Page History
WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability): Presentation on the Draft Report for Public Comment
The CCWG-Accountability will be publishing its 2nd draft for 40-day public comment on 3 August 2015. Community feedback is requested on this 2nd draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place (Work Stream 1).
Community feedback will help the CCWG-Accountability to improve its proposal and carry on with next steps, including Chartering Organizations' endorsement of the CCWG-Accountability output before it is submitted to the ICANN Board during or after ICANN 54 in Dublin in October 2015.
In order to brief the community on the contents of their 2nd draft proposal, the CCWG-Accountability Chairs will host two identical briefing webinars on 4 and 7 August at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
- 4 August from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC (time zone converter here)
- 7 August from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC (time zone converter here)
For more information or to register for one of these webinars, please email staff at: acct-staff@icann.org
Download the webinar slides here --> CCWG-Webinar-Slides.pdf
Webinar Slides Translation: Pусский | العربية | Español | 中文 | Français | Português
Join the Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/. Please be sure to contact acct-staff for dial in details.
Webinar 1 - 4 August 19:00 UTC
Attendees: Aida Noblia, Alain Durand, Alan Greenberg, Alberto Soto, Alexandrine Gauvin, Alice Munyua, Alika, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Allan Skuce, Andrew Harris, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Ariel Liang, Avri Doria, Barbara Wanner, Barrack Otieno, Benny Samuelsen, Benoit Ampeau, Carl Schonander, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Cheryl Miller, Chip Sharp, Chris Wilson, Dani, David Einhorn, David McAuley, Deguenonvo, Denise Michel, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Emily Chan, Erika Cook, Glenn McKnight, Gordon Chillcott, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Gregory Ehoumi, Griffin Barnett, Heath Dixon, Howie, Jason Hynds, J. Berryhill, Jennifer Chung, Jim Baskin, Jimm Phillips, Joe Catapano, John Poole, Joly MacFie, Jon Nevett, Jonathan Nabavi, Jonathen Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Joseph Wright, JP, Julia Charvolen, Julie Hammer, Karen Bernstein, Karen Mulberry, Kate Perl, Klaus Stoll, Kristina Rosette, Kurt Pritz, Laena Rahim, Leon Sanchez, Lynn St. Amour, Mamadou Lo, Mandy Carver, Margie Milam, Marilyn Vernon, McTim, Melanie Penagos, Michael Niebel, Mohamed Sabur, Naela Sarras, Nigel Hickson, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Pär Brumark, Patrick Lenihan, Philip Corwin, Pierre Dandjinou, R. Shel, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Ron Sherwood, Rudi Vansnick, Sam Dickinson, Sara Bockey, Scott Harlan, Sébastien Bachollet, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephen Deerhake, Steve Crocker, Steve DelBianco, Steve Metalitz, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale, Val Sherman, Yaovi Atohoun (100)
Transcript
Adobe Connect Recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1obc580vgj/
MP3 Recording: EN ES AR FR PT RU ZH
Chat transcript
Kimberly Carlson: (8/3/2015 14:52) Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability Webinar Session 1! Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Kimberly Carlson: (8/4/2015 12:56) Hello everyone, just a reminder - live interpretation is available for this webinar
Benny / Nordreg AB: (13:11) sound dropping
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:12) Hi everyone, thanks for being here today
nigel hickson: (13:12) @Jordan - you have many friends!
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:13) QUESTION: In the past, the Board has had the responsibility to either resolve Community disputes or else to act in the face of disagreements between Community members. How does this change in the new framework and how does the new Accountabilty framework affect Board action in this regard? Thank you.
steve metalitz: (13:15) QUESTION: Are the "structural reviews" referenced on slide 6 the periodic reviews of ACs and SOs already contained in ICANN bylaws -- or something different/additional? QUESTION
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:17) Answer to Steve Metallitz: those are the current strutural reviews required in ICANN bylaws.
Sébastien (ALAC): (13:18) @Steve + Steve with some additional requests
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:19) Fundamental By-Laws are a GREAT idea!
jorge villa (ASO): (13:20) Hi! Anybody knows if the presentation is online? if so, which is the URL?
