Members: Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachlotte, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (18)
Participants: Alain Bidron, Andrea Beccalli, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Eric Brunner Williams, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Lars Erik Forsberg, Martin Boyle, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Vrikson Acosta, Yasuichi Kitamura (19)
Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Alice Munyua, Olga Cavalli, Phil Corwin, Par Brumark
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6i04lcl2fy/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-17feb15-en.mp3
1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI
Cheryl Langdon Orr on the audio bridge
2. WP1 &WP2
Jordan Carter and Becky Burr
Recognized the need to ensure clear demarcation between WP1 and WP2 and structuring of their work.
- Proposing accountability and escalation mechanisms and how those could be achieved.
- These accountability mechanisms would be triggered and non-triggered. There are things that happen as part of ICANN's normal process (non-triggered , e.g. budget processes) and those that get triggered by an action or lack of an action by ICANN.
- Building into the process the opportunity to re-adjust as required.
- Close coordination between the two groups including on deadlines.
- And will provide a full list of these powers and mechanisms.
"Volunteers" any member and participant may join, observers status remains unaltered (note, observers can change their status)
- Accountability mechanism template:
Template to set out the basic parameters for accountability mechanisms.
Action: request feedback from colleagues on the template and our processes for further work and our standardized approach.
Not a one size fits all decision-making body, needs to be able to reflect different interests and balance of skills, regional diversity, gender.
In some situations might be people from the community.
Other cases complete independence might be desirable in the decision making body.
What are the voting mechanisms for this decision making body/bodies?
How are the decisions makers themselves accountable?
The chairs will suggest a test case with the group to see how the process works, adjust if necessary.
Caution against using the term "CCWG" for the entity, a pre-defined term.
Solution needs to be simple, easily understandable and usable by the community. The division between community powers and mechanism is intended to enable this.
Description of what the power is needs careful identification. Simple outcome, but complicated work to get to the solution.
Jordan: suggest closing the documents in 4 weeks. By face to face mtg, expect to see a set of templates, on triggered and non-triggered mechanisms.
3. WP-ST (Cheryl Langdon Orr & Steve DelBianco)
Consolidated inventory of 25 contingencies are being stress tested against the consistent methodology, review of progress and continued examples from those presented in Singapore. Call for comments on:
14, Termination of AoC? None
16. ICANN participation in programs beyond technical mandate? None
22. Failure to comply with bylaws or refusal to accept a decisions of a redress mechanism (remedy, threat of board recall). First reading, carry over to CCWG call #14.
Note, the proposed measures are still highly provisional.
Example, stress test 18.
GAC advice to the ICANN Board. Changes in GAC voting processes.
Suggestion that if GAC moved to majority voting, this would not carry the deference of consensus. Suggests a risk capture of ICANN processes by a single stakeholder.
Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr)
Stress test 19.
Redelegation of gTLD, with the action challenged in court by the registry. Which instruction does the root zone maintainer follow, IANA/ICANN process or court?
Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk?
How does recognition of national governments help provide ICANN with broad protections?
4. Timeline (inc. F2F)
- F2F 23-24 March, details by the end of this week.
- At the close of f2f meeting, there are 12 working days in which to ready the document for public comment. Public comment of 30 days. 2 weeks to respond and submit a final document to the Chartering Organizations for their comment for 21 days. Submit to the Board prior to ICANN 53.
- CCWG 23-24. CWG-Stewardship to meet at the same location on March 26-27, with 25th for coordination between the chairs.
- Less than 5 weeks to the F2F and need to complete work in a very short timeframe.
5. Update on definitions & scoping document (after feedback from Advisors)
A new version reflecting comment from the external advisors and CCWG colleagues will be distributed this week.
Jan Scholte suggested looking at the accountability of accountability mechanisms themselves (will the new layers be accountable). He will provide best practice.
7. Concluding remarks
Action: CCWG colleagues to provide feedback on the template, and on processes for further work and our standardized approach.
Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr)
Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk?
Brenda Brewer: (2/16/2015 23:48) Welcome all to the CCWG ACCT meeting #13.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (23:51) Hello everyone!
Edward Morris: (23:52) good (morning) Leon and everyone else
Carlos Raul: (23:52) Good Midnight to everybody
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (23:53) 1 am here.
