Page History
...
Visitors: Alex Deacon, Antranik Hagopian, Asha Hemrajani, Benny Nordreg, Beth Bacon, Boyoung Kim, Caroline Greer, Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Cake, David Johnson, Francisco Obispo, Helen Han, Jim Prendergast, Kate Perl, Kevin Murphy, Konstantinos Komaitis. Luca Urich, Lynn St. Amour, Mark Buell, Monika Ermert, Ole Jacobsen, Wendy Profit, Wisdom Donkor
...
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 05:11) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud. All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:52) Greetings all. Nice to be here in person. Looking forward to connecting faces with names. Come say hello.
Rosemary Fei: (05:53) Good morning, all. Looking forward to today's session.
Michael Clark (Sidley): (05:53) Good Morning
Stephanie Petit: (06:00) Good morning
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:04) Hello from Amsterdam. I am sorry I wasn't able to be in BA today. I'll be there with you on Sunday :)
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:05) Izumi sends her apologies. Will join you later on
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:07) Hello everyone
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:07) Buenos dias!
Brenda Brewer: (06:08) Audio line is working.. Ready to go!!
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (06:08) Hello everyone!
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:08) kia ora
Greg Shatan: (06:11) Hello, all!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:13) applause from here too
Becky Burr: (06:13) good morning
Matthew Shears: (06:16) morning
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) morning all...
Avri Doria: (06:34) if sales pitch is offensive we can call them elevator pitches.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:36) I hope never to be in an elevator for six minutes :)
Avri Doria: (06:37) i thought it was 3-5 minutes.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:40) Confirmed 3-5 minutes. Jordan don't try to expand !
Greg Shatan: (06:41) Elevator might get stuck between floors....
Rosemary Fei: (06:41) Is there any way to allow the document being displayed to fill the window, so more of it can be viewed at larger size?
Alice Jansen 2: (06:44) Hi Rosemary - There is a full screen button on your presentation pod (4 arrows) -
Avri Doria: (06:50) please repeat that prooisal?
Avri Doria: (06:51) oh, not a consensus call, but talk of a consensus call. ok, thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:52) someone has an open mike
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:53) please ensure mikes are off unless you are the current speaker
Avri Doria: (06:56) us jewsih folk don't thik of ourselves as anglo saxon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:57) not sure I do either :-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:58) Anglo Stralian?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:58) It's about english mother tongue isn't it ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:58) closer. though less Anglo roots in AU than ever before in pop dynamics ATM
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:05) would it be helpful for Sidley and Adler to look at the questions from the Board and ICANN legal?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:07) @Holly -- yes, it would be helpful. And it might well be very expensive.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:08) my POV is yes @Holly
Rosemary Fei: (07:08) Counsel will be sure to await formal direction.
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:08) We will not do anything @Steve unless certified to us
Rosemary Fei: (07:10) Is there a link to the Board's questions, please?
Alice Jansen 2: (07:11) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Some of the questions are very helpful
Keith Drazek: (07:12) No one said we wanted to ignore the Board's questions. I think the issue is more about time allocation. 60+ questions will require a substantial amount of work on top of our current load, so there's a potential impact on timelines.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Others of the questions areentirely loaded
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:13) as Thomas said, it would be simpler to just put on the table from the ICANN Staff's point of view, what it is that they actually DO want. (Chris D just confirmed that it was not the Board that prepared them.)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:15) @Jordan: I noted Sam is on the pitch list
Samantha Eisner: (07:15) I'm in the room if anyone would like to speak with me
Samantha Eisner: (07:16) And we do not have "the answers"
Alan Greenberg: (07:19) @Sam, wasn't claiming that you do, I just wanted clarity on what was said.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:20) not the "answers" about what to do but more fleshed out concerns about what the impacts might be
Greg Shatan: (07:21) The questions are rather negatively phrased, oriented toward risks, with terms like barriers to entry, chilling global participation, risks of capture, unintended consequences, potential adverse consequences, etc.fff
Greg Shatan: (07:23) Speaking as a lawyer, I recognize the approach. We tend to look for risks and worst case scenarios. The next step would be to try and solve for them.
