Session 4 -- Finalize rest of scope & definition document, advisor engagement & legal advice

---

Transcript 

Transcript CCWG ACCT #4 19 Jan.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #4 19 Jan.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4sbpl56vc8/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/g32hytk38c6pyn3cmlijbf2n9os8h2te.mp3

Notes & Action Items

Finalize rest of scope & definition of accountability

Accountability definition in document to be compared to definition presented

- Invite Jan 

• Camino: the scope of the definition is too limited. Suggestion to include footnote in context of NEt Mundial definition: accepted by chairs
• Section in document: What is Accountability
• Kavouss: review and redress mechanisms are alternate, but should be interpreted as complementary. Based on outcome of review. Action be needed under redress. 
• Comment Thomas Rickert: Review mechanism by the Board, triggered by different mechanisms. Core: the decision making body conducts the action themselves. Redress, an other entity, after being triggered conducts
• Upper case Review, formal review
• Redress, includes a review as part of Redress mechanism
• Decision needed on the definition
• Jan Scholte: definition needs to be precise as possible. Emphasizing redress/review 2 of the 4 dimensions of accountability (the other two are: transparency and consultations) Transparency prerequisite of accountability.
  • An actor ( ICANN) answers to stakeholder, to actions and emissions affecting the stakeholder
• Thomas Schneider: BAsic explanation of accountability needed: 
  • Start with general notion, and then start discussion in ICANN context
• Becky Burr: Definition to answer to stakeholder too broad. Include what is meant, comply with MS, comply with Mission statement, bottom-up policy etc. . Standard against which behavior is measured. 
• Mathieu Question: is purpose section addressing concern?
• Becky Burr: that could be place to address concern
• Bruce Tonkin: Blurring of concepts
  • Example of internal process not independent is staff reconsideration process. Includes : review and redress steps
• Independent Mechanisms, for example Independent review Panel. Review, Independent, recommendation to become binding.
• Mathieu Weill: different perspectives at play:
• Review phase, redress phase and then binding, consider a mechanism. Delineation is if there is binding power then it is redress, If it review, no binding power
• What is considered lacking are; Binding mechanisms (Redress)
• In ICANN Redress hot topic
• Kavouss: Example accounting system, internal and external auditing. What is needed is external 
• two steps: review then redress, and possibly other actions.
• Malcolm Hutty: What is baiss for redress.
• Different basis create different outcomes
• List for basis needed (as suggested by Becky B)
• Avri Doria: Redress, review has to be in line with Bylaws, it is scope what is in the Bylaws ( broader then processes, too limited)

 

Definition of Independence

• Question: what is considered independent.
• In document two sub-items re independence
  • Is mechanism by independent person: no material link with corporation, which is judgmental.  Subjective assessment. Independence of judgement during decision making process. 
  • independent from decision makers
• Need for high standards of independence
• Becky Burr: Language for independent judiciary (in chat)

 To be “independent,” any review/redress body, and the individuals providing review/redress services must not be subject to improper influence from the ICANN Board, staff, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and private or partisan interests.At a minimum, the following elements are required to establish and maintain an independent review and redress: • Fixed tenure (with limited exceptions for specified misbehavior);• Fixed and adequate compensation;• Documented qualifications; and • Limited immunity.

 

• Does not limit what has been stated, but
• Steve DelBianco: Not imply that every mechanism should 
• Not all mechanisms suggested will not meet independence criteria, for example membership organisations. Internal (non-independent could 
• Kavouss: text covers all issue. Issue properly covered
• Jan Scholte: Independence open a lot of issues. Seems to imply only material independence. For example Cultural independence is not covered. How far to take definition of independence, integrity? 
• Thomas Rickert; Now setting standard of 
• Inceptence not to be confused with neutrality. 
• What is required is raise level of independence, but not close doors. 
• Jonathan Zuck: Independent of matter under review?
• Alan Greenberg: Words to create test for independence. Will be difficult to pass test of independence for internal test
• Tijani: Independence, neutrality are all subjective. No objective test. 
• Chris Disspain: Make sure that only in certain 
• Internal: disclose conflict
• External: truly independent

