Page History
...
Sub-group Members: Alan Greegberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Isaac Maposa, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Rosalia Morales, Sebastien Bachollet, Stephen Deerhake, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert (16)
Observers/Guests: David McAuley, Stephen Deerhake (2)
Staff: Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Lars Hoffman, Karen Mulberry, Nathalie Vergnolle, Patrick Dodson (6)
Apologies: Herb Waye, Giovanni Seppia
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: The audio recording is available here: Replay
Agenda
0. Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO)
1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd see https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw[community.icann.org] (3 min CLO)
2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-
*Short Review of CCWG Plenary meeting (2-3 min CLO)
*Expected input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's (2-3 min CLO)
* Any Sub Team Activities since our last call (3-5 min SDB/FB)
3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandade to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins)
* Introduction, outline of IRP and background information (Total 15 - 20 min guest Chair IRP ST David McAuley)
- Further interventions and comments by the Ombuds and te Chair of the IOT-WT (5-10 min HW/SB)
- Start up discussion on our review of applicability of IRP to AC/SO Accountability (10 min )
- next steps (5 min CLO)
4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)
5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO)
Notes
Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat)
0. Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO)
- Roll call will be taken from the Adobe Connect room.
- Audio only: Greg Shatan
- Asking for more volunteers to join the report drafting team
1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd
2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-
- During CCWG Plenary, our subgroup requested to be moved to track 1. This request was approved, our group will now work towards the longer timeline.
- Reviewed the SO/AC Accountability dashboard slide - Working now on 3 tracks only.
- Steve DelBianco gave an update on the edits made to the draft document.
3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandate to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins)
- Kavouss would like to discuss the applicability of IRP to SO/AC. It has not been designed for that.
- Alan indicated that he would think the rules would be amended if we decide it is a good vehicle
- David McAuley made a presentation of the IRP:
- SO/AC are not legal entities.
- Costs of an IRP can escalate, not sure if SO/AC could pay for those.
- It would probably take a change in the bylaws to take SO/ACs in IRPs.
- CW in support of David's point on costs.
- Kavouss: if we agree that IRP is not a good vehicle, we should document why in our report.
- Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply
- Steve: I hear that IRP is not applicable today, that it could be, but that it should not. More lighweighed vehicles like ombudsman would be more appropriate.
- Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make no final decisions applicable to third parties
- Greg: the IRP is not fit for purpose for SO/AC dispute resolution.
- David reinforced that he believes the IRP is not the right vehicle and would require heavy changes in SO/AC entities
- Sebastien Bachollet, Alan Greenberg express support.
- The cost implication should not be the only motivation, there could possibly be indemnification.
- David McAuley offered to make a written statement to the mailing list to summarize his intervention.
- Avri: appeal to the board could be an enabling step to IRP for SOAC action.
- Farzaneh summarised the views expressed, ie the existing bylaw is not applicable, and the IRP should not be amended for SO/AC..
- Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction
- Next steps:
- Steve: We now need to focus on track 2 on MAR, while we wait on responses from SO/ACs on track 1
- The drafting team will update our draft report with today's outcomes.
4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)
- 8 December @ 19:00 UTC
5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO)
- ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.
- Sebastien Bachollet apologizes for not being able to join the next call.
Action Items
- ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.
Documents Presented
- CCWG WS2 timeline 30Nov16rev.pdf
- WS2 Dashboard Nov - SOAC Accountability rev.pdf
- SOACAccountabilityReportDraftv1.docx.pdf
Chat Transcript
Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Farzaneh,
Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Farzaneh
Farzaneh Badii:Hello Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh:You did not send the refernce doc. that you rferred to and Jorge asked a copy nor you replied to my e-mail and SMS
Farzaneh Badii:We are talking about jurisdiction here? I am in transit Kavouss, moving to the US and at the moment in Mexico. Give me some time to settle down and then I will. I have not received an email though
Kavouss Arasteh:As a Member of CCWG, I humbly request the rapporteur to kindly be brief in their conduct of the meeting and allow more time to participants to contribute
Kavouss Arasteh:Still I have heard any valid reasons why this Group wishes to be transferred from Tack 2 to Track 1?
Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh ,twoissue raised above, one comment and one question
Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Participants, pls kindly accept my advance appology ,if by mistake I write 7 type a text in CAP.It should in no way interpreting intentional nor considered as shouting as wrongly interpreted last night by one of the co-chairs CCWG
Farzaneh Badii:your point is taken Kavouss. as to your question, we need more time because first of all receiving the answers to the questions we sent to the community might take longer. There will be IGF and then holidays. Then we need to analyze the comments and come up with a workplan. and we still have not resolved IRP issue .
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:The link to the Google Doc for sub team 2 (draft report) is:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_14XrP2QiGv04qNtn-5FEuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=D8J0tiHX9-l0nF14wxqYBwk84C3RFykUusCUmJZFIGI&s=GZ-sKCpINm3bFDgxMTAfPNMdfRLlAHnlhiCOzOE3pgE&e=
David McAuley:Hi Brenda, I am 4154
Thomas Rickert:Hi everyone!
