Page History
...
The audio recording is available here:
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good Day All! Welcome to the CCWG Accountability call on January 06, 2015 @ 12:00 UTC.
Olga Cavalli - GAC:Hello!
Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):hi, all.
Bruce Tonkin:Good evening all
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]:Hello!
Adrian Carballo:Hello, Good morning to all!
James Bladel-GNSO:Good morning!
Izumi Okutani (ASO):Hello everyone!
Pär Brumark (GAC):Good Afternoon everyone!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Hello everyone, happy and accountable new year to everyone !
matthew shears:hello
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC):Hello everyone
Rudi Daniel:Good
Rudi Daniel:hi...good morning:)
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:Hello and Happy New year to everyone!
Alice Munyua (GAC):Hello and happy new year everyone
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):hello!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Happy New Year everyone!
Roelof Meijer:Happy New Year to yoy too!
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry I'm late
Fiona Asonga:Hallo All
Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):For those who are not speaking, can you please mute your microphones?
Olga Cavalli - GAC:audio from leon is low
Robin Gross:Good morning! Another 4am call for us in California
Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):Can Leon speak up, please
Olga Cavalli - GAC:Leon your audio is low
Olga Cavalli - GAC:yes
Avri Doria (ATRT):anyone else having AC lag. or is all on my link. sound is fine.
Bruce Tonkin:Yes - we can hear you. That is better
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:yes
Steve DelBianco:Mathieu wrote: Proposal submitted for comments (to be presented and initially discussed during tomorrow's call): WS1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance Icann's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter Icann management resistance or if it were against the interest of Icann as a corporate entity.
Edward Morris:Good morning Robin.
Bruce Tonkin:Wording looks fine to me Steve.
Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control
Bruce Tonkin:Would like to check one assumption. The ATRT2 recommendations that the Board has approved - call for some revision of existing accoutnability mechansims such as reconsideration. I am assuming that this group will at some stage pick up that work - rather than require the Board or communiyt to initiative yet another stream of work.
Steve DelBianco:All 3 of those elements are in the WA2 inventory, in WS1
Bruce Tonkin:Would be good if this group could confirm that understanding.
Keith Drazek:I agree that the proposed WS0 is in fact the same as WS1, or is what WS1 should be. I also agree that the language submitted by Mathieu wrote (pasted by Steve above) is good.
Izumi Okutani (ASO):Could they be typed in the right window to make sure I know what the three items are?
Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Steve: I think if we have those three then we could put more into WS 2
Sivasubramanian M:"Overruling the Board, if the Community so wishes" can not be a day to day option, but a provision that is very carefully used, subject to clear definitions of what consituties Community consensus, and the weight of such consensus - whether it is to be a 50% 'vote', 66% or more...
Steve DelBianco:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471
Izumi Okutani (ASO):I support the list of three areas listed to focus
Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Yes - your document was one of the sources I was basing my statement on.
Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Certainly, such mechanism should not be easily invoked on a day to day basis
Samantha Eisner:In furtherance of a concern that is similar to Alan's comment, I have a recommended edit to the end of Mathieu's words: “if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter Icann management resistance or if it were against the business interests of ICANN, (though within the public interest and not placing the continuing viability or existence of ICANN in jeopardy)”
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):I agree with the suggestion and I can see how it is covered in the current inventory
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Thanks.
matthew shears:the text within the brackets is subject to significant interpretation - public interest and viability for example
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Becky, Yes, that would get a good start.
Keith Drazek:+1 Becky. Proportional dispute resolution mechanisms are desperately needed and should be available to reduce the need for legal action.
Izumi Okutani (ASO):+ 1 Keith
Edward Morris:I agree with Matthew.. The text in brackets could easily be used to nullify the intent of the main sentence.
Vrikson Acosta:Good morning, afternoon, evening or night :) Sorry for connecting late. (Internet connection in this country is unstable)
Bill Drake:+1 Matt and Ed
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you for this document
Steve DelBianco:+1 Matthew, Ed, and Bill
David Maher (GNSO - RySG):Apologies for joining late
Sivasubramanian M:"Parties affecting ICANN" couldn't be prioritized as much as "parties affected by ICANN". The order could be reversed
Sivasubramanian M:For an organization of ICANN's stature and significance, Global Public Interest is paramount
Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control of the document now
Steve DelBianco:@Tijani: we had a list discussion of Public Interest a few weeks back. Will send to you
Steve DelBianco:I proposed that Global Public Interest for ICANN is: the Availability and Integrity of Registrations and Resolutions.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Steve That is a very limited definition of Global PubliC Interest for ICANN
Robin Gross:respect for human rights must be included in any definition of public interest
Malcolm Hutty:Steve's formulation is good; a general broadly (un)defined concept of "public interest" authorises unlimited discretion in the mission.
