Webinar 1 - 4 August 19:00 UTC

Attendees:  Aida Noblia, Alain Durand, Alan Greenberg, Alberto Soto, Alexandrine Gauvin, Alice Munyua, Alika, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Allan Skuce, Andrew Harris, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Ariel Liang, Avri Doria, Barbara Wanner, Barrack Otieno, Benny Samuelsen, Benoit Ampeau, Carl Schonander, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Cheryl Miller, Chip Sharp, Chris Wilson, Dani, David Einhorn, David Epstein, David McAuley, Deguenonvo, Denise Michel, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Emily Chan, Erika Cook, Glenn McKnight, Gordon Chillcott, Graeme Bunton, Graham Barnett, Greg Shatan, Gregory Ehoumi, Griffin Barnett, Heath Dixon, Howie, Jason Hynds, J. Berryhill, Jennifer Chung, Jim Baskin, Jimm Phillips, Joe Catapano, John Poole, Joly MacFie, Jon Nevett, Jonathan Nabavi, Jonathen Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Joseph Wright, JP, Julia Charvolen, Julie Hammer, Karen Bernstein, Karen Mulberry, Kate Perl, Klaus Stoll, Kristina Rosette, Kurt Pritz, Laurie Shulman, Leon Sanchez, Lynn St. Amour, Mamadou Lo, Mandy Carver, Margie Milam, Marilyn Vernon, McTim, Melanie Penagos, Michael Niebel, Mohamed Sabur, Naela Sarras, Nigel Hickson, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Pär Brumark, Patrick Lenihan, Philip Corwin, Pierre Dandjinou, R. Shel, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Ron Sherwood, Rudi Vansnick, Sam Dickinson, Sara Bockey, Scott Harlan, Sébastien Bachollet, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephen Deerhake, Steve Crocker, Steve DelBianco, Steve Metalitz, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale, Val Sherman, Yaovi Atohoun   (102)

Transcript

Adobe Connect Recording:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1obc580vgj/

MP3 Recording:  EN   ES   AR   FR   PT   RU   ZH

Chat transcript:

Kimberly Carlson: (8/3/2015 14:52) Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability Webinar Session 1! Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

Kimberly Carlson: (8/4/2015 12:56) Hello everyone, just a reminder - live interpretation is available for this webinar

  Benny / Nordreg AB: (13:11) sound dropping

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:12) Hi everyone, thanks for being here today

  nigel hickson: (13:12) @Jordan - you have many friends!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:13) QUESTION: In the past, the Board has had the responsibility to either resolve Community disputes or else to act in the face of disagreements between Community members.  How does this change in the new framework and how does the new Accountabilty framework affect Board action in this regard?  Thank you.

  steve metalitz: (13:15) QUESTION:  Are the "structural reviews" referenced on slide 6 the periodic reviews of ACs and SOs already contained in ICANN bylaws -- or something different/additional?  QUESTION 

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:17) Answer to Steve Metallitz:  those are the current strutural reviews required in ICANN bylaws.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (13:18) @Steve + Steve with some additional requests

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:19) Fundamental By-Laws are a GREAT idea!

  jorge villa (ASO): (13:20) Hi! Anybody knows if the presentation is online? if so, which is the URL?

  JP: (13:21) Hi I think it is this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229675&api=v2

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:22) QUESTION: with a need for so many panellists in the the independent review process, is there a risk that we create a "community of panellists" that end up controlling ICANN's decisions?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:24) yes dropped

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:24) not yet

  DEGUENONVO: (13:25) hello

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) Olivier, there will be only 7 panelists in total.  This is the same as PICDRP and far less than UDRP.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) I'm back

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) :D

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:26) *\o/*

  DEGUENONVO: (13:27) who is the speaker now?

