Members:    

Participants:  

Legal Counsel:  

  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (24)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Ron da Silva, Seun Ojedeji, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw   (39)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit  (4)

Staff:  Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Nigel Hickson, Tarek Kamel, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, Yuko GreenStaff:  

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Mark Carvell

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Transcript

• Transcript CCWG ACCT #74_5 January 2016.doc
• Transcript CCWG ACCT #74_5 January 2016.pdf
  

Recording

• The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9exhp56rmu/

• The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-05jan16-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI (5’)
2. Update from Chartering Organizations (15’)
3. Global Public Interest (GPI) (15’)
4. January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda (30’)
5. Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 (45’)
6. Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation (30’)
7. Marrakech – ICANN 55 (15’)
8. A.O.B (10’) 

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

1.     Welcome, Roll Call, SoI MW (5’)

• • Bruce Tonkin on audio only

2.     Update from Chartering Organizations LS (15’)

• • MWeil - The ccNSO statement on the third draft is being reviewed by the council and is expected soon.
  • JHammer  SSAC- Nothing new.
  • AGreenberg  ALAC - Nothing new
  • KDrazez gNSO - For the Chartering Organization Update, I can report the GNSO Council has formed a working group to analyze the comments submitted by the GNSO SGs and Cs. This is intended to enable a clear and concise message to the CCWG on January 14 when the GNSO Council will meet and pass a resolution approving such a communication. There are several areas of concern across multiple GNSO organizations and the GNSO is working to synthesize these concerns to identify any red flags.
  • Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): The GAC has received members views on each Recommendation and is scheduling discussion calls over the next 2 weeks.
  • Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): In addition to Tom Dale's info: there has been also a preliminary GAC submission on a number of key recommendations.
  • Kavouss Arasteh: GAC reply was only preliminary and provisional
  • FIONA ASONGA (ASO): The ASO response was already sent in. Observing discussion should there be changes to the third draft in generating a final proposal.

3.    Global Public Interest (GPI) TR (15’)

• • CCWG advisors have been asked for opinion on GPI.
  • CCWG have asked the Board for rationale for mentioning GPI in its comments on the third draft.
  • The CCWG is obtaining this information to provide a rationale to the Board should a CCWG recommendation not meet the ICANN Board concerns.
  • KArasteh - There is only one reference to GPI in the ICANN Bylaws - therefore it is difficult to agree with the ICANN Board that it could reject a CCWG recommendation based on GPI given GPI is still undefined.
  • TRickert - The points you have made are good arguments when providing a rationale to the Board.
  • AGreenberg - Any attempt by the CCWG to define GPI is ill advised.
  • MHutty - Supports co-chairs letter to the ICANN Board. The CCWG should not attempt to define GPI. It is the responsibility of the Board to explain to the CCWG if they chose to use this argument.
  • TBen Jemaa - Not productive to tell the Board something is or is not against GPI. Best to ask them for a rationale.
  • BTonkin - the Board would produce a full rationale if it used the GPI argument. this being said it is hoped this would not be needed.

4.     January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda MW (30’)

• • MWeill - 2 calls per week, Tuesday and Thursday with well identified topics. Standardize approach to all recommendations to work with chartering orgs. and the Board. Participation by the ICANN Board - Board representatives will participate on all calls and there will be a weekly coordination call to minimize round-trips on any changes to recommendations. Continue with 2 reading per item. In rare cases there may be a need to poll the members as per the charter.
  • KArasteh - Everyone should agree on these methods. Tuesday and Thursday are too close for serious consideration. Formatting suggestion on working method.
  • MWeill - This is the point of presenting and discussing this today. The 2 reading approach will not have a second reading in the same week the first reading was taken.
  • MHutty - Method for developing changes to the proposal. Concerned about careful consideration.
  • MWeill - The documents for this call were distributed more than 24 hours. Providing documents in time will be a challenge and is the objective.
  • AGreenberg - Who will produce the documents? There is a level of opaqueness that is confusing.
  • MWeill - Work has been mostly been co-chairs at this point. Becky is prepping the mission document. Others can participate.
  • AGreenberg - ALAC has identified a number of red lines - how will discussion lead to resolutions.
  • MWeill - what are you proposing.
  • AGreenberg - May be best if those that have issues have a chance to discuss solutions.
  • MWeill - Our approach would seem to be consistent. Currently simply preparing the documents and properly presenting issues and possible fixes for simple issues. The summary of comments and issues should also assist in this.
  • ASullivan - Unclear what is being discussed. Some people seem unhappy with the number of meetings - alternatively we could use the mail list to work productively. Would appreciate understanding what the issues are - this needs to get done even if this is uncomfortable.
  • RMeijer - the more time we have the more time we take. We need to focus on the issues we have to work on. The question I have is how decisions will be taken given the topics we have to deal with will be difficult and may require an alternate methodology for decisions.
  • MWeill - In rare occasions members will be advised that there will be a poll to establish formal consensus if required.
  • TBen Jemaa - Agree with RM. Do not agree with adding calls of work parties - this will not be workable. The mailing list should be used between calls to discuss issues between calls. Consensus will not be easy to achieve and if necessary the charter says we can use polls.
  • MWeill - reasoning for the current Tuesday and Thursday is the requirement for prep and debriefs before and after each call of the CCWG.
  • KArasteh - As long as everyone agrees I can support. 3 hours is too long. There is no requirement to finish in January, we need to take the time required. We need to negotiate with each other to identify a workable solution. Let us remember there will never be perfection. Re TBJ -
  • MWeill - we will need good summaries of the discussions after each callpromptly. We will maintain the 3 h ours but hopefully we will not need all the time.

• • IOkutani - Supports proposed methodology. Question - how will information be shared prior to calls? Trying to coordinate any changes with the ASO to ensure they can support.  will the options be distributed prior to the calls?
  • MWeill - There will be at least one week between a first and second reading which will provide time for the various communities to consider the options.
  • MWeill - presenting proposed agenda for next meetings. Comments welcome now or on the list if there are concerns given there is still some flexibility. For this Thursday material will be introduced on all the topics. This would conclude this section. 

5.       Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 LS (45’)

• LS Document distributed with comments-markups for rec. 12.

• • Meetings Wiki page:  https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw
  • KArasteh - How should we handle the Board concerns.
  • LS - BTonkin can comment on this.
  • BTonkin - Proposed approach is heading in the right direction of the Board considering the WS2 recommendations would need to meet the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations. Bylaw could be generalized - maybe not refer to CCWG - to give flexibility - chartering orgs may wish to break out the WS2 work into specific working groups so expertise can be allocated as needed.
  • LSanchez - Re KA comments - all comments will be considered, if there are substantial changes then there would be a need for a supplementary recommendation.
  • LSanchez - given BTonkin thinks this is a good way forward.
  • MHutty - there has been no discussion and no way to have it approved by the CCWG.
  • LSanchez - this was not the intent - This is a proposal to the CCWG which would address the Board concerns.
  • MHutty - How are we going to proceed?
  • LSanchez - We propose to use to 4 key points listed at the top of the document. However we can go through the document para by para if the group so wishes.
  • KArasteh - Need concrete suggestions from the Board which can be considered by the CCWG.
  • MWeill - Comments in the word document are the comments from the public consultation. The edits are suggestions to clarify and resolve certain of the issues. One of these is that WS2 recommendations have the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations.
  • MHutty - If we are going to change from CCWG to something else it should be clear that participation should still be open.
  • LSanchez - does not see obstacles wrt.
  • Lsanchez - 15 minute break.

• • BREAK at 25 past the hour - return at 20 to.

• • Return.

• • LSanchez - Next step discuss timeframe modifications. Original proposal was for the end of 2016.
  • LSanchez - Discuss proposed changes on list. No objections.
  • LSanchez - timeline - propose to change to mid-2017. Comments?
  • KArasteh - Propose to say start in 2016 and continue in 2017.
  • Niels ten Oever - Link bet rec. 6 and rec 12 especially considering ALAC comment on rec. 6. Uncertain how to resolve.
  • LSanchez - there are many interrelations with rec. 12. As to the ALAC comment this is a point for discussion.
  • AGReenberg - Clarification about a timeline in a bylaw which would be the issue. Timeline are tricky and it would seem unrealistic to try and identify specific end dates.
  • SDelBianco - top of page 2 the Goal for the CCWG would be to finalize recommendations for WS2 by the end of 2016. Current recommendation only notes that the Board consider the recommendations vs accept them.
  • LSanchez - There is no need to have the recommendations implemented by the end -
  • CDispain - WS2 recommendations would be under the new accountability rules.
  • LSanchez - timeframe is required but should be more of a target than a hard deadline. Any objections to this approach. Target should be flexible per the needs of the participants - no objections and there will be a second reading of this at another meeting next week.
  • LSanchez - Expansion of Ombudsman role. This was required but not included in any detail.
  • MWeill - need a volunteer to craft a few paras regarding the expansion of the Ombudsman role. Call for volunteers.
  • LSanchez - BBurr volunteers. No sound from Avri Doria. Expecting the draft for circulation in the next few days.
  • LSanchez completes this section.