Carlos Raul: (23:53) Sorry Alan
Carlos Raul: (23:53) you are allways ahead of the crowd
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (23:54) Why be sorry? We pride ourselves with being an international organization. This is one of the costs.
Brenda Brewer: (23:55) Hi Avri. We hear you well.
Avri Doria: (23:55) thanks
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:57) Hello everyone !
Sabine Meyer: (23:57) hi everyone!
Sabine Meyer: (23:57) 7 AM on fat tuesday!
James Bladel-GNSO: (23:58) Midnight. I'm getting off easy....
Avri Doria: (23:58) fat tuesday already?
Sabine Meyer: (23:59) yep.
Avri Doria: (23:59) thatgt right ran into friend on his way down to New Orleans he mentioned Mardi Gras
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:59) Virtual pancakes anyone ?
Sabine Meyer: (2/17/2015 00:00) oh yes, it's pancake day!
Avri Doria: (00:00) wow but it is still deep in winter.
Sivasubramanian M: (00:00) What are virtual pancakes Mathieu? How do you wire transfer pan cakes?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:01) Innovation, still working on it I'm afraid
jorge cancio: (00:01) hello all
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (00:01) @Brenda, private chat is disabled
Sivasubramanian M: (00:01) Cheryl, you are the only one on planet Earth who could attend an ICANN WG meeting right after a root canal
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:02) Hi everyone, welcome back aboard.
Avri Doria: (00:02) begs the question, which is worse, root canal or a CCWG mtg?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:02) If nobody heard me, it means that my microphone isn't working
jorge cancio: (00:02) may I ask a somewhat out of topic question? what is the status of the 2014 OWT report on ICANN accountability?: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-03-04-en
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:04) Avri, for root canal you can have anaesthesia
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:05) hello all
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:05) hi Athina :)
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (00:06) Hi Athina!
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (00:10) @Jordan -- I think you have scheduled a call fro WP1 this week, right?
Carlos Raul: (00:10) please define the diference between members, participants, observers andd volunteers please
Adam Peake: (00:10) link to the group Jordan's discussing
Adam Peake: (00:10) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerment
Adam Peake: (00:10) And WP2
Adam Peake: (00:11) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress
Adam Peake: (00:11) (Becky)
Carlos Raul: (00:11) so members+participants+obsrvers=volunteers
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:12) @Steve, all: Yes, there will be a meeting of the WP1 (non-triggered, was Empowerment) this week - ICANN staff will circ details shortly
Carlos Raul: (00:12) members+participants=volunteers
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:13) the date / time of that call is likely Wednesday 18 Feb at 2100h UTC - but please rely on the email from ICANN staff
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:13) (that's WP1)
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:23) good point
Adam Peake: (00:24) Jorge, I will gte an answer about OWT report you mention and answer on the mailing list
Adam Peake: (00:26) OK, easier than thought.
Adam Peake: (00:26) Work of OWT will be integrated with the development of organization-wide performance metrics as part of ICANN's Management System, which will include: Key Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:27) I think I have a way through what @Steve is saying
jorge cancio: (00:28) thanks Adam!
Bruce Tonkin: (00:29) @steve - it makes sense to me that we have aprpopriate processes for approving bylaws changes. One question is wqhether you apply the same threshld for all bylaws changes (mainy of which are fairly procedural like GNSO policuy steps) versus others that are more material - e.g accountability provisiions.
Avri Doria: (00:30) question about templayte, are they submitted by the rest of us or are they filled in by the WPs
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:30) @Bruce, I would think that the threshhold may well differ based on the type of decision.
Bruce Tonkin: (00:30) Also do you relaly want a budget approval process to be subject to a prologiner communiyt approval process, or do you want a challenge process if a budget is not consistent with the strategic plan and mission and purpose.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:30) @Bruce, does the threshold need to be different given the livel of interest will certainly be different?
Bruce Tonkin: (00:31) I think so we need to be careful that we are not adding many layers of burearacy and preventing ICANN from its current continuous improvement processes. ie we change bylaws relatively often compared to most orgnaisations becuase we have continous reviews etc.
Bruce Tonkin: (00:32) Normally bylaws changes are as a result of one of reviews, and the exact text of a bylaws change is posted for public comment. The Board to my knowledgte hasn't made bylaws changes on its own volition that I am aware of.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (00:33) @ James: important point. HAppy with Thomas's reply
Avri Doria: (00:33) Especialyl since there is an inverse relation between complexity/bureaucracy and accountabilty/transparency
Bruce Tonkin: (00:33) So presumably as an outcome of a review there has already been community scrutiny for most changes.