• Thomas Schneider: Important debate. Try not to over-complicate matters. Should not forgot, that true independent people are not aware of is going on. Fix the broad ideas, and look at other insituions as examples, that are suitable

• Mathieu Weill: we will not create perfect accountability. Sympathize with idea that some mechanism, need to have substantive knowledge and hence are less independent, but need to ensure transparency
• Whilst other mechanism need to be more independent
• Balance the mechanism with regard to independence, efficiency
• Kavouss: support the notion as laid down in document. Totally subjective matter

Thomas Rickert: Take we heard to de-brief, leave language as is, but add some more flexibility, for example to ensure not to exclude valuable resources.

 

close of session

 

Advisor Engagement 

• Introduction of External Advisors
• co-chairs have met with some of the advisors
• Co-chairs have met with some of the advisors.  Seeking specific advice from the advisors based on requests from the group.  
• Some will work with us differently.  Some will follow the list, some will join calls, while others will work on specific items and at specific times. 
• Staff will prepare weekly summaries for the advisors and these will be shared with CCWG.
• Monitor our work results, produce draft papers.  Seek specific advice on specific questions.
• Still seeking an expert on international law.
• What areas could we ask questions on immediately?
• Comment:  Legal area is complex one.  Usually the views of legal advisors are requested as specific advice.  This should be agreed by the whole groups, with contact by the co-chairs.  
• Still lacking the legal advisory, although also need need input on California non profit law.  Not paying the advisors is a concern, does payment need to be made to secure the proper expertise.
• Urgency is noted.  The group would benefit from drafting specific questions on the legal advice needed, coordinating with the needs of other groups, notably CWG.
• Action:  Consider questions for the independent advisors as quickly as possible, answer to the list.
• ICANN confirmed they will to facilitate independent legal advice.  Need to properly frame the questons we want answers to.
• Highly specialized topic.  What do we mean by independent?  Ask for the ability to directly liaise with the legal advisors.  ICANN is willing to offer this based on the working methods of the law firm.  
• Suggestion to coordinate with the CWG as the questions they are asking likely congruent. Approach may be to copy the model, use the same firm.  Work with ICANN legal to follow the same process as CWG. Noting the CCWG specific interest in California non-profit law and membership issues. 
• Chairs request to work with ICANN legal to scope a document, discuss with law firms. And where possible to use the same law firm as CWG, if that appropriate for both groups.  
• Staff liaison will also check to see if the same questions have been answered previously. 

Close section on Legal Advice

 

Addtional agenda item Update Contingency

• Put flesh on the bones of the four categories identified by the group
• Small group volunteers assembled during lunchtime.
• Suggestion of categories by group

Group to share proposal

Questions: 

• Is grouping appropriate moving forward ( to organize work)
• Seek volunteers to detail contingencies per category

 

James Bladel: 

• Starting with list of 21, and in addition 3 more by Malcolm Hutty and 1 more 
• Seek commonalities to consolidate scenario's & merge contingencies

 

Category 1: insolvency. merge to a more cause agnostic scenario.

Category 2: Failure to meet Operational Obligations. 

Category 3 Legal/Legs action

Category 4: Failure accountability to internal stakeholders

Category 5: Failure external accountability 

• In general, the long was consolidated into common themes.
• Suggestion: include detail included in original submissions, as appendix. 
• Small to work on categories to flesh out detail
• Volunteers: Carlos, Akino, Steve DelBianco, Sam Eisner, Robin Gross, Jonathan Zuck, Camino, Eberhard
• Scope: answer 4 questions as defined in charter regarding stress test (Deliverables sections), see also presentation session.
• Group is invited to report back/update tomorrow

 

Recap of the day

• Progress on contingency
• How to interact with CWG, reasonable hope to escape " embrace". Avri and volunteers to look at work area 3, co-chairs to seek clarification with co-chairs CWG to seek further clarification on " conditional accountability" and timelines
• Progress on stakeholder definition
• Progress on accountability definition
• Identified how to formulate and proceed for independent legal advise. Volunteers named
• Session on "pitches" of vision, 
• Progress on the purpose of accountability and variable discussion on human rights

Preview

• Definition WS 1 and WS 2
• Risk of going to go into mechanism in WS 1 . Requirements / specification for mechanism. For example requirement, need for members, Goal is to find common grounds on requirements/specification and let specialist define the mechanism
• Reminder of High Level statements
• Potentially allows to prioritize and assign matters to WS 1 and WS 2.