JP: (13:21) Hi I think it is this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229675&api=v2
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:22) QUESTION: with a need for so many panellists in the the independent review process, is there a risk that we create a "community of panellists" that end up controlling ICANN's decisions?
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:24) yes dropped
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:24) not yet
DEGUENONVO: (13:25) hello
Greg Shatan: (13:25) Olivier, there will be only 7 panelists in total. This is the same as PICDRP and far less than UDRP.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) I'm back
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) :D
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) *\o/*
DEGUENONVO: (13:27) who is the speaker now?
Alice Jansen: (13:27) Thomas Rickert - CCWG-Accountability CoChair
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) thomas rickert
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:28) QUESTION: How likely is it that foreign sovereign governments will submit to voting membership in a California unincorporated non-profit association like the proposed Community Mechanism? Doesn't the GAC need to do this as a whole? How will refusal by one government to participate on that basis affect GAC participation in the CA unincorporated non-profit association?
David McAuley: (13:29) Very low audio Leon
Benny / Nordreg AB: (13:29) sounds dropping out... extremely hard to heard anything
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) Anne: governments wouldn't be joining anything
Stephen Deerhake: (13:31) If the audio quality of Leon's remarks cannot be improved, I suggest the presenters switch back to Thomas.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) the GAC collectively would participate in the Community Mechnaism as Sole Member, but it does not have to become an uninc association itself to do so, and governments do not have a different relationship to the GAC than they do today in this model
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:31) Love these enumerated powers - nice work all on the CCWG - ACCT!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:32) (would = would if it chose to do so, based on the CCWG proposal)
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:33) @Del Bianco - Thanks Steve for your work for CSG on this!
steve metalitz: (13:33) QUESTION: Does CMSM process apply only to the 5 powers enumerated on slide 12? In other words, what is community recourse against Board decisions with whihc it disagress but that do not fall within the 5 situations listed on slide 12? can community
Avri Doria: (13:33) Steve a rrestructured RR & IRP
Philip Corwin: (13:34) All respect to Leon, but audio quality is nearly unintelligible.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:34) "voting" in the community mechanism goes to ACs and SOs that are created in ICANN Bylaws. None of the ACs or SOs has to change or join anything to exercise its vote
steve metalitz: (13:34) Please ignore last 2 words of QUESTION above
Grace Abuhamad: (13:34) we can't do anything on our end @Phil. It's Leon's connection that is the issue.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:34) @Anne -- glad you like them.
DEGUENONVO: (13:34) can I ask my question now or after presentation?
Philip Corwin: (13:35) Is SO/AC decision to use power based on a smple majority vote or some higher threshold?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:35) there will be a formal question period after the presentation
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:35) @Steve: SOs and ACs definitely become part of a California unincorporated non-profit association governed by certain provisions of the California Code - at least per Rosemary at Sidley.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:35) DEGUENONVO: If you ask now, the rapporteurs on the chat (me and Steve) will try and help you out. If you want to ask by voice in the call, please hold for the formal question period.
Grace Abuhamad: (13:35) @DEGUENONVO -- there will be Q&A after the presentation where you can ask on audio. If you are not connected to audio, you can type you question here in the chat.
DEGUENONVO: (13:36) ok good
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:36) Anne: the SO or AC does, but the members of the SO/AC do not - and the individual SO or AC does *not* need to be recognised as an uninc assoc.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:36) This addresses one of the key concerns raised with the previous model of individual SO/AC membership.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:36) @Jordan yes, I agree with you based on what the attorneys said.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:37) so no new obligations arise for any ICANN participant from this model.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:37) @Jordan - are you saying the GAC is already part of a CA unincorporated non-profit association?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:38) the GAC is already part of a california non profit corporation - it is a structure in the ICANN bylaws
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:39) @Jordan - GAC is currently an advisory committee to a CA non-profit corporation - not exactly the same thing.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:39) this model would be precisely the same - everything will be set out in the bylaws, no new legal structures will be recognised in respect of SOs or ACs arising from this model. It is just their collective acts (the votes they cast) that get given legal life & force through the "Single Member".
