Page History

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F SEssion 1 24 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F SEssion 1 24 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8xk3eh2h9o/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1-24mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

           9:00:  Roll Call, reminder of work methods

           9:05:  Legal sub-team

           9:25:  Jurisdiction

          10:10:  AoC Review

Notes

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

NOTES:  Day 2 Session 1

Legal Subteam Update

- Legal subteam is an open group. Two law firms have been assessed and we are currently in process of finalizing engagement letters.  Sidley is engaged with CWG and has representation in Istanbul. Adler is participating remotely. Adler had wider experience in not-for-profit California law and has been identified as primary source.  The first coordination meeting will take place on 24 March at 20:00 EET room #19 and open to anyone who can join. 

- It was suggested that document where would have Q&As be provided along with answers that may raise questions as well. The document should also encapsulate barriers. 

- Legal scoping is not a closed document. Answers may raise questions in time. 

-Legal Team should remained compact but open. Concerns that it may be too large and that executive subteam would be useful.   Scoping document will 
remain a living document

- Call for consensus on whether legal subteam should continue to be link between CCWG and firms. Responsibilities for legal subteam include: channel 
questions and follow-up with law firms. 

-> Legal Team will remain liaison between CCWG and law firms.

Jurisdiction

- A series of discussions have occurred on the list. 

- Jurisdiction may be viewed from different perspectives: HQs, law for contracts, laws applicable to day-to-day administration of organization, standing to be sued, tax/corporate law. 

- ICANN is subject to jurisdiction in many courts in world. Business choices ICANN can make. There is often a confusion about where ICANN can be held 
accountable into court. It is not the case ICANN is only subject to California law. 

- Article 18 - section 1 offices and seal 

- Need to differentiate between jurisdictional issues we may come across while discussing community powers and mechanisms related to accountability from 
question of jurisdictional options related to the place where ICANN is HQed or has legal presence. Different alternatives for jurisdictions is WS2. Limitations for current 
jurisdiction should be prioritized for WS1. 

- There may be no need to change jurisdictions if everything in place. 

- Solid driver needed for WS1. 

- Jurisdiction in WS2 - no need to open it now in light of time constraints. 

- Finding a new location/jurisdiction will be complicated and congress will not support it. Answers may provide alternative solutions without moving location. Answers suitable for international framework. Advisors can follow up.

- Do not support focusing energy of WS1 on jurisdiction and yet pushing it back to WS 2 is not efficient for group. Saying it will be in WS2 is a worrisome answer. There will be interest in understanding how this will be addressed. Group needs to define now whether gaps have been identified in jurisdiction context. If we see any gaps, need to ensure there is  a common understanding of what requirements would be. 

- Open clause to allow jurisdiction issue change to some other territory so long as territory complies with requirements is what we need to iron out now.

- Jurisdiction document will help define requirements. 

- We need to focus on accountability - if we find facts in California law or Swiss law, need to factually-base decisions. We will go forward in future if we need to.

- Fadi Chehadé, during his testimony, told Senators that he expected AoC obligations and jurisdiction issues to be incorporated in Bylaws. He set expectations and there are now concerns that Congress is now expecting this. We may not be able to change jurisdiction based on this comment. This was intentional and it complicates our work. 

- "There are no plans to change jurisdiction" is not the same. His statement was not that we should not look into change. 

- Jurisdiction is among top three questions. Need to explain how we are addressing this. Common view of how we respond to this question is needed.

- There was an expectation that AoC obligations including jurisdictional would be inserted in Bylaws.

- Maintaining ICANN in California law may exclude some structures (supervisory Board is probably not a lawful structure under California law). If excluding some of powers/mechanisms, we may need to move jurisdictions. CEO's statement restrains us in a great degree. 

-Studies were made by ICANN on this subject and it is important to take them into account: e.g. President Strategy Committee. In Switzerland, there is 
specific laws for international organizations (extra-territorial laws) and this might be what we need to look for. We may need to find extra-territorial law for multistakholder organization (WS3)

- We need to look from accountability perspective. Decision is up to this group. While I doubt it is necessary to move, if decide it is necessary, it will be something we will need to deal with. It is not something that should govern what CCWG produces. Staying in California is probably as good as any alternative. With respect to incorporating AoC into bylaws, unsure that means including clause saying we need to stay in jurisdictional home. 

- Concerns getting into a dangerous situation where grass is greener. 