Avri Doria (ATRT):I remind people that the AOC includes an obligation to work in the public interest. are we leaving that behind?
Bill Drake:We need to tackle rather than dodge the PI issue
Fiona Asonga:Steve Del Bianco kindly share with me the Public Interest discussion as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the discussion on PI needs a lot more work IMO
Sivasubramanian M:Global Public Interest for ICANN: Act in the best interest of the Internet. Maintain the Security and Stability of the Internet. Coordinate the allocation of Names and Numbers in a manner that is fairr to the whole world
Bill Drake:we're having the same conversation as last time, and I still think the BC definition is unduly narrow so work must be done to clarify
James Bladel-GNSO:We should avoid using 'Internet' and favor 'Domain Name System' instead.
Thomas Schneider:ICANN is supposed to act in the PI. So we need to find a way to "operationalize" this concept.
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 proposal is concrete enough and makes sense to me
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Steve's proposal I meant
Bruce Tonkin:Also the articles of incorporation require operating in the public interest as well - however I think the issue is a shared understanding of what the words mean.
Sivasubramanian M:The definition could embrace ICANN's apparent role in DNS and go beyond to embrace the implication of ICANN's role for the continuity, secutiry and stability of the Internet
Izumi Okutani (ASO):I support Steve's definition and at the same time observe different interpretations
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Apologies for the late dial in
Edward Morris:Under California law were the Board to act in complete disregard for stated community views and norms the AG is empowered to step in and act.
Sivasubramanian M:@Alan If it is functionally and practically difficult to bring in place mechanism to interface with the whole world, it doesn't mean that the definition should be narrowed. The definition could be broad, unconstrained by the limitation of enabling administrative interfaces for the whole world, and then find a way to arrive at practical and smooth ways of listening to and addressing wider concerns
Steve DelBianco:@Avri -- ICANN can quit the Affirmation any time. That why our Work Area suggested bringing Affirmation into the Bylaws as part of WS1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:+++ @avri
Izumi Okutani (ASO):Thank you Avri for sharing this, very useful
Keith Drazek:+1 Avri AND Steve
matthew shears:Bringing AOC into bylaws is essential
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:very little can be done on a practical level when ICANN violates its bylaws so we need more than just a committment in the bylaws
Sivasubramanian M:@ Robin A stronger accountability mechanism is meant to imply that it would no longer be possible for ICANN to violate its bylaws or other commitments with impunity
Bill Drake:AoC obviously would need some reworking in bylaws
Izumi Okutani (ASO):I agree with Mattew "Bringing AOC into bylaws is essential "
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:we need a mechanism to enforce the bylws
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Matthew: agree!
Sivasubramanian M:@ Robin A 'mechanism' to enforce the bylaws is ONE of the several aspects that the Accountabiliy process needs to look into
Avri Doria (ATRT):perhaps even brinigng it into the mission.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes, Siva, for sure.
Keith Drazek:+1 to Matthew and Bill. The AoC needs to be incorporated into the bylaws and it will require reworking to accomplish it. I think that's a WS1 requirement.
Sivasubramanian M:The word 'mechanism' might not quite be the right word
Avri Doria (ATRT):or at least brinigng the goals it lists into the mission.
Keith Drazek:+1 Avri
Steve DelBianco:for those who want to review earlier dialog on Public Interest, see our December email archive "[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest" at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/000182.html
Vrikson Acosta:I agree with Robin Gross that we need a mechanism to enforce the bylaws
Sivasubramanian M:It is not doing what everyone wants as in a Democracy, but doing the right thing
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Agree need to be able to enforce
Thomas Schneider:@SM: what is "doing the right thing"? who decides what "the right thing" is?
Sivasubramanian M:Again, instead of the word "enforce" we could work with terms such as "balance"
Edward Morris:+1 Robin. A mechanism, BTW, that is not so costly as to be beyond the means of all but the wealthiest.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Thomas That is a trillion dollar question
Keith Drazek:Perhaps stating the obvious, but ICANN's legitimacy comes from the community of stakeholders. ICANN should serve the interests of the community, as determined through the bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder policy-making processes.