James Bladel-GNSO: (00:33) @Bruce - exactly. Nervous that key decisions could be tied up for years.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (00:33) +1 @Allan
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:34) @James : very relevant, definitely a stress test to apply !
Avri Doria: (00:34) finding the balance betwee sufifcinet appeals and review, and relaibilty for profits needs to be balanced.
Bruce Tonkin: (00:35) Simlar concerns to insering communiyt processeds in budget approval processes - we don;'t want a blocking of supply situation that happens in some governments..
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (00:35) I am proposing that the Community is inherently qualified to decide upon use of enumerated powers, provided they meet the voting threshhold
Bruce Tonkin: (00:35) I could say any singificnat changes - e.g an increase./decrease of a budget by more than 10% year-on-year otr some other major change might require more scrutiny.
Bruce Tonkin: (00:36) That makes snse Steve - I wasn't clear if you want that something like a budget review would be kicked off by the communiyt versus required by the communiyt in every instance.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (00:36) @bruce: agree, high/low water marks, for those policy issues who's implementation is ... numeric, is useful
Sivasubramanian M: (00:39) Rather than define situations one by one, and naming such situations as under the remit of Accountability mechansim, for e.g de-delegating a delegating TLD, or disapproving a budgetary allocation, we could leave an open ended clause in the Accountability framework, that could be invoked in situations where the organization has done something very wrong, be it related to budgetary allocation or business related decision or on a public interest issue. Conventional legal framework might allow such an open end, where something unforeseen happens for which there was no pre-medidated legal provision
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:40) eric, I thought you had left. Or was that ony leaving doing any work?
Sivasubramanian M: (00:41) erratum: ... de-delegating a DELEGATED TLD
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:41) ccTLDs will need to develop mechanisms for dealing with ccTLD (re/de)delegations.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:41) Presumably gTLDs feel similarly about gTLDs.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:42) [actually I have no idea what Gs think so ignore that.]
Bruce Tonkin: (00:42) On the topic of remedies 0- UDRP is an interesting example. THe remedies are fairly clear - e.g cancellation of a domain name or transfer of a domain name. THere are no financial penalties involved. Users of UDRP can use the courts separately to obtain financial damages for breaches of trademark law etc.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:43) @Eberhard, can you more specifically define "fix the ICANN Board"?
David McAuley: (00:43) UDRP and URS seeme to work quite well in my opinion
Bruce Tonkin: (00:43) In most cases with IRP tpe decisions wyou would expect remedires to be along the lines of stopping an action, or granting the original request as part fo the original processes etc. THe hard part I assume would be tryig to define all the remedies for each situation upfront.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:44) ALan, My name is not @Eberhard.
David McAuley: (00:44) Bruce, I was thinking an applicant for a gTLD might argue that it lost its application by poor process and asks for fee to be returned
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (00:45) @bruce: there are prior board decisions that, had there been "high/low water marks", would have met some additional scruity test -- e.g., the change from ownership caps (roughly 15%) on registrars to no-caps, or price increases in price capped registries, etc.
Bruce Tonkin: (00:45) @David - yes I thnk a refund of fees would be reasonable. Often contracts limit liability to the amount that a party has paid for services for example.
David McAuley: (00:46) I think limitations are an important discussion/decision
Avri Doria: (00:46) ok, so the rest of us don't get invovled until review.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (00:46) @bruce: these prior decisions, regardless of how one feels about them now, are test cases for accountability triggered by board action (or inaction).
Avri Doria: (00:47) so if we want to make sure some are in there we need to volunteer
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:47) @Avri - I hope that that is the best way to do it.
Sivasubramanian M: (00:47) @ el It is not enough to consider the ICANN Board as ultimate - in the design of Accountability mechanism. Accountability design is about designing balancing and correcting mechanisms and processes. If we consider the ICANN Board as the ultimate level, then there would be difficulty finding ways of doing anything if the Board is badly constituted at some future point
Avri Doria: (00:48) i would be more comfortable if th work was reviewable by non WP volunteers and it was possible to comment on an ogoing basis.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:48) There is no redelegation any longer, the terminology is "revocation and transfer"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:49) @el : you are quite right, my apologies.