Greg Shatan: (07:24) I would hope that no matter what proposal we came up with, even if it was one that was perfectly aligned with the board's desires, that the list of questions would have had just the same risk-probing approach.
Greg Shatan: (07:27) We'll never know if that would have been the case, or if an entire piano keyboard of questions was generated because the Board or management of ICANN has deep concerns about aspects of these particular proposals.
Robin Gross: (07:40) Greetings, everyone. I finally got on the network in this room.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:40) Well done Robin !
Keith Drazek: (07:41) Kavouss raises an important point concerning the dependencies between the CWG proposal and the work of the CCWG. The CWG proposal makes certain assumptions based on securing fundamental bylaws related to a number of items, including PTI. We should ensure we understand those dependencies, or the CWG transition work may be undermined.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) @Keith : we have planned to prepare how we can indicate our progress regarding CWG dependencies during the week/ later today
Keith Drazek: (07:42) Thanks you Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) I agree fully on importance
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:43) I indeed it is essential
Matthew Shears: (07:44) + 1
Avri Doria: (07:47) i do not understand Pauls'point - which 8 people?
James Bladel - GNSO: (07:48) I'm wondering if there's any basis for Paul's concern. Is this fear of a narrow group of "insiders" reflected in te public comments?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) A bit, yes
Kevin Murphy: (07:49) The audio streams listed here (https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ccwg-accountability) don't seem to be working.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) that's why I referred to it in the summary
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:50) Audio broken?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC) 2: (07:51) AT some point, those who feel unrepresented bear the burden of participation. No one can be entirely passive. Our constant attempt to act "in the interests of" those who have not yet spoken can be just as dangerous as a lack of diversity
Keith Drazek: (07:52) ICANN is both a multi-stakeholder model and a global multi-stakeholder community. It's current SO-AC structure is the multi-stakeholder mechanism. It is open and inclusive. The current proposal recommends empowering the SOs and ACs. It is the definition of transitioning authority to the global multi-stakeholder community.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (07:57) We are closing the queue for questions/comments with Avri
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:04) Holly and Rosemary -- can you react to Tijani's question just now?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:04) Tijani: I think that it's required by California law for members/designators to have that power
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:05) @Steve, could you state the question?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:06) +1 to Sebastien in this sense - submissions / comments "are for reading not counting"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:09) sell said @avri
Matthew Shears: (08:09) agree with Avri - we are close on the powers we just have to figure out the implementation mechanisms
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) I would just add to Sebastien's comment that divergence does not undermine the process but on the contrary, it enriches it as it allows us to get feedback on different points of view
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) +1 @Avri
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:10) good point, Leon.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:10) Agree with Avri, +1!
Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (08:10) Well said Avri!
Alice Jansen 2: (08:11) We are now on a break and will convene at 10:30 ART
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:41) Reconvening
Matthew Shears: (08:48) its not just about assessing eficiency of the CCWG proposal its about monitoring the effectiveness of the community powers, are they fulfilling their intended purpose, etc. I believe that some review of the mechanisms and enhancements is important
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:49) @Matthew sorry if my summary was misleading but agree with your better description
Matthew Shears: (08:50) Thanks Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:52) Why is the screen so appallingly set out?
Matthew Shears: (08:53) can we move hte chat and notes to the side?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:53) (in the adobe room, not in the room)
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:53) +1 to Matthew's request
jp: (08:54) +1
Mary Wong: (08:54) Hello all, this is the ICANN meeting setup so it may look different from the usual meeting setup.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:55) That's for sure.
Greg Shatan: (08:55) It makes the document illegible.
Avri Doria: (08:55) we need to find a satificing point, to say we are all eqqually dissatisfied is way too negative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:55) OK Mary but for e.g. now we are all well 'in sense/sion' we could ditch the Session Info pod for eg, gaining space to reorganise as requested
Avri Doria: (08:56) satsificing - meet minimal equirements at least though it may not meet all hopes.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) one of the more useful terms to emerge from the discipline of economics
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) (if that is where it came from?)
