Page History
...
Sub-group Members: Aarti Bhavana, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, Brett Schaefer, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Chris Wilson, Christopher Wilkinson, Eric Brunner-Williams, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Leon Sanchez, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Mohamed Sabur, Padmini Baruah, Philip Corwin, Ram Mohan, Robin Gross, Ryan Carroll. Samantha Eisner, Stephen Deerhake, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (34)
Legal Counsel: Nancy McGlamery
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad
Apologies: Sébastien Bachollet, Izumi Okutani
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p18pw6xxa0r/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-02nov15-en.mp3
Agenda
1. Review of Agenda
2. Community Decision making
a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs
b) Participating SOs and ACs
c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs
d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism
3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path
4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)
5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next
6. Any Other Business
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. Review of Agenda
JCarter chairing.
SDB - is transparency WP1 or 2 - TR WP2 and BB will report at the CCWG on this.
Agenda asccepted as is.
2. Community Decision making
2a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs
Discussion KA, TBJ, RG, CD, JCancio, TR
JCarter - There is no significant support for splitting votes. It is important to note that each SOAC must have to ability to decide how it arrives to a decision and all efforts must be made so that all voices are heard on Conference Calls or Public Forums.
2b) Participating SOs and ACs
SSAC has advised that they do not want a role in decision making.
RSSAC has not responded on this topic.
JCarter - WP1 recommends to the CCWG that decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers
Discussion RGross, CDispain, TBJemaa, KAresteh, JCancio,
Temperature check 13 for and 4 against
JCarter - There is no clear consensus on the recommendation.
2c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs
JCarter - the recommendation for discussion is: WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.
Discussion TBJemaa, RGross,
Temperature check 13 for and 4 against
Conclusion - JCarter the proposed recommendation has consensus.
2d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism
Document: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents see 2 nov 2015 Decision Making
Conclusion - Agreed.
3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path
JCarter - on all powers?
Discussion SDBianco.
Conclusion - Only for IRP.
4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)
JZuck is not available.
5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next
TRicker - this will be covered in the CCWG meeting.
6. Any Other Business
Confirmation of time of CCWG meeting tomorrow.
Conclusion of meeting.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (11/2/2015 11:39) Welcome all to WP1 Meeting #30 on 2 November 2015! 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
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:00) hi all, we'll begin in 2 mins
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:02) hi all
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:02) Hi everybody
Padmini Baruah: (12:02) Jordan, your voice is echoing weirdly.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:02) hard to hear with the echo
Brett Schaefer: (12:02) I'm getting a wierd echo?
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:03) hI aLICE, hI bREDA
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:03) There is echo
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:03) aLICE ,THERE IS eCHO ON THE LINE
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:04) jORDAN
Brett Schaefer: (12:04) Transparency?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:05) Would Transparency be part of WP1?
Padmini Baruah: (12:05) +1
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:05) that might be WP2
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:06) Jordan, it may bedifficult but I insist that all support or objection for ACs BE COMPLEMENTED BY THE TERM" cONSENSUS sUPPORT" AND " cONSENSUS OBJECTION"
Padmini Baruah: (12:06) But...how does one talk about participation in isolation from transparency?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:06) Arguably, it is an outcome from the switch to the model, in which case, it could be WP1
Padmini Baruah: (12:06) ^that too
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:07) P. 50 of our 2nd draft report, where we describe the community mechanism stated the following about "split voting":315 There is no requirement or expectation than a participating SO or AC cast all its votes identically for a given issue (meaning all 5 in support or all 5 against). Instead, CCWG-Accountability anticipates that the votes each SO and AC casts will be a reflection of the balance of views within that SO or AC (or where possible of that sub-division, where votes have been allocated to sub- divisions). That is, block voting (casting all votes in favor or against the use of a power, even where there are diverse views) is not encouraged.