Chip Sharp (Cisco): (13:39) How many votes does each AC/SO get in the Decision phase?
steve metalitz: (13:39) QUESTION Re slide 14, what is the "governing body" of e.g. GNSO? QUESTION
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) GAC is a Special Committee - created by ICANN's bylaws. It is a constituent part of ICANN.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:40) Anne: it will be a good question to tease out in the Q&A so everyone has the benefit of the cochairs answers' -- but as a matter of design, we have been careful and our advisors suggest, no new requirements are created for anyone, and no barriers created to participating in this model.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:40) My understanding is the "Single Member" is a California unincorporated non-profit association governed by certain specific provisions of the California Civil Code.
Donna Austin: (13:41) Is it a vote of the GNSO Council, ccNSO Council or the collective membership?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:41) Anne: you are right. The Single Member will be.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:42) @Steve and Donna -- GNSO stakeholder groups would cast their equally weighted votes as part of the GNSO position.
DEGUENONVO: (13:42) I just want to know this question:is it a vote of GNSO
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:42) Chip: the proposal is 5 votes available to each of ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and ALAC; two votes each available to RSSAC and SSAC
DEGUENONVO: (13:42) ?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:44) Which vote, Deguenonvo?
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:44) 29 votes = 15 votes majority
Jon Nevett: (13:46) Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa
Donna Austin: (13:46) Is there a consequence of the GAC not deciding to vote?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:46) Minority View: 4 votes for ASO, CCNSO, GNSO. 2 votes for ALAC. GAC, RSAC, SSAC are non-voting liasions and participate fully in community discussion. This model is the ratio the simulates the existing ICANN board composition.
steve metalitz: (13:47) QUESTION: Slide 16 seems to imply that GNSO has already decided to participate in the Community Mechanism. Is this correct? QUESTION
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) Donna: the consequence would fewer votes available. All the voting thresholds are % of available votes so no direct impact per se.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) Steve: nobody has faced a decision-point as yet, but the signals so far have been that it is favourably inclined to participate (the GNSO, this is)
steve metalitz: (13:52) @Jordan, thanks for response to my question.
DEGUENONVO: (13:52) who are the relevant stakeholders?
McTim: (13:55) I believe that we all ar relevant stakeholders, or did u have a specific case in mind?
Avri Doria: (13:55) On the votes, another minority opinon was parity of 5 to all SOAC, including RSSAC and SSAC.
Steve Crocker: (13:55) I have a question re the AoC reviews
Hillary Jett: (13:55) Hi all, if you'd like to raise a question please raise your hand in the Adobe Connect room and Thomas will come to you.
DEGUENONVO: (13:55) ok thank
steve metalitz: (13:56) QUESTION: what is basis for CCWG conclusion it has met all CwG Stewardship requirements, when it has not made ccTLD delegation/redelegation decisions subject to review? QUESTION
Kurt Pritz: (13:57) I have a question on the CMSM. The CMSM has, for example, five RIR members (i.e., one for each of the RIRs) and five GNSO members (I.e., one for the 1000+ gTLD registries). This is an apparent disparity but I am interested in the discussion that led to this model so I can better understand it. There is a similar disparity that there are only 5 ccTLD members.
Avri Doria: (13:58) The ATRT has the abilty to recommend a revsion or removal of one of the AOC reviews.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:58) Speaker is Steve Del Bianco
Hillary Jett: (13:58) All -- if you are speaking on the Adigo line and also in the Adobe Room. Please mute your speakers so that we do not get an echo in the phone line.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:59) BUt the next ATRT recs will be acted on AFTER the next WHOIS review...
McTim: (13:59) Hi Kurt, since each RIR has thousands or tens of thousands of members (Local Internet Registries) there doesn't seem to be too much of a disparity
Avri Doria: (13:59) speaking from the AC, does not seem to be enabled.
Avri Doria: (14:00) an ATRT is schedule for 2016, or at least should be.
Greg Shatan: (14:01) +1 to the "wow" reaction at the end of that statement.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:01) I think it would be destructive and inappropriate for the CCWG to set itself up as the "fixit" body, trying to sort out all of ICANN's issues and all the specific problems that have been identified in the course of our work. As a group I think we have a lot of confidence in the ATRT3's ability to solve this problem.
