Page History
...
Participants: Aarti Bhavana, Alain Bidron, Amrita Vasudevan, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Antonia Chu, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, Chris Wilson, Christian Dawson, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schwieghofer, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Harold Arcos, Herb Waye, Jorge Cancio, Lori Schulman, Matthew Shears, Michael Karanicolas, Milton Mueller, Niels ten Oever, Nikki Hu, Olivier Muron, Pam Little, Parminder Jeet Singh, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rahmouni, Rubens Kuhl, Rudi Daniel, Shreedeep Rayamajhi, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thomas Schneider, Vinay Kesari (37)
Observers & Guests: Alex Deacon, Antonio Medina, Benny Samuelsen, Connie Hon, Dennis, Dietmar Lenden, Gangavarapu Narendra Nath, Glenn Peace, Gordon Chillcott, Gulten Tepe, Jan Scholte, Jim Prendergast, Kelly Salter, Kevin Murphy, Lalith Kumar Nimmala, Manal Ismail, Marueen Hilyard, Meghan Healy, Michael Graham, Miguel Munoz, Narine Khachatryan, Nhu Y, Phan Ngoc Anh, Theo Geurts, Thiago Tavares, Van My Loi, Yrjö Länsipuro (27)
Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Charla Shambley, Elizabeth Andrews, Emily Pimentel, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Larisa Gurnick, Nathalie Vergnolle, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez, Yvette Guigneaux
Apologies: Ricardo Holmquist, Lyman Chapman
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
- Word Doc
Recording
- Adobe Connect replay AM SESSION | PM SESSION
- mp3 replay: AM SESSION | PM SESSION
Agenda
Notes
Action Items
Documents
2016-10-24 Steve Crocker to CCWG ATRT3 Co-Chairs.pdf
CCWG_WS2_Strawman_Ombuds_review_ICANN57_V0.pdf
CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-FacetoFace-20161102-SlidesV1.1BT.pdf
WS2 Dashboard OCT - 01Nov16_presentation.pdf
2016-08-08 CCWG-LetterOnCollisionsOfWS2andATRT3-Final2.pdf
WS2 - Guidelines G.Faith - Hyderabad pprt (ls edit).pdf
Jurisdiction Subgroup Status Update.pdf
Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction 30 OCT DRAFT.pdf
IRP IOT Presentation ICANN 57.pdf
AC Chat
Brenda Brewer: (11/1/2016 19:18) 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 microphone in this session, please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud on the microphone, 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: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_news_in-2Dfocus_accountability_expected-2Dstandards&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=R3Tb6ybySULUibSxQGwznNwTG1y3ToTtl4O4dvfKkwc&e=
Brenda Brewer: (19:18) Good day all and welcome to CCWG Accountability Work Stream 2 Face to Face Meeting at ICANN57 - Hyderabad, India on 2 November 2016!
Barrack Otieno: (19:34) Morning Colleagues
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair. ALAC): (20:31) Hello everyone!
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair. ALAC): (20:31) Welcome to our F2F meeting in Hyderabad
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (20:32) hello :)
Milton Mueller: (20:32) just lost sound
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (20:32) Same here
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (20:32) no audio
Jordan Carter: (20:34) hi all
Milton Mueller: (20:34) welcome to the silent movie
Nikki Hu（BII）: (20:34) no voice
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (20:34) can any one fix this
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (20:35) Back !
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (20:35) yes we can hear it
Christopher Wilkinson: (20:35) Sound restored
Dennis: (20:37) any transcript link
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (20:40) Well spoken Thomas
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (20:40) sound gone again
Milton Mueller: (20:41) Audio did not stand the test of time :-(
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (20:41) Nice one Milton
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (20:42) and back... they did not alow us to hear what Van Halen said ;-)
Jordan Carter: (20:45) the screen in the room is almost impossible to read fyi
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (20:46) only "almost"?
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair. ALAC): (20:47) Yes Jordan. It seems to be out of focus
Milton Mueller: (20:47) symbolically appropriate?
David McAuley: (20:48) lost audio
Nathalie Vergnolle: (20:48) The PCST report is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_iana-2Dtransition-2Dstatement-2Dactivity-2Dsept-2D30oct16-2Den.pdf&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=7YnGXw6m2yqhXNxGSDIZAd8dwkyR4gXJjTjMzqLqII0&e=
David McAuley: (20:48) now back - struggling with remote participation
Nathalie Vergnolle: (20:49) May I suggest you try to call in? I am dialed-in and no issues with audio.
Dennis: (20:51) sorry, no transcript provided this session ??
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (20:52) Nathalie, I can't find numbers to dial in ?
Nathalie Vergnolle: (20:52) @Matthieu: I will email you the number
ICANN RP: (20:52) There is also an mp3 stream of the audio at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000_hyd57-2Dhall4-2Den.m3u&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=YtBu2cYeD6zvKeMEEs861Oto_r5eKMwQQ6ueCiJuRPA&e=
Brenda Brewer 2: (20:53) Remote participants may dial in to the Audio from the dial in information on calendar invite.
Rubens Kuhl: (20:53) No scribes here in India ? Or just today ?
ICANN RP: (20:54) There are no scribes for this meeting
Milton Mueller: (20:56) wow
ICANN RP: (20:57) Sorry, that was ambiguous. This specific meeting today has no scribes, there will be scribes for other sessions during the India meeting
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (20:57) All week?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (20:58) ok, thanks for that clarification. But why no transcripts for today?
avri doria: (20:59) is this online where we can all see it
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (20:59) please circulate the slides
avri doria: (21:00) is the dashboard slides on web pages that are update periodically?
avri doria: (21:00) ... slides or a website ...
Connie Hon: (21:00) no audio
Nathalie Vergnolle: (21:00) The dashboard is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_WEIA_ICANN-2B57-2B-2D-2BHyderabad-2B-257C-2B3-2B-2D-2B9-2BNovember-2B2016-3Fpreview-3D_61607173_63146441_WS2-2520Dashboard-2520OCT-2520-2D-252001Nov16.pdf&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=nwmFxdLujBalg2HfLAd_7nTmd9ZtPrjOFnhhZdkkicM&e=
David McAuley 2: (21:00) lost audio again
avri doria: (21:00) thanks
David McAuley 2: (21:00) audio back
Brenda Brewer 2: (21:01) slides are located on wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_BQ2sAw&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=50TJBhKFyWXJR-wb0xbjt8DULNmee0BfZwsDMvFyXdc&e=
avri doria: (21:02) if work is done on drive docs, it is untracked. correct?
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (21:02) how is the "average participation rate" established?
avri doria: (21:03) and one must work the way they measure.
avri doria: (21:04) it is extra work beyond the work that needs to be done.
Nathalie Vergnolle: (21:04) participation rate= active participants/signed-up participants
Milton Mueller: (21:04) Will Avri's question be addressed?
avri doria: (21:05) groups will not have to do their work in a way that looks goor for the measurement tools
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (21:05) i think its a great resource ( the reports)
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (21:05) Thanks karen
Rudi Daniel: (21:06) this looks very useful.
avri doria: (21:08) just becasue staff required active particpants to be a certain type of particpants, does not mean that active participants are active.
avri doria: (21:09) people signed up as active so that they could particpate if ever inspired to do so, since observers were not given speaking rights.