Sivasubramanian M:But just because it is difficult to arrive at an answer, it does not mean that the question has to be discarded and the present mindset should be continued.
Steve DelBianco:+1 Keith
Sivasubramanian M:What happens if the Democratic process gets distorted?
Thomas Schneider:@SM: well, mankind has - if you start with greek democracy - about 2500 years of history in apporaching this question. Now we just need to find the right answer suitable for the challenges of the 21st century. (Which is not simple but necessary...)
matthew shears:+1 Keith - and we cannot restate this enough
Bruce Tonkin:Agree with Alan that we need to use examples to tak about public interest - much like we have a list of core values in the bylaws to help explain "internet" values.
Bill Drake:agree Alan we don't have start by searching for a singlular precise and all encompassing definition, could work from an indicative listing of considerations for starts
James Bladel-GNSO:Agree with Keith. ANd if the community cannot reach consensus, then that should be seen as tacit support for the status quo.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Thomas... The greatest good that is happening after 2500 years is the Multistakeholder model and that goes towards offering us hope for coming up with a more evolved form of governance
Avri Doria (ATRT):Defining PI is challenging because it is an aggregate emergent property. it needs to be defined in a way that recognizes its complexity and dependence on processes that are adhered to but which can evolve as necessary and agreeable to the community.
Bruce Tonkin:Agree also with your statement Keith - that is the essence of ICANN.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):I do not beleive that we can "define" PI. But we cannot leave it completely without any specification.
Thomas Schneider:@SM: i agree that the MS model offers - if it is implemented well - new chances for better inclusion of everybody in decision shaping and making.
Bill Drake:put circumstances and the table and work inductively
Becky Burr:I am very concerned about the notion that accountability means that ICANN does want the "stakeholders" want it to do.
Edward Morris:The Draft 5 Year OP, SG 5, is all about a consensus based definition of "public interest" yet there is no such definition.
Fiona Asonga:Thanks Steve DelBianco for the link
Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):+1 Becky
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Becky, +1 There are many stakeholders and some have very differnet goals than others,
Sivasubramanian M:I think we are limited by the size of who ICANN could reach out to onn the question of Public Interest. Consider the example of a Town with 100 streets and 100,000 cars, with barely two traffic police man (not an anology), so the town council decides that there will be traffic coordination in two streets, bettween 9 to 5 (not at all an anology for Internet)
Becky Burr:That approach threatens individual rights and liberties, which is why i think accountability must be linked to fidelity to ICANN's limited mission statement
Sivasubramanian M:@ Thomas .... Very good thoughts
James Bladel-GNSO:Agree with Kavous.
matthew shears:+1 Becky
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:Appreciate very much the strawman proposal on problem definition. Very good structure. In section 4, accountability to the public i.e the global community of Internet users, needs to be developed - not avoided as too difficult. Governments will certainly expect this - in reflection of their role in the ICANN structure to ensure stability, resilience, fairness and equitable treatment of all stakeholders.
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):I can see Kavouss's point
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Mark: will welcome suggestions on that line, government perspective is useful and valuable here
Thomas Schneider:the global public is an aggregate of all indiviudal particular interests. But this is nothing new. In the past, consensus (or slightly worse majority decisions) have been turned into norms, standards (soft and hard law, public common sense, etc.) that people agreed on.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Mark... We can begin by including and emphasizing Global Pubic Interent. And, then find a way to very broadly operationalize that
Sivasubramanian M:Global Public Interest.... (spelling errror)
Bill Drake:@Thomas: yikes
Thomas Schneider:and since World War II, the basic consensus on public interest has been turned into a system of international laws including human rights...
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:PI is another item where we need this Legal Advisor
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:perhaps we say that for ICANN, the Global Public Interest starts with Availability and Integrity of Registrations and Resolutions, and recognize that community consensus could add to that definition over time
Becky Burr:@ steve - only to the extent consistent with ICANN's mission statement. otherwise ICANN's role could expand infinitely
Sivasubramanian M:@Steve.... Another approach is to define it in larger terms, but leave most of the status quo unchanged before transition, except for the bare minimal changes, but commit to work on expanded accountability
Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky... ICANN can not afford to be limited
David McAuley (GNSO):are others encountering audio issues
Sivasubramanian M:+1 Tijani.. There is already a certain degree of balance in the IANA transition community processs.