  Alice Jansen: (13:27) Thomas Rickert - CCWG-Accountability CoChair

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) thomas rickert

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:28) QUESTION: How likely is it that  foreign sovereign governments will submit to voting membership in a California unincorporated non-profit association like the proposed Community Mechanism?  Doesn't the GAC need to do this as a whole?  How will refusal by one government to participate on that basis affect GAC participation in the CA unincorporated non-profit association?

  David McAuley: (13:29) Very low audio Leon

  Benny / Nordreg AB: (13:29) sounds dropping out... extremely hard to heard anything

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) Anne: governments wouldn't be joining anything

  Stephen Deerhake: (13:31) If the audio quality of Leon's remarks cannot be improved, I suggest the presenters switch back to Thomas.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) the GAC collectively would participate in the Community Mechnaism as Sole Member, but it does not have to become an uninc association itself to do so, and governments do not have a different relationship to the GAC than they do today in this model

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:31) Love these enumerated powers - nice work all on the CCWG - ACCT!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:32) (would = would if it chose to do so, based on the CCWG proposal)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:33) @Del Bianco - Thanks Steve for your work for CSG on this!

  steve metalitz: (13:33) QUESTION: Does CMSM process apply only to the 5 powers enumerated on slide 12?  In other words, what is community recourse against Board decisions with whihc it disagress but that do not fall within the 5 situations listed on slide 12?  can community 

  Avri Doria: (13:33) Steve a rrestructured RR & IRP

  Philip Corwin: (13:34) All respect to Leon, but audio quality  is nearly unintelligible.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:34) "voting" in the community mechanism goes to ACs and SOs that are created in ICANN Bylaws.   None of the ACs or SOs has to change or join anything to exercise its vote

  steve metalitz: (13:34) Please ignore last 2 words of QUESTION above

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:34) we can't do anything on our end @Phil. It's Leon's connection that is the issue.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:34) @Anne -- glad you like them.

  DEGUENONVO: (13:34) can I ask my question now or after presentation?

  Philip Corwin: (13:35) Is SO/AC decision to use power based on a smple majority vote or some higher threshold?

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:35) there will be a formal question period after the presentation

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:35) @Steve: SOs and ACs definitely become part of a California  unincorporated non-profit association governed by certain provisions of the California Code - at least per Rosemary at Sidley.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:35) DEGUENONVO: If you ask now, the rapporteurs on the chat (me and Steve) will try and help you out. If you want to ask by voice in the call, please hold for the formal question period.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:35) @DEGUENONVO -- there will be Q&A after the presentation where you can ask on audio. If you are not connected to audio, you can type you question here in the chat.

  DEGUENONVO: (13:36) ok good

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:36) Anne: the SO or AC does, but the members of the SO/AC do not - and the individual SO or AC does *not* need to be recognised as an uninc assoc.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:36) This addresses one of the key concerns raised with the previous model of individual SO/AC membership.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:36) @Jordan  yes, I agree with you based on what the attorneys said.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:37) so no new obligations arise for any ICANN participant from this model.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:37) @Jordan - are you saying the GAC is already part of a CA unincorporated non-profit association?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:38) the GAC is already part of a california non profit corporation - it is a structure in the ICANN bylaws

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:39) @Jordan - GAC is currently an advisory committee to a CA non-profit corporation - not exactly the same thing.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:39) this model would be precisely the same - everything will be set out in the bylaws, no new legal structures will be recognised in respect of SOs or ACs arising from this model. It is just their collective acts (the votes they cast) that get given legal life & force through the "Single Member".

  Chip Sharp (Cisco): (13:39) How many votes does each AC/SO get in the Decision phase?

  steve metalitz: (13:39) QUESTION  Re slide 14, what is the "governing body" of e.g. GNSO?  QUESTION

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) GAC is a Special Committee - created by ICANN's bylaws.  It is a constituent part of ICANN.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:40) Anne: it will be a good question to tease out in the Q&A so everyone has the benefit of the cochairs answers' -- but as a matter of design, we have been careful and our advisors suggest, no new requirements are created for anyone, and no barriers created to participating in this model.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:40) My understanding is the "Single Member" is a California unincorporated non-profit association governed by certain specific provisions of the California Civil Code.