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (21:09) I think the most important thing is the feedback and how you can contribute rather than the active status
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (21:09) I'm sorry but without a more precise info it is difficult to understand that the "average participation rate" is actually reflecting that notion
Greg Shatan: (21:10) I agree that document participation needs to be a metric. After all, our end goals are documents/deliverables. In both HR and Jurisdiction, we are doing a lot of work in Google Drive docs. Participation is fairly easy to see, and the links are usually available to all in the group (including staff).
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (21:11) @Avri : let's think about how other types of participation can be captured.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (21:11) I agree we (the CCWG) need to establish the participation criteria.
Greg Shatan: (21:11) We may need to modify our work a bit to hit the benchmarks. Which may not be a bad thing.
Jordan Carter: (21:12) if the importance is absolute levels then I agree. If it's trends, then it doesn't matter so much.
David McAuley 2: (21:12) audio out again
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (21:12) I guess in multistakeholderism its all about getting the voice where there are more issues of interest than active particiaption
Rudi Daniel: (21:13) lost audio
David McAuley 2: (21:13) audio back
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:14) I have some doubt about the usefulness of the information as it may not reflect the reality of what has happened at each group and it may mislead the public..However, I have no problem to publish it with some qualification
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (21:15) Kavouss makes an important point
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:16) I still request that how much time in terms of manpower what spent on that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:16) es more to do hrere...this is an important point that we need to discuss further and clarify..y
Greg Shatan: (21:16) Since I have been silenced, i will put my comment here. Following on Alan's point: We really need 3 categories of participant, whatever you may call them. Observer status is too passive for many, since you don't get to attend the meetings or make any remarks. As such, Member status is over-subscribed with those who have no intention of making a significant contribution (and that's fine). We should have a category for such people, e.g., Associate Member. And these people should NOT be in the denominator for participation statistics.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:16) your 'Silenced' ???
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:17) ahh que issue
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:17) phew
Greg Shatan: (21:17) queueueueueueueue issue.
Brenda Brewer: (21:17) Next Agenda Item: Please see Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_atrt_ATRT2-2BImplementation-2BProgram&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=nYrbfCMmKjLYu8ZbCN3QOrqkUa4hAFm-z5j2k0Y8rUw&e=
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:17) iI agree with you Greg...
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (21:19) I also agree.
Karen Mulberry: (21:20) The ATRT2 implementation report can be found at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_atrt_ATRT2-2BImplementation-2BProgram&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=nYrbfCMmKjLYu8ZbCN3QOrqkUa4hAFm-z5j2k0Y8rUw&e=
Lori Schulman: (21:22) Hi
Chris LaHatte: (21:23) sound is intermittent
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:24) thanks Karen can ww also make sure important links like that go perhaps as a digest as not all OC / apps allow for live links i AC rooms
Lori Schulman: (21:24) Sound in Adobe room is breaking up
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:25) Perhaps ,we need to listen to Steve Delbianco to answer question of Sebatien
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (21:25) @Greg, @Cheryl, agree. It is difficult for those of us trying to keep track of all WS2 Sub-Groups for our SO/ACs. We can't commit the time to be Participants, but we don't get to find out when the meetings are being held. It is necessary to monitor the Wiki closely, and hope that you notice any changes of schedule in time.
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:26) We have discussed the questions raised by Sebastien before and thus produced several options
Sebastien (ALAC): (21:26) When is the meeting about RTs?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (21:27) I agree Julie, I am finding it extremely difficult to keep track of the work on all 9 teams in WS2, but we need to keep our SG's members informed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:29) yup
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:30) We need to take the option which was producedd before in minimizing the overlap
Gordon Chillcott: (21:32) Audio loss again.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:32) ohh dear... and not a
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (21:32) @Kavouss -- yes, that was Option 3, which we recommended in our August letter to the Board
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (21:33) spo no sound and nothing shared on screen... hurray for remote participation
Christopher Wilkinson: (21:33) @scribes: Since audio is quite unstable, important to have the scribes, now
MTS - Tech: (21:34) Audio should be back momentarily
Rudi Daniel: (21:34) lost audio
David McAuley 2: (21:34) during audio outages in adobe i listen over phone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (21:34) nothing is on screen here yet either but should be up soon
Rudi Daniel: (21:34) :)
MTS - Tech: (21:35) Audio should be back now
David McAuley 2: (21:35) audio is back
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:36) I have thge following question
Rudi Daniel: (21:37) not yet
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:37) Sebastien, may you kindly advise did you identifiy any shortcomg at the present situation
Rudi Daniel: (21:37) not quite yet
Rudi Daniel: (21:39) ok audio now
Brenda Brewer: (21:39) apologies for sound issues. Please call into the audio bridge. See calendar invite for details.
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:41) What parallel works pls
Kavouss Arasteh: (21:41) We vshould limit the activity of the group to the minimum required and not add any other issue to that
Chris LaHatte: (21:42) steve, yes
Chris LaHatte: (21:43) joins in clapping
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair. ALAC): (21:43) Going into coffee break now
Jordan Carter: (22:03) we are about to begin again
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:03) Ready !!!
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (22:05) sound"!!!!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:06) Is sound not working again ? (I'm dialed in)
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: (22:07) sound back but drops regularly
Kavouss Arasteh: (22:07) Dear Co-Chairs, I have sent you a message sometimes ago expressing my concerns tghat the staff accountability should not interfer nor break the hierarchy rules that have governed and currently governing the smooth functioning of the ICANN .Staff should not be accountable to to entities: one to their hierarchy supervisors and second to the community. then even if we break this rules, then accountability of the staff to the community is unimplementable for many reasons .
David McAuley 2: (22:07) sound was out again for about a minute - phone is good backup
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair. ALAC): (22:08) Thanks Kavouss. As we discussed in our stopover in London, I think we are in the same page on the topic. Let's continue to land this concept with the incumbet subgroup
Kavouss Arasteh: (22:10) Moreover, the cmmunity is not expected to enter in micromagement of the ICANN otherwise it may not only improve but create difficulties anc complexities such unhealthy enviroment in the ICANN
Christian Dawson: (22:11) Audio out again
David McAuley 2: (22:11) sound out back to phone
David McAuley 2: (22:12) sound back
Jordan Carter: (22:12) it really is bizarre how the audio doesn't work consistently in Adobe but does on the pSTN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (22:13) sadly that is often the case for some of us Jordan...
Farzaneh Badii: (22:17) Hi. I can't hear anything
Farzaneh Badii: (22:17) ok it's back
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:17) no transcript today either....ouch
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:17) Dial in audio is better
MTS - Tech: (22:18) Dial in and mp3 stream are both working fine, we are having some technical difficulties with the audio being sent to adobe connect
David McAuley 2: (22:19) I thought it might help to note sound outages in adobe but there are enough that I will stop now, it seems clear enough that this particular meeting surfaced an adobe audio problem.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (22:28) Lost audio
Farzaneh Badii: (22:28) oops. sound gone again
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:29) I'd like the CEO to address 2 points: 2) ICANN OGC seems to have no transparency or trust within community, so your move to have Complaint position and complaints flow to OGC strikes many as a hollow gesture at best and seems to run counter to your "transparency and accountability" rhetoric. W2) hat happens to complaints ABOUT the OGC?