Padmini Baruah: (12:08) Your voice is cracking unfortunately
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:08) jORDAN, THAT CHANGE IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED TO ENABALE acS TO REMAIN ADVISORY AND NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VOTING
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:10) Jordan, Pls advise if you have taken my suggestions which were made till now five times
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:12) Exactly, Kavouss. the Split is entriely optional for each AC/SO
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:15) Concerns about GAC giving consensus advice relate to GAC's advice to the ICANN board. THat is entirely different from the GAC participating in the community mechanism as it decides whether to exercise a Community Power.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:15) That's right, Jordan
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:15) Steve NO
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:16) advice is advice whether for ICANN or for decision making .
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:16) Dear all, I really regret that arguments against splitting votes have not been taken sufficiently into account. Even if it is an option, it will act as a wrong incentive...
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:16) Pls review NTIA COMMENTS
Chris Disspain: (12:17) For the record, I am extremely uncomfortable with split 'decisions' within SOs and ACs
Stephen Deerhake (.as): (12:17) +1 CHris.
Chris Disspain: (12:17) I agree with Jorge's comments from the other day
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:18) the decision is made at a community-wide decision - and recognizes diversity within groups
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:18) eventhough I proposed to be an option , I am not comfortable with the spli
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:18) agree with Tijani
Chris Disspain: (12:18) I empathise with the gnso issues BUT the place to fix those is in the gnso NOT in ICANN's over arching accountability mechabisms
Farzaneh Badii: (12:18) where is it then Chris?
Aarti Bhavana: (12:19) Question: the split vote only comes into question at the last stage of the escalation process, right?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:19) I don't think our first draft did what Robin says for the record - it was each SO and AC being a member, and each comng to decisions internally. But I might be wrong.
Chris Disspain: (12:19) In the GNSO
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:19) Tijani and Jorge+1
Chris Disspain: (12:19) agree Jordan
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:19) Dear Robin: on Friday only a fraction was present...
Chris Disspain: (12:19) Jorge + 1
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:20) and within the ccwg things would clearly be different, as they were in Dublin
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:20) Perhaps , we not not mention about the spilitting at all and leave it to each community to decide internally
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:20) I'm saying there is not consensus to make this change.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:21) Whenever, in WP 1 there is no consensus to do some thing WE SHOULD NOT DO IT
Avri Doria: (12:22) i am not a supporter of splitting votes
George Sadowsky: (12:22) I am not comfortable with the split either
cherne chalaby: (12:22) I am not comfortable with the split
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:22) tHEN WHO IS INFAVOUR?
Avri Doria: (12:22) have we switched to the voting method. so we have givein up on consensus model?
tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:23) No Avri
tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:23) that's why I intervened
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (12:23) I do not support splitting votes
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:23) different people in different meetings produce radically different results. rather arbitrary.
Brett Schaefer: (12:23) I favor splitting if the individual SOs and ACs decide to do that. It should be up to them.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:23) Avri, how you understand that we have changed from Consensus to Vote? May you further explore pls
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:23) Robin: the decision is made by the CCWG.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:23) Friday's vote was 8-2 against the proposal to ban split votes.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:24) Just for the record of this chat, I would like to repeat my comments sent by email: Establishing a split vote system at the end of the escalation process is not just a mathematical operation.It radically changes the incentive structure for arriving at consensus. Both within each SO/AC and within the community as a whole.Within each SO/AC it reduces the incentives for compromising and seeking consensus on a common position. Every minority view knows it can play up to the end game and does not need to compromise. And the majority positions have little incentive to convince the minority as they can -without much discussion- gather, say 3 or 4 of the "votes".Minority views are much better served with a strong consensus requirement in each SO/AC. This forces factions to come together and agree on one position. And: minorities can voice their views (and try to convince other parts of the community) within the open and deliberative parts of the escalation mechanism (i.e. the community forum).
Aarti Bhavana: (12:24) Follow up question: So what happens when a constituency within an SO/AC wants to propose the exercise of a community power, but there isn't consensus within that SO/AC for the forum or call?
Matthew Shears: (12:24) splitting exercise should be at every stage - yes Jordan
Aarti Bhavana: (12:24) Ah, exactly.