- What are real questions we are trying to answer? Is there another jurisdiction that would increase ICANN's accountability? We are diving into details before answering why looking into subject. Overall question is do we really think it is realistic that jurisdictions be changed for it to happen? We are short of time.

- Choice of words is decisive. What we are doing and not doing is dangerous. The level of detail in this document is far too great. We need to simplify message. People might be really interested in practical details. In WS1: can ICANN's accountability improve depending on law applicable to its actions? That would be concrete enough to address concern.

- At political level, there is a desire that ICANN move out of US. Is it possible that ICANN can use different jurisdictions to govern different contract for its areas of work? We cant move the jurisdiction. How can we strategically do this so that resulting transition plan is acceptable to Congress but do not say that clause of jurisdiction goes to bylaws? There is a risk that Congress will rule as unacceptable. 

- Many governments will only sign contracts in their jurisdictions. We can sign contract in any jurisdictions, it's a pure business decision. 

- Question of HQ is outside of scope, we are here to come up with recommendations to improve accountability. Primary question is scope. Moving from 
California does not mean moving out of USA. 

- Issue of jurisdiction and political is not in scope - it's CWG - contractual is not accountability issue/scope 

- identify whether mechanisms important enough to move out of jurisdiction - so far not in this situation.

- Other stakeholders in community were not involved in AoC discussion.

- Consider out of scope unless obstacle.

Conclusion

- Nothing can be WS1 

- Open scope of issue if find our requirements cannot be taken or implemented under California law. 

ACTION ITEM: work on wording of jurisdiction problem statement for WS2

AoC Bylaws

- Steve del Bianco walked the group through WP1, 2A, B, C, D, E. Bilateral agreement with US government to support commitments ICANN is making for 
global public interest. Concerns that absence of IANA contract may lead to AoC disappearing. Stress test #14 - IANA. It is canceleable with 120 day notice. 
ICANN CEPO declared Aoc would be brought into Bylaws - that frames an expectation. Four specific paragraphs where ICANN makes commitments 
are candidates to be brought into Bylaws. 

- 4 improvements were suggested to AoC bylaws:

1) ability to sunset reviews and create new ones;

2) community would appoint members;

3) enhance obligations on ICANN to implement recommendations;

4) access to ICANN documents.

- In section 5 of Bylaws, there is an article on structural reviews. Suggest to import there. 

- Affirmation reviews contain commitments - should commitments live in core values section (WP2)?

- Suggestion that notion of evaluating effectiveness of GAC may not be accountability and transparency we should look at. Role of GAC would. 

- This change would allow termination of review and commencement of additional reviews. 

- Selection of independent expert.

- Review of confidential document.

- Timeline extended.

- Selection via community.

- Suggestion that group not go in drafting details.

Feedback included:

-Effectiveness of GAC: whether GAC provided effective voice for governements within ICANN system - word differently. 

- Requirements annual reports on implementation as follow-up to ATRT2

- Agree that effectiveness needs to be looked at. Selection process needs to be mindful of diversity.

- CCTRT there is contradiction. 

- We are changing AoC  - it is important that people understand amendments being made. 

ACTION ITEM: Highlight review features we are introducing

- Community appoints:  each SO/AC appoints people or community group comes together to make selection - Clarify

--> Do we want to link it to mechanism for community

--> Need to be definitive on what trying to achieve

- Would not put "WHOIS" term in Bylaws - gTLD directory

- ATRT review weaker because of limits AoC set i.e. reviews of reviews

- Timing needs to be fixed

- Internal security of ICANN is changing on monthly basis - looking at overall strategy for security every 4 years is a lifetime

- How does document process work: staff decides what is shown. Organization where accountability is not transparent (DIDP case) 

- Flagging Article 7 of AoC Bylaws

- What of the accountability of community? It is an issue that is lost every time again. Congress will raise this.

- Agree with notion that in case of ccTs, no future gTLD rounds until implemented. Momentum of recommendations. 

- Power on mindmap: force management to implement mechanism - this could be revisited as part of IRP.

- Large comings of community - will that be looked at as part stress-test?

- Culture of openness - core value we don't have right now. 

- Everything is transparent unless specific reason not to be 

- "No less frequently than" - if community felt compelled it could be started earlier.

- Balance between diversity and autonomy.

- Danger of a self-serving proposal if no diversity.

- Composition on review teams is political issue and changes every time.

- We have a problem attracting diversity. 

- Diversity requirement may be constraining.