Questions:

• Kavouss: Describe what is meat by " conditional accountability"
• Roelof Meijer: Agreement on need to define requirements, but not take it too far. But engagement Experts needed
• Summary of Action Items:   Consider questions for the independent advisors as quickly as possible, answer to the list.

 

Chat Transcript

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (1/19/2015 09:01) Dear all - the room has not come back to order yet, so you aren't missing out anything.

  Josh Baulch: (09:02) Thank you Jordan. . . the room is being gathered up. . . probably another few mins

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (09:03) yep I am in the physical room, Josh :)

  Josh Baulch: (09:03) :)

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (09:03) thanks for the audio check

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (09:03) audio is fine

  Josh Baulch: (09:05) Thank you

  Steve DelBianco: (09:11) Reconsideration Request is an accountability mechanism that does not have to be preceded by a formal Review, right?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:11) I think the definition of redress should include the point that the process has the power to set the decision aside.  I'm not sure the existing definition captures that.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:11) @steve, there is no requirement that a review process happen prior to initiating a reconsideration request

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:12) Yes, Thomas, the mechanism can reverse the decision on its own.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:12) @Robin: not sure I understand what you mean vy "setting aside" ?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:12) Mathieu, to change or cancel or void, etc.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:12) a court has the power to rule a board action was inapporpriate, for example.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:13) that would mean "to set it aside"

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:13) @Robin isnt it captured by "can conclude to its confirmation, cancellation or amendment" ? (not a native english speaker so there might be nuances)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:14) I think that is what it is trying to say, but I was just wondering if that is clear enough.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:14) ok, happy to make it clearer

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:15) I think we are confusing the process of review and redress - with the indepedence of who is doing the review and the powers of the body that can offer redress.

  Steve DelBianco: (09:16) agree, Bruce.   Do you think we should just go with 'Review and Redress" and list the mechanisms that fit?

  Greg Shatan: (09:17) This would be simpler if this group would limit "redress" to the "remedy" portion of a process, and use "review" to refer to the portion of the process where the decision is made (whether redress is warranted).

  Keith Drazek: (09:18) Jan's comment is worth noting....the transparency issue is critical. For example, the oft-mentioned situation where Staff recommendations and briefings to the Board are not public.  Something to address in another discussion.

  Greg Shatan: (09:18) By rollnig "review" into the concept of "redress" we are going down a rabbit hole.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:18) So I would suggest re-wording the redress mechanism as follows.  Just change the sentence "the group defines redress mechanisms as "mechanisms that focus on assessing the compliance or relevance of a certain decision, and HAS THE POWER TO CONFIRM, CANCEL OR AMEND THE DECISION..."

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:19) The only difference is noting that the mechanism has the power to change the decision.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:20) Thanks Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:20) Thank you!

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:21) +1 to this

  Keith Drazek: (09:25) Thanks Bruce, very helpful recap/summary.

  Steve DelBianco: (09:27) If a review sets aside or reverses an ICANN decision, do we consider that 'Redress'?

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:27) Independant Review is an expensive processs. For the purpose of listing available Accountability mechanisms, we need to make a distinction between processes available for the whole community, and processes available at a cost

  Keith Drazek: (09:28) The current IRP process is expensive and there probably should be a light-weight option available that would be faster and cheaper. Perhaps two tiers of appeal, etc.?