6.     Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation TR (30’)

Annotated rec. 4 document = https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw

• • TRickert - We are only dealing with mitigation of removing ind. Board directors at this point. The issue is that someone who begins such action could be sued by the Director for doing so. Could the inclusion of pre-service letters by Directors address the concern. Would also like to ensure the Board has no concerns regarding the implementation guidelines.
  • AGreenberg - Suing is not the issue - indemnification is the issue. All the concepts are there they just need to be adjusted.
  • TRickert - We can work on the language.
  • TBenJemaa - Same comment as with AG. Agrees with the concept but not the exact wording. There is no mention that there will be a reason for a recall - the rules states that there will a rationale given to remove the director. Remove no reason association with suing.

• • TRickert - let us not wordsmith, this goes to implementation phase. Volunteers should work with the lawyers to finalize the text and bring it back next week.
  • KArasteh - Are all Board comments being considered.
  • TRickert - they will be but not today.
  • AGreenberg - It would be useful to know under California law if this is a valid concept.
  • TRickert - Lawyers implementing this would never draft this if it was not feasible.
  • BTonkin - Removing a director requires a due process (escalation), Board has required a written a rationale so any issues could be addressed. Protections are necessary but statements have to be factual. Statements need to be factual.
  • TRickert - There is a requirement to publish a reason for the removal which should meet this requirement. Lawyers should provide the director to protect themselves from unreasonable accusations (murderer, swindler etc.). the way forward is to certify the lawyers to help with the wordsmithing so the text can be considered at a future meeting.
  • MHutty - Protection are needed. Wild accusations would be unprecedented given this is a community position vs individual.
  • TRickert - this closes this issue. The new text will be presented for discussion by the CCWG.

7.     Marrakech – ICANN 55 MW (15’)

• • MWeill - ICANN has rejected the option for a Friday meeting prior to ICANN 55. TSwineheart to comment.
  • TSwineheart - This is the first meeting under the new strategy and adding days would not align this.
  • MWeill - this requires us to revise the planning for the Maraketch meeting. Comments?
  • MWeill - re GShattan chat question - what is the ICANN option? MWeill - ICANN will free up time during the meeting.
  • SBachollet - As a Chair of the working group referred to by TS should not be used to not allow this.
  • KArasteh - Changing dates requires people to change tickets which will imply penalties. Please provide additional warning to avoid this.
  • AGreenberg - SB said most of what I wanted to say. Using this as the basis for not supporting this is poor.  Scheduling sessions during the ICANN meeting does not consider that many people have other work to do during the week.
  • ASullivan - Trying to understand if using the meeting policy is useful.
  • TSwineheart - useful feedback, the work required for ICANN 55 would better accommodated during the meeting. As the CCWG moves into WS2 this is a different phase and looking at how to integrate this into the standard ICANN meetings. This not about not wanting to support or being supportive it is about better integration.
  • MWeill - this will require further discussion on ICANN 55 and forward. Who is responsible for making these decisions and has ok’ed the change.
  • TSwineheart - We will be happy to consider in the context of the evolution.
  • MWeill - The question has not been answered. The CCWG is responsible for making its work plans - who is responsible for the decision to meet those requests?

• • TSwineheart - this is a cross -organization group that considers this. I will take it back and get back to the co-chairs.
  • MWeill - We will need an answer in the next 24 to 48 hours.
  • TBenJemaa - This is a decision of the CCWG and not of the staff or the Board - this is not about the new meeting strategy. If not possible let us ask why.
  • SBachollet - there is a discrepancy between the CCWG and ICANN.
  • KArasteh - CCWG has to be very clear if it needs an additional 1 day meeting then make the request to the Board. We need a dedicated 1 day meeting. and get an answer within one week.
  • JCarter - The new meeting strategy should not be the basis for this considering the other work we all have to do. this should not be an endless process and ICANN should reconsider.
  • BTonkin - There are two types of meetings - phone and face to face. The face to face is a much richer experience. I would encourage staff to make a room available for this during the meeting. Is there a way to resolve this during the week - as a last resort we can look at the Friday if required.
  • RMeijer - Understand Bruce's point, we have has Friday meetings before and attendance was never a problem. Doing this work is exceptional, this is like expecting us to do CCWG during office hours. So it is strange that given the CCWG is responsible for its schedule that ICANN should not respond accordingly.
  • MWeill - There will be a need for significant face to face in ICANN 55 for completing WS1 and starting work on WS2. We will continue to work with ICANN and advise the CCWG of the results. The discussion is not completed.
  • BTonkin - I will commit to work with staff to try and make the Friday meeting happen.
  • TSwineheart - This has been very useful and helps us move forward in a constructive fashion.
  • This completes this item.

8.       A.O.B LS (10’)

• • LSanchez - Any other AOB
  • TRickert - The question is do we wish to get our own legal input on how the risk can be mitigated with respect to human rights. This could be a way to bridge the gap with the Board on HR.
  • TBenJemaa - There are other comments than the Board with respect to HR. All of these have to be considered.
  • Niels ten Oever - we have done this work with our lawyers and found there to be no risk. But if this helps move this forward it should be done.
  • LSanchez - we will develop text to frame the request to the lawyers which we will send to the list.
  • LSanchez - any other AOB. None.

• • This completes the call.

Action Items

Documents

• CCWG January Work Plan - 5 Jan.pdf
• Rec 12 - Annex 12 with track-changes.pdf
• Rec 4 - Annex with track changes.pdf
  

Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (1/5/2016 12:12) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #74 on 5 January 2016 @ 19:00 UTC!  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 

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:32) Hi Brenda, Happy New Year! when the time comes can you do a dial out to my office? +54 11 4819 7979 thanks!

  Brenda Brewer: (12:34) Hi Olga!  Thank you, I will arrange for operator to call you.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:42) many thanks Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Dear Brenda, Dear Olga, Dear Tijani, Dear those who join later and last but not least

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Dear Co-Chair

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Happy New Year

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:51) DEAR CO-CHAIRS

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:52) I have sent you many messages asking you to be so kind with every body and take a full democratic approach without any imposition what so ever.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:52) I hope the message has reached you with favourable consideration

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:53) Dear CO-cHAIR.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:54) For this meeting we exceptionally agree with 3 hours duration BUT WITH 20 mints of break for those who might have other necessary things to do including breathing fresh air

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:55) For the following meerting we could agree with the duration, frequency including deadline once agreement is reached 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:55) hi everyone!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:56) Hello all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:56) NO PRESURE .NO RUSH.NO HURRY

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:56) hello everyone! Happy new year!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:56) happy new year to all!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:56) let us for the first time dio someting in full tranquility

  nigel hickson: (12:57) Greetings one and all 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:57) happy new year, and here's to it being the last one ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:57) (of CCWG WS1, I mean)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:57) happy new year! frohes neues jahr! feliz anyo nuevo!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:58) Hi all and Happy New Year!

  Niels ten Oever: (12:58) Hello everyone, best wishes for the new year.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:58) Hello all :) NY greetings :)!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:58) Yes, happy new year to all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:58) We need to have some sort of decipline not to ask for the floor more than two times for a given subject

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (12:58) Hello everyone! Happy new year! Feliz ano novo a todos!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:58) the last for CCWG WS 1 I hope as you said Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:58) Morning Ll from the antipodeas...  Happy 2016

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:58) Hello everyone !

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (12:58) Lots of static. Has Adobe added "sounds of the sea" to keep us calm?

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (12:59) hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:59) Jonathan -- interesting tactic, I hope it works

  Niels ten Oever: (12:59) a calming sound of silence on my end

  Chris Disspain: (13:00) Greetings All and Happy New Year

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:00) We need to work together without any kind of confrontation. HEALTHY  DISCUSSION

  Niels ten Oever: (13:00) and the soothing voice of Mathieu

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:00) best wishes for successful transition in 2016 :-)

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:00) Hello everyone and Happy New Year to all of you!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:00) "hello darkness my old friend"

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:01) Soothing ? I must change that right away

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:02) Greetings everyone, happy new year

  Markus Kummer: (13:02) Hi all

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (13:02) Happy New Year, all!

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:02) Hi All, Happy New Year to you

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (13:03) Hello everyone, and Happy New Year!!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:03) Happy New Year, all!