McTim: (14:02) +1 to Jordan
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:02) ATRT3 will likelt have far less experiise on whois issues that the CCWG does.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:02) QUESTION: What is the mechanism through which future changes/corrections could be made? For example, it's theoretically possible that (a) if there are only 7 members of the IRP standing panel ; and (b) each IRP has a 3-person panel, it could be the case that, depending on the number of IRPs, the panelists could be overwhelmed. Similarly, for example, the proposal to have the Ombudsman make the initial recommendations on Requests for Reconsideration to the BGC can only achieve its purpose of taking the ICANN legal dept. out of the loop, if the Ombudsman is required to work independently of and without consulting the ICANN Legal Dept. If that requirement is not dealt with as an "operational detail", what's the mechanism to fix in the future? A bylaws amendment? QUESTION
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:02) i have no audio
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:02) Under the same AOC language, ICANN is about to begin another WHOIS review. Will that be destructive? I don't think so.
Kurt Pritz: (14:03) @Tim - still, regional representation for gTLD registries seems reasonable as there is regional representation of the Regional Internet Registries
Jon Nevett: (14:03) Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:03) sorry, team
Sébastien (ALAC): (14:03) Can you open the audio on Adobe now?
Jon Nevett: (14:03) Thomas -- I asked that above
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:03) i have audio
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:04) can you restate the question please
Steve Crocker: (14:04) @Steve DelB: Consistent with my comments, the answer to your question is yes, another whois review on the existing terms would be wrong and destructive.
Grace Abuhamad: (14:04) No, @Sebastien -- We can dial out to you though
Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:04) QUESTION: Apologies if this was stated at the beginning (which I missed), but will the CCWG answer the questions put into chat and distribute responses to webinar attendees? QUESTION
Grace Abuhamad: (14:04) We have too many people on the call to manage open mics
Jon Nevett: (14:04) Jon Nevett: Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa
Sébastien (ALAC): (14:04) No I don't lie the 2 tools scenario. Thanks
McTim: (14:05) @Kurt, doesn't that mean 5 votes at the end of the day, one per region for gTLDs?
Avri Doria: (14:05) McTim, only if the GNSO decides to apportion it that way.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:06) @Kurt, each AC/So can subdivide the 5 votes as they see fit. There is no requirement to do it by region.
Kurt Pritz: (14:06) @ Jordan: certainly gTLD registries and registrars should be identified as direct customers of ICANN in your discussion. The GNSO is a set of customers.
Jon Nevett: (14:07) if the issue isn't essential to one group's business, but essential to the other group's business, shouldn't there be a distinction?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:07) gTLD registries and registrars are not customers of ICANN but contractees.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:07) Kindly mute your mics if not speaking
Avri Doria: (14:08) The wpoers are much more about ICANN issues not particlar ACSO issues.
Stephen Deerhake: (14:08) QUESTION: Would the co-chairs wish to comment on the numerious objections which have been raised on the CCWG mailing list regarding process, lack of adherence to the WG's charter, the rapid turn-around of documents for discussion, the general rapidity of discussion and decision making process, etc.?
Avri Doria: (14:08) Or Jo do you mean for example, ACSO specific charter ammendments?
Avri Doria: (14:09) apologies, John ...
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:09) Members of a particular AC or SO can directly file an IRP , and seek a binding decision based on new bylaws standard of review.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:09) Thank you!
steve metalitz: (14:09) @ Thomas: Not all of the 5 powers are "last resort" or "community wide" powers. E.g., review of a bylaw amendment that affects only one SO.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:10) @Steve Metalitz: if a bylaws amendment gave, say, greater powers to GAC, I think you'd agree that all AC/SOs care about that and would want a vote
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:10) hard to see a potential bylaws change that ONLY affects a single AC/SO.
Jon Nevett: (14:11) Steve, the GNSO operatitions are in the Bylaws, for example
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:11) @Steve, not so. There are a host of Bylaws that define the AC/SOs and those bylaws change from time to time.
Avri Doria: (14:12) Jon, I think the issue that even those changes affect us all, not just those in one SO or AC.
Jon Nevett: (14:12) Article IX deals only with CCNSO, for example
Jon Nevett: (14:13) Thomas, the community can reject a bylaw proposal, but what if the board rejects a proposal?