  Greg Shatan: (09:29) @Steve: I would say yes.  A definition that answers otherwise would be quite peculiar.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (09:29) Wikipedia is my friend:

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (09:29) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Non-Governmental_Organisations_Accountability_Charter

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (09:29) http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/INGO_CHARTER_web.pdf

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:29) Since the IRP is not binding, it seems a bit odd to characterize it as redress "as long as binding".  Because this option is the opposite of what we actually have today, it seems a bit misleading to call it a "redress" - because the IRP as we have it, is not binding. 

  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association): (09:30) according to my suggested definition, it would still be review as it is not binding

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:30) yes, Thomas, I agree.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:31) We also need clarity on the availability of all processes, whether the processes are available simultaneously or one after another, or if the processes are mutually exclusive, i.e.  Process 2 is unavilable if Process 1 is opted for, etc.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:31) As a matter of fact, every review process requires to be independant, not only the IRP process

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:33) Grounds for redress should be narrow (e.g. procedure, outside scope of mission etc); review by community can be on broader basis

  Avri Doria (participant & atrt laison): (09:33) Malcolm those gronds are too limited.

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:34) I have sent a note to the mailing list - to summarize my comments.

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:34) Not sure process is enough of a boundary

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:34) There are times when redress is necessary even when process is followed

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:34) I agree with Malcom that when using an independent/judiary process  it si important to be clear what standard is being used to judege whether a policy or bylaw has been followed.

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:35) It is also important to be cleaer what redress mechansims are appropriate for spepfici instnaces of staff or Board actions.

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:35) ofr an indepdent review panel to make binding recomemndations around redress - I think it will be very important that the redress mechaisms avialable to the panel are clearly identified in advance.

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:36) mechanisms for sure @Brce

  Becky Burr: (09:36) To be “independent,” any review/redress body, and the individuals providing review/redress services must not be subject to improper influence from the ICANN Board, staff, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and private or partisan interests.At a minimum, the following elements are required to establish and maintain an independent review and redress: •      Fixed tenure (with limited exceptions for specified misbehavior);•       Fixed and adequate compensation;• Documented qualifications; and •         Limited immunity.

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:36) Sorry for lots of spelling mistakes.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:39) present review processes are defensive

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:40) @Becky : could you clarify the source of this ?

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:41) This is the current language for independent panel in the bylaws:

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:41) There shall be an omnibus standing panel of between six and nine members with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission and work from which each specific IRP Panel shall be selected. The panelists shall serve for terms that are staggered to allow for continued review of the size of the panel and the range of expertise. A Chair of the standing panel shall be appointed for a term not to exceed three years. Individuals holding an official position or office within the ICANN structure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel. In the event that an omnibus standing panel: (i) is not in place when an IRP Panel must be convened for a given proceeding, the IRP proceeding will be considered by a one- or three-member panel comprised in accordance with the rules of the IRP Provider; or (ii) is in place but does not have the requisite diversity of skill and experience needed for a particular proceeding, the IRP Provider shal

  David McAuley (GNSO): (09:41) Independence implicates how panel is paid – by parties? By ICANN? Keith’s point about an available process with less expense makes sense

  David McAuley (GNSO): (09:41) The standing panel has never been appointed, has it?

  Becky Burr: (09:42) that's a beginning Bruce, but requires some tweaks (as well as needing to be implemented)

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:43) +1 Steve

  Becky Burr: (09:43) @ Steve, yes, not necessary for ALL redress/review mechanisms to be independent

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (09:43) indeed

  Matthew Shears: (09:48) I think that the quote actually points only to pecuniary indpendence whereas the ttext that follows does talk about material relatinship wich is much broader - so we should remvoe the quote

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:49) Is scope different between internal reconsdieration and indpendent review - latter infers deeper scrutiny of all factors relevant to a decision including who takes decision (e.g . are they conflicted) and process of decision-making (e.g. lack of transparency). So the scope of independent review is wider - and may impact on the decision-takers as well as the complainant..

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:50) but if it is some kind of member based constituent review, the members will by definiton be "interested" and impacted parties. Independence isn't even a goal. Consensus is the goal.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:52) Competent do the review is also very improtant.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:52) There could be layers of review mechanisms.  A lower layer of review could include processes where by the same body that made the decision takes a relook,  an internal review involving other parts of ICANN etc.  and a higher layer that is totally independant, and above suspicion

  Avri Doria (participant & atrt laison): (09:53) the only truly independent people are socipaths.