  Keith Drazek: (13:03) Call #73 seems so long ago. I think I was going into withdrawal.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:03) We will be breaking for 10 minutes after 75 minutes

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:04) Hello everyone, all the best for 2016! And let's make sure we finish this before it's over. Let's have less calls, less emails and more progress

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:04) Hi All, Happy New Year!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) 20 mints

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) I disagree with 10 mints

  Lousewies an der Laan: (13:04) Happy New Year to everyone from a beautiful snowed under Slovenia

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:04) That will be fixed real fast Kieth

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) Pls kiondly agree with 20 mints of break

  Holly J. Gregory: (13:05) I'm on adobe only for first half hour or so

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (13:05) Happy New Year all.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:05) Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) 10 - 5 should be fine as a break

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:06) Tks for the firstz consensus building on break

  cherine chalaby: (13:06) Hi everyone and Happy New Year

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) Perhaps we could see how we are doing at break time and decide whether to press on?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:06) Kavouss, I am not sure we all would like a 20 mins break. Not me, for one; won't be able to wake up afterwards

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) 10 - 15

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) Maybe we'll be just about done

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) (I am disguised as an optimist today)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) INDEED !    Ndrew

  Alan Greenberg: (13:07) Long wait to get on bridge

  Avri Doria: (13:07) not quite a whole year ahead

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:07) LEON

  Avri Doria: (13:07) 4 day, almost 5 already gone.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:07) are you n the phine yet Alan??

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:07) pls maintain the max 15 mints, if any one has any point

  Alan Greenberg: (13:07) Yes, just got on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:08) ok  you can update *phew*

  Keith Drazek: (13:08) For the Chartering Organization Update, I can report the GNSO Council has formed a working group to analyze the comments submitted by the GNSO SGs and Cs. This is intended to enable a clear and concise message to the CCWG on January 14 when the GNSO Council will meet and pass a resolution approving such a communication. There are several areas of concern across multiple GNSO organizations and the GNSO is working to synthesize these concerns to identify any red flags.

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (13:08) The GAC has received members views on each Recommendation and is scheduling discussion calls over the next 2 weeks.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:09) great Tom...

  Alan Greenberg: (13:09) @Cheryl, Not a hard task today...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:10) true  but I m having coffee, toast and vegimite ;-)

  andrew sullivan: (13:10) Suggestion to make calls shorter in future: make these updates as text to list, and then have only necessary Q&A on the call

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:10) In addition to Tom Dale's info: there has been also a preliminary GAC submission on a number of key recommendations

  andrew sullivan: (13:10) (The text on the list could be included as part of the minutes anyway)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:10) @Andrew: no further updates next time indeed

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:11) GAC reply was only preliminary and provisional

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:13) The ASO response was already sent in

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:13) +1 Izumi

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) what is the outcome of that independent study.However, it is only a view and not binding

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:17) Kavouss, we have circulated Jan Aart input, as well as Willie's. As you say, it's only views

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:17) They were very consistent with yours, actually

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) here is the preliminary GAC input: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00070.html

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:18) Yes , it is only a " Legal " View" unless it is agreed by the entire CCWG with consensus

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:18) the approach Thomas has just outlined makes lots of sense to me. In lieu of a call on the audio, this is my view.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) As mentioned in that preliminary input "The GAC intends to finalise its formal position on all 12 recommendations between7 and 22 January 2016 in accordance with the current published timeline, takinginto account submissions made during the public comment period and possiblefurther development of the recommendations in the final proposal.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) 2

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:19) +1 Thomas

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:20) this is all qite straight forward. We just need to couch some arguments in those terms in support of our views, if we continue to disagree with any commenter that cited the GPI as a reason for its disagreement.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:20) there is no need for legal advice, no need for an agreed definition of GPI, etc.

  andrew sullivan: (13:20) I like what Jordan is saying, yes

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) and I think what I have typed above is consistent with what Thomas said.

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:21) I feel like Andrew summarized this very well on the list.

  Greg Shatan: (13:21) Agree with you, Jordan.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) +1 Jonathan.

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:21) VERY ill advised

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) Andrew: your email was excellent.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) Guys, we don't need to define the term.

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) Agree with Andrew and Jonathan and Alan.  This is a massive red herring.

  andrew sullivan: (13:22) This is entire topic is a rathole with an infinite number of rats and an infinite amount of hole.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:22) I agree with Thomas and Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (13:22) Agreed. Fully support Thomas, Jordan and Andrew's points.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:23) CCWG should clearly explains that it does not agree such a general VETO type . For something which is undefineable one can not recourse to those in rejecting the Recommendation or part of Recommendation

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:23) here is why I think we should mention it: so that it is clear there are differing views about what the GPI is, and that the multistakeholder group preparing the recs does believe its recs are in the GPI

  Avri Doria: (13:23) no infinte numebr of rats, but an indefinately large number.  but if the Board is using it as criteria, we must understand what they mean by it and decide whether we agree with their definiton.  it is an elephant.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:23) then, any further criticism along those lines simply becomes a "debate about what is in the GPI" instead of a possibly dangerous "but the CCWG never considered the GPI! oh no!".

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:23) And excellent post by Andrew indeed. It is consistent with the numbers community's stance to ICANN through ASO MoU and the new SLA

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:24) I agree it is a good starting point for the board to provide a rationale for why it feels its view is "in the global public interest".

  andrew sullivan: (13:24) @Jordan: I agree with that

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) I agree that it would be good to ask the board for explanation how exactly those recommendations harm public interest

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:24) I would like to know what the Board's logic is, too. But I wouldn't hold my breath for any marvellous insights.

  Avri Doria: (13:24) and to say that it is irrelevant when the Articles list it, is sort of silly.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) Thomas

  Avri Doria: (13:25) the elephant is real

  Keith Drazek: (13:25) We'd be better off working with the Board in a constructive manner to address whatever issues exist from its perspective, rather than diving into the rathole of attempted definition at this stage.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) especially ebcause ICANN just started discussion on public interest... so I don't think the board really can come up with any definition either

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:25) +1 KD

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:25) We have only 5 more mints to spend on this subject thus you needTO MAKE A SUMMARY

  andrew sullivan: (13:25) I don't think it's irrelevant.  I think it's impossible to sort out.  So pare down the objection to the concrete-- what we ust heard

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:25) I think we've moved beyond "definitions" of GPI

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) We need to deal with this in concrete terms -- what's the problem, what are the potential solutions.  If it's raining, you get a raincoat or an umbrella.  You don't try to define the clouds.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) I don't think asking the board for explanation is destructive manner. It will help to address their concerns

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:25) The rationale Jordan is explaining on the chat makes a lot of sense to me - makes it available for others to confirm the basis of judgement

  Avri Doria: (13:25) i disagree with the idea of cutting people off to meet some articficial time limit. 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:26) THOMAS DO YOU MEAN DIRECTION FROM US OR FROM TIJANII

  Keith Drazek: (13:26) And if at the end of the engagement process, there's a difference of opinion or perspective, the justification will be needed from the Board. Let's focus on the work rather than jumping to conclusions.

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) +1 Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:26) Bruce: will you be replying to that note?

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:26) I think Tijani's suggestion makes sense, as it gives us the best chance to understand exactly where they are coming from with their concerns,

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:26) @Kavouss Thomas means from the CCWG

  Avri Doria: (13:26) it is not a definition we need but and understanding of the process for discovering it.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:26) @Keith, *YES* Let's work to fix perceived problems and not try to convince them that they are wrong.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:27) @Avri, exactly.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) Avri: I think it would be "nice to know" why teh Board used that criterion on its areas of concern. But I don't think it is an elephant.

  Avri Doria: (13:27) a 600 lb gorilla?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) it's just a label

  Avri Doria: (13:28) no, it is a real thing.  just becasue we do not understand or how to define it, does not mean it is not real.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:28) No rationale provided until after a board vote?  Is that what Bruce just said?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:28) Bruce: I find your response just now very troubling. It's essentially saying "we can't tell you why we draw this fundamental problem to your attention, even though we used the language."

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:28) rEFRENCE TO GPI should not be usedf as a vehicle to reject ther Rec.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:29) +1 to Jordan, I find it very troubling

  Avri Doria: (13:29) we do not solve this by defining the concept out of existence.  though ICANN declaring there is no such thing as the public interst would make for great headlines.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) in the absence of some info, we have to just treat teh Board's comments as Board's opinion

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:29) Agree with you Kavouss

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:29) I agree with Tijani and Bruce, we should maybe wait for the Board to pronounce itself finally

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:29) Board comment, page 2: "The suggestion that “global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission."

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:29) So troubling, I thought I misheard it!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:29) Without a rationale we cannot know how to address the concerns expressed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) Avri: no, we solve this problem by contending whether our recommendations are in teh GPI. A debate about "Are tehse recommendations in the GPI" is one that people can have a range of views on.

  Avri Doria: (13:29) the Board cannot define it for us.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) The only thing the CCWG has to avoid is being able to be accused of never having considered the GPI.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:30) Bruce

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) I don't think saying, "We don't know what this means," defines anything out of existence.  The basic problem is that the term is not a clear one, but what Bruce is saying is correct

  Avri Doria: (13:30) but are they deficiencies in and of themselves or becasue of the GPI

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) there are concrete things they have said

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) Focusing on concers means that we should understand rationale for bringing GPI issue re specific recommendations

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) let's focus on those and leave aside whether something is GPI or not

  Greg Shatan: (13:30) We are dragging the red herring back and forth in front of our path....

