Page History

Transcript

• Transcript WP1 Meeting #22 - 28 July 2015.doc
• Transcript WP1 Meeting #22 - 28 July 2015.pdf

Recording

• Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4xzyreh9kx/
• MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-28jul15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Review of Agenda.

2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h) 

3. Final Review of the Following Documents (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )

  Fundamental Bylaws (3B)

  Community Mechanism description (5A1)

  Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)

  Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)

  Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1)

  Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2)

  Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3)

  Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)

Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.  

4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1

5. Any other matters

Documents

Notes

1. Review of Agenda

No editing or proofing on this call. Focus on bringing these documents to frozen state for Public Comment. 

2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h)

Outstanding actions: 

• ·Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member
• ·Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate)

3. Final Review of the Following Documents 

Fundamental Bylaws (3B)

Steve inserted the language from the Articles of Incorporation on page 3. 

--> document complete from WP1 perspective 

Community Mechanism description (5A1)

page 4 -- 

• Add: "unless otherwise specified" 
• ·Malcolm's suggested lanuage: "In circumstances where the Bylaws provide for the resolution of disputes between ICANN and otherparties through the IRP process, the CMSM will also have the ability to require ICANN to enter intothe IRP process and abide by its outcome, should it not do so voluntarily. This power to requireICANN to abide by its Bylaws arises automatically from its status as a member of the corporation andcan, if necessary, be further backed through judicial proceedings"
• lower threshold only for enforcing the bylaws in respect of participation in the IRP? Yes

Action (Jordan): review this document to do updates based on discussion and chart from lawyers

Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- 

• ·Alan's comments (via email): Voting Mechanism: As mentioned on the CCWG call, If an AC/SO wants to withdraw from participating, there should not be a delay. If there is, their lack of voting should not count against the action. Otherwise they may effectively block the action by making it impossible or almost impossible to achieve sufficient votes. Alternatively, the counting method could take this into account (as I think Holly suggested in the chat). But what is harm in making withdrawal immediate?

Action (Jordan) add clarification in text re: voting for SO/ACs in the mechanism

Jordan's text on quorum/voting: 

"The CCWG-Accountability proposes that for the purposes of the simplest possible administration of the voting system that the thresholds expressed for each community power should be absolute. This means that if a threshold is 66%, then 66%+ of the votes that could be cast by participants in the CMSM at that time need to be 'yes' votes for the threshold to be met. No votes, abstentions or non-participation would all be treated the same way."

"An alternative approach that adjusted the thresholds based on the number of yes/no votes compared with the number of abstentions or non-votes was considered, but adds significant complexity and so is not the CCWG's preference at this time."

Agree with proposal on screen:  Ticks (Yes): 5; Crosses (No): 3

Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)

Action: Alan suggests in para 3 to add the Board and staff reference for completness

Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1)

• Added reference to CWG Stewardship proposal in paragraph 3
• Added reference to WS2 process for improvements
• ·Alan on budget: I am still uncomfortable with the concept of there being two separate budgets, one for IANA and one for the rest of ICANN. Normally, from a fiscal point of view, there is only a single budget which encompasses everything. Surely the funds to be used for IANA come from the same revenue pot as the rest of the expenses. Do we have confirmation from ICANN FInance that the words we have there make sense?

Action: clarify paragraph 6 & 8 (para 6 helps deal with Public Comment concerns)

Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2)

No comments. Can move on

Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3)

Main changes to this doc were to add clarity

Alan's Comments: 

• ·Rarely can we convene a new teleconference and get all of the necessary people together in a 15 day window. Is what we are proposing possible, and what happens if the 15-day delay is not met (para 5). 
• ·In section d, is the 3/4 vote of the "5" votes of the community mech, or 3/4 of whatever internal voting the AC/SO has? 
• ·Para 7d The 3/5 requirement seems to be lowering the threshold from other votes (according to the newly proposed vote-counting mechanism). 
• Lastly, should we specify whether a replacing term counts against the 3-term limit on directors?