Thomas Rickert:Let me go on record with my apology for not having attended the previous calls!
Julf Helsingius:Hi, am in a noisy environment so might not use the mic.
Kavouss Arasteh:Thomas, Hi, you owe me something
Thomas Rickert:That is a kind opening, Kavouss! Greetings to you!
David McAuley:CLO - that is me, 4154
Kavouss Arasteh:Steve, pls speak slowly
Farzaneh Badii:yes sorry I was a bit absent lately.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Kavouss -- we are discssing IRP for AC and SO activities because the CCWG Final report tasked us with that question
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:See Annex 12 of CCWG Final report, pages 5-6
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:our task is to "Assess whether the IRP would also be applicable to SO and AC activities"
Kavouss Arasteh:David ,I said that also
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Jorge -- you're right in that the SO decisions are subject to board approval. But the GNSO does "decide" on Policy Development Processes
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):well the GNSO recommends to the Board - it is not final, right?
Farzaneh Badii:that's a great idea Kavouss. I will compile everything and summarize
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:our task is to "Assess whether the IRP would also be applicable to SO and AC activities". The answer seems to be: Would not. Could be. Should not be.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make nofinal decisions applicable to third parties
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Agree, Jorge
matthew shears:David - do you have a write up of what you presented?
David McAuley:No Matthew but I could mail in a brief restatement to list
matthew shears:I think that would be useful if you don't mind
Farzaneh Badii:haha :)
Kavouss Arasteh:Chyrl,
Kavouss Arasteh:I am in the queue
David McAuley:will do
Farzaneh Badii:Thanks David, if you can send us a write up that wold be great. But I will also go through the recording
David McAuley:Thanks Farzi, will do, will be short, probably mail to CLO for forwarding
Kavouss Arasteh:Alan+1
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:my own summary of this discussion so far: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.WHile it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to So & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge]
David McAuley:very loud noise
David McAuley:cant hear Alan
Julf Helsingius:Ouch, that hurts!
Julf Helsingius:yes
David McAuley:yes
CW:Loud interference. My mike is mute. CW
avri doria:And most anything can be appealed to the board.
avri doria:so is appeal to the board the enabling step to IRP for SOAC action.
Brenda Brewer:Yes, Calling Cheryl back
avri doria:also charters are approved by the Board as another entry point for an appeal?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Agree, Kavouss
Farzaneh Badii:I agree with Kavouss.
Mary Uduma 2:+1 Kavouss
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction
avri doria:action on non action
avri doria:action or non action
Farzaneh Badii:so if Board does not take action if someone challenges SO/AC activities, then that person can go to IRP?
avri doria:that is sort of my assumption
Julf Helsingius:Did audio just go quiet?
Alan Greenberg:dead air
CW:Let's go to the next point on the agenda. IRP Done, OK? CW
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):argh seems you have lost my audio on IN again ... redial again plese BRENDA
Brenda Brewer:Calling Cheryl. one moment
Kavouss Arasteh:CW+1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):no dropped stilll Thx Steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back again *Sigh*
Mary Uduma 2:Echo
Brenda Brewer:Cheryl, echo is from your line.
Julf Helsingius:Please mute your mics
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I WAS ALREADY MUTED IN MY PHNE BUT NOW THE SYSTEM HAS MUTED ME AS WELL
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):caps partly intended
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-)
Brenda Brewer:the echo stopped when I muted you Cheryl. Sorry!!
Brenda Brewer:will umnute when Steve is finished.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as long as you unmute noq
Kavouss Arasteh:Good and efficient meeting ,tks to all
Farzaneh Badii:thank you
Kavouss Arasteh:Tks Cherl and Steve and others for positive contributions
Julf Helsingius:Thank you everybody!
Mary Uduma 2:very productive meeting, thanks all.
matthew shears:happy to help with the drafting
CW:B'ye - CW
Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Matt
David McAuley:Thanks for kind remarks
Farzaneh Badii:thanks David :)
Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh, pls kindly do not forget that reference doc.
David McAuley:TY Farzi
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:GNSO Council is discussing answering our qeustions at the Council meeting today.
Farzaneh Badii:Kavouss I will but give me some time please. I am doing too much at IGF and swamped
Kavouss Arasteh:OH Sorry busy young lady
Thomas Rickert:I will keep you updated!
Thomas Rickert:on RSSAC
Farzaneh Badii:thanks for understanding Kavouss. will be in touch.
Mary Uduma 2:Why not we meet after IGF?
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye all!
Alan Greenberg:Have to go to another call.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Will be at IGF as well.
David McAuley:Good bye and thanks all
Mary Uduma 2:Thanks and bye. please see my question
Farzaneh Badii:bye all