Sivasubramanian M:If the Board were to say something totally unacceptable, and if the Community submits a contrary opinion by consensus, then there is a balance.
Keith Drazek:+1 Thomas. I'm not averse to communicating with the Board, but I don't think we should be asking permission or requesting guardrails at this time. Of course it would be helpful to know where the battle lines might ultimately be drawn, but I think our position could be undermined by asking that question now.
Alice Munyua (GAC):Agree with Tijani, we should not be asking the board at this stage. The board has a liaison
James Bladel-GNSO:+1 to Tijani and Steve. And any response from the Board would be unlikely to have any bearing on our work.
Becky Burr:Sivasubramanian - I may be misunderstanding you, but giving ICANN the ability to expand the scope of its mission without bounds would undermine ICANN tremendously
Keith Drazek:I think the question is not what the Board will voluntarily accept, but what the community will demand NTIA impose on ICANN before the transition takes place.
matthew shears:+ 1 Keith - the Board is very aware of these discussions and the should commnicate their thoughts through the liaison
Becky Burr:fundamental rights and liberties must be guarded
Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):+1 Tijani. It is not that we should limit ourselves to what the Board will accept. Or that the board will have to agree to what we recommend. It is about the board being accountable (in the sense of our stated definition) about what it decides on the CCWG recommendations. So how ICANN deals with the CCWG recommendations is in itself the ultimate public test of its accountability
Fiona Asonga:I agree with Mathew Shears
Sivasubramanian M:No, the idea is that ICANN's responsibilities are huge, and all that I propose is a process that would ensure that ICANN will act responsibly and in Global Public Interest, without much NEED for crippling limitations on the Board
Bruce Tonkin:As far as I know the board is amenable to improvements in accountability.
Becky Burr:But the result is that a majority of participating stakeholders decide what the "Global Public Interest" is at any point in time - and have the ability to ignore fundamental rights and liberties of individuals
Sivasubramanian M:That is good to know Bruce
Bruce Tonkin:The board agreed with a regular accountability review process for example, and has so far accepted all recommendations from that process.
Bruce Tonkin:Now implementation could be improved but it is a continuus process. There is no lack of will to embrace change.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Bruce, the issue is "accountability of the sort being diiscussed here" ie measures such as community override or challenge of Board decisions and potential removal of Board members.
Keith Drazek:Thank you, Bruce.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky... Accountability is not only the Accountablity of the Board, but that of the Community and the Stakeholders. A good and strong Accountability framwork would also ensure tha thte stakeholders also acts in a manner that is fair for the Interenet
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Kavouss's point makes sense to me
Thomas Schneider 2:I think we should have intense informal interaction with the board (which is already taking place) but we do not need too much formal interactions but concentrate on doing a good work in a free and consensual environment
Sivasubramanian M:How does Board's independant opinion amount to an overlap?
Rudi Daniel:agree in principle with Kavouss's comments.
Sivasubramanian M:Should the Board agree to everything that the Working Group says?
Evan Leibovitch:+1 Steve
Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC):@ steve: +1
matthew shears:If the Board agrees to eerything then are we doing our job?
Graham:.@ICANN needs to yield to @CommerceGov@RepGoodlatte > @FTC should take the lead on net neutrality ...As per:http://thehill.com/policy/technology/210115-house-republicans-ftc-should-take-the-lead-on-net-neutrality
Thomas Schneider 2:Thanks Alan, i think that clarifies your message.
Bruce Tonkin:Sure Alan - well speaking personally I have no problem with those concepts. The key for me would be the thresholds associated with override or removal of Board members. The byalws for example do allow for the Board itself to remove a board member. This could be done presumably at the communites request already.
Keith Drazek:The timing tension Alan and Steve are describing is a direct result of the bifurcation of the Transition and Accountability tracks. It's unfortunate that the Transition CWG is being forced to develop its recommendation without the benefit of seeing the results of our group's work.
Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control
Greg Shatan:I think any question to the Board taht is intended to help the CWG should only be asked in conjunction with the CWG, and the question should be formulated jointly with the CWG.
Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):In high level statement now being read: not "IANA transition" but "IANA Stewardship Transition", please...