- Group proposal to consider Board consideration of recommendations

- Flexibility on some reviews is OK to be considered.

- Relationship between GAC and effectiveness - promising approach to build on.

Conclusion: 

- Review system is continuous improvement of ICANN based on bottom-up process. List of reviews not helpful - have to focus. 

- Consensus call for proposed increased transparency features

- No closure on community selection.

- No agreement on balance opposing best people against diversity. 

- Incorporating reviews is one of our recommendations.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: work on wording of jurisdiction problem statement for WS2

ACTION ITEM: Highlight review features we are introducing

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen: (3/24/2015 09:00) Welcome to day 2 of CCWG-Accountability Meeting! Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:01) Hello everyone!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:01) Welcome! We will begin shortly

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:06) Welcome everyone !

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:06) Leon stole my green font

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:06) This will have to do

  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:14) How do I get a color for my font?

  Keith Drazek: (09:14) Congragulations and thanks to the Legal Sub-Team for this progress on selecting both Adler Colvin and Sidley Austin. Good news!

  Mike Brennan: (09:15) @Paul, go to the dropdown menu at the top right of the Chat box, choose from the menu titled "My Chat Color"

  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:17) @Mike -- Thank you

  Mike Brennan: (09:17) No problem!

  David McAuley: (09:18) cant hear

  Chris Disspain: (09:18) today I shall be orange

  Chris Disspain: (09:18) except it seems to be red

  David McAuley: (09:18) better thanks

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:19) @Chris : purple suits you best

  David McAuley: (09:19) looks orange here Chris

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (09:19) Chris, you can be any color you wish.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:19) Rainbow Chris.

  Chris Disspain: (09:19) Good point Mathieu and thanks Avri

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:19) hey you can't steal my colour.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:19) try pink

  Chris Disspain: (09:19) speak for yourself Jordan

  Chris Disspain: (09:20) I tried pink once - but that was in the sock dept

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:20) our secret is out, Chris. <<Purple Antipodeans Forever>>

  Chris Disspain: (09:20) I think we can agree that there are simply not enough colours

  Chris Disspain: (09:20) HA!

  Chris Disspain: (09:20) PAF - Patrik may claim breach of IP

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:22) sadly using the android mobile app I can not

change text colour OR allocated login name :-(   but am purple in spirit :-)

:-) :-)

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (09:23) And my color, so you can tell GREENberg is talking

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (09:24) Just black, but colorful

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (09:24) I abstained becasue while I agree with Seb that it is ttoo large, I don't really care knowing that the functional part will be small.

  Becky Burr: (09:24) learning something new every day

  Keith Drazek: (09:25) Perhaps the Legal Sub-Team could self-designate primary and secondary members based on levels of active participation?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:25) while the legal sub-team group is large, the number of people who are actively engaged is probably less than 5.

  Keith Drazek: (09:26) This is no different than most ICANN WGs. Many names on the list with relatively fewer active contributors.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:26) Yes I agree with sabina and robin, the group will have a core, I dont think there is a need to formalise that as another sub-group of a sub-team

  Keith Drazek: (09:27) +1

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:27) yes I think it is fine because anyone can join, but few actually engage

  Sabine Meyer: (09:27) Exactly. N

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (09:37) In his US Senate testimony on 25-Feb, ICANN CEO said "ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change."

  Chris Disspain: (09:37) Pedro is talking about the consequences of jurisdiction I think...is that right Pedro

  David McAuley: (09:40) Agree re: workload, it seems that consideration of jurisdiction is a work stream two matter, and considerations of limitations of jurisdiction could there be balanced one against another

  Keith Drazek: (09:42) @Steve: Yes, and Fadi went further in his prepared statements.. He said he expected the AoC obligation to remain in US jurisdiction to be incorporated into the bylaws.

  Adam Peake: (09:43) CCWG legal sub-team presentation, and response from Sidley Austin to CWG scoping document are on the wiki https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+Subteam+Draft+Docume

nts

  Chris Disspain: (09:45) Mathieu...isn't what you just said a workstream 2 thing?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:46) it's a (potential) WS2 recommednation but we need to explain how we will address now (or very soon)

  Matthew Shears: (09:46) in the same context as jurisdiction we need to be sure that the enhancements (structures/community empowerment) are as open and multistakeholder as possible so that global stakeholder community is as engaged as possible

  Chris Disspain: (09:46) OK..still not sure I get it...let's chat in the break

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:46) @Chris : sure

  Chris Disspain: (09:50) Keith....Fadi actually said 'there are no plans for that to change'

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (09:50) Keith is right.   Fadi was

emphatic in his answers to the US Senate

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:51) May I remind those that are not speaking to mute their mics pleas?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:52) Agree with Alan Greenberg and Chair's guidance: legal advisers to identify any deficiencies. Should also note in this context that ICANN operations now spread across three centres - LA, Istanbul and Singapore.