Avri Doria: (00:50) ok, that sounds less opaque than i thought is was going to be.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:50) No desire for opacity - that said, there is going to be some black box likely in terms of originating first drafts. But that's just a function of the time constraints we are under.
Berry Cobb: (00:50) CCWG meetings are schedule each Tuesday at alternating times until our delivery date of the WS1 Proposal to the ICANN Board. Two meetings per week may be scheduled as necessary.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (00:50) can someone recall the date when the next F2F meeting. Couldn't attend the meetingsin SGP
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:50) In this Wg I hear mostly concerns about the Board's accountability. And we need to FIX this (pro-actively), not (retroactively) review their actions.
Avri Doria: (00:51) Jordan, depends on the tools you use.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:51) @el - you have mentioned one of my fears. That we end up too focused on the Board, and not enough organisation-wide. We need to have a broad perspective.
Berry Cobb: (00:51) @Lars Erik. 23,24, March, we will discuss further in #4 agenda item.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (00:51) Thanks Berry
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:51) @berry - is there any idea about where?
Berry Cobb: (00:52) @Jordan - Grace is working with Meetings team to determine location. Still TBD at this time. Hope to have location finalized by close of this week.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:53) Jordan, all, what's witht he use of @ when addressing someone? It's neither part of my name nor my initials.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:54) I just started doing it because others were. Worst possible reason... but little harm done :-)
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:55) Jordan, in German and Thomas can bear me out here, we have what we would translate "small small", ie tinkering around, and the "Grand Throw", substantial, bold move.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (00:56) I believe that our mandate to propose (better) Accountability of/for ICANN does allow us to make bold proposals for reform.
Carlos Raul: (00:56) sorry
Carlos Raul: (00:56) I have a comment on 16
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:57) OK I will type
Avri Doria: (00:57) are we aagreeing that iti s an issue or theat the proposased fixes are ok?
Carlos Raul: (00:57) but can make it on writing i guess
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:57) issue with the mic
Avri Doria: (00:57) sorry about the typos.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:57) I have a question
Samantha Eisner: (00:57) Steve, Cheryl - are we going to go through and do this for all the items on the stress test list? Weren't these examples of how we'd continue filling out the matrix (for further group consideration)?
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:57) can you hear me?
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:58) lol!!!
Avri Doria: (00:58) are agree that something is a problem or to the entire line's analysis.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:58) what exactly we are agreeing at this stage - are we confirming whether the existing mechanism are sufficient or
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:58) My browser blocked my mic (using Chrome).
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:58) are we also confirming agreement on proposed measures
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (00:59) @co-chairs: these are either thought exercises or ccwg-acct signing off on scenarios from the bc, but not both.
Avri Doria: (00:59) so we are agreeing to the entire analysis
Carlos Raul: (00:59) very complex moment right now
Carlos Raul: (00:59) where is the list we are discussing?
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:59) OK understood
Avri Doria: (00:59) but not the specifics
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (00:59) thank you Mathieu
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:00) yes thank you!
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:00) @avri, i don't agree to these analysis, and the co-chairs know this, as do steve and cheryl.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:01) Eric, can you do us a favour and propose different extreme (or moderate) hypothetical situations that we should do stress-tests on?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:01) because I can't see us taking off the table any of these. There's no logical reason to do so.
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:02) I agree with Avri's point
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:02) @jordan, the ws4 list archive is public. i addressed these there.
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:02) Agree with Avri
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:02) @jorcan, @14, #16 and #18 specifically
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:03) @jordan, pre-frankfort.
Avri Doria: (01:04) are agree that something is a problem or to the entire line's analysis. I agree it is useful, once we know what we are doing.
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:04) Would it be an idea, instead of describing concrete proposed accountability measures at this point, to just outline the concrete goals a proposed accountability measure should have in retation to each test?
Avri Doria: (01:04) if process means knowing what our answer to a question in a reading means then we need to process. thanks. so we really mean that columns 1 & 2 are acceptable but that column 3 is a maybe.
Samantha Eisner: (01:04) +1 to Athina
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:04) el: I see what you mean - we don't want to eat an elephant with mice (?). But we also don't want to create a grand reform that is unable to actually be used.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:04) @Athina : I think that it is close to what Steve & Cheryl are doing right ?