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Roelof : good point as usual ;-)
Bill Drake:whom what and why would seem to cover it
Bill Drake:er, and how
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:OK if reaction from Board is positive but what happens if a substantially negative signal comes from the Board? While acknowledging the deep expertise of the Board with its diverse mebership but if their intervention were to throw this global cross-constituency work on accountability off course, then this process's credibility would be questionned.
Sivasubramanian M:Discussions on provisions to Recall the entire Board etc sound eschatological, we should approach ICANN goveranance, IANA transition and ICANN Accountability as if there is an Affirmation of Commitment from the Community to ICANN that it would stay, but would be subject to corrections.
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Not hearing you Greg
Keith Drazek:Just to be clear, I'm not participating in the Transition CWG. I'm on the ICG on behalf of the gTLD registries.
Graham:No rush: FYI @CommerceGov hold @ICANN @IANA > Sept 30, 2019. Contract # SA1301-12-CN-0035. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf
matthew shears:Given the timing issues, moving forward with contract co would seem to be logical until the point at which there is certainty that the accountability measures that can be leveraged as Steve suggested are actually in place and proven to deliver as intended and even then some will continue to argue for the contracting entity regardless
matthew shears:I don't think we have any choice but to do both
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:I agree, Matthew.
Bill Drake:very upbeat assessment there
Sivasubramanian M:@ Mathew... Why do we assume that we need a contracting process? IANA operations could continue to be part of ICANN without the need for replication of a process that has hitherto been an NTIA business process, now that NTIA is leaving...
Sivasubramanian M:What needs to be done here is to make a commitment, rather than expect a contract document from a new entiry, which I would consider as an 'artificial' entity
Seun Ojedeji:@Matthew how about put the contract with a known trust (like IETF trust) instead of a contract co that has not been tested in anyway
Avri Doria (ATRT):as a member of the CWG, i do not see how this responds to the issue of Board supremacy, and the fact that it can overrule the community.
Sivasubramanian M:To think aloud, why don't we send a proposal to NTIA that the contract process also goes. ICANN does not need a contract to perform what is an integral part of Names and Numbers function, what is needed here is an accountability process that is enhanced
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Let me put no record that I am very disappointed that some participants in this WG are already saying they have no confidence that this process will strengthen ICANN's accountability and are already using this to discredit any "internal to ICANN" solution. I find it naive to think that a brand new outside to ICANN solution would be any more accountable than ICANN's accountability. If ICANN is unaccountable in your view, then MAKE IT ACCOUNTABLE!!! That's what this CCWG is all about!
Seun Ojedeji:@SM i would +1 to that as that should be the goal once there is adequate accountability within ICANN
Keith Drazek:Broadly speaking, it appears there are 2 paths for accountability reform...internal or external. The ICANN Board has gone on record, and NTIA has gone on record, saying they oppose any kind of new/external mechanisms. Therefore, I believe they will be compelled to accept the internal structures and reforms this group recommemends. The key is to ensure that the community has the ability to keep ICANN accountable and to "fix" ICANN if it jumps the tracks.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@OLivier +100
Sivasubramanian M:++1 Olivier.. Make ICANN Accountable, rather than say subject ICANN to unknown processes that could be captured to cripple the Board
Sivasubramanian M:Accountability could be an inherent process
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:I'm sorry tha this statement isn't more helpful to CWG's dilemma about Contract Co. But this statement is about as far as we can go at this point.
Seun Ojedeji:I should also note that its a +1 to Olivier's comment.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Just a side note also: as usual we're putting the carriage before the horses by having the CWG's intense work week-ened before the F2F of the CCWG. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that the timing was designed to get the process to fail and to search for solace in an external solution because that's the only predictable solution at this moment in time...
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:I agree a statement that underlines the criticality of CWG and CCWG coordinating on options for ICANN review and redress mechanisms should issue now before the intensive weekend. Time is right also in context of geo-politics of WSIS+10 review to raise profile of CCWG work.
Sivasubramanian M:As phase I of the Accountability improvement proposals, the working group could address the imbalances between stakeholders; Streamline ACs / SOs. Enhance Cross Community processes while making cross community processes balanced
Sivasubramanian M:Such a strengthened Cross Community process would be sufficient to balance the Board (if we subscribe to the view that Board's resolutions are often against community inerest - they are not)
Seun Ojedeji:@Olivier to your comment, i think i also agree with you that the short time is what people are using to justify external like contract co.