  Chris Disspain: (09:52) Mathieu - so the goal is to discuss so we can answer any questions

  Chris Disspain: (09:53) ?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:53) It is not really Fadi's call, what gets in WS1.

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) @ ?Robin - agree

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:54) +1 Robin

  Keith Drazek: (09:54) @Robin: Agreed, but an expectation has been set and must be managed.

  Chris Disspain: (09:55) Keith - I think there is an expextation in Congress that the AoC will move onto by=laws amd there is a clear understanding amongst some  in confress that US jirisdiction will be maintained

  James Bladel-GNSO: (09:56) Putting a different spin on Keith's concern:

A proposal lacking a commitment to US jurisdiction will be a problem for Congress.

  Matthew Shears: (09:56) may well be

  Chris Disspain: (09:57) James...possibly but it may be that silence on the matter is enough

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (09:58) The CEOs testimony was on behalf of ICANN, and has certainly raised expectations of Congress about baking the AoC into the Bylaws  before  transition

  James Bladel-GNSO: (09:58) Chris:  I dunno. I believe they are now looking for a commitment, and will note its absence.

  Keith Drazek: (09:58) Agreed Chris. My concern about the CCWG pushing jurisdiction to WS2 is that it falls short of what Fadi said about incorporating the AoC obligations into the bylaws as part of the transition.

And that could become an obstacle to a successful  transition. We can't ignore this.

  Matthew Shears: (09:58) + 1 Keith

  James Bladel-GNSO: (09:58) WS1 = reinforce US jurisdiction

  James Bladel-GNSO: (09:59) WS2 = work on other jurisdictions

  Chris Disspain: (09:59) Ah...OK so that's a different point...I'll sddrss that when I speak

  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:59) @Chris -- Silence is not enough.  This is probably the ONLY issue Congress will really care about, and it is one that every member of Congress understands.

  Chris Disspain: (09:59) So what do you suggest Paul?

  David McAuley: (10:00) @Avri, true, but we care what NTIA says and they care what expectations have been set at Senate and we need to manage to that expectation

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:00) I would think that the AoC could be incorporated (less jursdiction) regardless of jurisdiction, companies make legal commitments in multiple jurisdictions all the time, possibly a question to be put to legal counsel, can the AoC be incorporatedif ICANN is re-domociled and to what extent would that become an issues.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (10:01) +1 Paul.  The campaign ads write themselves!

  Chris LaHatte: (10:01) The last thing we want is to become a political football on the IANA transition. If we talk about moving from California, the politicians will seize on this and possibly sabotage all our work

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:02) Isn't the issue here whether, as part of the transition, we have to commit to *not* move from California?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:03) That in the absence of such an undertaking would mean the United States couldn't secure agreement to allow transition to occur?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:04) As I said before, if we are looking at jurisdiction in WS1 it needs to be because of a solid driver, an accountability mechanism that we require a jurisdiction change in order to address.

  Edward Morris: (10:04) That's the question I'd ask Jordan.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:04) Get the IANA transition completed before we address change of jurisdiction, otherwise it may not happen

  Matthew Shears: (10:04) if it is key  and essential enhancing accountbaility then it can be justiifably discussed BUT we first have to decide why jurisdiction is key to accountability

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:04) agreed @chris LH

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:05) @Chris -- I am not sure.  All I am sure about is that purposeful ambiguity will not work in this context.  A proposal that is silent on jurisdictional commitments will  be  noticed  and if the NTIA does not ask of its own accord, it will be  required to do so by Congress, to whom it is beholden.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (10:05) Need to communicate carefully in meeting outcome statement  how CCWG is handling jurisdiction in relation i) to IANA operatons and ii) to enhancing overall accountability.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:05) @Jordan -- In answer to yoru question, the only thing common to most bills in Congress is a requirement to commit to stay in California in perpetuity.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:06) + 1 Chris LaHatte, and the comment Thomas made

  David McAuley: (10:07) Thomas, the data retention waiver issue was ICANN¹s doing as part of the new RAR agreement, wasn¹t it - don¹t think it had anything to do with applicable law at ICANN¹s office

  Becky Burr: (10:08) correct David McAuley

  Keith Drazek: (10:09) Well said, Chris.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:09) While congress has said it has a role in this transiton, that does not make it so.