  Donna Austin: (13:41) Is it a vote of the GNSO Council, ccNSO Council or the collective membership?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:41) Anne: you are right. The Single Member will be.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:42) @Steve and Donna -- GNSO stakeholder groups would cast their equally weighted votes as part of the GNSO position.

  DEGUENONVO: (13:42) I just want to know this question:is it a vote of GNSO

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:42) Chip: the proposal is 5 votes available to each of ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and ALAC; two votes each available to RSSAC and SSAC

  DEGUENONVO: (13:42) ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:44) Which vote, Deguenonvo?

  Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:44) 29 votes = 15 votes majority

  Jon Nevett: (13:46) Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa

  Donna Austin: (13:46) Is there a consequence of the GAC not deciding to vote?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:46) Minority View: 4 votes for ASO, CCNSO, GNSO.  2 votes for ALAC.  GAC, RSAC, SSAC are non-voting liasions and participate fully in community discussion.  This model is the ratio the simulates the existing ICANN board composition.

  steve metalitz: (13:47) QUESTION:  Slide 16 seems to imply that GNSO has already decided to participate in the Community Mechanism.  Is this correct? QUESTION

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) Donna: the consequence would fewer votes available. All the voting thresholds are % of available votes so no direct impact per se.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) Steve: nobody has faced a decision-point as yet, but the signals so far have been that it is favourably inclined to participate (the GNSO, this is)

  steve metalitz: (13:52) @Jordan, thanks for response to my question.

  DEGUENONVO: (13:52) who are the relevant stakeholders?

  McTim: (13:55) I believe that we all ar relevant stakeholders, or did u have a specific case in mind?

  Avri Doria: (13:55) On the votes, another minority opinon was parity of 5 to all SOAC, including RSSAC and SSAC.

  Steve Crocker: (13:55) I have a question re the AoC reviews

  Hillary Jett: (13:55) Hi all, if you'd like to raise a question please raise your hand in the Adobe Connect room and Thomas will come to you.

  DEGUENONVO: (13:55) ok thank

  steve metalitz: (13:56) QUESTION:  what is basis for CCWG conclusion it has met all CwG Stewardship requirements, when it has not made ccTLD delegation/redelegation decisions subject to review?  QUESTION

  Kurt Pritz: (13:57) I have a question on the CMSM. The CMSM has, for example,  five RIR members (i.e., one for each of the RIRs) and five GNSO members (I.e., one for the 1000+ gTLD registries). This is an apparent disparity but I am interested in the discussion that led to this model so I can better understand it. There is a similar disparity that there are only 5 ccTLD members.

  Avri Doria: (13:58) The ATRT has the abilty to recommend a revsion or removal of one of the AOC reviews.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (13:58) Speaker is Steve Del Bianco

  Hillary Jett: (13:58) All -- if you are speaking on the Adigo line and also in the Adobe Room. Please mute your speakers so that we do not get an echo in the phone line.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:59) BUt the next ATRT recs will be acted on AFTER the next WHOIS review...

  McTim: (13:59) Hi Kurt,  since each RIR has thousands or tens of thousands of members (Local Internet Registries)  there doesn't seem to be too much of a disparity

  Avri Doria: (13:59) speaking from the AC, does not seem to be enabled.

  Avri Doria: (14:00) an ATRT is schedule for 2016, or at least should be.

  Greg Shatan: (14:01) +1 to the "wow" reaction at the end of that statement.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:01) I think it would be destructive and inappropriate for the CCWG to set itself up as the "fixit" body, trying to sort out all of ICANN's issues and all the specific problems that have been identified in the course of our work. As a group I think we have a lot of confidence in the ATRT3's ability to solve this problem.