Matthew Shears: (12:25) volume please
Chris Disspain: (12:25) I have the privilege of being on UTC at the moment Jordan!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:25) we stopped pretending that we aren't counting noses.
Aarti Bhavana: (12:26) So the table cicrculated will have to be amended to show the effect of weights.
Aarti Bhavana: (12:26) circulated* sorry
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:26) we never left a voting system
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:26) NO NOT AT ALL AVRI
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:26) This also impacts the rest of the SO/AC. They may want to continue with consensus decisions. If this is a general feeling and only one or two SO/AC seriously want "split voting", split voting should not be imposed on the rest of SO/AC. If this scheme is nevertheless imposed, it will act as a constant incentive within "former consensus" SO-AC to also split votes in the future.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:27) In addition, if no other SO/AC really wants "split voting" or only one or two SO/AC do, the whole exercise is meaningless. I mean: if the other five SO/AC stick to a "one position system", this should in any case be respected and no multiple votes assigned to that SO/AC. And in practical terms, that one or two of the SO/AC had in such an environment "split votes" would mean to add fractions (say 3/5 and 4/5, minus 2/5 and 1/5) at the end of the process to the "units" expressed by the SO/AC sticking to the "one voice system". Would that have any weight, apart from distorting the incentives for arriving at consensus?
Avri Doria: (12:27) thank you. i support the consensus basis we decided on in Dublin.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:27) we simply chose to relable the head counting as "consensus"
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:27) but we are still voting
tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:28) No, I don't think that was the spirit
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:28) we only changed the relative weight of decision making between the SO's and AC's.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:28) That conflicts with Friday's decision, but this is all so arbitrary anyway,
Brett Schaefer: (12:29) So are SOs ACs prohibited from splitting? If they are divided, it forced them to abstain?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:29) yes, a small minority is able to ban split voting
Matthew Shears: (12:30) what is an abstention effect?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:30) I do not believe there is consensus to ban split voting. I find today's call arbitrary and does not discount public comments and all the work done before.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:30) should not discount that work, rather.
Brett Schaefer: (12:30) That woul dprobably inhibit the GNSO far more than ther others, I would think.
Chris Disspain: (12:30) Steve + 1
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:30) yes, this signficanly hampers the GNSO
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:30) Robin: the approach on the call has been well signalled, and the discussion has been going on for weeks. The public comments have been taken into account throughout that discussion. I reject any asertion of impropriety in the decision.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:31) and I also note all we are deciding is *advice to the CCWG*.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:31) it is arbitrary, Jordan.
tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:31) +1 @ Steve
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:31) Robin: on the same basis as every or no other decision made is arbitary?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:31) *arbitrary
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:32) since friday's call was a vote of 8-2 against the ban, perhaps people didn't think they needed to partiicpate in the call today (or simply couldn't make it). How are those views taken into account?
Aarti Bhavana: (12:33) @Steve- but tdoesn't he escalation process require a certain number of SO/ACs to consent in order to trigger the call or forum? or does that include just a single SG within the SO/AC?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:33) Robin, as was clearly said on the last call, we were not voting - we were taking the temperature of the room. And we did make it clear that this call would finalise Wp1 advice.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:34) This is another change that signficantly harms the GNSO. Anoher reason to be against this proposal.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:36) These changes are against the direction of public comment. It does underscore the pointlessness in participating at ICANN - allowing a last minute small group to trump all public comments.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:37) all - note that Thomas Rickert is not on the adobe room, and so he won't be seeing this chat.
cherne chalaby: (12:39) I support the consensus based model
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:39) we stopped pretending that "consensus" isn't a form of voting.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:40) we are counting noses either way.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:40) but now in a way that further disempowers the SO's relative to the ACs.
George Sadowsky: (12:40) Excellent that every SO and AC is a member of the community forum. All are important for ICANN's proper functioning.
Greg Shatan: (12:41) Waiting to be dialed in.