Farzaneh Badii: (22:29) I don’t think having a industry specific language is necessarily against diversity or openness. Participants learn the language!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (22:31) I agree with the CEO that ICANN language and acronyms are quite intimidating for newcomers - this insider language is a barrier to entry.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (22:33) "corporation" may be a better word for refering to staff...
Jordan Carter: (22:34) The session that Alan just mentioned is this: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_event_8cyj&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=k5S_apG0DsScOxedWqwMgiWW7O0odps79UEGNFJ-UAk&e=
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (22:34) translation: JJ Bubble == Office of General Counsel
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:34) Another set of acronym ? ;-)
Brenda Brewer: (22:34) ¬ When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the microphone in this session, please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud on the microphone, 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.
Jordan Carter: (22:37) note that there will be a transcript of the meeting, it's just not live transcription
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:37) <question> (no affiliation) I'd like the CEO to address 2 points: 1) ICANN OGC seems to have no transparency or trust within community, so your move to have Complaint position and complaints flow to OGC strikes many as a hollow gesture at best and seems to run counter to your "transparency and accountability" rhetoric. 2) What happens to complaints ABOUT the OGC?
Kavouss Arasteh: (22:37) Openness and transparency in day to day finction and long term activities of ICANN is supported as it positively contribute to the higher efficiency of the work but it has nothing to do with stsff accountability vis a vis the community
Milton Mueller: (22:37) +100 Robin
Milton Mueller: (22:37) You fail to see the connection?>>>!!!
Kavouss Arasteh: (22:38) There must a workable mechanism that views of staff are well liostened and properly reflected
Milton Mueller: (22:39) the CEO has no clue about the problem here. Really disturbing
Lori Schulman: (22:39) It's too much of a firewall. As a former General Counsel, I agree.
Lori Schulman: (22:40) I think that we may have differing views of what "protects" the organization.
Greg Shatan: (22:40) Shouldn't that "conflict of interest" disqualify the GC from this particular position?
Milton Mueller: (22:40) Yes, protect the bylaws, and don't forget the empowered community
Kavouss Arasteh: (22:40) Those who push for staff accountability to the community couild kindly indicate and give one expample that such dual accountability is effected elsewhere
Jordan Carter: (22:40) Kavouss I think you have to draw a distinction between procedural accountability and the essence of a staff/community relationship working well
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:41) Wow! This conversation is very illuminating in how the new CEO does not understand the role of the legal dept. and what the community has said about getting these evaluations out the legal dept.'s hands. Sigh.
Jordan Carter: (22:41) people are legally accountable to the employer, but they can't do their job in working with the community without a healthy relationship. that's how I see it, anyway
Milton Mueller: (22:41) defensive and top down. ICANN is unchanged
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (22:41) It's simpler to just have this distinction: ICANN the Community. and ICANN the Corporation (also known as ICANN the Organization)
Greg Shatan: (22:42) What we need is more of a Public Advocate position. Someone who stands aside from the infrastructure, rather than one who is charged with defending the infrastructure.
Milton Mueller: (22:42) agree Steve. The corporation is not the same as the community and the interests of the corporation are not necessarily the same
Chris LaHatte: (22:42) that is the ombudsman
Milton Mueller: (22:42) +1 Greg
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:42) The CEO does not seem to care what the community said in WS1 and is determined to go forward with undoing our work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (22:42) yup
Jordan Carter: (22:42) I heard Goran supporting that distinction, Steve/Milton
Milton Mueller: (22:42) But now the Ombudsman is subordinate to ICANN legal, Chris
Chris LaHatte: (22:43) no he is not at present
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:43) I don't think so Milton. The Comlplaint officer is subordinate to Icann Legal
Greg Shatan: (22:43) I mean something different than the Ombudsman. I'll try to be clearer.
Chris LaHatte: (22:43) complaint should perhaps report to
Chris LaHatte: (22:43) Ombuds
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:44) This (complaints officer) is taking the org is the opposite direction of what the community has said it needs. It is hard to believe the new CEO is trying to be accountable by dismissing this concern out of hand.
Jordan Carter: (22:44) if the complaints officer's only job is to collate and publish complaints, rather than to resolve them or recommend resolution, then I see no problem
Greg Shatan: (22:44) There are two levels to this issue -- the generic and the particular (i.e., the historical position and approach of ICANN legal).
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:44) Jordan, that is the same that they did on Recon Requests and we said NO
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (22:45) I think Steve's distinction makes sense and easy to understand
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:45) that initial "recommendation" is entirely based on a conflicted view.
Greg Shatan: (22:45) Jordan, if that's the only role, it could be filled by a tape recorder.
Pam Little: (22:45) + 1 Greg
Milton Mueller: (22:45) Exactly Greg. Jordna's view is quite naive
Jordan Carter: (22:45) A tape recorder with hands to type ;)
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:46) Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
Jordan Carter: (22:46) Milton: no, it's about role. If there is a narrow role with no recommendation or decision, then there isn't a conflict.
Chris LaHatte: (22:46) complaint officer needs teeth
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:46) +1 @ Greg Shatan
Farzaneh Badii: (22:46) fangs!
Jordan Carter: (22:46) If they have "teeth" then they need independence.
Chris LaHatte: (22:46) yes
Jordan Carter: (22:46) If they just collate, they don't.
Jordan Carter: (22:46) hardly naive.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:47) Jordan, this has not been described as a "collate" position. Not sure your insistance that it is is based on anything other than wishes.
Jordan Carter: (22:47) it was just based on how he described it here
Farzaneh Badii: (22:47) It is unrealistic to think you can change the industry and policy language and simplify it. It will be waste of resource.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:47) an initial recommendation is not a collation. it is an evaluation of the merits.
Jordan Carter: (22:48) Robin: ah, missed that bit.
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:49) How can CEO follow/respond to community when he does not take the time to actually talk to the community? ("community" is NOT SO & AC chairs)
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:49) please make sure the CEO gets this entire chat room transcript
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:49) that evaluation does not belong in conflicted hands, especially since WS1 said get those evaluations out of conflicted hands.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (22:49) Speaking frankly, this discussion demonstrates the fundamental flaw in the Sole Designator model. This model is still very Top-Down in the actual functioning of the corporation. The EC can only go straight to the Board and ask them to direct the CEO's actions and then if they do not, threaten to remove directors. However no SO or AC will be willing to be so extreme in relation to this type of decision, no matter how much it contradicts all the discussions that have gone before in the Accountability CCWG. Or perhaps EC can object to budget which includes position being based within ICANN Legal? (Again, I doubt anyone wlll take this issue to that extreme, but perhaps so.)
Pam Little: (22:49) @opentech.ca@gmail.com - that's the fallacy of ICANN outreach program/effort.
Pam Little: (22:50) They assume the community = those who attend ICANN meetings.
Jordan Carter: (22:50) Right: Robin - found the lingo from the blog post: "The ICANN Complaints Officer will receive, investigate and respond to complaints about the ICANN organization’s effectiveness, and will be responsible for all complaints systems and mechanisms across the ICANN organization. We will be appointing someone to this role, reporting directly to John. This person will work closely with Ombudsman Herb Wayne."