Mary Wong: (08:57) @CLO, we're requested to not change the AC setup as much as possible so as to leave it the same for other subsequent users. Let me ask (sorry, I'm not primary support for this CCWG so I'm just pitching in a bit here).
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:57) So for the excercise we need to guide our interventions with the "skirt rule" long enough to cover the subject but short enough to make interesting
Greg Shatan: (08:58) Can you at least mount the document so that it can be enlarged across the entire space allotted to it in this set-up?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:59) SIGH OK @mary but AC rooms are delightfully flexible
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) it's very disconcerting to see all this stuff moving
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) I am going only to speak in slogans
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:59) The AC room has a life of its own
Mary Wong: (09:00) We are trying to make the document more legible :)
Mary Wong: (09:00) And the chat
Greg Shatan: (09:01) AC room has developed sentience and is trying to run the meeting on its own.
Mary Wong: (09:02) All, hope this view/screen is better. If you still can't read the document as clearly as you'd like, you may want to try the Full Screen mode.
Rosemary Fei: (09:02) If it got us to legible, I'm fine with some moving around on the screen.
Matthew Shears: (09:03) in both screen modes the doc does not fill the screen
Rosemary Fei: (09:05) And full screen means you can't see chat or notes.
Brenda Brewer: (09:05) correct Rosemary.
Tech: (09:05) Everyone - i will move the pods around, please bear with us for few mins.
Keith Drazek: (09:06) Greg's point about the connection between the CWG and CCWG work and assumptions is very, very important.
Matthew Shears: (09:06) + I Keith - it is critical!
Brenda Brewer: (09:09) How is the view now?
David McAuley (RySG): (09:09) this view is better for me
Rosemary Fei: (09:10) yes, better
Matthew Shears: (09:10) better thanks
Brenda Brewer: (09:10) Good to know. Thank you.
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:11) Much better
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:12) Is anyone else having connectivity issues?
Mary Wong: (09:13) @Leon, are you having trouble with AC or with the wifi connection?
Brenda Brewer: (09:21) Techs are working on streaming connection. please stand by.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:22) hope that that made some kind of sense :)
Rosemary Fei: (09:23) Made sense to me, @Jordan.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:29) @Mary I seem to be having problems with wi-fi. Very unstable connection
Mary Wong: (09:30) @Leon, the techs are checking on things - stand by
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:36) There is so much commonality in all these pitches, which is really reassuring
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:37) @Jordan there is much more agreement than disagreement overall as I see it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:38) only thing I wished I had said that I didn't say: with the end of the NTIA Contract, which is a real tooth (remember 2012?), the world in which our current 'voluntary' model evolved is ending..
Keith Drazek: (09:39) +1 Jordan
Matthew Shears: (09:42) agree
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:49) "Empowered SO/AC model"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:50) "No Perfect Headquarters" - +1 Erica
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:51) +1 to Erika. The Grass is not always greener.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:52) very true
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) so what is the difference between the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model? Aren't they the same things?
Malcolm Hutty: (09:57) @Paul Twoomey, Thank you for being clear about something you think would not work about a broad membership model. I certainly wouldn't want that outcome either. You assume that members would elect directors on a pure plebescite; that would be undesirable, but also unnecessary.
Malcolm Hutty: (09:58) I see the model I suggested as a variant on Becky's "Empowered SO" model: most of the powers are held, under the bylaws, by SOACs. Broad membership only have ultimate power of enforcement (individually, not just collectively) and the Board duty is owed to them.
Keith Drazek: (09:59) +1 Mathieu, this was a very constructive session. Thanks to all contributors.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:03) please consider my hand raised.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (10:04) @Robin you've been added to the queue
Keith Drazek: (10:05) At some point, in addition to the proposed benefits, we'll need to consider the potential risks of each suggested model. Addressing the risks, as the Board has suggeted in its recent memo, might help us find common ground.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:05) thanks
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:05) Couldn't they just tear the letter up?