  Avri Doria: (13:31) as long as the Board uses the term, we MUST consider it.

  Brett Schaefer: (13:31) Based on the lack of a definition, the CCWG should just disregard the Boards use of GPI as a serious objection. If they have a concrete problem fine, but this is not a productive discussion otherwise.

  andrew sullivan: (13:31) @Greg and over ourselves.  Ewwww

  Greg Shatan: (13:31) Agree with Andrew 100%

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) @Avri yes and this is troubling because we can't be sure what is the ratiionale for using this term

  Avri Doria: (13:31) disagree with Brett 100%

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) the phrase is just a triggering phrase in teh sense of the Board's resolution about how it will deal with the CCWG's recommendations, not a canonical statement of any sort.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:31) The Board may not be in favour of a REC. WITH GOOD  VALID RESONS but not use GPI for that VETO

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:31) I agree with Brett

  Edward Morris: (13:31) Agree with Brett

  Avri Doria: (13:32) refusing to deal with it is tantamount to burying out collective heads.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) Agree Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:32) Being unwilling to provide a rationale implies the board is not participating in good faith in this process.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:32) +1 Robin

  Brenda Brewer: (13:32) scrolling is now available

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) Robin - we have provided a rationale for each of our comments - and happy to

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:32) @Brett: no, that won't help us at all

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) happto work with the CCWG to address.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:32) Avri: if the Board won't explain why it thinks the GPI is involved in those objections, we just have to deal with the objections they raise on the merits, and consider the rationale they DO present.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:33) @Jordan: yes, agreed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:33) I just treat their use of the GPI as a code, that says, "This is a concern that might trigger our process as set out in our Oct '14 resolution." nothing more nothing less.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:33) As Matheie has stated - we will participation along with other members that have raised cocnerns on particular recommendations.   WE will explain the rationale for our concerns, and we wil work with the CCWG to find solutions that work for all of us

  Avri Doria: (13:33) can someone define acting in good faith for me.  we acuse them of using an undefined term but using an undefined term of our own.  without knowing their intentions we cannot define good faith.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:33) I think it would have been helpful if that had been stated more clearly, but we are where we are.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:34) Avri - I think our intentions are the same as yours.   ENduring that we have a stable system of unique identifiers

  Greg Shatan: (13:34) @Tatiana, it is because the purpose of ICANN, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, is " the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST in the operational stability of the Internet." (Emphasis added) See Section 3: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en.

  Avri Doria: (13:35) Bruce i think they are too.  i did not fdefine them as being bad faith otherrs did.  i wnat their definition of such a term.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:35) As several have said for some time now, the phrase "global public interest" is carte blanche for the board to over ride the bottom-up consensus of the community.

  Avri Doria: (13:35) i disagree with the statement as well.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:35) @Greg, believe it or not but I recently leanr how to read and I even read this article :) it still doesn't make clear how some things like transparency can be against GPI ;)

  Avri Doria: (13:36) i agree that that they appear to maybe have a flawed notion of the GPI.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:36) Yes, agree again with Robin. It looks like carte blanche to me, and especially because ICANN just started the process of defining GPI

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:37) but I do agree that we have to work in constructive way and solve the issues board raised

  Greg Shatan: (13:37) @Tatian, not questioning your considerable skills.  Just saying that it is being cited for its totemic significance as the ultimate responsibility of the Board, and not because these are GPI problems vs. some other kind of problems.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:37) GPI is the means by which board-staff trump the bottom-up policy processes that are required in ICANN's bylaws.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:37) @Greg, yes, but what torubles me is that board has this totemic thing which is not defined and as a lawyer I don't like tabula rasa

  Avri Doria: (13:37) the GPI needs to be defined in the bottomup process.  that i agree with.

  Avri Doria: (13:38) but wee are not fighting the way they defined it, we are arguing against the good faith in using the concept.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:38) But how it can be used as an argument if it's not defined? This makes my brain exploding. I acgree with those who say that we shall just stop operating this term

  Avri Doria: (13:39) how can you use the concept of goood or bad faither without defining it.

  Avri Doria: (13:39) ..  good or bad faith ...

  andrew sullivan: (13:39) The idea that we could ever complete the sweater named "GPI" while cats unwind the other end of the wool strikes me as a new way of demonstrating futility, perhaps

  Avri Doria: (13:39) i have not seen proper and orderly definiton of most concept we use in these discussions.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:39) 3 hours is too long.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:39) 2 per week are too many

  Avri Doria: (13:40) 3 X 2 seems in the GPI to me

  Avri Doria: (13:40) (hides)

  Keith Drazek: (13:40) I can handle 2 calls a week at 3 hours each, as needed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) If we try to define GPI, we will be wrong.  If we don't define it, the board uses it as carte blanche to over-ride bottom-up process.  It is a double-edged sword for us.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:40) Tuesday/Thursday is only 48 hours, so Mathieu's promise to submit material 72 hours before, doesn't work.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:40) Important point: in spite of two calls per topic we should be aware that position by chartering orgs are (as I understand) still developing, so there should be room for final adjustments, right?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:41) robin+ 1

  andrew sullivan: (13:41) @Robin: hence the line I have been taking: point out how poorly defined GPI is, and concentrate on the specific

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:41) Robin, the best we can do is to offer information on why GPI is not affected.

  Avri Doria: (13:41) We have the define the bottom-up process that defines our understanding of the GPI if the Board is going to base decsions based on the Articles requirements to consider the GPI

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:42) I suggest that we take MONDAY AND tHURSDAY AS THE DAYS ON WHICH WE HAVE THE CALLS

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) Thomas, but how we know that it's not affected if we don't know what GPI is :(

  Greg Shatan: (13:42) I am reminded of the words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said he could not define hard-core pornography, but "I know it when I see it."

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) (hides)

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:42) I think this plan is worth supporting, it may prove more productive than F2F weekends.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) @Greg yes exactly

  Avri Doria: (13:42) i have already scheduled my month around the meeting schedule that was announced.  NOT monday, please.  Not Wednesday please.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:42) Naughty Greg?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:42) Well, it often happens that you do not know what something is, but you know what it isn't.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) No please no Mondays

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:43) Thomas, that feels too "defensive" of us.  It is the board who is making the claim, it is the board with the burden to make the case.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) Mondays are hard as they are already

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:43) I agree with those that saying before proceeding further we NEED to clarify the GPI and make it clear that it could not be used as a carte balnche or veto for itemsd that Board does not like it

  Becky Burr: (13:43) i will be distributing information about the range of positions in advance of the call (as early as possible - at least 24 hours).  And yes, i definitely think we are having a discussion

  Greg Shatan: (13:44) The full quote is more scholarly (or at least more lawyerly, in the positive sense): "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) I can't stop agreeing with Robin. Start saying how it's not affecting GPI = defensive position and not constructive in pursuing our goals

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:44) Robin: I agree in principle, and that is why we have asked the Board to explain. Bruce has explained tonight that the Board likely won't explain its use.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:44) @greg +1

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) "We can neither confirm nor deny that there is GPI"

  Becky Burr: (13:45) I am not secretely preparing text, but trying as hard as possible to focus discussion in order to identify solutions

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:45) since we don't have time to sort out an agreed GPI and time to come to agreement necessarily about all recommendations, we should just make a civil case about our recs if we have to, in order to make sure there is no doubt we have considred the issue.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:45) I hope we can agree we cannot and should not ignore the Board's concerns with respect to GPI. We should therefore speak to it.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:45) +1 becky - and that has helped our work all along

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:45) If text is being worked on on the Mission, I would like to volunteer to join that effort

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:45) Becky, that is

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:45) sorry Tatiana but GPI exists.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) @Megan I am not questioning it's existence

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:46) I do NOT support one on one negotiations of the sort Alan is proposing.

  Avri Doria: (13:46) Tatiana, so are you saying something exists that cannot be defined?

  Becky Burr: (13:47) Please everyone refer also to the documents on Mission (comparisons) that I have sent out in the past several weeks

  Avri Doria: (13:47) or just that it is too hard for ICANN's bottom up multstakeholder processes?

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) @Avri, let's say - I very much up in definining GPI in a MS bottom-up manner. I am against using GPI as a sword, carte blanche, ect

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) but I DO support helping to provide prep material along the lines Mathieu is talking, and I think / suppose that the WPs in their usual guise will work on what the outcome of the CCWG plenary discussion comes up with

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:47) Jordan, especially not by the Co-Chair8s)

  andrew sullivan: (13:47) @avri: I fear you are too close to phil. of language now :)

  Avri Doria: (13:47) i am against using anything as sword, except maybe swords.

  Greg Shatan: (13:47) We can wrap our concerns in GPI, but the pragmatic approach is to deal with specific concerns and specific solutions.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) I am for GPI and against using it as it has been used.