Sivasubramanian M:balance the Board without overwhelming the Board
Sivasubramanian M:I am afraid that some of the proposals could bring about the unintended consequeces of a Board under threat of subjugation
Olga Cavalli - GAC:lost audio
Graham:As the Airline industry is held globally to the high standards of United States based FAA, so to should we feel comfortable with ICANN, as a United States Agency managing the Internet, under the guidance of US Commerce Department, FTC and US Laws.
Sivasubramanian M:@ Seun... If there has to be a MRT or a ContractCo, IF AT ALL, then such a body requires elaborate discussion, so such a proposal actually needs to be an agenda item for long term discussion, not done in the short term as proposed at the moment
Avri Doria (ATRT):at this point it is the only repsonse we can send.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Seun: yes the short time is a real problem. It is a pressure in everyone's minds. Things would be so different if we had more time to discuss things and actually think them carefully rather than jumping on various bandwaggons
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Could we have some more time to give our feedback to the text of the statement?
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:Allow 24 hours to finesse with invitation for inputs from members?
Sivasubramanian M:@ Avri Why is this the only response that we could send?
Sivasubramanian M:@ Mark At least 24 hours is good
Izumi Okutani (ASO):I'm OK with the general direction but would it be possible to share the text?
Izumi Okutani (ASO):OK good to know that - 48 h to give input
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you
Sivasubramanian M:Please make this an editable and commentable document during the next 48 hours
Izumi Okutani (ASO):thank you
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:when can we expect to hear from Constitutency Travel about the Frankfurt travel arrangements?
Grace Abuhamad:Deadline is Jan 7! Please contact me directly.
Grace Abuhamad:@Robin -- you will hear as soon as possible
Avri Doria (ATRT):Siva, becasue we have no yet created any soltutions, not have they agreed to yet.
Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Sivasubramanian: We will polish the langauge a bit to have consistent terminology and then send it to the list
Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Avri. Thanks Thomas
Grace Abuhamad:Thanks Tijani. Good to know that some of you are already contacted
Philip Corwin:In regard to the discussion just ended, I have no objection to sending the high level statement. However, I have just published an artiucle discussing the comments filed on the CWG-IANA initial proposal. It suggests that the only way to resolve the disconnectedness between that process and this one is for the ICG to relax its deadlines and wait for this process to catch up. Article is at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_transition_proposal_problems/
Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control. Berry sent this to the list yesterday.
Bruce Tonkin:Berry - can you confirm the face-to-face requirements for Singapore. Is it Monday and Thursday?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@bruce : not yet, not finalized by Icann meeting team
Grace Abuhamad:@Bruce we cannot confirm yet, but we submitted the request with the meetings team.
Grace Abuhamad:jinx @mathieu :)
Keith Drazek:As a general statement, I'm very encouraged by the work and progress to date of this CCWG. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard through the holiday period. I think we're largely on the right track.
matthew shears:agree
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Appreciate the comment Keith !
Sivasubramanian M:Plan for longer meetings in Singapore
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:I will try to merge some of the BC's Stress Tests with Eric's draft list. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Stress+Tests+from+the+Business+Constituency
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt:Agree a public session in Singapore is extremely valuable outreach and profile raising opportunity. GAC will also have open disucssion - including I suggest on the public interest accountability question discussed earlier today - right Thomas (S)?
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:I object against overrunning the scheduled duration of 2 hours.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:I have to leae now and thus can not listen to AOB any further
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@me too ;-)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:(objecting)
Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC:+1 Mark
Seun Ojedeji:thanks bye
Evan Leibovitch:I have comments about the WT4 report. Will forward them separately by mail to the list.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Thanks everyone, very substantive discussions, paving the way for a fruitful Frankfurt F2F ahead of us. Please provide suggested edits to the various docs
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:If ICANN is hiring the outside legal counsel, how do we ensure independence?
Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):bye, all
Avri Doria (ATRT):bye
Pär Brumark (GAC):Thx! Have a good day. Bye!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you
matthew shears:very good question Robin!
Evan Leibovitch:Bye
Sivasubramanian M:bye
James Bladel-GNSO:Thanks, everyone.
Rudi Daniel:bye
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks all and bye
Keith Drazek:Agreed Robin.
Izumi Okutani (ASO):thanks all
Fiona Asonga:Thanks bye
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]:Thank you all. Bye, bye!
Greg Shatan:Bye all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:bye