  McTim: (14:02) +1 to Jordan

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:02) ATRT3 will likelt have far less experiise on whois issues that the CCWG does.

  Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:02) QUESTION:  What is the mechanism through which future changes/corrections could be made?  For example, it's theoretically possible that  (a) if there are only 7 members of the IRP standing panel ; and (b) each IRP has a 3-person panel,  it could be the case that, depending on the number of IRPs, the panelists could be overwhelmed. Similarly, for example, the proposal to have the Ombudsman make the initial recommendations on Requests for Reconsideration to the BGC can only achieve its purpose of taking the ICANN legal dept. out of the loop, if the Ombudsman is required to work independently of and without consulting the ICANN Legal Dept.  If that requirement is not dealt with as an "operational detail", what's the mechanism to fix in the future?  A bylaws amendment?  QUESTION

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:02) i have no audio

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:02) Under the same AOC language, ICANN is about to begin another WHOIS review.  Will that be destructive?  I don't think so.

  Kurt Pritz: (14:03) @Tim - still, regional representation for gTLD registries seems reasonable as there is regional representation of the Regional Internet Registries

  Jon Nevett: (14:03) Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:03) sorry, team

  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:03) Can you open the audio on Adobe now?

  Jon Nevett: (14:03) Thomas -- I asked that above

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:03) i have audio

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:04) can you restate the question please

  Steve Crocker: (14:04) @Steve DelB: Consistent with my comments, the answer to your question is yes, another whois review on the existing terms would be wrong and destructive.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:04) No, @Sebastien -- We can dial out to you though

  Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:04) QUESTION: Apologies if this was stated at the beginning (which I missed), but will the CCWG answer the questions put into chat and distribute responses to webinar attendees? QUESTION

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:04) We have too many people on the call to manage open mics

  Jon Nevett: (14:04) Jon Nevett: Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa

  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:04) No I don't lie the 2 tools scenario. Thanks

  McTim: (14:05) @Kurt, doesn't that mean 5 votes at the end of the day, one per region for gTLDs?

  Avri Doria: (14:05) McTim, only if the GNSO decides to apportion it that way.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:06) @Kurt, each AC/So can subdivide the 5 votes as they see fit. There is no requirement to do it by region.

  Kurt Pritz: (14:06) @ Jordan: certainly gTLD registries and registrars should be identified as direct customers of ICANN in your discussion. The GNSO is a set of customers.

  Jon Nevett: (14:07) if the issue isn't essential to one group's business, but essential to the other group's business, shouldn't there be a distinction?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:07) gTLD registries and registrars are not customers of ICANN but contractees.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:07) Kindly mute your mics if not speaking

  Avri Doria: (14:08) The wpoers are much more about ICANN issues not particlar ACSO issues.

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:08) QUESTION:  Would the co-chairs wish to comment on the numerious objections which have been raised on the CCWG mailing list regarding process, lack of adherence to the WG's charter, the rapid turn-around of documents for discussion, the general rapidity of discussion and decision making process, etc.?

  Avri Doria: (14:08) Or Jo do you mean for example, ACSO specific charter ammendments?

  Avri Doria: (14:09) apologies, John ...

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:09) Members of a particular AC or SO can directly file an IRP , and seek a binding decision based on new bylaws standard of review.

  Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:09) Thank you!

  steve metalitz: (14:09) @ Thomas:  Not all of the 5 powers are "last resort" or "community wide" powers.  E.g., review of a bylaw amendment that affects only one SO.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:10) @Steve Metalitz: if a bylaws amendment gave, say, greater powers to GAC, I think you'd agree that all AC/SOs care about that and would want a vote

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:10) hard to see a potential bylaws change that ONLY affects a single AC/SO.

  Jon Nevett: (14:11) Steve, the GNSO operatitions are in the Bylaws, for example

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:11) @Steve, not so. There are a host of Bylaws that define the AC/SOs and those bylaws change from time to time.