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) +1 Jordan

  Avri Doria: (13:48) Tatian, this i agree with

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) very reluctantly +1 to Greg

  Avri Doria: (13:48) Tatiana ...

  Greg Shatan: (13:49) @Tatiana, agreed.  It's one small step away from a parent saying "because I said so."

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:49) If work was done to develop proposals by mailing list and then we ratify in meetings I would be much more comfortable

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) @Greg oh that's a great description of what's going on

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:50) I suggest two call per week on Monday and Thusday, each call 150 mints with 10 mints break, We need to have a summary of each call subject by subject prepared by CO-Chair with the assistance of the secretariat, we should envisage that we may need to work in February , we need to have a well documented procedure on how the comments are considered and included in a consolidated doc.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:50) yes, Greg and Tatiana!

  Avri Doria: (13:50) how much time will we spend arguing about time?

  Keith Drazek: (13:50) The immediate challenge is for the CCWG to gain a common understanding of where conflicts exist following the lasta public comment period. I understood that was the work at hand. I didn't think anyone was suggesting the Co-Chairs alone develop solutions in a vacucm. Hope that helps.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:50) @Avri, I have the same concerns....

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:51) maybe we can all respond to prep material on the list when circulated, with our proposal as to how things should be resolved.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:51) +1 Keith

  Le-Marie Thompson: (13:51) @Avri the majority of the time

  andrew sullivan: (13:51) What Jordan said.  (That's what I was trying to say, less concisely)

  Greg Shatan: (13:51) The Tuesday/Thursday meetings next week at 1-4 am EST are really troublesome, in terms of not falling asleep at day job.  One night call in a week is harsh; two is basically unmanageable.

  Avri Doria: (13:51) i thin kour 3 hr meetings can be shorter if we all come prepared and talk as little as necessary, then maybe we can end our work for each meeting early.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) oh we have human rights next week, in the night then (early morning here)

  cherine chalaby: (13:52) Bruce+1 The best outcome  is for the CCWG and the Board to work together and find a mutually acceptable solution so that there will be no need for the Board to vote against any of the recommendations.  The Board provided a rational for its concerns and some proposed solutions.  However the Board is not wedded to these solutions and is very happy to consider alternatives.  Board memebers will participate  and engage in all the CCWG calls and will report back to the Board. The Board will hold weekly calls to provide timely feedback.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:52) +1 Avri!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:53) cherine: I guess many of us feel that that improperly elevates teh Board as a stakeholder in this process. We aren't meant to be negotiating an acceptable solution with the Board. We are meant to be finalising a proposal based on multistakeholder processes, where teh Board is one of the stakeholders.

  Niels ten Oever: (13:53) @tatiana not early morning, 1 PM, right?

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:53) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:54) We should aim to understand the Board's concerns, ALAC concerns, all the key concerns, and make changes as required, and put up a final report. Not negotiate a "lowest common denominator" proposal.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:54) +1 Jordan

  Avri Doria: (13:54) i suggest we give our chairs the ability to control this forced march as they think is needed.

  andrew sullivan: (13:54) +1 to Avri

  Niels ten Oever: (13:55) +1 Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck: (13:55) agree with both Jordan and Avri

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:55) let's keep the proposed programme as suggested by Mathieu.

  Greg Shatan: (13:55) @Tatiana, I think those 2 calls may violate Articles 5, 12 and 24 of the UDHR.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:55) by "changes as required" I mean to improve the proposal, not to weaken or compromise it to the point it basically doesn't work. :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:56) I don't agree with Kavouss on this point: I think we do need to hurry.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) @Greg, what, UDHR again :D

  Greg Shatan: (13:56) Calls next week are 06:00-0900 UTC = 1-4 am in Eastern US/Canada.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:56) I understand that three hours is the time blocked but not time to be filled. let's try to finish much faster and be as efficient and effective as possible

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:56) and I think we need to negotiate among our CCWG to come to a consensus insofar as we can, but not do a bilateral Board/CCWG discussion.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) +1 to Megan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:57) This schedule is brutal and not necessary.

  Niels ten Oever: (13:57) @Greg - but we get more of 18,19,27

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (13:57) +1 Megan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:57) Indeed Megan

  andrew sullivan: (13:57) @Robin: why not necessary?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:58) I believe it is necessary.

  Keith Drazek: (13:58) The longer we have, the longer we'll take. At some point, this crunch will be required.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) I think it is necessary to do our best, be it 2 hours or 3 hours

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:58) What about Tuesday and Friday?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) We have been at "crunch time" for many months.  All because we are afraid of the Republicans taking over  the White House.

  andrew sullivan: (13:59) @Robin: No, we are afraid that there'll be a new administration, which is guaranteed

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:59) If there were a need for two calls perally soeaking. week, hypotheci

  Avri Doria: (13:59) maybe we should have extra calls for those who want to argue about the work process. and use these plenary calls for the substnative issues.

  andrew sullivan: (13:59) @Avri: I _love_ that idea

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:59) @Avri, yes.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:00) +100 Avri

  Phil Buckingham: (14:00) sorry I am late . I have other commitments to clients

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:00) yes, lat's make it even less participatory

  Keith Drazek: (14:00) Agree Avri

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (14:01) We need to ensure that there is sufficient balance for community members from all timezones to participate in calls, to ensure that we uphold the efforts to ensure the process is fully inclusive to all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:01) long arcane debates about process aren't why most people are here - we are probably most inclusive if we focus our time on the issues that matter. which is to say, the issues.

  Keith Drazek: (14:01) Some amongst us have only ever contributed on process with no constructive input on substance. Just sayin'....

  andrew sullivan: (14:01) I have a feature request for Adobe: trophy status, so we can give Avri the "best process idea" trophy :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:02) trophy :-)

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:02) Some of us are quite civil, but quite liberal with the truth. Just sayin'....

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:05) Second that feature request Andrew (and Avri's idea)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:06) There were public comments calling for more transparency on board discussions as part of WS2 transparency reforms.  I don't see that on this summary.  How do we fix that ommission?

  mike chartier: (14:07) So here's GPI again ;)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) @Robin: we can mention that, maybe an oversight.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:07) Thanks - it would probably be good for us to have some time to go through the materials.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) I had not realized this was mentioned in several comments

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:08) One of the comments was the NCSG comment.  :-)

  Avri Doria: (14:09) i think we might just need a WS2 comment on completion of all ATRT items that were previously agreed to.  my favorite are transparency and whistleblowing.

  Avri Doria: (14:09) .. on timely and effective completion ...

  matthew shears: (14:09) so does this doc on teh screen reflect all the comments that were made in the publc comment on this section?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:10) @Matthew : most significant comments, not 100% of comments

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:10) @Mathieu, but we will have summary of all comment, won't we?

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:10) because it feels a bit misleading

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:10) Yes, it's going to be delivered by Jan 7

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) Thanks.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:11) which comments count as "signficant"?

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) There will be all comments, positive and negative, right?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Chartering orgs, or repeated comments... and the Board

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Yes Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) Thanks

  Edward Morris: (14:12) Do we have a guaranhtee of support by independent counsel during WS2?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:12) please define guarantee ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12)  Leon, How would CCWG take these comments into account.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) Leon at 80 mints rfrom the start we need to have Pause

  Edward Morris: (14:13) Has the Board indicated that ICANN will continue to provide the CCWG access to independent counsel throughout WS2 in a manner equivalent to that we've had during WS1?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:14) Would need to review the latest letter but it was "committing similar support"

  Brett Schaefer: (14:14) Small issue, but the human rights bullets on page 6 are inconsistent. Bullets 2, 4, and 5 all include a caveat of “if nay” or “if at all” but the first bullet does not. I would like to see “if any” added to the first bullet to be consistent: “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw.”

  Edward Morris: (14:15) Thanks Mathieu.. As you are more aware than I this is a very important requirement going ahead.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:15) Yes and was mentioned by several commeents (and also in the doc provided)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:16) Agree with Malcolm 100%

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:17) @Malcolm.   I  have certainly not made any statement against open participation - in fact I encourage it in any working group.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) Malcolm + 1

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) We need to examine the comments, discuss them and agree or not with them

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:18) that is how I interpreted that Bruce

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:18) I question whether public comments revealed that "a reviw of staff accountability should not be pursued."  Was this document drafted by staff?  Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:19) @Cheryl - how did yo interpret what I said just to be clear?