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:53) able to represent their constituency sometimes instead of competency

  Keith Drazek: (09:53) lol avri

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:53) +1 Avri

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:54) @ Avri   A more positive possibility also exists. The person could be detached

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:54) or non-aligned

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:54) or could be above pettiness

  Alan Greenberg: (09:54) Comepetent as opposed to incompetent which some have claimed some of our independant adjuducators we have used.

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:54) Perhaps @Avri, with the righte guidelines, sociopaths would be ideal...

  Avri Doria (participant & atrt laison): (09:56) are they being paid? do they want their decsion to be repsected and accepted? are they concerend about a future rulling that may overturn theirs and make them look bad?  ned to rely more on a history of neutrality  and blanced decsions.

  Jonathan Zuck: (09:56) instead now asperger syndrome seems to be the only qualification...

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:56) At the moment the review processes are subservient to the Board / Staff / influential sections of the Community

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (09:57) absent a journal of record, how can the competency of a reviewer be known?

  Avri Doria (participant & atrt laison): (09:58) Eric, agreed, history is the best indicator.

  Keith Drazek: (10:04) I think there's a greater need for the expert in California not-for-profit law, not so much on International law

  Keith Drazek: (10:05) Is there an opportunity to ask the PEG to repurpose that expert slot?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (10:05) really @keith?

  Keith Drazek: (10:06) If we're looking to change ICANN's bylaws and to possibly change the accountability structures, we need to ensure our proposal is compliant with California law. Why is international law critical for our work over the next  several months?

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:06) focus please

  Keith Drazek: (10:07) Excuse me?

  David McAuley (GNSO): (10:08) California non-profit law is an area of immediate application to us – and it is discrete and understandable if we get expert advice -international law, on the other hand,  is hard to come to grips with – often means law that nations may observe by treaty or custom but is quite elusive.

  Steve DelBianco: (10:09) +1 @Becky and @Keith and @David.  Paid is best.

  Keith Drazek: (10:10) I believe the CWG Transition is struggling with the same issue....the lack of independent legal expertise in CA not-for-profit corporate law. It's becoming an obstacle for both groups' ability to advance  work.

  Greg Shatan: (10:11) "International law" expertise in this context often really means  "multinational" or "comparative" law expertise, i.e., the ability to compare and contrast laws of many jurisdictions.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:12) Why is this a road-block? Why are we waiting for this advice?

  Greg Shatan: (10:12) The CWG is in process of preparing a scoping document to obtain legal advice.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:13) You guys are well ahead of us.

  Greg Shatan: (10:13) And is also discussing the process for selecting and engaging same.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:13) Whoever the PEG appoints to us can't give independent advice.

  Greg Shatan: (10:13) This scoping document is open to all CWG participants.

  Jonathan Zuck: (10:13) well legally, they can if we are the client

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:14) Greg - I've been reading the document, it's good stuff.

  Jonathan Zuck: (10:14) but some have suggested passing a hat to ensure that is the case

  Greg Shatan: (10:14) The link is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CfnVwo4d3tIGyuFB2fyxqF0ycQ6uxo0rjlvtqhDyTU/edit?usp=sharing

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:14) we need to set it up so this group defines the work / advice asked for.  And that this group is "the client".  Not ICANN, the corporation as the client for this advise.

  Greg Shatan: (10:14) We have also discussed coordinating a common legal advisor with the CCWG.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:15) Commonality here should be helpful. Happy with the idea of ICANN paying, too.

  Keith Drazek: (10:15) As long as we have no independent legal expertise on CA not-for-profit law, the longer we are subject to ICANN General Counsel's interpretations. They may turn out to be the same view, but we need to have the benefit of an independent analysis so we know what's legally viable.

  Greg Shatan: (10:15) I am happy to liais with anyone on the CCWG in this regard, as I am coordinating this effort for the CWG.

