00) ok, so we are just fighting about the term ca= rve out, which doesn't apply here
Samantha Eisner: (08:00) @Becky, as I understand the report, the = GAC has a role in director removal. The only question that was raised= , as we discussed in the carve-out discussions, is what happens when teh Bo= ard removal is based on acceptance of GAC advice
Greg Shatan: (08:00) I've never been on the NomCom, so I don't kn= ow the role the GAC liaison plays. Is the GAC liaison not involved at= all in appointing members of the Board?
Brett Schaefer: (08:00) This is our opportunity to vet the change= s for consistency, we should do it.
Suzanne Radell (US GAC): (08:01) Greg, there hasn't been a GAC li= aison since 2008.
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:01) I am about to give up on thi= s call...
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:01) I think this may be an examp= le where, in the rush to get the report out, ICANN Legal and CCWG counsel d= idn't necessarily understand each other. We should clarify the questi= on.
Becky Burr: (08:01) yes, agree Rosemary
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:01) Thanks Rosemary.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC SPAIN): (08:02) Thanks Rosemary. This n= eeds clarification without re-writing the report nor making up new ideas
Greg Shatan: (08:02) The response does not take into account that= the removal of Board members by the EC will be reactive to some event, and= that will need to be explained in the decision-making process of the commu= nity/EC.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:06) AHA
Edward Morris: (08:07) I share Brett's confusion.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:07) I'm confused by "their voice s= hall be heard in both processes." Aren't we trying to stop double-dip= ping?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:07) ahA
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:08) no CARVE-OUT DOES NOT APPLY
Matthew Shears: (08:09) could someone provide a text reference fo= r this question
Becky Burr: (08:09) happy to clarify
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:09) lAN + 1$
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:10) Alan+1
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:10) It is not surprising to hear that?
Brett Schaefer: (08:11) pp 193-207 in marke draft -- Articles 4-5= in Appendix D
Matthew Shears: (08:11) + 1 Becky
Greg Shatan: (08:11) I agree with Becky and Brett.
Brett Schaefer: (08:12) Sorry, Article 4 in Appendix D, same page= s
Matthew Shears: (08:12) thanks Brett
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:12) Again: the report is the = only guiding text. If there is no basis there, we cannot introduce new issu= es here
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:12) Also agree with Brett, Becky, = Greg, and Matt.
Becky Burr: (08:12) And Kavouss, there is no extension. If = it applies, as written in the report, the GAC should not be a decisional pa= rticipant - but ONLY where the carve out applies by its terms
Becky Burr: (08:13) correct Thomas
Alan Greenberg: (08:14) If there are multiple decisions that the = EC must make past the initial decision to inititate a IRP (for instance on = whether to accept the results of mediation), then the carveout should apply= to that secondary decision as well.
Becky Burr: (08:14) that's right Alan, and there is a post-mediat= ion decision
Pedro Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:15) We clearly need more clarific= ation on this issue. Which are the steps in which decisions of the EC= are required and therefore the carve-out would apply
Philip S Corwin: (08:18) Does the phrase "contained in the existi= ng form agreements" mean exact same language, or is there any room for slig= ht deviations?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:20) how will those terms that exis= t in today's contracts be challenged for out of mission?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:21) the proposed text does not say that we n= eed to review the proposed text
Greg Shatan: (08:22) Robin, the point of grandfathering is thtat = the terms that exist in today's contracts can't be challenged as being out = of mission.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:22) this is not identicakl to what is writte= n
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:23) We herar entirely different things
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:23) Pls review the proposed text
Matthew Shears: (08:23) then the new form would or should reflect= the mission as it is being narrowed through these bylaw changes?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:23) one would hope so
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:24) Yes Matthew
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:24) the grandfathering will prevail during t= he life time of the agreement .if it is renewed the grangfathering may be r= eniewed for another term
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:24) Regards
Becky Burr: (08:25) Yes Matthew - and the missing element is that= the registries don't have the option to move to the new, all-within-missio= n registry agreement
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:25) Robin
Becky Burr: (08:25) i can offer a quick answer
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:26) the answer is yes provided that the gran= dfathering conditions are not renewed
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:27) thanks, Becky!
Becky Burr: (08:27) apologies, I now have to leave the meeting.= p>
Edward Morris: (08:27) Thanks for the explanation Becky
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:27) plsw
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:27) pls allow me to talk
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:27) off adobe now, bye= p>
Alan Greenberg: (08:29) I have to leave now. Will listen to remai= nder of recording later today.
mike chartier: (08:32) RE 25, I think there was sunstantial suppo= rt for Malcolm's "substantiall"
Matthew Shears: (08:33) so threre would be no qulaifier on top of= "based on"?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:34) Agree with Brett. That s= ounds like a good approach.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:35) aha
Brett Schaefer: (08:35) Here it is, based on Article 25.3: The Bo= ard shall not combine a decision based on or consistent with consensus GAC = advice with any other decision. The Board shall indicate in the appli= cable Board Notice whether such a decision is based on or is consistent wit= h consensus GAC advice.