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (22:50) who is Opentech.ca, please?
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (22:50) could you please tell the moderator to place a time limit on statements? clock is running out and sooo many questions have not been addressed
Farzaneh Badii: (22:50) thanks for asking that Steve
Milton Mueller: (22:50) this is just wrong, Kavouss. Staff is accountable to the community, albeit indirectly
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:51) if the staff is not accountable to the community, what are we doing here at all?
Jordan Carter: (22:52) Your contention Robin / Milton has been in that response and investigation role, there's an inherent conflict given the duty of that staff member to act in the corp's interests, right?
David McAuley 2: (22:53) It remains true that the bylaws have been changed and that in WS2 we are working out additional understandings of those bylaws. The RR and IRP have been addressed in bylaws and the complaints officer can’t change that.
Farzaneh Badii: (22:53) no sound again . I am going to give up
Farzaneh Badii: (22:53) can't dial in
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (22:53) lost sound again
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (22:54) Tijani makes very good points
Lori Schulman: (22:54) I had to jump out of Adobe audio and Dial-in. The Dial-in is perfect.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:54) Farzi, can you use the audio stream ?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (22:54) It seems to work well
Lori Schulman: (22:55) Maybe dial in on a VOIP not connected to Adobe.
Brenda Brewer: (22:55) Farzaneh, happy to call. you. let's go to private chat
Farzaneh Badii: (22:55) oh that is a good idea
Yvette Guigneaux: (22:55) Hi Lori - you need a dial out?
Jordan Carter: (22:56) Wehn you read the whole para about the Complaints officer as I pasted, it does make clear the concern Robin raised to me anyhow
Jordan Carter: (22:58) Agree with Greg
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (22:59) Greg is right.
Chris LaHatte 2: (22:59) independence is critical
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (22:59) Quite concerning that the new CEO dismisses this concern out of hand. Not a good sign for the future and trust building.
Jordan Carter: (22:59) Let's put it on the agenda for the staff accountability group
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (22:59) well said Greg
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:00) lost sound again
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:00) "my organization" said several times in the last 10 minutes. yikes.
Pam Little: (23:00) History is important.
Farzaneh Badii: (23:00) we have to wait for a year for a mistake to be corrected?
Brenda Brewer 2: (23:01) Farzaneh is now connected to audio
Farzaneh Badii: (23:01) Thanks . I am . :)
Aarti Bhavana: (23:02) Just how much freedom does the CEO have to take these kinds of decisions unilaterally?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:02) @Aarti - Quite a bit actually but of course he reports to the Board.
Greg Shatan: (23:02) Maybe I should apply for the position of Complaints Officer...
Greg Shatan: (23:02) :-)
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:03) :-)
Farzaneh Badii: (23:03) what are simple things? how do we define that
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:03) Lori - not sure if you can see the chat but we're calling you now
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:03) I should apply for the position of Complaints Submissioner ;-)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:03) Looks easier
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:03) Lori - if you can let us know when you're connected
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:03) Complains office should be managed without having any sort of retaliation from the hierarchy with respect the staff who complains
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:04) Good question Thomas. This is in fact a structural issue and not one of whether complaint process is transparent.
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:05) Complains should be deth with internally and not to public as may create unmanageable consequences if the complains are not justified or valid
Jordan Carter: (23:05) A question for clarity about is: what impact does the imperative on legal to "Defend the Fortress/Faith" have on how people might have complaints dealt with, or their willingness to complain
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:06) Thomas pls ensure that my last comment in the chat is well taken into account
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:07) We are not finished with this issue of legal dept. as complaints officer.
Jordan Carter: (23:07) not at all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (23:07) indeed needs continuation
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:07) Absolutely Robin, staff acct subgroup will follow up
Farzaneh Badii: (23:08) so we are not using acronyms anymore? hmm that’s a shame. Took me 3 years to learn them. Are we going to learn another language?
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:08) could CEO ensure that any complain shoiuld not give rise to any retaliation
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:08) Goran's arguments make perfect sense in the average top-down corporation. Of course this makes perfect sense to an experienced CEO but it does not take into accoount the special nature and history of ICANN accountabiliity measures.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:09) Another instance of a CEO not understanding the bottom up nature of ICANN.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:09) I do recall Fadi saying he wished he had understood this better in his initial days.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:11) Good point.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (23:11) What is surprising is that the Board has not provided more guidance on this structural issue.
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:14) We missed Farzaneh ,as one of the Active co chair on the podium
Farzaneh Badii: (23:15) Thank you Kavouss. I miss being there too. :)
David McAuley 2: (23:17) <Question: How long will SOs/ACs have to answer the questions? Question>
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:17) Farzaneh, your works is highly appreciated
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:18) Ch Chaiur, are we expected to approve the questions proposed to SO/AC ?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:19) Kavouss, we are expected to approve the fact that the questions are sent
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (23:19) Yes, Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:19) But I have difficulties with some of them in the way that they are drafted
Farzaneh Badii: (23:20) nope
Farzaneh Badii: (23:20) Thank you :)
David McAuley 2: (23:21) Thanks Brenda
David McAuley 2: (23:21) Thanks CLO
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:21) For some AC, it may be diffivcult to reply without having physical meeting
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (23:22) The queue is closed after Alan!
Alan Greenberg: (23:22) May we either have scrolling rights to the document or a URL pointing to it?
Alan Greenberg: (23:23) PLEASE?
Alan Greenberg: (23:24) Thank you.
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:24) Scrolling rights done Alan
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:24) you should be good now
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:24) you're welcome
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:24) Yes, works for me Yvette, thanks !
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:24) yw
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:27) JAn is tight => see the ccNSO survey on accountavbility for instance
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:27) Jan is right, not tight
Yvette Guigneaux: (23:27) Brenda - is that an old hand or a new hand up?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (23:27) Mathieu, tight also. ;-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:28) Then we must cross refernce the existing definition
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:29) Cheryl, pols then read my comment in the chat
Alan Greenberg: (23:30) The ALAC description in the Bylaws is horrible (in my opinion) but this is not the time to change it.
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:31) The description of the designated communities should therefore nbe cross refernced in question 1
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:31) It's not even a fundamental Bylaw Alan, come on ;-)
Alan Greenberg: (23:32) @Mathieu, I didn't say it is not changeable and I hope we will ultimatley change it. Just that THIS process is not the place to do this.
Finn Petersen, GAC-DK: (23:33) In the progress report it is stated "..that SO/ACs should normally be accountable to their stakeholder group". What does the word "normally" cover?
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:33) Steve, make sure that these questions do not give rise to any interference to one SO/AC to other SO/AC
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (23:33) @Kavouss -- I see nothing in these questions that would imply any cross-SO/AC interference. Do you>
David McAuley 2: (23:33) how long is lunch break in terms of hours and minutes,
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:34) 1h15 minutes
David McAuley 2: (23:34) thanks Thomas
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (23:34) @Finn -- Normal is really saying Normative, okay?