  Greg Shatan: (14:19) Which paragraphs exactly are being referred to as "paragraph-by-paragraph"?  Those in the interim Bylaw?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:19) yes Greg

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:19) page 8 of the document on screen

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (14:20) Good evening::With respect to discussing issues on the CCWG mailing list, I would be happy to do so, but in practice only so few members or participants are active on the List; also there are very few substantive postings about outstanding issues. Indeed, most of the substantive issues have already been adequately addressed  in previous years.In fact many members and participants are usually silent on the List. Thus there is no sense in which the current mailing List debates correspond to the Communty's opinions. Also, some members and participants will have to compromise on a final position. Absent a CCWG consensus soon, the issues will eventually go up to the Board, the Chartering organisations and CWG-transition.CW

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:20) There are some concrete proposals but for example I would never agree with concrete proposal on human rights

  andrew sullivan: (14:20) Without wishing to point fingers, I'll note that someone at the beginning of this chat suggested that people limit themselves to 2 interventions/call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:21) RTatiana, for HUMAN RIGHTs YES

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:21) that the proposal dor WS@ TOPICS WAS TO "SPLIT TO STREAM*s*   for WG (open as usual with a good breadth od AC/SO commitment should run to their own timeline  but that this was not a limitation to participaation at all...

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:21) @@Edward - I expect that the Baord will contiue to make external legal counsel available  for the work stream 2 work.   One area that we do need to discuss at some point though is a budget for the ongoing work for the rest of the year.  We want to ensure there is a balance between fuinding across all policy development initiatives.

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:21) Well, I just wanted to say that there are concrete proposals from the board which we have to discuss.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:21)  Sorry that my Caps  was on for part of that...  NO intention t shout at you Bruce  ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:21) andrew: to be fair, he did suggest "per issue"

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:22) Thanks for clarifying @Cheryl.

  andrew sullivan: (14:22) Perhaps I have been too optimistic returning from a break.

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:23) Agree Malcolm.  

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:23) I thought all corss-communkty working groups had that practice.

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:24) I am not ware that any corss-community working group has ever been closed.

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) If it's clear that it is to be a CCWG (even if not this CCWG) that should follow.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) yes Leon

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) I prefer 10 mins

  andrew sullivan: (14:24) Are we supposed to hang up, or just get coffee?

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) let's discuss the break length for 15 minuites first!

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) If it is some other type of group, then all characteristics are up for grabs.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:24) 10 too

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) but whatever

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) 12.5 minutes

  Keith Drazek: (14:24) 15 minutes. Let's go....

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) just decide adn tell us

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad and Tobago): (14:24) ok

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:24) My comment was to give flexibnility to chartyering orgnaizxations to spin off separate corss-commuiyt working groups if they wished.   It is not a requirement - just making sure that bylwas language offer flexibility to the community.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:24) 15 min is ok

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) :-)

  Niels ten Oever: (14:24) 11;5 ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:25) 12.5 surely Nils

  Avri Doria: (14:25) those who want to argue about whether it is 20 minutes could do so during the break.

  Greg Shatan: (14:25) A real 15 minutes.  I know that Leon likes to gavel us in promptly, anyway.

  nigel hickson: (14:25) finding coffee in Geneva....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:25) indeed they do unless  specified in charter not to a did the old retired SSSCWG  WHICH WAS LIMITED TO SELECTED Membership  due to atre of its work

  Brenda Brewer: (14:25) 15 Minute Break starting now.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (14:31) coffee at this time in Geneva Nigel ? we are on evening drinks :-)

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:41) well done leon, starting back on time

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:41) Back

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:41) Leon, that is

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:43) I thought we were going to have the staff summary of comments on 24-25 December.  Without it, it is hard to make recommendations for amendments.

  andrew sullivan: (14:43) please proceed

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:44) Robin, it was planned for Jan 7. (call #72/73)

  andrew sullivan: (14:44) (i.e no objection)

  Niels ten Oever: (14:44) ping

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:44) faint life signal

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:44) is it artificial life ?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:44) no objection

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:45) Mathieu, I didn't realize it had slipped until 7 Jan.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:45) 90 comments you know

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:45) ;-)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:46) that schedule sounds generous

  Avri Doria: (14:48) the only reason for deadlines is becasue they make it easier to know when you are slipping.  i like Kavouss' idea

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:48) Agree with Niels that this might be the issue, may be we can come back to Rec 12 after addressing Rec 6? ALAC concerns is impotant because there a conditional "no" and the condition is a deadline

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:49) This proposed timframe seems workable.

  Chris Disspain: (14:49) I may be missing somethig but why do we need to have a 'time frame'?

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) and certainly why does it need to be in the by-laws

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:50) @Chris : some comments said they wanted a clear timeframe for WS2. That's the reason for this discussion

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) I think it is important that we don't force ourselves to stop at that point however.  We might not be done yet.

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) ah..understood Mathieu...

  andrew sullivan: (14:50) I suggest that we adopt whatever targets we like.

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) so, persoanlly, I dont agree with those comments

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:50) I think we needed timeframe to be sure that some critical issues will be addressed in a reasonable time frame

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:50) We need to have some overall time frame an d target date

  andrew sullivan: (14:50) and write them down with all the authority that implies

  Keith Drazek: (14:50) I tend to agree with Alan here...no need to hard-code a timeline into a bylaw. I think intitiation of a process can be made concrete, but an end point is inadvisable.

  Chris Disspain: (14:51) targets and time frames are important BUT do  not need to go into formal documents like by-laws

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:51) How about a goal of carrying out WS2 with the same level of dispatch that was exhibited in WS1?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:51) Chris, just a provocative : woudl Icann support and pay for staff, lawyers, etc. forever ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:51) ANY DATE WOULD BE taget date

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:52) My fear was rather that without time targets some of the important processes will take ages.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:52) Agree Chris. some of are capable of hard work and self-committed deadlines. But self-flagellation and horsehair shirts are not needed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:52) David, the rush for WS1 was because of the transition, that isn't a factor for WS2.  I'm not suggesting we go slow, but only that we don't continue to  rush in haste

  Keith Drazek: (14:52) Agree Robin

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:53) Fair enough @Robin

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:54) @Robin - also I think work stream 2 could use some prioritisation as well.   Don't try to do too much in parallel, and therefore get nothing done in 2016.   Pick a few topics and complete them in 2016, and then move to the next topics.

  Niels ten Oever: (14:54) It would be nice if there would be a foreseable end to WS2 though. Am afraid else it could draf on for a very long time, which will not only drain time, but also resources and therefore impact participation and openness.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:54) Let's not get too deep into WS2 work plan

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:54) +1 to Niels. We don't have to rush, but ...

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:55) My apologies I must leave the call now. regards to all and thanks to the co chairs and staff

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:55) Agreed @Niels.   WE also have the review of accoutnability and transprency at regular interviews, and each review team kicks off its own set of projects for improvement.   For example, we still want to engage the communit on improving the iombudsman function.   THis was not addressed in the CCWG work to date.   We have so far focussed on IRP.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:55) Mathieu+1

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:56) I think time-frames and work plans shoudl be separate from bylaws language.

  Chris Disspain: (14:56) @mathieu... I take the view that the chartering orgs are more than capable of pulling a recalcitrant  CCWG into line  without the Board meeding to do so :-)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:56) CCWG could set a goal to generate its WS2 recommendations by end of 2016.    But board consideration and implementation would extend longer

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:56) Bruce: it's always been WS2, it just seems to have been left out in third draft prop

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:56) @Chris; the volunteers will stop first

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:57) Otherwise - you could get challenges to any changes under IRP because the recomemndations came outside of the timelines.

  CW: (14:57) Accountability in Work Stream 2 is primarily about the accountabiity of the SO/AC delegates to their own communities. Crucial as it may be, I do not see how that impinges on the Board. CW

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:57) On a provisional basis

  Chris Disspain: (14:57) @ Mathieu...:-)..

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) Proposed timeframe is workable, but not set in stone.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:58) Let's be sure to inform our respective AC/SOs that the Rec #12 bylaw would not OBLIGATE the board to implement our WS2 recommendations

  Becky Burr: (15:00) I'm happy to draft a general description

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:00) Good idea to include the Ombudsman function.   That was a recommendation from the ATRT2 review.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:01) Obviously it's not about recommendations but the kind of enhancements to be discussed

  Becky Burr: (15:01) happy to work with Avri

  Becky Burr: (15:01) agree Matheiu

  CW: (15:02) Okay, I shall volunteer unless a more qualified participant materilaises. CW

  Avri Doria: (15:03) i lost audio right after i spoke so am going to leave and come back.

  CW: (15:06) Lost audio CW

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:08) This seems to limit board removal to specific reasons (unless there is a guarantee against a lawsuit).

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:08) Robin: nobody is going to go back to that.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:08) If we want to remove the threat of a lawsuit, we should just do it.  We don't need "reasons" for board removal in this context.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:09) or "limit" rather than "remove"

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:09) Consider whether it would be helpful to have your lawyers involved on this one.

  matthew shears: (15:10) + 1 Holly

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:10) AGreed.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:10) Good point Holly, and perhaps Nell Minow, one of our advisors

  mike chartier: (15:10) Holly +1

  Avri Doria: (15:10) does seem like a lawyerly question

  andrew sullivan: (15:11) I don't want to go down the "how much time" rathole again, but couldn't we come up with a trick in which we said on the list, "Hey, this needs specific language," and then discuss that there?

  andrew sullivan: (15:11) And if we seem on the call to be getting into the text, couldn't we do that on list too?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:11) as long as the intent is clear in this proposal, that's what we need

  Greg Shatan: (15:11) +1 Holly -- this has significant legal aspects.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:11) whether it's determined in the call or on the list

  andrew sullivan: (15:11) Telephone calls are about the worst way ever to make text improvements

  Greg Shatan: (15:13) A threat of suit for defamation is linked factually to the providing of a reason/rationale.  It can't be unlinked.