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:36) @ co-chairs: please manage t= his call
Brett Schaefer: (08:36) It is not an extension of the carve-out. = It would help clarify when the carve-out would apply.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:36) I feel Brett's proposal d= oes not reflect the normal situation where GAC Advice is just a piece in th= e pool of elements considered by the Board in making a decision
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:36) @kavouss: you have made your= point. Many times already. Please give us room to proceed
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:37) but jorge, the board must "tre= at" GAC advice deferentially. That is a big difference.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:37) I disagree with those suggestions
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:38) Robin, every SO/AC is tre= ated specially - but we all (in a ms fashion) make inputs to processes - an= d the Board finally takes a decision considering all elements at hand
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:39) soory I do not agree with that
Pedro Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:39) I am not convinced with Brett= 's proposal either. If the Board decision is consistent with GAC consensus = advice but takes other inpots into account, then clearly the carve-out shou= ld not apply
Pedro Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:40) inputs*
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:40) It is not simple, because= multiple constituencies may provide similar advice - the GAC being one of = them - why should then this rule apply?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:40) The GNSO's raison d'=C3=AAtre = is to develop gtld policy. So it is not "just another input" to= the board's creation of policy. The policy is created by the GNSO.= p>
Greg Shatan: (08:40) Pedro, I disagree that a "purity test" needs= to be applied to Board decisions consistent with GAC Advice.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:40) I disagree with inclusion of any provisi= on in the bylaws other than that contained in Rec. 1d
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:40) Recommendation 1
Brett Schaefer: (08:41) @Pedro, if the decision is supporte dby o= tehr SO/ACs, an EC challange would not succeed.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:41) mATHIEU WE HAVE NOT AGREED AT ALL
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:41) wE AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHERS
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:41) We are talking about ICAN= N as a whole, where gnso is an important constituency, but there are other = equally important...
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:42) That was just an example. = ; The same applies for ccnso, etc.
Brett Schaefer: (08:42) Perfectly willing to see if edits to the = text might find consensus.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:42) or ASO, or ALAC or the GA= C...
Greg Shatan: (08:42) GNSO is not a constituency, it is a policy d= eveloping body.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:42) This is an attempt to have another= net gain for private sector as mentioned in the rtestimonyt
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:42) so the GNSO can develop GAC po= licy?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:44) why not some people propose GAC cARVE- O= UT HERE AS USUAL=C3=A9
Malcolm Hutty: (08:45) I support that answer to the first additio= nal question
Malcolm Hutty: (08:46) And the second :)
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:46) Support 1, doubts about 2
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:47) Indeed, the drafting shou= ld be clearer
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:47) maybe also seen in conjunct= ion with q. 29
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:48) +1 Sabine
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:48) +1 Sabine
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:50) +1 Niels
Avri Doria: (08:50) +1
Brett Schaefer: (08:50) I am confused, the text says it becomes o= perational (moved to Article 1.2)after WS2 and implimentation. Why prematur= ely insert it into the operational text?
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:52) Easy to move -- we were simply= trying to keep the provisions together for ease of understandinjg
Greg Shatan: (08:53) Brett, it would need to be clear in 1.2 that= it is not operational until 27.3 is satisfied.
Niels ten Oever: (08:53) Disagree
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:53) disagree as well
Niels ten Oever: (08:53) with Brett that is
Niels ten Oever: (08:54) Would also not be in line with CCWG repo= rt
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:54) exactly
Brett Schaefer: (08:55) Yes, but that would insert a core value t= hat is not the same as the others at the moment. What is the harm in follow= ing the process outlined?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:55) @Mathieu: some questions = are directed to the lawyers (e.g. question 8 at the very end) - they could = provide us with clarifications
Niels ten Oever: (08:55) not following report, this is not the ti= me to change Brett
Brett Schaefer: (08:56) It entirely consistent with teh report, N= eils.
Brett Schaefer: (08:56) In fact, it exactly outlines the agreed p= rocess in WS2.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:57) We should not reopen sett= led issues - and the architecture of the HR commitment was one of the settl= ed topics (i.e. commitment in normal bylaws text; plus transitional part in= transitional section etc)
Niels ten Oever: (08:57) +1
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:57) the agreed process sta= rts in WS 1 to my recollectin.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:57) *recollection
Greg Shatan: (08:58) No extension of the GAC carveout has been pr= oposed. Thus, no action need be taken to "remove" anything.
Brett Schaefer: (08:58) WS1 only says it will be clarified in WS2= . The process says the commitment would be non-binding until the FOI-HR is = developed and the final product is implimented.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:58) dISAGREED DEAR COLLEAGUES
Keith Drazek: (08:59) I support Monday/Tuesday calls.
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (09:00) I am afraid a Saturday call wo= uld not be attended very well...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:00) Sunday in Helsinki - soun= ds like a plan...
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:01) Any extension of application of GAC cons= ensus advice to areas other than those limited circumstances is= strongly objected.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:01) it would also be in line
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:01) what does "soon" mean? w= here is the decision being made?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:01) sorry for the random enter<= /p>
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:01) flights are probably not ge= tting cheaper if we keep waiting re: F2F
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:02) staff is making the decision a= s to whether we meet in Helsinki?
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:02) All relevant drafts to GAC cARVE-OUT mus= t be taken out AND REPLACED BY A SIMPLE CUT AND PASTE OF THE PARGARAPH AS O= NTAINED IN rECOMMENDATION
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:02) The lawyers need to check cale= ndars if you want us on the call
Mary Wong: (09:03) @Robin, no it will not be a staff decision.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:03) but then who decides? IIRC = an F2F is foreseen in the WS1 report.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:03) thanks, Mary. Will it be= the board then? Or the CCWG?
Mary Wong: (09:04) I believe there is a small group of SOAC reps = working with the Board and senior mgt to ensure that Helsinki as the first = Meeting B works for all.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:04) carve-out was introduced at the very las= t minute and referred to a very limited application point as contained in R= ecommendation 1
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:04) That is all
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:04) Mathieu
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:05) by all
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (09:05) Good afternoon from London!
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:05) Thx all! Bye!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:05) thanks and bye
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:05) Pls do not forget the problem of Carve O= UT
Avri Doria: (09:05) thanks, bye
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:05) thanks everyone
David McAuley (RySG): (09:05) good bye all
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:05) thanks, all, bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:05) thanks all Bye for now
SivasubramanianM: (09:05) bye