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:34) Yes ,there are and it worth to emphasize that
Finn Petersen, GAC-DK: (23:35) @Steve ok
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (23:35) lunch brek
David McAuley 2: (11/2/2016 00:36) Brenda, I assume we will resume here - no need for a new adobe session?
Lori Schulman: (00:40) Are we starting?
Brenda Brewer: (00:41) Momentariy Lori
Brenda Brewer: (00:43) Gppd day all, Afternoon Session for CCWG ACCT WS2 will begin momentarily.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:47) Hello all !
Brenda Brewer: (00:47) ¬ When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the microphone in this session, please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud on the microphone, 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.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair; ALAC): (00:48) Hello Mathieu!
avri doria: (00:48) aren't Face to face all about discussion? we could have done updates on a dashboard thingy.
Jordan Carter: (00:48) back from delicious lunch (including complementary red bull!)
avri doria: (00:49) i need more red bull.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair; ALAC): (00:49) I want red bull
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair; ALAC): (00:49) where did you find it?
David McAuley 2: (00:49) Need Red Bull here
Yvette Guigneaux: (00:50) Lori - your audio good?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (00:51) need it here as well David
Lori Schulman: (00:51) I am hearing Greg OK.
Lori Schulman: (00:55) @Avri - we have a dashboard "thingy". I agree about the discussion.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:55) @Avri : the purpose is to explain the "layers" essentially.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (00:55) This document is Descriptive, and not Normative. Do I have that right, Greg?
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair; ALAC): (00:56) That seems to be right Steve
Lori Schulman: (00:56) Sound has gone wonky again.
Jordan Carter: (01:00) red bull was in the drinks fridge which was here for lunch
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:01) darnn missed it I had a meeti g to dash to and the fridge was gone when I returned
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:02) Not sure Red Bull at lunch is compatible with expected standard of behaviour.
MTS - Tech: (01:02) Are you still having sound issues Lori? I'm also listening to audio and it sounds fine here
Lori Schulman: (01:02) Hi, its spotty so I dialed in. My desktop mic and audio are muted now.
David McAuley 2: (01:02) Adobe audio has been fine here since resuming after lunch
Jordan Carter: (01:03) Are many audio problems the result of issues with user connectivity? Or is it usually the Adobe systems?
Lori Schulman: (01:03) Adobe
Lori Schulman: (01:03) I have good connectivity generally. I find Adobe is typically the culprit.
David McAuley 2: (01:04) I think adobe is the culprit as well
avri doria: (01:05) to what extent do NTIA requirements still hold sway?
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:06) General Comment,
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:07) While the works of all subgroup are important and valuable and their efforts are fully recognized and highly appreciate, I as a Member of CCWG associate a very high degree of importance to a mutually accepted output of Jurisdiction sub group. I hope our expectations would be realized and the group produce an output which properly and legally address the case under consideration. It would be totally inacceptable, disappointing and frustrating to either end up with status quo or a Watered down product. Some part of the community, if not all, is carefully monitoring the output of this group to be assured that this fundamental, crucial and important issue is concluded with satisfactory results acceptable to all parties . What this part of community is not expecting is Status Que which is ambiguous, unclear and subject to different interpretation by different people in a way that they wish to be interpreted without being fair to every body,what assurance is given to this part of the community that their minimum
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:07) @Avri : they are part of the Bylaws now (the WS2 transition article)
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:08) what is part of the Bylaws? the assurance that I mentioned?
David McAuley 2: (01:08) Nicely presented Greg
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:09) from the Bylaws section 27: (c) As provided in the CCWG-Accountability Charter and the Board's 2014.10.16.16 resolution, the Board shall consider consensus-based recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability on Work Stream 2 Matters ("Work Stream 2 Recommendations") with the same process and criteria it committed to using to consider the CCWG-Accountability recommendations in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report ("Work Stream 1 Recommendations"). For the avoidance of doubt, that process and criteria includes:(i) All Work Stream 2 Recommendations must further the following principles:(A)Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;(B)Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS;(C)Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services;(D)Maintain the openness of the Internet; and(E)Not result in ICANN becoming a government-led or an inter-governmental organization.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:10) Thanks Jorge, exactly
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (01:10) Bylaws say this about the Jurisdiction project in WS2: (vi) Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability;
Lori Schulman: (01:11) So it would seem emphasis should be on dispute resolution as opposed to where ICANN is legally incorporated or physically situated.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:12) Statement or clarifications provided by Jorge does not not answering my questions I am asking co chairs and Grec
avri doria: (01:12) well Matheiu ony one provision is in the transition section. So I guess that holds sway until WS2 completes.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:13) Yes, but it applies to all our WS2 recommendations
David McAuley 2: (01:15) Agree with Greg and note that Annex 12 says that consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will focus on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues
avri doria: (01:16) right we cannot become a government run organization. Does not seem germane to the curret jurisdiction discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:18) Kavous, wI assume it would be valid *if* the group ended with a consensus of something akin to a "status quee"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:18) apols for the typo
Milton Mueller: (01:18) status queeee! that's much more exciting than the status quo
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:19) :-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:19) I have heard people pushing for Status Que even before we reached that conclusion
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:21) Milton, you are welcome to join queeeee
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:41) On the IRP development, I would like to share with you a suggestion on language of proceedings I have made within the jurisdiction subgroup, which Becky and David have noted. Under current (new) bylaw language at Section 4.3(l) this is said: “All IRP proceedings shall be administered in English as the primary working language, with provision of translation services for Claimants if needed". My suggestion is to consider developing this rule in a fashion that enhances diversity. For instance, stating that translation also means interpretation during hearings. That, when translation services are required, they are granted per default (and rejection is ruled out generally). Also that the translated documents are provided at the same time as the original English documents or, at least, that the deadlines only count in such cases whenever the translated document has reached the interested party, etc.
David McAuley 2: (01:44) Jorge - you did mention that to me in an HR SubTeam call and I am glad you noted it here
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:45) Oh, sorry, David, mixed the two subgroups...
David McAuley 2: (01:45) No problem - and we discussed on list afterward, glad it is raised
David McAuley 2: (01:46) it was also releveant in what we were discussing in HR, can't recall exactly what
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:48) @david : maybe equal ability to defend one's case ?
David McAuley 2: (01:49) might be @Mathieu - just cant recall
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:50) Becky,Good report . highly apprecioated and .thank you .once again for the hard work.
David McAuley 2: (01:50) Thanks Becky, good presentation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:50) thx Becky
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:52) Thomas, perhaps ,CCWG needs to formally express its appreciations and thanks to Becky for the hard works
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:53) Clapping at home for Becky
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (01:53) yes, thanks to Becky for this hard work
David McAuley 2: (01:53) Congrats Becky
Barrack Otieno: (01:53) thanks for the good job Becky
Lori Schulman: (01:53) Clapping for Becky and echoing how impressive her work has been.
Lori Schulman: (01:53) and the group as a whole.
Lori Schulman: (01:53) super impressive
Chris LaHatte: (01:54) terrific job Becky
David McAuley 2: (01:54) +100 Kavouss
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:54) And it was the easy part Becky, now you can continue within the Board ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:55) at least we know someone on the Bord wi
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:55) understand the eules ns process
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:56) yes ,ENDRSEVis a right word Steve
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:56) ENDORSE
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:58) Thomas !++++
Lori Schulman: (01:58) hear! hear! cheers to becky!