  Greg Shatan: (15:14) Personally, I believe that such a suit is highly unlikely.  However, if others are not so sanguine, there will be a chilling effect.  And we need to remove that chill -- by use of pre-service letter and indemnification.

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:14) Yes - I will dial back in.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:15) wouldn't it be better just to require people to indemnify anyone they chose to sue for defamation for any costs incurred?

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:16) I am back on the call

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:16) then you aren't interfering with their right to take action, you are just raising the costs to them to do so.

  Chris Disspain: (15:17) Thomas - I realise you have closed the Q but may I speak

  Greg Shatan: (15:18) The reference to defamation should be deleted, that narrows the issues too much.  There may be other causes of action that could be raised by a departing board member.  The pre-service letter and indemnification should be general.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:18) it is a curious thing when a fired governor can take legal action, but anyhow

  Alan Greenberg: (15:19) I would think that most such rationales would not be based on "facts" but perceptions.

  Becky Burr: (15:19) woah.  that's why everyone wanted "for any reason or no reason" removal authority.

  Chris Disspain: (15:19) Thomas...happy to withdraw and await notes from Hilly and Rosemary

  Chris Disspain: (15:19) Thomas...happy to withdraw and await notes from Hilly and Rosemary'

  Greg Shatan: (15:19) In order to prove a case for defamation, there needs to be a provably false statement of fact (verbally or in writing).  If the Board member is a "public figure" (even for a "limited purpose"), one would also have to show "actual malice."

  Chris Disspain: (15:19) Holly even

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:19) Paragraph 3) c of the Board's Comments needs to be also considred

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:20) "Factual" statements are desirable and require reasonable inspection rights

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:20) Pargraph 3) b does also require fair consideratioopn

  Chris Disspain: (15:21) Greg...in US jurisdiction...yes

  Chris Disspain: (15:21) not so elsewhere

  Alan Greenberg: (15:21) For clarity, am I supposed to do something at this point, or will we wait for words from lawyers?

  Chris Disspain: (15:21) All...I am leaving the adobe room now but will remain on the phone...

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:22) @Greg -0 agreed.   Certainly the communyt should be indemnfied by the organization for performing their duty.      Any statements made as part of a rmeoval process should have reasonable grounds in fact.   If a person is negliglently making accusations that shoudl be exclcudided.   ie a director can be covered by insurance  for actions that take that are seasonable - but if a direftor is found to be under the influence of alcohol for example when making deicsions - then that insurance may be void.  etc.

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:22) Your lawyers request a certified question. 

  mike chartier: (15:23) I tried to book rooms at the confrence site and it said that they were already sold out; is this the case, are they gone already?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:23) Wow!  ICANN has refused our request for a mtg in Marrakesh.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:24) Really? I just changed my tickets expecting that this would happen.

  Avri Doria: (15:24) well the refused a meeting for Friday.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:24) So CCWG isn't in charge of its own work.

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) We need to certify a question to our lawyers, please.

  Edward Morris: (15:24) Then we'll just have to schedule a F2F somewhere else the week before. Makes no sense.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:24) I think the CCWG decides whether it is having a meeting

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:24) I don't think it's up to ICANN staff to make a call on this.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:24) Nor do I, Jordan.

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) What is ICANN's suggestion, other than "NO"?

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:25) Please let us know ASAP if lawyers are needed in Marrakesh so that we can make plans or take off our calendar.

  matthew shears: (15:25) agree Jordan - quite astonishing

  Becky Burr: (15:25) F2F earlier?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:25) Greg: to do the work in the ICANN meeting.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:25) This process does show how ICANN staff can use resources to limit our work.

  Greg Shatan: (15:25) So, shovel 10 pounds of manure into a 5 pound bag, then add another pound....

  Edward Morris: (15:25) As a chartering organisation it should be noted the GNSO is in full time session on both Saturday and Sunday.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:26) but the question is a little bigger : if we need a meeting to close WS1, we need to do it earlier than Marrakech anyway. And if we need time to kick off WS2, then that should in theory be able to be incorporated in the general meeting.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:26) I do agree with Sebastien, so far.

  Avri Doria: (15:26) Sebastian there is a universe of difference between plans and implementation.  they never seem to come out the way we expect they will.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:27) Our meeting is just alongside an ICANN meeting. It is ridiculous to consider it as affecting the implementation of the Meeting Strategy.

  Greg Shatan: (15:27) ICANN could say that a Friday F2F is against GPI....

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:27) Than-you, Sebastien

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:27) Apparently it is againt the Global Public Interest for CCWG to meet and work...

  Greg Shatan: (15:27) Just as valid as using MSWG.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:27) Thanks Sebastien

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (15:27) Being that the CCWG member also belong to other community groups how ar they again to fit into the meetings schedule for this extra ordinary task?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:27) I agree that this is an adhoc and special meeting, different to ICANN business as usual

  Alan Greenberg: (15:28) GOOD INTERVENTION, Thomas (importance of implementation oversight of policy implementatin).

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:28) that was Mathieu, Alan :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:28) We are supposedly rushing for a transition / election this fall.  Not allowing a mtg in Marrakesh does not take this fact into account.

  Avri Doria: (15:28) Saturday is included in their 6 dy schedule.  that is why the bums rush on Friday for supported travelers

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:29) I guess I have a day to kill in Marrakech then.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:30) but seriously, it would seem to be useful to take a pragmatic approach on this transition-related stuff

  Brett Schaefer: (15:30) Me too Jordan, paying change fees kills any savings on the hotel room for one less night.

  Greg Shatan: (15:30) SHow me a day when all community groups are free to have an extraordinary meeting.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:30) we have a non-changeable booking :-)

  Greg Shatan: (15:31) Signing off due to conflict with other call.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:31) anyhow. we will need to spend considerable time at 55 to do WS1 implementation and WS2 kick off work.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:31) if ICANN cant' be flexible on this, it's a very strange decision.

  Edward Morris: (15:31) @Greg. I'm free at midnight, most nights.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:31) That's when I'm busy I'm afraid Ed

  Brett Schaefer: (15:31) Agree Jordan

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:31) @Ed you are privileged!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:32) and since the economics mean it is very simple to have a day beyond the programme. It is a separate group.

  Edward Morris: (15:32) @Mathieu, Leon. We in the GNSO are slackers, as you know.

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:32) Please let us know ASAP if lawyers are needed in Marrakesh so that we can make plans or take off our calendar.

  Avri Doria: (15:33) Well the GNSO is taking as long as any to come up with its repsonse.

  Avri Doria: (15:33) I guess that is where some of the questions about its effectiveness come from.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:33) WS1 implementation is going to be the thing in Marrakech.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:33) I think we need our lawyers in Marrakesh.  We want to be dependent upon ICANN's lawyers in Marrakesh.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:34) rather than Ws1 finalisation of the proposal per se.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:34) I want our Lawyers here.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:34) We "DON'T want..."  rather.

  andrew sullivan: (15:34) I should have said also (but perhaps it was captured in my somewhat annoyed vocal remark) that the idea that you're going to implement a brand new framework and on the first occasion be rigid about how it works

  Philip Corwin: (15:34) The GNSO is considering the 12 recommendations carefully and deliberatively, as it should. To do otherwise would not be responsible.

  andrew sullivan: (15:34) seems a little strange

  Edward Morris: (15:34) @Robin. Absolutely

  Alan Greenberg: (15:34) It is curious that ICANN has said it will not fund CCWG Members to attend the meeting if they were not already funded for the regular meeting. But there is no reluctance to say these same people (who are funded for OTHER reasons), can move their focus to CCWG within the meeting week.

  Edward Morris: (15:35) FYI: The next meeting in Panama is a four (4) day meeting.

  Becky Burr: (15:35) makes sense, except we are not (unfortunately) in the next phase yet

  andrew sullivan: (15:35) None of this is in favour of more meeting time.  Anyone who's been in a meeting I chair knows that it ends fast

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:35) Agree, Philip.  GNSO is a very diverse group also.

  andrew sullivan: (15:35) but now is hardly the time to say "no support"

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:35) Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:35) it certainly shouldn't be the Meetings Team making these calls.

  Avri Doria: (15:35) good point Alan.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:36) I need a clear cut reply to my question 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:36) ALL FUTURE CCWG would need to be arranged to be inside the normal 6 days of ICANN MEETING????

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:36) who makes the decision?  Us or a specific staff member / team? 