Avri Doria: (14:13) so in overruling one, the affected SO should be able to make a case the community understands.
steve metalitz: (14:13) QUESTION: Does CMSM process apply only to the 5 powers enumerated on slide 12?
Jon Nevett: (14:13) refer to #2 in slide 12
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:14) @Steve yes the CMSM would apply onlh to the 5 powers enumerated. Everything else would continue to work as it does today
Jon Nevett: (14:14) so if the community proposes a bylaw change and it is rejected by the board, we can't do anything?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:14) ATRT and other review teams can propose Bylaws changes
Jon Nevett: (14:15) not so much
Greg Shatan: (14:16) Jon, we can start down the path of recalling the Board,
Greg Shatan: (14:16) If the rejected bylaw is of sufficient importance.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:16) Anyone can propose Bylaw changes. It is up to the Baord to act on them. The GNSO has done it regularly, and even the ALAC has on occasion.
Greg Shatan: (14:16) Or commnce an IRP.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:17) Jon: indeed. we are not proposing a new way for the community to push bylaws changes through if the Board opposes them
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:17) if the communtiy feels very strongly, it can use other powers to change the Board
steve metalitz: (14:17) repeating previous QUESTION: what is basis for CCWG conclusion it has met all CwG Stewardship requirements, when it has not made ccTLD delegation/redelegation decisions subject to review? QUESTION
steve metalitz: (14:20) @Steve and others, thanks for responses to all my questions.
Jon Nevett: (14:20) I think that we are relying too heavily on board removal, which is a nuclear option. In ICANN's history, the nuclear option doesn't work. We need a mechanism to overide a decision of the Board by overwhelming majority of the community where the board just got a decision wrong not due to malfeasance which would warrant removal
Stephen Deerhake: (14:20) QUESTION: Would the co-chairs wish to comment on the numerious objections which have been raised on the CCWG mailing list regarding process, lack of adherence to the WG's charter, the rapid turn-around of documents for discussion, the general rapidity of discussion and decision making process, etc.?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) @Jon -- agree that we should not rely too much on the nuclear option. THat's why we have the other powers, incl a binding IRP.
Jon Nevett: (14:23) Steve, Does the IRP deal with cases where the Board got it wrong or when the board violates the Bylaws
Klaus Stoll: (14:23) I just want to thank all on the working grou. It's up to the community now but the community could not do it without you. Thanks!!!p for their hard work. You at least gave us something that is great to discuss
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) Jon: yes to both
Jon Nevett: (14:24) ok -- great -- look forward to reviewing the 180 pages -- great job all getting us to this point
Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:25) Have to drop for another meeting. Many thanks to the CCWG and the co-chairs for all of their hard work!
Stephen Deerhake: (14:26) Thank you for the candid and comprehensive answer to my question.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:26) :-0
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:27) and Stephen we do not apologize for efforts on openness and inclusion of participants to all our work :-)
Sébastien (ALAC): (14:27) I ma on the French Channel
steve metalitz: (14:27) Agree that the working group has done a herculean job, thank you for devoting so much time and thought to this!
David McAuley: (14:27) A participant’s view: The CCWG co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have done an incredible amount of heavy-lifting work these past two weeks (and weekends) – thank you!
Grace Abuhamad: (14:28) Ok sebastien please hold
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) Let's give Sebastien the FIRST question on Friday's call
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:30) Thank you for attending and participating, everyone
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:30) Thanks all!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:30) look forward to your public comments!
Stephen Deerhake: (14:30) Thanks all!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:30) bye all
nigel hickson: (14:30) Thanks to Leon and Steve and others; ; really useful
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:30) THnaks for a great webminar
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (14:30) tremendous work ..
Yaovi Atohoun: (14:30) bye
Aída Noblia: (14:31) thanks
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:31) Thanks, bye all!
Alice Jansen: (14:31) Thank you for joining this webinar - archives will be available at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 You can also find slides on this wiki page.
Theresa Swinehart: (14:31) Thank you everone for participating!
Adobe Connect Recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1obc580vgj/
Webinar 2 - 7 August 07:00 UTC