Action: Amend the report in the following way: 

• ·Add note in paragraph 10 about replacement directors time not counting against them (term limits don't apply)
• Bring up the 15 day period on CCWG call

Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)

• ·Comment from Alan: Is the NomCom prepared to name interim directors PRIOR to the vote? If the vote fails, that means they have compromised their secrecy of potential but not-yet-named candidates.
• Action: amend the 2nd paragraph on page 2 to include update on threshold

Staff -- within next 6h: 

• All powers in one doc
• All mechanism related stuff in one doc

4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1

5. Any other matters

BRAVO JORDAN!

BRAVO WP1!

No WS2 for Jordan (unless we convince him)

Action items

• ·Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member
• ·Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate)

•  Action (Jordan): review this document to do updates based on discussion and chart from lawyers

•  Action (Jordan) add clarification in text re: voting for SO/ACs in the mechanism

•  Action: Alan suggests in para 3 to add the Board and staff reference for completness

•  Action: clarify paragraph 6 & 8 (para 6 helps deal with Public Comment concerns)

•  Action: Amend the report in the following way: 

• Bring up the 15 day period on CCWG call
• Add note in paragraph 10 about replacement directors time not counting against them (term limits don't apply)

•  Action: amend the 2nd paragraph on page 2 to include update on threshold

Chat transcript

Kimberly Carlson: (7/28/2015 11:13) Welcome to WP1 Meeting #22 on 28 July!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:37) Hi all!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:57) hello all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:57) hello all

  Kimberly Carlson: (12:57) Hello All

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (12:57) Hello again!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:58) Good Evening all!

  Mathieu Weill: (12:59) So, we meet again ! Hello !

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:03) Hello, all.

  Thomas Rickert: (13:03) Hi all!

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:04) Sleeping again, Jordan?!  Bad habit....

  Matthew Shears: (13:06) ah bonjour all

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:06) In Alan's email he doesnt mention anything about Fundamental Bylaws

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (13:07) I will try to look at Alan's email too.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:07) Grace -- can you please display the version I sent 3 hours ago?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:07) Jordan -- I made Rosemary's edits.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:08) working on it

  Mathieu Weill: (13:09) Ok s we're all looking at Alan's email then ;-)

  Mathieu Weill: (13:09) Well done Alan !

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:10) sorry for moving docs. they are unsynced now

  Matthew Shears: (13:10) thanks Steve - good insertion

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:11) Say goodnight to this doc

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:12) One down!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:14) The lawyers are good with the anguage that Brenda sent us re the IRP CMSM language

  Matthew Shears: (13:14) Malcolm could you refer to the specific text section

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:14) anguage is language

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:14) What language did Brenda send you, Holly?

  Mathieu Weill: (13:15) For the record I don't think Alan was commenting on this particular document

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:16) +1 mathieu

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:16) @Jordan:  "In circumstances where the Bylaws provide for the resolution of disputes between ICANN and otherparties through the IRP process, the CMSM will also have the ability to require ICANN to enter intothe IRP process and abide by its outcome, should it not do so voluntarily. This power to requireICANN to abide by its Bylaws arises automatically from its status as a member of the corporation andcan, if necessary, be further backed through judicial proceedings."

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:16) the language Malcolm sent you in an email earlier today

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:16) What statutory power is Malcolm citing to?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:16) Yes - Rosemary has it -- speedy cut and paste skilss!

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:16) I can't find it.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:17) How can we ensure a part of the community can bring an IRP to enforce bylaws (when there is always one part of the ICANN community who benefited from the bylaws violation and so will not agree to bring the IRP.  If we require unanimity to bring an IRP against ICANN, we will almost never be able to bring one.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:17) Would 2/3 fit Malcolm ?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:18) Agree, Robin.  Unanimity amounts to a single party veto. 

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:18) That's not what's being discussed.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:18) @Steve : you might be quoted on that in another context ;-)

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:18) Robin, I think you are missing a step -- ACs and Sos that are impacted can bring an IRP process

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:19) simple majority seems appropriate

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:19) Holly, so one part of an SO (for example NCSG) could bring an IRP without unanimity of the entire member?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:19) anyone has standing in the IRP, don't they?