  Greg Shatan: (10:15) "liaise"

  Keith Drazek: (10:15) Thanks Greg, I think that would be very helpful.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:15) Thanks @Greg. We'll call for volunteers

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:16) Yes, thanks, Greg.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:16) I'll volunteer for this also, as a California lawyer.

  Matthew Shears: (10:16) Proably alo useful for th bat indepednent legal advice to have a view over the two processes

  Greg Shatan: (10:16) There is a good deal of overlap. I am confident of that.

  Samantha Eisner: (10:17) @Keith, it would be helpful to have statements of what is the understanding of the GC's position is so that we can confirm that we're all working under the same assumptions

  Greg Shatan: (10:17) The fact education would also need to be done only once.

  David McAuley (GNSO): (10:17) I'd be happy to help in this area

  Edward Morris: (10:17) Working with ICANN legal is not acceptable if this group is to have

  Greg Shatan: (10:18) Have no fear.  CA non-profit is absolutely the center of our need for expertise.

  Edward Morris: (10:18) any semblance of independence.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:18) i disagree with the claim that advice on something as non-exotic as california non-profit law must be obtained from a third-party

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:19) this isn't tax law in some niche jurisdiction.

  David McAuley (GNSO): (10:19) If we get advice different than CWG that could add real complications

  Greg Shatan: (10:19) Not looking for one lawyer -- need a law firm, but one with specific expertise in CA non-profit expertise (and general corporate governance as well).

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:20) icann general council are members of the california bar, so they have the exertise, and are bound by ethics provisions of the cal bar.

  Jonathan Zuck: (10:20) firm versus lawyer is an important distinction

  Edward Morris 2: (10:20) Which, Greg, is not hard to find.

  Greg Shatan: (10:20) ICANN general counsel's office is not independent.

  Keith Drazek: (10:21) I strongly disagree with EBW's disagreement.

  Edward Morris 2: (10:21) Gre, exactly.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (10:21) indeed /david a REAL risk

  Greg Shatan: (10:21) Edward, agree completely.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:21) of course you do keith

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:21) I also disagree with EBW.

  Greg Shatan: (10:21) I also agree with Keith and Robin.

  Greg Shatan: (10:22) Thank you!

  David McAuley (GNSO): (10:22) thanks as well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (10:22) that small WP working with Greg is perfect ... I am happy with that outcome

  Greg Shatan: (10:22) Apologies for not being dialed in ....  And for not being in Frankfurt with all of you.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:23) Greg: we will try and forgive you before SIngapore.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (10:23) If we instruct a lawyer and (s)he screws us s(he) I am willing to draft the complaint to the Bar Council. Ain't gonna happen. They will either refuse, of do our bidding (They are after all the second oldest profession)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (10:23) we may forgive you eventually @greg...

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:23) correct eberhard

  Greg Shatan: (10:23) You can forgive me in person in Singapore.  Drinks are acceptable forms of redress.

  Greg Shatan: (10:24) But only after review.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:24) Greg: you'll be buying them to apologise for your absence? :-)

  Greg Shatan: (10:25) @Jordan, yes, if you're buying the second round.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:25) which claim are you {keith, robin, greg} making: icann gc is incompetent on cal non-profit law (subject matter expertise) or not ethical?

  Greg Shatan: (10:25) Never said that.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:26) so what, if anything, are you saying greg?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:26) Eric: it wouldn't make sense for a lawyer that defended a corporation's interests and in so doing uses arguments that relate to its total independence, to then advise also a group seeking to change that. It just doesn't work.

  Greg Shatan: (10:26) They are not independent and as in-house counsel their duty of loyalty is to their employer.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:26) EBW:  Neither.  That GC's legal obligation is to the corporation.  It must protect the organization.  That is that role.  Which is a different role than what we need here.

  Greg Shatan: (10:26) That said, we are getting helpful scoping input from Samantha Eisner.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:26) Anyway, they will no doubt share their analysis in the end anyway. :-)

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:26) so you're going with conflicts robin. fine.