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (10:10) @David: You are correct. However, ICANN is just offering contracts governed by US law. If ICANN did offer contracts governed by other laws, it would not be required to ask for waivers.

  David McAuley: (10:10) Correct, and it can do that, nothing prevents it.

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (10:10) A suggestion I made earler was that ICANN shoudl offer at least one contract per world region.

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (10:11) That is exactly my point, David. No need to move ICANN elsewhere for that reason.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:11) @Avri -- it already has. a role.  The funding prohbition in last year's budget constrains NTIA action.  It can, and I suspect will, act in the next budget cycle if it is unsatisfied.

  Matthew Shears: (10:11) if it has a significant bearing on enhancing accountbailty it is in scope

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:11) +1 Malcolm

  Matthew Shears: (10:11) if it does not it isn't - we have to figure that out

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:12) +1 Maclcom and  Matthew, if something is identified then its itn scope otherwise no.

  Keith Drazek: (10:12) @Malcolm: The converse is also true. If we're recommending accountability mechanisms that are based in CA law, then if ICANN moves from CA jurisdiction, the accountability mechanisms could be undermined. Are new accountability mechanisms undermined from a change of jurisdiction?

  James Bladel-GNSO: (10:12) I think we should start with a list of the actual concerns with US/California as it pertains to Accountability Mechansisms? 

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (10:13) Exactly Malcolm

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:13) Paul, the fact that it had to take that sort of indirect action show how little it has to say about it.

Had it had anything ,aterial to say, it would have just prohibited any transiton that it did not first approve of.  So they can huff and puff and cut the NTIA budget, but they do not have a say on the transiton.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (10:13) Malcolm's recommendation makes sense to me

  Chris LaHatte: (10:13) Any change of lication would have to be with accountibility preserved otherwise what we are doing now is a waste of time

  Chris LaHatte: (10:14) location

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:14) i reiterate, i do not think it is a primary issue for us, unless we find we can't get accountabilty in CA.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:14) but i do not think we shuld rely on congrss as our reason for not moving.  we should avoid moving becasue it is a mess and becasue we dont need to do it.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (10:14) +1 Avri.

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (10:15) Jordan: I respectfully disagree.

ICANN's contracts are a vital part of ICANN's accountability system.

  Matthew Shears: (10:15) this general sense has to be very carefully articulated oin the Chair's report

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:15) Thomas: OK :-) Remember, I am from a "non-contracted party"

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:15) ICANN's contracts and their relationship to accountability would be a great WS2 issue.

  Becky Burr: (10:16) Avri, appropriations riders are common Congressional devices and don't suggest any absence of authority - just a simple and familiar way to exercise that power

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:16) WS2 could do that contract piece?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:16) as per Robin's proposal?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:16) +1 Roelof

  Erika Mann: (10:17) Avri +1 And I would add that moving is hardly going to solve the legal problems we face. Governments in most countries are currently drafting problematic legislations that may impact us in problematic way.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:18) +1 Avri

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (10:19) link to the PDF is

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%2

0Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v5%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDa

te=1425509039000&api=v2

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:21) is there a link to the draft document on jurisdiction?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:21) @Jorge: not yet

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:21) @Jorge We will upload it to the wiki and circulate the link

  Chris Disspain: (10:23) Steve - in truth, the Board has discussed havng AoCs with other parties and putting the AoC into the bylaws so, with respoect, it is utter rubbish to suggest thet Board would 'love' to get out of it.

  Matthew Shears: (10:26) I think it was more about how long would that agreement continue to exist with the USG as a party

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:28) why did i get knocekd out of the spealer order!!!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:28) Where were you in the queue Avri ?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:28) i was first.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:29) yup she was...