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:20) Bringing an IRP has nothing to do with the Community Member.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:20) you don't have to be the Member to ues the IRP

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:20) Yes -- the IRP isnt the community power -- it is available to members of the community as I undersatnd it

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:21) Exactly Jordan and Greg. 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:21) ok - that helps - thanks

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:21) I think we're confusing two things.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:24) Lawyers will be providing an appendix chart on the statutory powers  -- in the works now

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:26) Are you asking lawyers to recommend the voting thresholds? 

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:26) You can set them to be whatever you want, for each right or all rights.

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:26) I have just sent through proposed text within the 5A paper to the list

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:27) @Greg, threatening it is the power short of filing

  Mathieu Weill: (13:28) +1, concerns would be raised with simple majority

  Keith Drazek: (13:28) Good to know there's flexibility, thanks Rosemary.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:28) 2/3 is more consistent with the rest of our work

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:29) Yes Mathieu, that was my point but you have great flexibility to do whatever you want to do

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:29) a low threshold to bringing derivative lawsuits will encourage lawsuits that could be very disruptive.

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:29) Approving that ICANN should disregard its own bylaws so as to refuse the dispute resolution system we have created should never happen.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) I think we could have a narrow exception on that one

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) and a high for the rest

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:30) Robin, only if a majority of the participating Sos and ACs agree

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:32) yes, I support Malcom's suggestion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:33) So my proposal is that we have a general high threshold for the powers in the (yet to be seen) chart, and a lower threshold only for enforcing the bylaws in respect of participation in the IRP

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:33) it sends a signal about the importance of the IRP as the foundation of our internal community solution for dispute resolution

  Mathieu Weill: (13:33) Not my preferred option Jordan but can live with it for public comment

  Keith Drazek: (13:34) I'm comfortable with the proposal for public comment.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:36) Greg you are still ticked

  Mathieu Weill: (13:36) Wildcard support N

  Mathieu Weill: (13:36) ?

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (13:36) Alan Greenberg has a comment on this.

  Keith Drazek: (13:36) Is Greg angry?

  Keith Drazek: (13:37) ;-)

  Matthew Shears: (13:37) :)

  Mathieu Weill: (13:37) Alan comment : As mentioned on the CCWG call, If an AC/SO wants to withdraw from participating, there should not be a delay. If there is, their lack of voting should not count against the action. Otherwise they may effectively block the action by making it impossible or almost impossible to achieve sufficient votes. Alternatively, the counting method could take this into account (as I think Holly suggested in the chat). But what is harm in making withdrawal immediate?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:37) Not clar what the off ramp time period is for

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:37) Not clear

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:37) Thanks @julie and @mathieu

  Mathieu Weill: (13:39) Can we have scroll control

  Mathieu Weill: (13:39) ?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:39) @Mathieu, I have scroll control.  It's just you.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:40) ok I see...

  Keith Drazek: (13:40) I don't have scroll control either, so it must be intermittent.

  Matthew Shears: (13:40) I agree with the reflection of the diversity of viewds on this matter

  Suzanne Radell: (13:40) I don't have it either

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) no thanks

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:41) So maybe it's just me, then (re: scroll control).

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:41) I also have scrolll controlllll

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:41) Easier for readers to see proposal and counter-points in one place.   Much harder for the reader to open Minority Report(s) to see if there are diverging views on this topic

  Mathieu Weill: (13:42) Jealous about scroll control. I'm considering an objection. ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:42) We could reflect by reference to the public comment which did raise other suggestions

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:42) IPC and ISPC public comments support additional votes for GNSO

  Keith Drazek: (13:42) I support including language highlighting the differences of views on this topic. This is a change from our previous proposal, not based on pushback from the community. It's evolved from discussions on the single-member model.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:42) Ithink there is a sensible and simple way to add a para that does summon this up

  Matthew Shears: (13:42) + 1 Keith

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:43) NCSG comments did as well, Steve.

  Matthew Shears: (13:43) I think we have to acknowledge that this is more than just the number of votes for SSAC and RSSac however

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:43) Agree with Keith.

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (13:45) Agree with you, Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (13:45) I think we need to solicit public comment on the vote allocation.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:45) True, Matt.  It is also about the appropriate role of the AC (in my view).