Brett Schaefer: (12:43) Why not put GAC in with RSSAC adn SSAC? All three could opt in if they choose, but th edefault should be advisory.
Greg Shatan: (12:43) I am now in the call.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:43) welcome, Greg
Brett Schaefer: (12:44) Edit: Why not put GAC in with RSSAC and SSAC? All three could opt in if they choose, but the default should be advisory.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:44) I am not in favour of that mentioned by Robin
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (12:44) Even though DK think that the GAC only should remain advisory in the new CF, other GAC members think the GAC should be able to have decision-making power. Therefore, GAC have agreed that it should be possible and upon the GAC’s sole decision, to fully participate in the CF – it is therefore not be helpful to leave GAC outside the CF!
ebw: (12:44) i agree with robin here, that ssac and rssac not be counted in.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:45) All communitzies must be given the opportunities to exercise their right in a consensus manner
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:45) Robin's argument is that GAC should not be counted in - already proposing that SSAC and RSSAC aren't counted in
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:45) Dear all, as to the GAC, once again we may remind that there is a consensus input by the GAC (including NTIA) that at least the GAC should be provided with the possibility of equal participation
George Sadowsky: (12:45) The ACs are as important to ICANN as the SOs. Remember that the Internet can exist without names, and wihtout the entire GNSO apparatus, but it cannot exist without being secure and stable (SSA), and it cannot exist without the involvement of governments (GAC)
George Sadowsky: (12:45) sorrr, SSA -->> SSAC
ebw: (12:46) thank you jordan.
Avri Doria: (12:46) Agree Goerge
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:46) Robin
Brett Schaefer: (12:46) Finn, that is not what is being proposed. The decision to participate woul dremain available to GAC, it just would have to decide to exercise its latent particpartory power. Why offer a model based on GAC participation on all issue, if that is not certain?
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:47) You are not supposed to decide for GAC .You only express your views about the community that you come from
Brett Schaefer: (12:47) +1 Chris
Matthew Shears: (12:47) + 1 Chris
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:48) Wording of 12th september GAC consensus input: "3. GAC involvement proposal• At this point in time, GAC has not determined whether to participate or not in the "Community Mechanism" as a voting entity.• However, the possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its sole decision, fully participate in the "Community Mechanism" as an entity entitled to 5 votes (on equal terms with the Supporting Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee – ALAC) should be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what is contained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. • In case the GAC were to decide in the future to participate as a voting entity it would follow its own processes and the procedure foreseen under Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal, especially paragraphs 337 and following.• Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thus exercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intend
Farzaneh Badii: (12:48) Thank you Chris
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:48) in the ICANN Community Forum, outlined in Section 6.3 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to develop agreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among and between all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum.
Brett Schaefer: (12:48) Kavouss, then what is the purpose of this discussion? We are supposed to make a recommendation.
Greg Shatan: (12:48) We will need either multiple contingent tables, or a system that is flexible.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:50) But not deciding that a given community be excluded from the exercise
Matthew Shears: (12:52) I agree Greg - we risk decisional uncertainty which could be delegitimizing
Keith Drazek: (12:52) Apologies for my delay joining; I had a conflicing call.
Brett Schaefer: (12:52) Exclusion is not being discussed. The option being suggesting is moving forward under the assumption that GAC will be advisory until it chooses to participate.
Brett Schaefer: (12:52) Edit -- suggested
George Sadowsky: (12:53) Supose SSACand RSSAC decide to join. Are they frozen out forever?
Brett Schaefer: (12:54) George, not as I understand it
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:54) There is no such thing as forever.
George Sadowsky: (12:54) Is there a yearly enrollment period? Can they intervene when their interests are concerned?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:54) The question is what the bylaws say, and what requires bylaws changes.
Matthew Shears: (12:54) + 1 George - we cannot rule their involement out
George Sadowsky: (12:54) OK, then what are the paramenters that allow a change i staus? Just a declaratio of intent to change? I'd support that.