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (10:29) i sent in comments on  this doc that were ignroed and want to speak to it after this report.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:29) OK will go to you first

  Adam Peake: (10:29) document discussed during the jurisdiction session "CCWG and jurisdiction - draft Requirements" on the wiki https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+Subteam+Draft+Docume

nts

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:36) This on whois needs to include recognition of privacy rights

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:37) _1 Robin

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:37) +1 even

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:38) thanks @Adam

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (10:39) Excellent thorough work by Steve, Matthew and the team. I want to put on record that UK Government  as an active contributor to all 4 reviews conducted to date is one of the GAC members in support of this work to consider how to translate the AoC reviews into the bylaws.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (10:43) Thanks Steve.  One thought about sunsetting:

The ATRT should be prohibited from sunsetting itself.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:44) fair point @james

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:46) I will close the queue after Jan

  Matthew Shears: (10:49) also have to consider how, once we are comfortable the AOC elements have been accounted for,  how both ICANN and the USG step away from the existing agreement and the related narrative

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:49) the most important "balance" to achieve on these groups is the self-selection of representatives from the varios AC/SO/SGs. 

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (10:50) Agree, Robin.

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:51) On reviews perhaps I could refer to the GAC

input on this issue which says: "o ICANN should be based on principles of

continuous improvement, with regular community-led and independent reviews of its key governance structures and processes"

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:52) +1 James!  At least for security the standards change almost weekly.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (10:53) Regardign Kavouss's point on GAC as effective voice - to understand the issue here it's necessary to define criteria on what constitutes effectiveness in safeguarding the public interest and safety, respect for international laws, national sovereignty and rights.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:54) I have jurisdiction to review DIDP, but have opnly ever been asked once to do so in 4 years. If you have an issue with a refusal, i can review this. So there is an accountibility function which deals with this.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:55) I have the power to see ANY and ALL documents in ICANN

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:56) We need to be sure to review these transparency issues as it is a foundation to accountability.

  Becky Burr: (10:56) @ Chris LaHatte - you have ability to review all docs but i gather that you do not have the ability to overrule staff determination that document should not be disclosed?

  Chris LaHatte: (10:57) I can recommend that the decision be reversed

  Chris LaHatte: (10:57) But I have not been asked to flex this muscle

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:58) @Chris if either of my 2 current DIDP's are denised I'll give you the oppertunity =)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:58) NCSG filed a DIDP asking for information that went into a staff created policy.  All info was categorically denied by ICANN as "confidential".

  Matthew Shears: (10:58) + 1 Robin, yes - still key language in Articles 4 and 7 on transparency and particularly analyses of impact of decisions on public and DNS, and, transparency of processes and explanations for decisions taken, etc.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:58) +1 James

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:59) exactly, Matt.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (11:00) Regardign Kavouss's point on new gTLD application rounds: some AoC review outcomes need to be implemented before a round commences such as support mechanisms to ensure engagement with stakeholder communities in developing countries and small island developing states . Otehr recomemdnatiosn could be implemented only when the round  beds in I guess - lessons learnt on how to conduct the round so that the vision and aims are fully implemented which arguably did not happen in the firstround when opportunities for communities in paricular were not realised and many of those applciations now face serious obstacles.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:00) Of course, this very process is shines the brightest light on how ineffedtive the ATRT process has been.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:01) fair point, Jonathan.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:05) People make the culture, policy supports them

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:05) agree that everything has to be transparent unless there is a specific and documented reason not to.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:06) of course, it's a trap to consider transparency an end unto itself it is nothing more than a necessary tool for accountability. necessary but insufficient.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:07) time periods for between RT's seem to need fit for purpose

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:07) yes, but as a necessary foundational tool, if we can get that, we'll have far fewer accountability problems.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:07) contact...  language included...

  Paul Rosenzweig: (11:07) I need coffee

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:08) As much as I hate it I need a cigarette and coffee.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:09) @James, we're almost into the coffee break :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:09) the balance of the interests is the most important diversity

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:12) agree Robin and the basis of "community"

accountability

  Edward Morris: (11:12) @Chris. With all due respect the official appeals process for denial of a DIDP request, as contained in the Bylaws and stated on the ICANN website, is NOT to your office but rather to a reconsideration request or independent review.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:14) Agree with Malcolm.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:15) We will be having 1 minute for coffe break so seize the time! :P

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:15) I've been drinking coffee the whole time, Leon!  ;-)

  David McAuley: (11:15) Thanks Steve & team

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:15) We envy you @Robin! :D

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:16) @Robin I want to officialy complain!

Thats not fairon us!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:16) See? I'm the good cop! Thomas is bad cop! :P

  James Bladel-GNSO: (11:16) Skip coffee and move to lunch, perhaps?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:16) :-)

  Alice Jansen: (11:17) We will be back at 9:30 UTC - 11:30 EET