  George Tribecka: (13:46) Agree with Keith

  Matthew Shears: (13:46) + 1 Keith on soliciting public comment

  George Tribecka: (13:46) There is no consensus on this issue.

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) There are many ways to slice and dice this issue. Some may want ACs to have lower voting powers than SOs. Others may look at ALAC as being more sensitive to naming-related issues than ASO. There's not going to be a silver bullet for this issue.

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) But I think it needs to be a part of our final proposal and not deferred.

  George Tribecka: (13:47) True Keith, but crowdsourcing always comes up with novel approaches. Debate is being shut off.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:47) Right - there is no consensus on this issue and the proposal we are putting out is less than 24 hours old.

  Matthew Shears: (13:47) + 1 Keith (again :))

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (13:48) We need to note Alan's comments re delay to withdraw.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:48) Did we even do a consensus call on this new proposal?  We probably shoudld.

  Keith Drazek: (13:48) We haven't done a consensus call on anything yet, so I don't think we need one now. Let's just put out the question for public reaction.

  Matthew Shears: (13:49) I agree - this is very complex for a consensus call

  Mathieu Weill: (13:49) Agree Keith, sad but that's the one issue we have to get to votes in the CCWG for (ironically), unless we manage to come up with something based on the need for a solution to satisfy all SOs and ACs that are the Chartering Orgs

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:49) we can definitely put it out for public comment, Keith.  But *how* the issue is framed is important - the lack of consensus on this point should be reflected in the text we put out along with the leading alternatives and their rationales

  Matthew Shears: (13:50) Agree Robin

  George Tribecka: (13:50) I am not sure minority report would be the correct term for a dissenting report here. I think amongsr those commenting here it would be a majority report.

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:51) @Robin, that does seem consistent with what Mattieu proposed as a process for minority views in the CCWW call earlier today

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (13:51) Agree that opt-out could skew votes.  Not sure that it is required.

  Matthew Shears: (13:51) This is more than a minority position - its fundamental to the whole mechanism and need to present the various views and solicit input

  Mathieu Weill: (13:51) yes Malcolm (although was presented by Thomas)

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:51) @Mathieu, apologies (and to Thomas)

  Thomas Rickert: (13:52) no worries, Malcolm. It is a privilege to be confused with Mathieu. You are not the first one to do that :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:52) But your accents are so different, Thomas!

  Keith Drazek: (13:52) For the record, the RySG was comfortable  with the reference model proposal from public comment period #1. We now have to evaluate a  new propopsal based on a new model (CMSM). We have no position at this time, therefore we need to consider further.

  Suzanne Radell: (13:53) Pursuant to the suggestion that the text contain options,  could one of the options be characterized as non-voting liaison functions?  This is a concept that is referenced by several GAC members in the compilation of GAC comments

  Thomas Rickert: (13:53) Keith, as described during the main call, we hope to be able to present a consensus by the group. Hence we should be as clear as possible on the figures.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:53) Silence is assent

  Matthew Shears: (13:53) @ Keith - absolutley agree

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:54) I think that is one of the alternatives being propoed, Suzanne, so I would say yes.

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:54) If we have on-ramps and off-ramps, we could also have rest areas.

  Thomas Rickert: (13:54) Keith, if you think the figures should be as for the first report, you should say so now. If you have an issue with it, we should bring it forward. Otherwise we might have divergence on that question.

  Matthew Shears: (13:54) @ Suzanne - yes that should be an option

  George Tribecka: (13:54) Again, it appears we are being forced to accept this option despite little debate. I compare this to previous models whivh we vetted for months.

  Suzanne Radell: (13:55) Re Holly's point, although the GAC has had very limited experience with "voting" in the ICANN community, my recollection is that abstention is considered to represent neutrality, vice assent

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:55) There is nothing to liase to in the CMSM ... It is simply a pass thoruogh for AC SO voting on community powers

  Keith Drazek: (13:56) I am not opposed to either proposal.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (13:56) A reminder of the option to contribute with advice rather than by voting would be valuable.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:56) The CCWG-Accountability proposes that for the purposes of the simplest possible administration of the voting system that the thresholds expressed for each community power should be absolute. This means that if a threshold is 66%, then 66%+ of the votes that could be cast by participants in the CMSM at that time need to be 'yes' votes for the threshold to be met. No votes, abstentions or non-participation would all be treated the same way."