Keith Drazek: (12:55) Please mute phones/computers.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:55) George: we got some strong negative feedback about that aspect of the second draft proposal. And a downside of it is that we would have to make the "thresholds" for exercising powers relative, which adds significant complexity.
Brett Schaefer: (12:55) George, that is how I understand it. They can choose to weigh in if they decide that an issue is sufficiently important to them.
George Sadowsky: (12:55) And if there is a change in the number of decision makers, then would we have to renegotiate the numbers?
George Sadowsky: (12:56) @Brett, ok they can choose to weigh in .... does tht mean that they cast ao "vote?"
Matthew Shears: (12:56) have we modelled such opting in opting out|?
Brett Schaefer: (12:56) George, that was why there was a discussion about changing decision points from absolute numbers to percentages.
George Sadowsky: (12:56) @Brett, thanks
George Sadowsky: (12:57) @Matthew - please press this point, I think it's important
Matthew Shears: (12:58) Steve - would they be clear from the outset of the process?
George Sadowsky: (12:58) @Jordan, can you address Matthew's point about processes for opting and opting out?
Matthew Shears: (12:58) otherwsie the thresholds/percentages may have to change midcourse?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:59) No. Matthew -- only at the end, where we are deciding Whether to exercise the power
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:59) Steve,
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:59) during the escalation, everyone can participate without cmmitting to a position
Brett Schaefer: (12:59) George, no problem. Hopefully, I'm accurate.
Kavouss.arasteh: (12:59) Sorry you misunderstood or misinterpreted the case.
Matthew Shears: (13:00) not comitting to a positon but commiting to particpate?
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:00) GAC will provide its advice in favour of a given issue or a consensus advice against that issue e
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:00) That is all.
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:01) Such consensus in favour or Cobnsensus against is totally legitimate tioo maintain the inclussiveness of multistakehiolder
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:01) I don't see why we are askign for commitment to "participate"
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:01) Sorry I correct
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:01) other than to set our decision threshholds
Avri Doria: (13:02) i support the model as expressed by Jordan
George Sadowsky: (13:02) @Jordan - a fundamental bylaww change is a high threshold if, for example, the RSSAC wanted to opt in.
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:02) GAV provide Consensus advice in support or consensus objection advise
Avri Doria: (13:02) an additonal benefit is that it does not reqire change if a new SO or AC is established.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:03) old
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:03) sorry
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:04) I remain opposed to these proposals to further disempower the SO's, especially the GNSO.
Avri Doria: (13:05) they do not disempower the GNSO, they just put all on an equal footing.
CW: (13:05) Sorry, Robin. The SO's already have too much power. To avoid anti-trust, the balance in the SD must be at least 50:50.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:06) at least you admit this is a power shift, CW. appreciate that.
Avri Doria: (13:06) this is a community wide pwoer, not a GNSO function.
CW: (13:06) That is the objective. PS why does Civil Society in GNSO accept to be neutered in the SO basket?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:07) +1 Kavouss
ebw: (13:08) +1 CW
Avri Doria: (13:08) CW, you mean why do we argue so hard for the GNSO being more equal when CS is only 1/4 of the GNSO?
Matthew Shears: (13:08) Jordan could you restate the question
CW: (13:09) Avri, I guess I am only interested in a merger between Civil Society and At Large.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:09) WP1 recommends to the CCWG that decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers
Avri Doria: (13:10) different function CW, CS is in both places.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:10) but we might take another poll next week and if the results are different, these won't count.....
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:11) Why we need to take another Vote next week?
Matthew Shears: (13:11) this contradicts the ability of the Rssac and ssac to change thgeir minds
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:11) Jordan
Brett Schaefer: (13:11) Why not offer both options in the third draft?
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:11) Where we can put our views there is no table
George Sadowsky: (13:12) Does anyone else feel that a bylasw change is too high a bar? Is there an alternative that is mor flexibe?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:12) george: there is just including them
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:12) which they have firmly asked us NOT to do
Brett Schaefer: (13:13) Put in one option for the 5 participants and another for four with optional partiicpation for GAC, SSSAC, RSSAC?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:13) Agree with Brett.