  Avri Doria: (14:12) Jon, I think the issue that even those changes affect us all, not just those in one SO or AC.

  Jon Nevett: (14:12) Article IX deals only with CCNSO, for example

  Jon Nevett: (14:13) Thomas, the community can reject a bylaw proposal, but what if the board rejects a proposal?

  Avri Doria: (14:13) so in overruling one, the affected SO should be able to make a case the community understands.

  steve metalitz: (14:13) QUESTION: Does CMSM process apply only to the 5 powers enumerated on slide 12? 

  Jon Nevett: (14:13) refer to #2 in slide 12

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:14) @Steve yes the CMSM would apply onlh to the 5 powers enumerated. Everything else would continue to work as it does today

  Jon Nevett: (14:14) so if the community proposes a bylaw change and it is rejected by the board, we can't do anything?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:14) ATRT and other review teams can propose Bylaws changes

  Jon Nevett: (14:15) not so much

  Greg Shatan: (14:16) Jon, we can start down the path of recalling the Board,

  Greg Shatan: (14:16) If the rejected bylaw is of sufficient importance.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:16) Anyone can propose Bylaw changes. It is up to the Baord to act on them. The GNSO has done it regularly, and even the ALAC has on occasion.

  Greg Shatan: (14:16) Or commnce an IRP.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:17) Jon: indeed. we are not proposing a new way for the community to push bylaws changes through if the Board opposes them

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:17) if the communtiy feels very strongly, it can use other powers to change the Board

  steve metalitz: (14:17) repeating previous QUESTION:  what is basis for CCWG conclusion it has met all CwG Stewardship requirements, when it has not made ccTLD delegation/redelegation decisions subject to review?  QUESTION

  steve metalitz: (14:20) @Steve and  others, thanks for responses to all my questions. 

  Jon Nevett: (14:20) I think that we are relying too heavily on board removal, which is a nuclear option.  In ICANN's history, the nuclear option doesn't work.  We need a mechanism to overide a decision of the Board by overwhelming majority of the community where the board just got a decision wrong not due to malfeasance which would warrant removal

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:20) QUESTION:  Would the co-chairs wish to comment on the numerious objections which have been raised on the CCWG mailing list regarding process, lack of adherence to the WG's charter, the rapid turn-around of documents for discussion, the general rapidity of discussion and decision making process, etc.?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) @Jon -- agree that we should not rely too much on the nuclear option.  THat's why we have the other powers, incl a binding IRP.  

  Jon Nevett: (14:23) Steve, Does the IRP deal with cases where the Board got it wrong or when the board violates the Bylaws

  Klaus Stoll: (14:23) I just want to thank all on the working grou. It's up to the community now but the community could not do it without you. Thanks!!!p for their hard work. You at least gave us something that is great to discuss

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) Jon: yes to both

  Jon Nevett: (14:24) ok -- great -- look forward to reviewing the 180 pages -- great job all getting us to this point

  Kristina Rosette (Amazon): (14:25) Have to drop for another meeting.  Many thanks to the CCWG and the co-chairs for all of their hard work!

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:26) Thank you for the candid and comprehensive answer to my question.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:26) :-0

  Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:27) and Stephen we do not apologize for efforts on openness and inclusion of participants to all our work :-)

  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:27) I ma on the French Channel

  steve metalitz: (14:27) Agree that the working group has done a herculean job, thank you for devoting so much time and thought to this! 

  David McAuley: (14:27) A participant’s view: The CCWG co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have done an incredible amount of heavy-lifting work these past two weeks (and weekends) – thank you!

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:28) Ok sebastien please hold

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) Let's give Sebastien the FIRST question on Friday's call

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:30) Thank you for attending and participating, everyone

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:30) Thanks all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:30) look forward to your public comments!