Chris Disspain: (10:06) well, phsically, Jordan, of course
Chris Disspain: (10:06) but legally no
James Bladel - GNSO: (10:06) Right, Jordan. If they think they have met the circumstances as Board member, why step down?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) because it is legally enforceable
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:07) @James: we have some legal advice on this. Need to research it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:07) who'd have standing to enforce such a thing?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) Holly has previously confimred that such a letter would be enforceable
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:08) The empowered designator model does NOT rule out UA's. The lawyers said we need UAs in either model.
Chris Disspain: (10:08) but Matgieu I right that we need to confoirm all of this stuff
Chris Disspain: (10:08) Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:08) by whom?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:09) certainly not by SOs/ACs unless they become legal persons
Paul Twomey: (10:09) @malcolm Thanks for your clarification. One thing I do worry about is not just votes for the board but also the ability for a mobilser to develop member blocks in a range of SOs/ACs to prusue a common policy outcome
Paul Twomey: (10:10) We already see the challenges in the GNOS of having contracted parities that are now both registries, registrars and in some cases ccTLDs.
James Gannon: (10:10) If we dont have legal personhood under this model then the legal enforceability woud remiain as it is now which is the California AG no?
Samantha Eisner: (10:11) is there a possibility that enforcement could also stand with other individual Board members? or could we identify an enforcement path in the letter?
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:12) Also enforeceable by any individual member of the ICANN board
Malcolm Hutty: (10:12) @Paul, That's a point worth addressing, but I think my proposal is entirely orthogonal; essentially, I am suporting Becky's "Empowered SOAC" model, but whereas people are arguing about whether SOAC rights are enforced through SOACs appointing members, or acting as designators, or not at all, I'm saying allow broad members the power to enforce. I'm not proposing transferring existing or proposed powers from SOACs to members
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:12) sounds me to like we are talking about the same thing: the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model.
Chris Disspain: (10:14) I admit to being confused....isn't the reason we moved to discussing UAs because we acknowledged that some SOs would not be happy creating legal personhood
Avri Doria: (10:15) what makes an empowered SOAC, different from a SOAC?
Keith Drazek: (10:15) I think a key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is it changes virtually nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN and the community processes. It introduces virtually no risk. It is not at all complex. It allows for future SOs or ACs to join the community. It is the LEAST disruptive option, in my opinion.
Paul Twomey: (10:15) Thanks Malcolm. That is clearer for me.
Avri Doria: (10:15) i do not understand what Jordan jsut said about not needing to join a SOAC inorder to be part of a member.
Rosemary Fei: (10:16) The director does not hold his/her conditional letter of resignation; some trusted representative of the community holds it. Once community believes triggering condition has occurred, the community would no longer recognize that individual as a director -- for example, not allow attending board meetings . So if conditions are clearly met, and letter is published, should be "self-enforcing"
Chris Disspain: (10:16) but doesn't it still invovle to SO becoming a leagl entity?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) Some people had said there was a perceived barrier around the UA system
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) an assumption that one might have to "join" a UA to become part of the applicability of the accountability powers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:16) as I understand it the resolution / inclusion of the statement of intention to come together to discus' that becky outlined is an elegant alternate to the UA
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:16) I think Alan may be asusming that SSAC and RSSAC decided not to seek voting because of the Member Model. But I do not believe that is true. We should ask them
Keith Drazek: (10:16) @Avri, my understanding is that an SO or AC only needs to explicitly state its intention to participate in the community process, under its existing bylaws, to gain the powers.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:17) I was trying to clarify that that was never intended and never part of the model
Chris Disspain: (10:17) I shall ask Becky
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:17) The fact that virtually the whole CCWG and almost all commentors on our proposal agree with the powers we forsee, but that we receive a lot of comments from in- and outside on a model requiring the creation of legal entities to enforce the powers, to me indicates that many are not convinced that this is the only workable option. So either, we convince them, or identify a workeable alternative
Avri Doria: (10:17) if the US is the meber, how can one not a meber of that UA has a say?
