Page History
...
Sub-group Members: Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Wilson, David McAuley, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Julf Helsingius, Michael Karanicolas, Philip Corwin, Ricardo Holmquist, Vidushi Marda, Wale Bakare (12)
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry, Tristana Webster, Yvette Guigneaux
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Word Doc
PDF
Recording
mp3 Replay:
Agenda
1. Roll Call
2. Welcome - Opening Remarks
3. Discussion of ICANN CCWG – Transparency Report WS2 - DRAFT
4. AOB
Notes
Documents Presented
CCWG_WS2_Transp Report.Draft2.pdf
Chat Transcript
Yvette Guigneaux: Welcome all to the WS2 Transparency Meeting #6 | 15 December 2016 @ 19: 00 UTC!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: hello all
Ricardo Holmquist: good day everyone
David McAuley (RySG): Hi Yvette, I am 4154
David McAuley (RySG): hello all
Chris Wilson: I am 6514
Yvette Guigneaux: hi David - copy that
Julf Helsingius: Evening!
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Hello All!
David McAuley (RySG): happy for intro
Yvette Guigneaux: scrolling available if needed
Yvette Guigneaux: hi Vidushi - good day - we're getting feedback form the line so you've been muted - if you need to speak
Vidushi Marda 2: sorry that was me!
Yvette Guigneaux: feel free to hit *6 (star 6) to unmute your phone
Yvette Guigneaux: no worries =)
Wale Bakare: Hi everyone. Good morning/afternoon/evening
Yvette Guigneaux: if you can see the chat - would the 202# and the 703# kindly identify for the record please?
Chris Wilson: i did earlier. I am 6514
Yvette Guigneaux: hi Chris - my apologies, that one got by me - thank you for identifying
Chris Wilson: no problem. thanks.
Philip Corwin: I am 703
avri doria: the IRP may be a little heavy, but we should not be crating yet another problem resolution venue
Yvette Guigneaux: hello - would the 310# kindly identify for the record?
avri doria: we need for the subgroup's Board liaison to attend
Yvette Guigneaux: hi Philip - copy that, thank you!
David McAuley (RySG): Thanks bernie, that is good news
David McAuley (RySG): Bernie, that is
Yvette Guigneaux: if you can see the chat - would 310-437-9616 kindly identify for the record?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): wow hang on Team it's called building consensus not a deadline driven end game
David McAuley (RySG): what track are we on?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): no contract penalties for slipping a deadline here we don't get revisions for updates easier if we hand homework in on time
Julf Helsingius: I assuem we are track 1
Alan Greenberg: SOrry for being late. DIdn't notice the time!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: short track
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Chris... volunteer human beings
David McAuley (RySG): Budgeting could be handles by adding "reasonableness" to be judged ultimately by Ombudsman
David McAuley (RySG): not now
Yvette Guigneaux: time check - 30 minute mark
David McAuley (RySG): Nice to get board perspective
David McAuley (RySG): what about cost
David McAuley (RySG): reasonable cost
Vidushi Marda 2: but perhaps defining reasonable becomes problematic?
Vidushi Marda 2: infographic we built adter didp request: https: //urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_VidushiMarda_status_656041061278609408&d=DgICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=EBarlBfQkEd7F6cg5lkrUdsxls_hkV29hTBMdFtHux0&s=lDQRcpHfdA0MQ29Ce10Zh9fFHlxGD3QPcXH695HAx7k&e=
Vidushi Marda 2: yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Michael we need to be careful re our specific mandate within WS2... other work later may of course but
Vidushi Marda 2: adding "providing reasons" or something similar?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): .... but
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): should say build on our foundations
Vidushi Marda 2: my analysis so far shows that as the most often used clause, and my concern is that the newamendment wouldnt change much
Vidushi Marda 2: I will do so in the next week?
Vidushi Marda 2: sure
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Important remark: ICANN per se does not have "commercial interests"; although some of its stakeholders do. I would avoid any expression tending to accredit the notion that ICANN is or should be a "commercial venture"...
Yvette Guigneaux: time check - 15 minute mark
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: No, ICANN does not have "commercial interests".
Philip Corwin: ICANN is non-profit, but not non-commercial
Vidushi Marda 2: in order to define ICANN's commercial interests, we need to know where it gets we need to know where it gets its money from : )
Philip Corwin: A third of a $billion in new gTLD application fees sure looks commercial
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, but the "commercial information" does not originate in, nor belong to ICANN. That belongs to the commercial interests of some stakeholders. I insist on this point, and would oppose the current wording.
Vidushi Marda 2: reposting, just for the benefit of discussion: https: //urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_VidushiMarda_status_656041061278609408&d=DgICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=EBarlBfQkEd7F6cg5lkrUdsxls_hkV29hTBMdFtHux0&s=lDQRcpHfdA0MQ29Ce10Zh9fFHlxGD3QPcXH695HAx7k&e=
Philip Corwin: If commercial is to be omitted what term is to replace it?
Wale Bakare: The interest is about providing services but not-for-profit. The term commercial contextually may mean profit driven. My thought though.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Alan, ICANN renting space does not amount to "ICANN's commercial interests". It's simply part of their necessity to function.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, "the commercial interests of its stakeholders who have those interests".
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: of SOME of its stakeholders. Alan can confirm, inter alia, that ALAC does not have commercial interests...
Vidushi Marda 2: Can we have some time to think about wording? maybe on list?
Vidushi Marda 2: we might be benefitting some interests
Michael Karanicolas: of course vidushi
Ricardo Holmquist: if you put some, and I understand ALAC does not have, it only causes controversy
David McAuley (RySG): Since this is about paragraph 11 I remain of view stated earlier regarding NDAs
Ricardo Holmquist: which one has to open the information, which not
David McAuley (RySG): I will try to do so within a week
Ricardo Holmquist: just put them all, if a stakeholder does not have commercial interest, doesnt have to open any information
Philip Corwin: ICANN enters into enforceable legal agreements with contracted parties from which it derives tens of $millions in fees. How can that not be regarded as commercial ararnegements in furtherance of its non-profit purposes?
Wale Bakare: "Some" carries maybe 70% of stakeholders , more than 50%
Vidushi Marda 2: +1 Phil
Yvette Guigneaux: time check - 5 minute mark
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thanks everyone
Vidushi Marda 2: bye all
Wale Bakare: Thank you, and bye
Julf Helsingius: Thank you everyone
David McAuley (RySG): Thanks all, good bye
Vidushi Marda 2: thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Seasons Greetings, bye for now
Ricardo Holmquist: bye