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (01:58) Thanks for stepping up, David.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:59) Good David that you come in
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:59) excellent David thanks for stepping up
David McAuley 2: (01:59) hanks Thomas, I am honored to be considered for this, big shoes to fill
David McAuley 2: (01:59) thanks, that is
matthew shears: (01:59) bravo both
Greg Shatan: (01:59) Thank you both!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (01:59) lori??
Lori Schulman: (02:00) yes, fixing it
Lori Schulman: (02:00) I seem to be on mute
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:00) Lori I can hear you faintly
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:00) (I don't know about the room)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (02:01) ** Conclusion of IRP presentation
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (02:01) ** beginning of Good Faith presentation
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (02:01) We can hear you
Alan Greenberg: (02:01) We can hear you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:01) yes go ahedmLori
Greg Shatan: (02:03) Reminds me of "Myst"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:04) so true Greg
David McAuley 2: (02:05) seems better
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:05) Lori we hear you on audio line but not in the room I guess
Lori Schulman: (02:06) I understand completely.
Lori Schulman: (02:06) sorry
Lori Schulman: (02:06) I tried in AC and on phone
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:08) have issues been referred to the legal committee from this subgroup yet?
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair; ALAC): (02:08) Not yet Robin. I will speak to that next
Karen Mulberry: (02:09) The link to the Guidelines document https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_WEIA_Guidelines-2Bfor-2BGood-2BFaith-2BConduct-3Fpreview-3D_59643294_62396304_WS2-2520Guidelines-2520for-2520Good-2520Faith-2520Rough-2520First-2520Cut-2520Draft-252010-2D2-2D16.docx&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=bpdahbkYvEemooF3-RLbqWo5rtmg-1H2qpKqEROP6ao&e=
Alan Greenberg: (02:12) Not great but acceptable
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:12) Not your fault Lori
David McAuley 2: (02:13) Leon, please enter jokes in chat
Theo Geurts: (02:13) :)
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (02:13) Brenda -- that link is just the outline. Are we publishing just that outline for public comment ???
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (02:15) Also, Brenda, your link is dated 2-Oct and I believe there is a more recent version dated 18-Oct
Brenda Brewer 2: (02:16) THank you Steve. One moment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:19) thx Lori, it was hard for you to work with all the audio issues but we got through the opdate, well done
Greg Shatan: (02:19) Thank you, Lori!
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:20) I'm concerned that a dispute about "facts" would attempt to limit a SOAC's removal rights. That can't happen - it would violate WS1 decisions.
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (02:22) Yes that is my concern as well, that somehow the establishment of guidelines might somehow limit the SO/AC's removal rights. For example requiring set criteria that one might argue is not met might infringe on a particular SO/AC's removal rights.
Alan Greenberg: (02:23) Fact-based is ok as long as the "fact" can be, the AC/SO is no longer happy with the Board member.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:23) good point Julie
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:24) yes, Alan, but they could dispute the rationale for that decision as not being "fact" based. We need to close that loophole.
Izumi Okutani(ASO): (02:24) Indeed good point Julie - to clarify those expectations for the candidates
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:26) I agree with Alan and am concerned about the direction this group is going in and reversing WS1, which is not acceptable.
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:26) Alan, what is the basis that a SO/AC say it was not happy with a Board memeber?.
matthew shears: (02:26) agree
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:27) Blantly without any reason?
Jordan Carter: (02:27) it's a shame this topic has drifted so far from what originally inspired it, which was the elaboration of norms the community expected board members to live up to, beyond the procedural rules
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:27) why are we re-debating this issue?
Alan Greenberg: (02:27) @KAvouss, I dont'; see how I can ahead of time tell you why I may be unhappy in the future. If we could do that, we would have a lot fewer divorces.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:28) this is supposed to be about INDEMNITY of board members. not whether they CAN be removed at all.
Milton Mueller: (02:28) Lori, the simple fact is that it CAN be arbitrary, if by arbiitrary we mean that the board member can be recalled simply because the community no longer wants them on the board
Jordan Carter: (02:28) Robin: wasn't it refined to being indemnity of the community in pursuing actions to remove board members?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:29) I understood it as indemnity of board members
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:29) this is about INDEMNITY not removal rights. I suggest we go back and look at what we decided and get back on track.
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:29) arbitrary removal is strange action
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:30) It was agreed in WS1 that the indemnification of community members would be subject to conditions. These are the conditions we are talking about. Not the reasons to remove.
Milton Mueller: (02:30) can't hear Lori
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:31) What are these condition Mathieu?
Alan Greenberg: (02:31) What we do need to do is ensure that whatever the rationale is that is given, is not based on falsehood or misrepresentation.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:31) I agree Alan
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (02:31) Agree with Milton, adding a barrier once the empowered community has decided on a removal would be very concerning.
Izumi Okutani(ASO): (02:31) I think Milton has well captured the basic concept of the proposal
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:31) Alan , yes I agree
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:32) I can't understand what Lori is saying.
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:33) There is no intention to add barrier. It is about justificationb for removal and not arbitrary removal .
Jordan Carter: (02:33) can anyone who has a better memory than me remind me where the need for this guidance was specified in the WS1 report?
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:33) The concept of " I do not want this or that Board Member is unreasonable even if WS1 pushed for that
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:34) Alan is correct. Subjective, arbitrary removals are ok. Period
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (02:34) But who decides whether a removal is justified or arbitrary? Isn't it the SO/AC that decides for removal and that is it - no need to make additional justifications and for that justification, to whom is it made?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:34) @Jordan; was part of the compromise on Board removal power for the EC. No cause, but indemnification fo community members is subject to conditions TBD
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:34) Yes we should act in good faith but what are the good faith
Christopher Wilkinson: (02:35) Each SO/AC which initiates a removal, will have to reveal justifications to other SO/ACs to obtain the EC majority required.
Milton Mueller: (02:35) So the rationale offered by the community for removal cannot, e.g., say that a person stole money if that is not true. This is not a "reasonableness standard" however
Jordan Carter: (02:35) Para 54 of Annex 4
Jordan Carter: (02:35) As required by California law and consistent with ICANN's current Bylaws, indemnification will only be available if the actions were taken (1) in good faith and (2) in a manner that the indemnified person reasonably believed to be in the best interests of ICANN. Guidelines for standards of conduct that will be presumed to be in good faith (for example, conducting reasonable due diligence as to the truthfulness of a statement) will be developed in Work Stream 2. Indemnification will cover amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with the lawsuit, such as reasonable attorneys’ fees of no more than one firm, judgments, and settlements approved by the Board in its reasonable discretion.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:35) Nice job Jordan
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:36) Yes Thomas, the issue is false triger by a SO/AC which they want indemnification for that false action .
Jordan Carter: (02:36) Christopher: There is no EC majority required for removal of a director appointed by an SO/AC, only for those appointed by the NomCom.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:36) Yes, Jordan, we need to get back to the scope of the subteam.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:37) good feedback thanks everyone
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:37) Yes, thank you, Lori.
Lori Schulman: (02:37) Yes, thank you. Feedback was super helfpful.