  Samantha Eisner: (10:28) @Greg, my duty is to protect the interests of the organization.  And at this time, this accountability work and the success of it is key to ICANN in the narrowest and broadest sense.  Looking forward to working with all of you.

  Samantha Eisner: (10:32) THe categories were not my doing!  Adam and Mathieu were key to that effort

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:32) "Enlisting" sounds somehow sinister... @CLO

  Keith Drazek: (10:33) Great work on the consolidation of contingencies.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:34) @James nice work finding the common causes in so many candidate contingencies.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:35) what specifically is being asked here?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (10:37) What is the group(s) aiming for as outcome? Is widespread erosion of active stakeholder support for ICANN covered including loss of support in specific regions?

  Bruce Tonkin: (10:38) I don't think that is captured Mark so far.

  Greg Shatan: (10:39) Sadly, I am not in the room (or in the lobby)....

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:40) Do you want to volunteer Greg?

  Matthew Shears: (10:41) Mark - that is a great question and needs to be captured somewhere - posily contingencies group 5?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:42) So to be clear - these are the scenarios if you like which will be stress tested, through asking hte four questions st out on the slide

  Samantha Eisner: (10:42) @Mark, can you email the contingency to the list so that we can incorporate it?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (10:42) + 1 Matthew as t @Mark's question being v helpful

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): (10:43) yes please @mark... and I am also assuming it will fit within Area/Sec V...

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:44) will the "recap of the day" discussion notes include the discussion on human  rights also?

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:44) I don't see that in the notes

  Suzanne Radell: (10:44) I don't know if people feel that Bruce's sentiment expressed earlier today about the risk of the multistakeholder community walking away from ICANN as being a similar question to the one Mark has posed

  Matthew Shears: (10:45) I think the first is internal - the second external - both key questions

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:45) I'll ask orally.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:46) who is drafting the notes?  

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:46) to the right

  Keith Drazek: (10:46) Hi Suzanne, I think they're related.

  Eric Brunner-Williams: (10:47) bart is typing in the rhs

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:47) I can't seem to get his attention

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (10:47) @suzanne and not just walking away  but loss of  support from some regions.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:48) @Robin -- we will get it in there

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:48) thank you, Grace.  I will take my hand down then.

  Keith Drazek: (10:49) I think a key and legitimate concern of many is that, if significant portions of the community stop contributing at ICANN, that the contracted parties would still participate and could end up with too much influence as a result. That's something we need to address., to prevent capture of the organization and community processes.

  Samantha Eisner: (10:49) These are all different aspects of a contingency involving a breakdown of the multistakeholder model - loss of support from certain regions; diminishment of participation from certain communities, along with Keith's statement above

  Matthew Shears: (10:49) + 1 Keith

  Keith Drazek: (10:50) And I say that as the current Chair of the Regsistries group. ;-)

  Greg Shatan: (10:50) "Conditional Accountability" was not a good choice of words.  I think it is more accurately "mandatory accountability."

  Keith Drazek: (10:50) The multi-stakeholder model only succeeds and is only healthy with rich contributions from all sectors and interests. Gotta keep it that way!

  Greg Shatan: (10:51) In other words, accountability that must be in place as a condition for the transition to occur.

  Keith Drazek: (10:52) Correct Greg. My earlier assessment today was that "conditional accountability" was the term used to acknowledge the need for accountability reform and where the CWG work may overlap with the CCWG WS1 work.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:52) Agree with Greg and Keith.

  Keith Drazek: (10:52) rather than accountability mechanisms that are in any way themselves conditional

  Greg Shatan: (10:53) A good lawyer will tell you the question you should be asking, in order to get to the answer(s) you are really looking for.

  Greg Shatan: (10:54) Whether the answer pleases you or not is a different issue.

  Matthew Shears: (10:54) see you later then Greg!

  Greg Shatan: (10:55) I look forward to the RFP3 call, at the humane time of 4 pm here in New York City.

  David McAuley (GNSO): (10:55) ouch

  Matthew Shears: (10:56) thanks all