Brett Schaefer: (13:13) That would also anticipate GAC inability to resolve their position.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:14) We are on item 2c) and the recommendation for discussion is: WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.
Avri Doria: (13:14) Brett, if we offer options in the 3rd draft, we will need a 4th comment period.
Chris Disspain: (13:14) I support that Jordan
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:14) Dear Brett: why do you anticipate an inability of the GAC to resover it's position? Any basis for that?
Avri Doria: (13:14) i think we should offer a single option and the dissenting opinions.
Brett Schaefer: (13:15) Avri, you really think that there not going to be outstanding issues to be resolved after this draft?
Avri Doria: (13:15) then the chartering organization can either accept the main postion and approve or go withthe dissnitng opinion and vote against.
Avri Doria: (13:15) otherwise we will be cycling forever.
CW: (13:16) Jordan: Have to leave the call now. I think this whole kaboodle needs to be run through anti-trust lawyers (US+EU). CW
Brett Schaefer: (13:16) Jorge,we have heard conflicting positions from GAC representatives in previous communiques. It seems to be a significant divide.
Samantha Eisner: (13:17) @Robin, I agree that it's important to listen to those ACs who have positions as to whether they wish to participate or not. I do have a concern that we would base how the community will have an empowered voice on operational activities of ICANN on how ICANN has historically been structured for policy development. This isn’t really about a power shift – it’s how we create NEW powers. Making a blanket rule that SOs have primacy over ACs because SOs have more specific Board seats than the ALAC (while ignoring the 8 that come from NomCom) does not seem aligned to the broader multistakeholder nature of ICANN.
cherne chalaby: (13:17) Board members when voting on the Board they do not represent the voice of their appointing unit
Avri Doria: (13:18) i disagree that it is a pwoer shift. it is allowing that on a community deccison we are all on an equal footing, this is not ablout gTLDs. it is about ICANN as a whiole.
cherne chalaby: (13:18) I support equality of voice in decisions to excercise communitybpowers
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:18) WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:19) This was in our 2nd draft proposal.
Matthew Shears: (13:19) yes, but some of us were uncomfortable with it
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:20) have been all along
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:20) we got a number of public comments against it also. but apparently those don't count.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:21) Understood. but its also "discomfort" that led us to move away from split voting.
Greg Shatan: (13:21) Much of the legitimacy of this depends on how the Community Forum will work, and if it is anything more than a "talk shop."
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:21) there weren't comment against split voting.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:22) Just saying we can't rely entirely on a numeric count of public comments. Especially since the only question we asked commenters was to identify recommendations that might lead their chartering Org to NOT support the CCWG proposal.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:22) 2D) WP1 recommends to the CCWG that the levels of agreement among SOs and ACs in support of exercising a power, and the limits to levels of opposition, be agreed as those set out in the paper from Steve DelBianco updated by Jordan Carter and discussed at this meeting.
Chris Disspain: (13:22) Jordan...status of the final right hand column?
Chris Disspain: (13:22) the one added the other day?
Matthew Shears: (13:22) Jordan sorry could you say how you updated it?
Chris Disspain: (13:23) ok
Chris Disspain: (13:23) thankls
George Sadowsky: (13:23) I want to be on record that, in relation to dismissing the entire Board, if there is one objection to that, it needs to be taken more seriously than just saying that one SO or AC shouldn't be allowed to block such action. I think that this is a serious mistake.
Matthew Shears: (13:23) ok thanks
Avri Doria: (13:23) isn't this a form of vote spliitting.
Chris Disspain: (13:24) @ Avri :-)
Avri Doria: (13:24) just in a different guise
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:24) please ignore the right hand column for the purposes of this discussion - we dealt with that in our first recommendation
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:24) Dear Brett: there are GAC consensus inputs and there will hopefully be more. No need to search for divisions...