Alan Greenberg: (02:37) Agree with Thomas. Thanks for taking the lead Lori.
Lori Schulman: (02:37) Sorry about sound.
Lori Schulman: (02:37) Thank you Thomas.
Lori Schulman: (02:37) Great recap.
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:37) No one wants to go back and revist the decision of WS1 but we want to properly implement that
Jordan Carter: (02:39) Definitely not your fault Lori
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (02:39) Agree, Jordan! Great job, Lori!
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:39) can we make the doc scrollable please?
Brenda Brewer: (02:40) Robin, if we turn on scroll, the large screens in room will not move with presentation.
Jordan Carter: (02:41) in that case can we have a link to the document?
Brenda Brewer 2: (02:42) Link to Transparency doce can be found here:: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_BQ2sAw&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=50TJBhKFyWXJR-wb0xbjt8DULNmee0BfZwsDMvFyXdc&e=
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:43) thanks
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:44) where does transparency of board deliberations come in?
David McAuley 2: (02:44) I suggest two modifications to the latest draft.First, no change to current DIDP access to root zone or L root information should be made absent express, written buy-in from the SSAC and RSSAC.
David McAuley 2: (02:45) And second, non-disclosure agreements and other legitimate confidential handling obligations undertaken by ICANN cannot be made subject to overriding policy-based disclosure requirements except to the extent required by applicable law.
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:45) Transparency and openness should not result in instability thus there is a need to maintaion a fair balance between these two to
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:47) David, that is the balance that I have referred to
Lori Schulman: (02:47) Signing Off as I have a meeting in a few hours on US time. No rest for the wicked. :) See you on the ground in a few days. Thanks for the feedback. We acknowledge this problem and accept the challenge to resolve the tension between arbitrary removals and indemnity.
David McAuley 2: (02:47) Thanks Kavouss
Lori Schulman: (02:47) Indemnity of community not board.
Lori Schulman: (02:47) ciao
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:47) thanks, Lori
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (02:48) bye Lori
David McAuley 2: (02:51) On open contracting, any change to DIDP disclosure rules as to NDAs should not be retroactive and ICANN will need to disclose these rules to folks considering NDAs with it.
Finn Petersen, GAC-DK: (02:52) Why is the proposed additional disclosures limited to interaction with Governments. Would it not provide "a clearer picture of how, when and to what extent ICANN engages" if the proposal is extended to interaction with all external parties?
Kavouss Arasteh: (02:53) It mnay not be poossible nor advisable to establish absolute transparency as there may be some exception which justify some sort of confidentiality
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (02:58) this draft is a good start, but not ready to go.
opentech.ca@gmail.com: (02:59) Would like to see disclosure of all ICANN contracts; this includes all consultants and purpose of engagement. ICANN can withhold amount if needed for cometitive purposes, but we should know who in the community is being paid by ICANN
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:00) why are we reaching out to ICANN legal and not to our own council? who made that decision?
David McAuley 2: (03:00) I agree with Thomas, would be good for information
Christopher Wilkinson: (03:00) I would support open contracting above a reasonable non-sliced, limit, incluidng for legal services.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:01) @Robin : not looking for Legal Advice but for feedback from the people who run these processes
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:02) I think we need input from our own council on these issues, especially if we are going to reach out to ICANN's lawyers to get their view.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:02) I do not agree that this draft is in any shape for decisions by the plenary. I didn't hear anyone make that statement either.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (03:03) Are we thinking that ICANN open contracts would apply to: individual consultants to ICANN; consulting firms; leases; technical services, etc.?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:03) As Michael stated, this draft is NOT ready for plenary. Why is Thomas ignoring that view?
Brenda Brewer: (03:03) Coffee Break-will be back in 15 minutes!
Christopher Wilkinson: (03:06) @steve: there are established practicies for dealing with those questions. e.g. sensible thresholds based on historical statistics, carefully drawn ToR and time limits etc.
Barrack Otieno: (03:06) ok
Brenda Brewer: (03:22) Resuming Now.
David McAuley 2: (03:29) Do I understand correctly on legal budget that if we ask questions of ICANN legal their time will be tallied up and charged against our budget?
Karen Mulberry: (03:30) Its my undersanding and ICANN Legal review costs do not hit hte CCWG budget
David McAuley 2: (03:30) thanks Karen, maybe I misheard Robin
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:30) Correct Karen
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:31) That is not what we were told before. We were told the legal budget goes to both ICANN legal and our own council.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:32) what is the purpose of the legal committee if questions just go to ICANN legal. What purpose does this group serve in this proposal?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:32) That issue was raised at some point indeed Robin. It was cleared up later.
Christopher Wilkinson: (03:32) CCWG external legal advice is temporary for the implementation of the transition, Correct?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:32) I thought we were reconvene a couple months ago when we decided to reconvene it.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:33) @CW: I don't understand yoru question
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:33) External legal advice is available for WS2
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:34) We have issues like transparency of board deliberations on the table. How can we expect ICANN legal to give us a non-conflicted view when they devised the policy we are challenging?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:35) Indeed, the LC will have to determine what goes to ICANN Legal, or not
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:36) That is the suggestion, Mathieu, that the legal committee make those determinations, not automatically going to ICANN legal.
David McAuley 2: (03:37) I think Greg makes a good point now that we confirmed ICANN legal input does not count against our budget -
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:38) The conflict of interest issue is in addition to the budget issue.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:48) I agree with Sebastian. This interaction with the CEO was very troubling, in terms of understanding ICANN's bottom up approach. "My organization", "my staff", etc.
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (03:48) A possible suggestion as there is significant opposition to the "Complaints Officer" being under ICANN legal, perhaps have this position report directly to the CEO rather than under a particular department. +1 to Tijani's suggestion that it be called something different than a Complaints Officer.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:49) Agree Michael.
Christopher Wilkinson: (03:49) +1 to Tijani's suggestion that it be called something different than a Complaints Officer.
avri doria: (03:53) why say we don 't want it. it is not up to us. it is a done deal. isn't it?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (03:54) well, Crocker said CCWG's WS2 recs will be given the same weight and treatment as WS1. So we should be able to have a say in how this is done.
matthew shears: (03:54) + 1 Jordan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (03:55) agree with you Jordan
Jordan Carter: (03:57) agree with Steve largely about the terms
Jordan Carter: (03:58) it's useful to distinguish between the paid staff and contractors, the governing board, and the community organised through the SOs/ACs in my opinion
avri doria: (03:58) i think the complaints should be public, with their answers.
Jordan Carter: (03:58) as long as they can be anonymous (which he said that the can), or there are confidential ways to raise sensitive issues, that would be fine...?
matthew shears: (03:59) perhaps it would be useful to have a subset of this group meet with the CEO and walk through the history and community concerns in this egard
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:00) there is supposed to be a session this week on how ICANN legal provides advice, but it is the same time as many other sessions which will keep many of us out from that discussion.
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (04:03) Robin, when is that session on how ICANN legal provides advice?
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (04:04) Is it the one on Monday at 15:15?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:04) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_event_222838d70d2060c96b902234f7160408&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=1v4VLA3RMtGMt104O0zN8lvjUSuCaQKQBcPA3Mw0--Y&s=zCXl0k-a3j50nHGCyaDurwQp87YmHerwaMQa7hpQ46A&e= -- Monday at 3:15
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (04:04) Thanks!