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:30) Thanks all!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:30) bye all

  nigel hickson: (14:30) Thanks to Leon and Steve and others; ; really useful

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:30) THnaks for a great webminar

  Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (14:30) tremendous work ..

  Yaovi Atohoun: (14:30) bye

  Aída Noblia: (14:31) thanks

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:31) Thanks, bye all!

  Alice Jansen: (14:31) Thank you for joining this webinar - archives will be available at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681  You can also find slides on this wiki page.

  Theresa Swinehart: (14:31) Thank you everone for participating!

Adobe Connect Recording:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1obc580vgj/

Webinar 2 - 7 August 07:00 UTC

Attendees:  Alain Bidron, Annaliese Williams, Antonia Chu, Arun Sukumar, Asha Hemrajani, Ashley Roberts, Becky Burr, Bernd Neujahr, Biaou Ramanou, Bob, Boyoung Kim, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Disspain, Cresent, Cristina Monti, Farzaneh Badii, Fiona Asonga, Gary Hunt, He Jia, Hyuno Kwon, Izumi Okutani, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jan Vannieuwenhuyse, Jean, John Demco, Joke Braeken, Jonathan Robinson, Jordan Carter, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Jyoti Panday, Kangsoo Song, Keith Davidson, Konstantinos Komaitis, Liana Teo, Lincoln, Lise Fuhr, Marketa Petrunova, Markus Kummer, Marzoug, Matthew Shears, Mervi Kultamaa, Minjung Park, Nancy McGlamery, Naomi Tandy, Nick Ashton-Hart, Nigel Hickson, Nikki Hu, Nina Elzer, Olivier Muron, Padmini Baruah, Paul Szyndler, Peter Green, Peter Koch, Philip Sheppard, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Roman Malinowski, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Sébastien Bachollet, Shailesh Lakhtakia, Shin Yamasaki, Shweta Asher, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tom Dale, Tracey Hind, Wen Zhai, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Yasuichi Kitamura, Yuri Takamatsu   (73)

Transcript

Adobe Connect Recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3xucqwdx73/

MP3 Recording:  EN  ES  AR  FR  PT  ZH  (RU was not available for this webinar)

Chat Transcript:

  Kimberly Carlson: (8/7/2015 00:44) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Webinar 2!  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 

  Yasuichi Kitamura (at large): (00:50) hi, all.

  BIAOU Ramanou: (00:54) Hi all

  BIAOU Ramanou: (00:54) Bonjour à tous

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:56) Bonjour, good morning and hallo to everyone

  Shailesh Lakhtakia: (00:56) Hello everyone

  Boyoung Kim: (00:58) Hi from Korea :)

  nigel hickson: (00:59) Good morning

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:00) Hi All :-)

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (01:00) Hi all

  Lise Fuhr: (01:01) Hello all

  Keith Davidson: (01:01) Hi all

  Kangsoo Song: (01:01) Well heard

  Peter Green （CONAC）: (01:01) yes, heard

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (01:01) Hallo All

  Shailesh Lakhtakia: (01:01) yes. audio is clear

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (01:02) Good morning one and all

  jaap akkerhuis: (01:04) Morning all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:04) Hi Jaap

  Alice Jansen: (01:05) Link to second draft report:  https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:07) hi all, made it on to join you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:08) Welcome aboard Jordan :-)

  padmini: (01:12) the audio seems to be cracking up

  padmini: (01:13) is it just me?

  Yasuichi Kitamura (at large): (01:13) at me, no problems

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:13) AC  audio can be variable depending on your internet connection quality  there is a coloured bar top right  if green it should be OK  so let staff know it it continues to be an issue

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:14) telephine bridge is the alternative

  padmini: (01:15) yes please

  padmini: (01:15) can you please tell me how to go about that?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:15) I will ask staff to start a Pvt chat woth you.

  padmini: (01:17) it seems to be working now. thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:17) :-)

  Matthew Shears: (01:38) coulod you rovide a link to this set of slides - thanks

  Kimberly Carlson: (01:39) Slides, recordings can be found on the wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/SYtCAw

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:41) if you have questions during the call, rapporteurs might be able to help answer them here in the chat

  padmini: (01:47) QUESTION: Is there a stress test designed for situations of regulatory capture?