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:24) @George -- I noted your view with the asterisk and text
Chris Disspain: (13:24) It's my view too Steve...
Brett Schaefer: (13:24) The 4 support threshold is pretty steep is one SO or AC abstains (or can't decide and is forced to abstain).
cherne chalaby: (13:25) George+1,
George Sadowsky: (13:25) @Steve, my objection is limited to dismissing the entire Board.
Chris Disspain: (13:25) For a total baord recall it strikes me that consensus in 1 SO or AC against ought to be enough to stall the process
cherne chalaby: (13:26) Chris +1
Avri Doria: (13:26) Chirs is it just math, you can divid 1 vote into 5 parts, or you can have 5 votes that can be expessed differently. it is the same mathematically.
ebw: (13:26) i agree with george and chris, where the action item is the removal of the entire board, one so or ac against should be sufficient to prevent.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:26) @George-- and that is the power I noted with the Asterisk
Avri Doria: (13:26) this is vote splitting.
Chris Disspain: (13:27) Agree you have Steve...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:27) for the record: I agreed in Dublin with the need to have a full consensus on the nuclear power, which is total board recall
Chris Disspain: (13:27) thanks for that..
George Sadowsky: (13:27) @Jordan, take a vote on this here - re just the Board spil
Chris Disspain: (13:27) We can discuss it in more detail in CCWG
Chris Disspain: (13:28) Jordan...I need ot leave the call now...when will all this go to CCWG?
Chris Disspain: (13:28) ah...
Chris Disspain: (13:29) thnaks
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:30) @Jordan -- that step was only relevant to the IRP. I can explain
Matthew Shears: (13:30) ah - ok Steve - was wondering
Keith Drazek: (13:33) I can see both sides of the argument regarding thresholds for spilling the Board...it should be a high threshold. But what legitimacy would a future Board have if its continuation was supported by only one SO or AC?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:33) In the tabe, only the IRP row has this requirement
Matthew Shears: (13:33) + 1 Keith
George Sadowsky: (13:34) @Keith - edcellent point. I'd suggest that the one objection shouldn't block the spill, biut should lead to smethig else quite serious that would rely on a thoruhg analysis of why the objetion was filed.
Keith Drazek: (13:35) I have an open mind on the threshold for the so-called nuclear option, but I'm struggling with it a bit..
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:35) reasonable what Keith says: a Board which survives only because one SO/AC supports it will have basically two options: a) actively regain the confidence of the community; b) see how its members are not reelected in the subsequent elections
George Sadowsky: (13:35) @Keith - worth thinkig aboutthis, thanks for the ambivalence that led me to rethink
George Sadowsky: (13:36) @Ketith, let's think about this between now and the CCWG call.
Keith Drazek: (13:36) If I'd known my ambivalence would have been helpful, I'd have trotted it out months ago. ;-)
George Sadowsky: (13:36) Mot of us hide our ambivalence, that is, when we have it. (:-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:36) these are not new issues for the group
b: (13:36) All good here
Greg Shatan: (13:37) I try to be polyvalent....
Kavouss.arasteh: (13:38) Alice, May you pls advise the timing of tomorrow CCWG?
b: (13:38) 06:00 UTC
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:38) 6:00UTC, right?
George Sadowsky: (13:38) @Greg: un homme polyvalent, hein?
b: (13:39) YES
Stephen Deerhake (.as): (13:40) Thanks Jordan!
Matthew Shears: (13:40) thanks
Greg Shatan: (13:40) Mais oui, c'est vrai....
b: (13:40) Bye all
Greg Shatan: (13:40) Bon soir!
cherne chalaby: (13:40) Thanks Jordan
Farzaneh Badii: (13:40) bye .
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:40) thanks Jordan, see you in a while!
Keith Drazek: (13:40) thanks Jordan, thanks all
Markus Kummer: (13:40) Thanks and bye!
Avri Doria: (13:40) bye
Brett Schaefer: (13:40) thanks
Aarti Bhavana: (13:40) Bye all, thanks Jordan.