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:05) Agree, Greg.
Sivasubramanian M: (04:06) We need an overall design to ensure fairness in ICANN. New processes need to arise from such an overall, macro design
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:07) What happens to bubbles ? They burst, riight ?
matthew shears: (04:07) accountability is a shared notion - not something that culminates with only one person
matthew shears: (04:08) + 1 Thomas
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:08) calling the problem a "JJ bubble" or a "Akram bubble" etc. seems to personalize the issue, which we don't want. This is about the appropriate roles and functions, regardless of who fills them.
Barrack Otieno: (04:09) I agree with Robin
Sivasubramanian M: (04:09) Even if a Complaints mechanism is to be created, the function would be much better achieved by making the general hierarchy easier, for e.g by ensuring that a member of staff is not prevented from reaching higher levels of supervisors to discuss a problem and by promoting an environment where there is a more unrestrained flow of information.
Sivasubramanian M: (04:10) +1 Robin
David McAuley 2: (04:11) ICANN seems to be about bringing othr thinking in earlier, at least in theory
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (04:11) good points Michael
David McAuley 2: (04:12) we should also encourage more ICANN participation in the subteams - it seems to have dropped
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC-AP Member: (04:15) agreed
matthew shears: (04:20) I agree that such a precuationary note would be useful Thomas
David McAuley 2: (04:24) Thanks Michael
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:24) Michael, support looking into the open contracting issues. Thank you.
David McAuley 2: (04:25) yes - what about dicslcoing Root zone information - why not get SSAC and RSSAC involved in any change - on page 7 of draft as I recall
David McAuley 2: (04:25) I could hear Christopher
Christopher Wilkinson: (04:25) take next hand.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:25) Chris' sound didn't make it to the room
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:25) we couldn't hear him
David McAuley 2: (04:26) <Question> Should not SSAC and RSSAC get a chance to ok change on DIDP as to root zone or L root information - page 7 of drart<Question>
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:27) ICANN engages in governance. Open contracting is an issue, just as it is with governments.
Michael Karanicolas: (04:28) I gotcha David - I'll bring that up
Brenda Brewer: (04:29) Christopher, please see private chat regarding audio.
Sivasubramanian M: (04:29) ICANN working like Government would make ICANN a Government, which is not in the interest of the Internet
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:29) I agree with Parminder.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:29) If anyone's interested, Afnic does open contracting, although we are a not for profit in the registry business. I'm happy to share our experience on that. There are benefits... and costs of course
Sivasubramanian M: (04:30) Robin, the unintended consequences of following on these steps.....
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:31) Did we ever see the contract between ICANN and NetMundial Initiative? Fadi promised to publish it. Did he?
Chris Wilson: (04:33) I have not seen it.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:33) At last year's IGF in Brazil, Fadi promised to publish it. But I don't think that ever happened.
David McAuley 2: (04:34) Then get SSAC and RSSAC invvolved in assessing harmfulness that would di it
David McAuley 2: (04:34) do it
Brenda Brewer: (04:34) Christopher is now available on audio.
Michael Karanicolas: (04:35) Sorry David - I don't see any problem with consulting SSAC and RSSAC
matthew shears: (04:35) determining harm will require subjective assessments
David McAuley 2: (04:35) Thank you Michael
Michael Karanicolas: (04:35) And certainly - I expect they'd be consulted as part of the disclosure processes
David McAuley 2: (04:35) seems to be audio problem speaking remotely into room
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (04:38) @David, ICANN CTO and ICANN Security Staff would be advising ICANN on matters of harm associated with releasing such information, but there are also long-standing practices of sharing information with SSAC and RSSAC on a confidential basis that could be invoked if the community had any concerns on a specific issue. Short answer = Yes!
Edward Morris: (04:38) Agree with Greg on ICANNs status
David McAuley 2: (04:38) thanks @Julie
matthew shears: (04:38) + 1 Greg
David McAuley 2: (04:38) well said Greg on both counts
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (04:40) Greg is correct. Michael's statement that DIDP is equivalent to publication of contracts surprises me. DIDP is an on-request process for disclosure, not a publication standard
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:41) DIDP requests are disclosed via publication, so I don't think that gets us anywhere, Steve.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (04:42) Disclosed when requested, Robin. Right?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:42) yes.
Greg Shatan: (04:43) What about harm to third parties?
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:43) I would think that is a factor, Greg.
Greg Shatan: (04:44) One would hope.
David McAuley 2: (04:44) Good point Greg - in part the draft mentions harm to ICANN -
Greg Shatan: (04:44) This is not Wikileaks....
Greg Shatan: (04:44) Reputational harm?
Greg Shatan: (04:47) This needs to be dealt with when ICANN enters into contracts, so that there is a common understanding by the contracting parties of the potential for disclosure. At least those who contract with governments go in knowing what disclosure standards may apply.
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:47) That sounds fair.
matthew shears: (04:47) yep
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (04:49) +1 Michael.
Michael Karanicolas: (04:50) I agree with the need for clarity in advance, greg
Greg Shatan: (04:50) There are plenty of non-profits outside the US. This is not a peculiarly US concept.
matthew shears: (04:51) the levels of scrutiny are completely distinct from being considered as a government
David McAuley 2: (04:52) In the jurisdiction sub-team I believe we should follow the Annex 12 instructions
Greg Shatan: (04:52) My point had nothing to do with protecting the "status quo." It had to do with mission creep.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO CSG]: (04:52) Would be useful to see an analysis of transparency policies for other non-governmental, non-profit organizations.
matthew shears: (04:52) agree Steve
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:53) Thanks, Michael, for your work on transparency.
Greg Shatan: (04:53) Our mandates cannot be viewed as carte blanche.
David McAuley 2: (04:53) Thanks Michael and Chris
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:53) yes, Chris too, sorry!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:54) Great work Chris and Michael ! Looking forward to next steps
Greg Shatan: (04:55) Thomas's quote needs some polishing.... Also the Committee Against Excessive Apostrophe's is quite concerned.
matthew shears: (04:55) Also - perhaps a line or two about the progress being made by the WGs?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:56) I will personally surrender to the Committee Greg !
matthew shears: (04:56) ok - now apparnt
David McAuley 2: (04:56) Mathieu - did you mean surr'end'er
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:57) Sort of...
David McAuley 2: (04:58) good approach
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (04:58) Looks ok to me.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:00) ok
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:00) :-)
Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (05:01) good point, Milton
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:01) OK for me Milton
matthew shears: (05:02) if we refer to jurisidiction then we might have to say in what context which would take at least 3 more paras
Greg Shatan: (05:04) No thank you, please.
David McAuley 2: (05:05) Staff did another excellent job - quiet professional excellence
David McAuley 2: (05:05) thanks Thomas
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:06) Thanks Thomas, I'm looking forward for my other day's work. Great work everyone !
David McAuley 2: (05:06) Thanks all three co-chairs
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (05:06) Thanks everyone!
CHAT-CCWG ACCT WS2 Meeting #8 F2F @ ICANN57 Hyderabad (2 November 2016).pdf