  Alice Jansen: (01:50) The Q&A is now open

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:51) it's *7

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:51) in Adigo to unmute.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:53) Padmini   there are indeed in the catagory III. Legal/Legislative Action  our ST#4   see page 96 of the report

  padmini: (01:55) thanks. Noted.

  Arun Sukumar: (01:57) Hi, more a comment than a question - the findings/ summary of public comments ought to be offered formally to the CCWG and made generally available.  Discussions in Buenos Aires on entirely new legal accountability mechanisms began before the 1st public comment period findings could be reported

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:57) Remember to be heard in audio in the AC room you need to be ion the phone bridge

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:00) Arun - we should be publishing it in the next couple weeks

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:00) (for PC1)

  Peter Koch (DENIC): (02:03) On point 4: is the appointing body the only authority to remove its appointed  director (item5 nonwithstanding)?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:03) Peter: Yes, for the seven directors apppinted by the SOs or At Large

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:04) an individual director cannot be removed otherwise

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:04) 4th power

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:05) What was the problem in removal of a NOm Com director?

  Peter Koch (DENIC): (02:05) thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:05) Yes that is an exoisting Bylaw

  padmini: (02:05) question: is the community empowered to take checks on the flow of revenues? Is there financial accountability to the community?

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:06) QUESTION: What was the problem in removal of a NOm Com director?

  padmini: (02:07) thanks

  padmini: (02:07) Right, that clarifies things. Thanks.

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:07) Question: Who can answer the question of why  the Board's right to remove individual director is being restricted?  

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:08) Directors of course are still required to exercise theire fudiciary responsabilities under Corp Governasnce

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:08) OK

  Sébastien (ALAC): (02:09) I know that it is borring but please say your name each time you speak because if not (as I am on the French channel) I have a single voice and no difference betwenn each the speaker ;)

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:11) So, removal possible but process different - right ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:11) Yes Philip

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:11) apologies for the delay

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:11) yes, that's right

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:11) Thomas, see my question above.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:13) Rinalia: it is in one of the legal memoranda

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:14) See the footnote on p58

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:14) 17 If the CCWG-Accountability’s Single Member Model is implemented, the Board could only remove directors for causes specified in the California corporate code – see the memo from 23 April 2015 entitled “Legal Assessment: Executive Summary, Summary Chart and Revised Governance Chart”. For further detail on legal advice provided, see Appendix G.

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:14) Thanks.

  Peter Green （CONAC）: (02:14) [Question]: According to the 5/5/5/5/5/2/2 power exercising distribution, does CCWG cosnsider the number of  members in each AC or So in determining to exercise the community power?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:16) it is not representaional

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:16) QUESTION Is the voting pool always 27 or 25 without SSAC / RSSAV and 20 without GAC ?

  Peter Green （CONAC）: (02:17) Thanks you Jordan

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:17) 29 actually

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:18) Clear  - thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:19) new additions and removals beyond those listed will require a bylaws change - I should mention that just to complete Thomas' comment

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (02:19) Alternative repartition of powers are mentioned in the report

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:20) @jordan re your answer on the how the board could remove directors, it seems to be no different from the current way.  Is that your understanding too?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:21) Asha: at the moment, legally speaking, the board does not require a "cause"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:21) with a member model, the board does require a "cause" in legal terms

  He Jia 2: (02:21) Who can take the vote position for each AC/SO?  The same as vote member for each AC/SO to vote for ICANN board member?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:21) i would imagine in practice it would operate similarly as now.