  Matthew Shears: (13:56) + 1 Mark

  Mathieu Weill: (13:57) (above is the proposal by Alan & Jordan)

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:57) "George Tribecka":  Who are you?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:57) Also agree, Mark.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:00) What Jordan is describing means Abstention = No Vote. It abolishs the right to abstain

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:00) This proposed threshhold model means that AC/SOs who really care about a vote will need to "lobby" other AC/SOs to vote Yes.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:01) This is a simple and elegant solution. 

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:01) @Jordan, I disagree. If someone wants to abstain, and that contributes to the vote failing, then you have converted their vote into a No vote

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:01) This was a point Kavouss made very strongly

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:01) This is votes cast as a percentage of votes outstanding ( that is how it would be described in corporate law terms)

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:01) I agree that if SO/ACs choose to participate in the CM, they have an obligation to vote on all issues.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:02) +1 Julie

  Thomas Rickert: (14:02) agree

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:03) Malcolm, your point makes sense in a lagere voting community but here there are a very small number voters

  Mathieu Weill: (14:04) + the decisions at play are all structural and related to Icann as a whole

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:05) do we want bylaws changed if only a small portion of the community vote for it?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:05) THreshholds below 2/3 are not going to be recognized as Supermajority, which was our intent

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:05) but do you want community powers exercised on such a potentially small participation?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:06) I mean, if many abstain, should bylaws changes still go through?

  Matthew Shears: (14:06) so no abstentions and non participation would be considered no -votes?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:06) +1 Robin

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:06) @Holly -- AC/SO who abstains IS participating.    They just don't have a preference

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:06) Allowing for non-voting effectively allows opt-in opt-out at will without any repercusssions.

  Matthew Shears: (14:07) I think abstentions and non-particpation are unaccpetable given the imprtance of the issues at hand

  Mathieu Weill: (14:07) +1 Matthew

  Matthew Shears: (14:07) we are talking about fundamental accountability enhance,ments and community powers

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:07) @Matthew, I agree, but they WILL happen

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:07) Quorum -- as well as threshold for approval -- can be set at a percentage of votes that could be cast at any time.

  Keith Drazek: (14:07) I think for these critical powers, a yes/no vote should be required.

  Matthew Shears: (14:08) + 1 Keith

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:08) Having fought so hard to get the right to vote, I fully expect GAC to fail to cast its vote

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:09) @Thomas: if we do that, and also record that the group was not close to consensus, that would be fine with me. Happy to provide text

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:09) @Jordan, yes, happy to help

  Mathieu Weill: (14:09) Malcolm are you confusing me with Thomas... again ? ;-)

  Matthew Shears: (14:10) abstentions and non-participation are really unaccpetable considering the importnce of these powers

  Thomas Rickert: (14:10) :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:10) I do think this issue needs to be teased out a bit further with examples and such.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:10) You are blending together into a composite entity as Chairs. Apols again.

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:11) Alan suggests in para 3 to add the Board to non-participating ACs.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:11) No offense Malcolm we are en Entity now ;-)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:11) I think this is an excellent bit of text

  Thomas Rickert: (14:11) Malcolm, if you add León to the composite entity, wouldn't that make a trinity :-)

  Mathieu Weill: (14:12) Now that you mention it Thomas...

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:12) I could have sworn that was Thomas speaking last

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:13) Correct -- it was not discussed

  Mathieu Weill: (14:13) Alan comment on Budget : I am still uncomfortable with the concept of there being two separate budgets, one for IANA and one for the rest of ICANN. Normally, from a fiscal point of view, there is only a single budget which encompasses everything. Surely the funds to be used for IANA come from the same revenue pot as the rest of the expenses. Do we have confirmation from ICANN FInance that the words we have there make sense?Related to this, at the start, we talk about a veto of the IANA budget and a veto of the ICANN budget (para 3) but in the rest of the document, we only talk about a single veto. Is the process repeated for each? We need some clarity here.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:15) thanks @Mathieu and @Julie. You are doing a great job being inclusive of Alan's comments :)