  Avri Doria: (15:36) perhaps we need to request a seperate meeting and just happen to schedule it for Marrakesh just before, or after, the ICANN meeting.

  matthew shears: (15:37) The CCWG should determine what it needs in terms of meetings time to undertake its work

  Edward Morris: (15:37) @Avri. Good strategy.

  andrew sullivan: (15:37) What Avri said

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:37) indeed no response Theresa

  Keith Drazek: (15:37) To Becky's point above, it appears the assumption is that the WS1 work will be complete before Marrakech and that the WS2 work can and should fit into the regular meeting schedule rather than demand an extra day. The question really is whether that assumption on WS1 is correct.

  andrew sullivan: (15:37) (This was sort of the point I was making about "2 weeks before")

  andrew sullivan: (15:38) Several of us have corporate policies that need us to buy plane tix

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:38) in bureaucratic organisations, often nobody "makes a decision"

  andrew sullivan: (15:38) when am I getting on a plane

  andrew sullivan: (15:38) ?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:38) Theresa we would need a very quick comeback from you. People would need to plan

  andrew sullivan: (15:38) This is insane.  Can we have a supported meeting before the ICANN meeting?  Yes or no?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:38) Mathieu

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:39) I need an answer

  Keith Drazek: (15:39) I have no problem with WS2 being treated differently in approach for the ICANN meeting schedule. But if WS1 is still in play, then the CCWG should be in a position to determine its need for a meeting.

  Philip Corwin: (15:39) It seems unduly and pettily bureaucratic to apply a new meetings strategy plan to an extraordinary circumstance involving a CCWG that is critical to providing the output required for a successful and timely transition. And I have no personal aspect to this as I am an unfunded participant.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) WE NEED AN ANSWER WITHIN MAXIMUM ONE WEEK

  Edward Morris: (15:40) @Keith. As there is no guarantee that WS1 will be completed by that time we need to assume it will not have been.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:40) Andrew: a nice clear question.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:40) +1 Ed

  matthew shears: (15:40) agree Keith - CCWG should determine need

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) Mathieu pls give the floor

  Phil Buckingham: (15:41) + 1 Keith  +1 Philip

  andrew sullivan: (15:42) Geez.  If people actually think "can a committee have a meeting?" is a Board question, no wonder everyone wants to recall the board

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:43) It's a request for reconsideration, in a way

  Keith Drazek: (15:44) In my view, the WS1 work should be completed well in advance of Marrakech, with the possibility of the Chartering Organizations using their F2F meetings as the final approval. But I really hope and expect our detailed work will be done well before Marrakech.

  andrew sullivan: (15:44) I would be ecstatic if this was all done before M., but I think the facts tell us otherwise

  andrew sullivan: (15:45) so it's surely urgent to set the dates and move on

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:45) Nice, Roelof

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45) CCWG SHOULD DECIDE ON THE NECESSITY OTR OTHERWISE OF ADDITIONAL ONE DAY MEETING

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:45) I do think our proposal will be finalised before Marrakech.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:45) Keith, you are assuming that there will be no serious issues raised by the SOACs or the Board that require another round of consideration?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:45) The last thing that should happen at Marrakech should be final sign off.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:45) (for WS1).

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:46) If we need to have a face to face meeting to finalise WS1, we need to have it --- well before --- Marrakech.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:46) Monday is a no go for the GAC - we have the High Level Governmental meeting

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:46) I think the CCWG work should be done before the ICANN meeting.  ICANN Meetings have become too distracted by governance and accountability issues.  ICANN was formed to coordinate certain issues within the DNS.  We are sepnding countless more hours address administrative issues than dealing with the substantive DNS issues.  The last 5 ICANN meetings or so have completely deviated from substantive issues.  Isnt it about time we get back to those issues.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:46) and ccNSO tech meeting...

  Keith Drazek: (15:46) @Brett: I think the CCWG will be able to address the comments received by the chartering organizations and present a proposal that will achieve conensus support of a sufficient number of CO's.

  Avri Doria: (15:46) i tend to parse statement like "200 odd people" in a curious fashion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:46) Bruce: that's for engagement sessions. Not for working sessions of this group.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:47) Sounds like something difficult to accommodate Bruce

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:47) Working sessions are NOT helped by an influx of new participants.

  Finn Petersen. GAC - DK: (15:47) GAC has the HLM

  Avri Doria: (15:47) We could lso have a intensive phone meeting weekend for some other time.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:47) Bruce, Is ICANN giving up the opening session for us, or asking us to cancel our regular meetings???????

  Brett Schaefer: (15:47) @Keith, seems that assumption has been made several times before... inaccurately.

  Avri Doria: (15:48) i find the intensive phone meetings more productive than the f2f meetings at times.

  mike chartier: (15:48) I don't hear CCWG people on this call arguing against, Friday; seems quite the opposite. So dont understand Bruces attendance point.

  Keith Drazek: (15:48) I agree with Jordan. If we need more F2F working sessions, they'll need to happen well before Marrakech.

  Avri Doria: (15:48) not including this one in that judgement.

  matthew shears: (15:48) scheduling challenges point to the logic of a Friday meeting

  Keith Drazek: (15:48) lol Avri

  Avri Doria: (15:48) agree with Keith and jordan on when the meetings are needed.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:49) @Keith, some of us have said we need a F2F at the end of January. Seems to have been ignored.

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:49) Add me back in for a final comment

  Avri Doria: (15:49) Alan your sense of timing is one i agree with.  we will need in then.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:50) WITHIN ONE WEEK

  Edward Morris: (15:50) Looking at the schedule, evenings seem to be the only option conflicts should not take place. Exhaustion - that's another question.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:51) CCWG NEEDS TO EMPHASIZE ON THE NEED OF F2F MEETING ON 04 mARCH

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:51) Thanks, Bruce. Appreciate that.

  Keith Drazek: (15:51) I think there's some confusion around our overall timeline. We were pushing for the middle or end of January. Now we're talking about possibly using Marrakech. That's a pretty significant slip in terms of our delivery date target. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:52) Marrakech has to be about WS1 implementation, Keith

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:52) not WS1 proposal finalsiation -- that has to happen in January

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:52) @Keith....this should be discussed now

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:52) I agree that this is important

  Keith Drazek: (15:52) That makes more sense, Jordan, thanks.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:52) implementation such as reviewing draft bylaws (assuring they are consistent with the proposal)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:52) and WS2 kick of

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:53) so we don't have to do all that missing out on the other work we all have to do at ICANN

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:53) But lets remember WS2 can and should include different people

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:53) I have lowered my hand

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:53)  Your lawyers would like to know if we are needed in Marrakesh. 

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:53) so if any WS2 people are expected to be there early, they should be told now

  Keith Drazek: (15:53) I'm less concerned about WS2 kickoff at this stage, but I acknowledge the need for focused work on WS1 implementation.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:54) Keith: I think we should integrate WS2 as far as poss into normal programmed meeting time

  Avri Doria: (15:54) Keith, agree

  andrew sullivan: (15:54) What Jordan said

  Jeff Neuman 2: (15:54) Again WS1 implementation could be different people.  If you expect them to participate in Morocco, then perhaps that should be told to whoever wants to participate

  Avri Doria: (15:54) Jordan, I think we need to include any issue about WS2 in the discussions of WS1, but not the work itself.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:55) Avri: I agree, I think, but am not sure what you mean

  Edward Morris: (15:55) Good idea, Thomas.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:55) Is that a subject for next call? or this one?

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:55) Good idea

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:55) I propose we don't fly (our) lawyers into Marrakech, but have them call in if necessary

  Keith Drazek: (15:55) Agreed Jordan re WS2 in normal work time.

  Avri Doria: (15:55) Jordan, we should catch and cage the rats of WS2, not work on on them.

  Niels ten Oever: (15:55) Sounds good to me. Let's carefully frame the question.

  Edward Morris: (15:56) @Keith. Concerned about fitting WS2 coordination into the 4 day meeting (B meeting).

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:56) Thomas, thanks for the attempt to bridge this gap but can we discusse the formulation of the task for the lawyers in the group?

  Keith Drazek: (15:56) If Marrakech will include bylaws drafting/discussion, the lawyers should probably be there.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:57) certainly if it's finalising Ws1 proposal then no lawyers. But I hope we have got further than that by then

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:57) Niels, could you share the legal opinion with us?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:57) All fine from me.... Good call... thanks everyone... talk again soon...

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:57) I imagine staff have been working lots to create the summary for Jan. 7 – thank you for that.

  matthew shears: (15:57) we need a schedule for marrakech asap as well as a decicions on Friday

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:57) thanks all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:58) byeeee!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:58) Thanks everyone !

  Theresa Swinehart: (15:58) Thank you all, very good call.

  nigel hickson: (15:58) Good discussion; thanks

  andrew sullivan: (15:58) bye

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (15:58) bye thanks

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:58) Thanks - bye all!

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:58) bye all, thanks!

  Avri Doria: (15:58) bye

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:58) Bye all!

  Brett Schaefer: (15:58) goodbye.