  He Jia 2: (02:23) Thank you, Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:23) No problem :-)

  padmini: (02:24) Question: What are the proposed reviews for DIDP? Not specifically connected to the slide but just wanted to flag it.

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:24) @Jordan Thanks

  padmini: (02:25) reforms*

  padmini: (02:25) sorry.

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:25) Q: Have the CWG told you you have met the requirements?

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:26) @Thomas may I ask a question on the IRP now or should I leave it for the end?

  padmini: (02:26) Sure thank you. Do keep us posted.

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:27) Thanks

  Jyoti Panday: (02:27) Given the recent findings about the IRP in ref the .africa domain is there work being done around strengthening and improving on the process?

  Kimberly Carlson: (02:29) FR and PT live interpretation will be dropping shortly

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:29) Question: On the IRP slide, it says "reasonable efforts" will be used to populate the panel - how do we ensure that those efforts will be strong enough?

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:31) Follow-up on IRP: Is cost containment (for all parties concerned) one of the goals of improvement?

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:32) Q: one IRP issue is interpretation of poorly drfated rules versus the spirit of the policy behind the rules. Thiis is "discretion". Are we allowing this in the new IRP?

  Kimberly Carlson: (02:32) If you are on FR or PT, you may continue to follow audio on Adobe, or you can dial into the audio bridge

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:33) Cost containment is a benefit/positive outcome of diversity of panellists.   

  Jyoti Panday: (02:33) Follow up on my question, more of a comment/request given thelong term accountability work in place it wd be beneficial to perhaps have a report that tracks the various IRP failures over the years and the learnings from those failures including what has been done by ICANN over the years to address the gaps.

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:34) Thanks Becky and Thomas

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:34) Thomas, you missed my question.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (02:35) @Interpreters thanks good job

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:35) I'd like to hear Becky's views on it.

  Jyoti Panday: (02:35) thanks Becky

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:35) Q: one IRP issue is interpretation of poorly drfated rules versus the spirit of the policy behind the rules. Thiis is "discretion". Are we allowing this in the new IRP?

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:37) Thank you, Becky and Thomas.  Very clear.

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:38) Yes eg application guidebook

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:39) OK - sounds positive

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (02:41) Are there many sole member non profit corps in California?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:41) i've no idea

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:41) Take it on notice

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:42) yes I was going to ask a similar question - do we have any "role models" for CMSM structure - since this model was suggested by external counsel

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:42) apparently not uncommen  but actua # is not known

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:42) the model of members controling a non-profit is very common, for sure

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:43) the details of this are quite specifically developed for the ICANN situation

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (02:43) Is there a link to download the presentation from? Many thanks...

  Peter Green （CONAC）: (02:44) https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (02:44) Good suggestion, Tijani. +1

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (02:44) Many thanks Peter!

  Jyoti Panday: (02:45) thanks Thomas and all

  Sébastien (ALAC): (02:45) Thanks Thomas

  Philip Sheppard BRG: (02:46) Very clear webinar - well done all

  Keith Davidson: (02:46) Thank you very much Thomas, Becky, Jordan - very useful and informative session

  Alice Jansen: (02:46) Thank you all for joining this webinar. Archives will be made available on this wiki page - https://community.icann.org/x/SYtCAw - slides are also posted on this page.

  Markus Kummer: (02:46) Thanks Thomas and Becky, excellent and informative webinar!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:46) Thanks everyone 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:46) thanks all for coming

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:46) Bye for now

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:46) Make sure you make a comment !

  nigel hickson: (02:47) Thank you Thomas and others; very informative as ever .

  Asha Hemrajani: (02:47) Appreciate that the webinar was repeated at this timeslot - good for the APAC region

  jaap akkerhuis: (02:47) bye

  Minjung PARK: (02:47) Thank you all

  Peter Green （CONAC）: (02:47) bye all

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (02:47) Bye all

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (02:47) Good morning from London...

  Lise Fuhr: (02:47) Thank you and goodbye