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:17) :-)

  Avri Doria: (14:18) my class is over. i see i am not to late.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:19) Thank you for the clarification Jordan in this draft.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:19) No comment from Alan on this doc

  Mathieu Weill: (14:20) Alan comments on Removal :

  Mathieu Weill: (14:20) Rarely can we convene a new teleconference and get all of the necessary people together in a 15 day window. Is what we are proposing possible, and what happens if the 15-day delay is not met (para 5).In section d, is the 3/4 vote of the "5" votes of the community mech, or 3/4 of whatever internal voting the AC/SO has?Para 7-d The 3/5 requirement seems to be lowering the threshold from other votes (according to the newly proposed vote-counting mechanism).Lastly, should we specify whether a replacing term counts against the 3-term limit on directors?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:22) a replacing term typically counts in terms of the term (remaining part of 3 years) but does not count toward the term limit -- that is the common approach in corporate law with which I am familiar.  Don't have to go that route but it makes sense

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:23) I see that "George Tribecka" left the meeting rather than reveal his (or her) true identity.  We should disregard any comments made by this account.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:24) I have lost phone connection - will try to reconnect

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:25) Looks good

  Mathieu Weill: (14:27) Alan's comment in in the notes

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:29) Suggest we say, "two SO/ACs, of which one must be an SO" so that this language will scale if we have more ACs

  Matthew Shears: (14:30) so is that at least 2 SOs or 2 ACs but not some combination thereof?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:30) no Matthew, it is not.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:30) Greg is suggesting 2 SOs or 1 SO and 1 AC

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:30) Two SOs or ACs, at least one of which must be an SO

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:30) I like Greg's suggestion.

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:30) I think that is fine too.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:31) Fine for me as well

  Thomas Rickert: (14:34) good

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:35) Incidentally, that is the only minority statement I expect to have to proffer: otherwise, I think we have a very good proposal. Which is another reason I like the Chair's suggested way to avoid minority reports

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:36) THanks, Malcolm

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:36) But I do fear the chaos that will ensue from a failed attempt to use this particular power

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:36) Co-Chairs and Staff, Could we have an update on when lawyers will get more docs for review for our planning purposes?

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:36) We are aiming to send by 6pm ET today

  Thomas Rickert: (14:37) Timing is not yet agreed

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:37) And when will you need us to turn them back to the group?

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:37) before next CCWG call? Please confirm with Chairs.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:37) Malcolm, I would like to better understand your concern on this point.  Are you saying the easy triggering of the board recall power will cause chaos?

  Mathieu Weill: (14:38) +1 Grace, that's a bit less than 24 hours turnaround, I know

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:38) Jordan -- I can help with Public Comment responses

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:39) I think we just update the Public COmment tool so we tell the commenter how we reflected their input in our 2nd draft.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:39) We will do our best .  If you could start feeding docs to u it would be appreciated Grace and team

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:39) We are trying to pull them together from different folks.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:39) 3 of them need edits based on this call, so it will be tight

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:40) Understood and appreciated, Grace!

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:40) Hear hear!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:40) Applause for Jordan!!!

  Keith Drazek: (14:40) +1 to Mathieu's comments....and another +999

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:40) Agreed, Mathieu!

  Suzanne Radell: (14:40) Plus 1, Mathieu, and kudos to Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:40) Agreed with Matieu!  Huge thanks to Jordan for chairing us well!!!

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:40) +1, even as a latecomer!

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:41) First time I've gotten to us the "applause" button.  Great job, Jordan.

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:41) Jordan, I look forward to seeing you outdo yourself in Workstream 2!

  Matthew Shears: (14:41) yes, excellent job Jordan and all

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:41) You won't be able to stay away....

  Keith Drazek: (14:42) Thanks all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:42) bye all

  Matthew Shears: (14:42) thanks all!

  Suzanne Radell: (14:42) Thanks all

  Avri Doria: (14:42) bye

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:42) Thank you Jordan!!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:42) thanks, bye all

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:42) Thanks all!

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:42) Bye for now, everyone.