Carlos Raul: (01:05) thnak you Alan G.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (01:05) that's right, Mathieu
Carlos Raul: (01:05) by the time I had somthing to say about #16, #22 had been aproved.....
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:06) Carlos, can you raise hand if you want to say a word ?
Carlos Raul: (01:06) SLO is dificult to understand right now
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:06) @Mathieu, sure it is, it just looks like we are proposing concrete measures.. maybe it's the title of the column that gives me this impression
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:06) ok I see Athina
Carlos Raul: (01:06) Mathieu, I was reading and listening, and coud not do the third act on time
Carlos Raul: (01:06) excuse me
Carlos Raul: (01:06) very hard to follow the procedure
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:06) I am in agreement with Alan'scomment-treatthis as excerciseand brainstorming
Carlos Raul: (01:07) I think Avri And Alan have showed the flaw in the question already
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:07) In the end, we can only finally "stress test" our proposed set of reforms once we have finalised what they are. So this is indeed a brainstorming exercise. But what it avoids is sudden surprises later. That is why it's worth doing wtih all the content we are building.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (01:07) I think that Cheryl echoed what I was presuming. My main point was that I didn't see the need for the 2-meeting agreement process at this stage.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:08) @izumi: agree, this is just brainstorming.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:09) What I hope that Cheryl/Steve can deliver is a set of useful scenarios to Stress Test our model against, with clear analysis of existing accountability measures and their sufficiency, to help inform the work of WP1 and WP2 - the act of assessing the situations will help shake out whether mechanisms/powers in ADDITION to those in the first drafts by the WPs are needed.
James Bladel-GNSO: (01:11) "simple majority instead of consensus." Couldn't the GAC simply define a majority (50%+1) to be the threshold of "consensus."?
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:11) Wez are 140 and some in GAC...
Bruce Tonkin: (01:11) Can we have the stress test that @steve is talking about on the main screen?
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:11) thanks Eric -- good & helpful to confirm
Bruce Tonkin: (01:12) Thank you.
Avri Doria: (01:12) Bruce, you can scroll yourself
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:12) Bruce, you have to scroll and zoom yourself I think :)
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:12) The discussion is extremely sensitve in GAC on how to interprate OP
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:12) the notion that one meeting is going to end free speech or free lunch is ... unlikely (though funny).
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:12) on consensus....
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:12) And it's not about us telling the GAC what to do, either, right Steve?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:13) Right Jordan, it's about how the board might react to advice
Bruce Tonkin: (01:14) Another weeakness in the baylws relating to the GAC ismore tightly defining public policy advice. Right now I gather than any advice from the GAC is considered to be public policy. I would prefer that public policy is defined as policy as reptresentating in national laws across a significant majority of companies - ie consistent with general accepted norms of international law.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:15) Current bylaws state:
Bruce Tonkin: (01:15) The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:15) I think this is working (Steve's point) exactly how this is meant to do. These calls act as hubs, with ideas that affect various subgroups being developed and resolved, and then shared out.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:15) Also the bylaws allow the GAC to define its own procedures:
Bruce Tonkin: (01:16) The Governmental Advisory Committee may adopt its own charter and internal operating principles or procedures to guide its operations, to be published on the Website
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:16) @bruce: correct, the bylaws are not static, and bylaws entities, gac or whatever, may change their internal process.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (01:16) THE NTIA has clearly stated that they will not hand this over to a government controlled entity. Hence this needs to be considered for the transition.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:17) what steve is proposing is limiting one bylaws entity, but not all.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:17) I think we have to separate the fact that GAC will insist on the right to define its internal procedures, as other SOs and Acs will.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:17) each of how those interact with ICANN as an entity does need to be set out clearly in the bylaws, and there is no common/universal determination of this.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:18) I think Steve is propising to handle this by having a mechanims for hte communiyt to intervene in some way if the Board accepts GAC advice that may not be a result of a consensus of GAC members.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:18) [and on what Steve is saying now, the bylaws would have to define what consensus means for this purpose.]
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:18) But this is already the case today.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:19) [for THIS purpose, not for GAC's purposes.]
Samantha Eisner: (01:19) Couldn't another way to address this would be to incorporate some threshold into teh ICANN Bylaws for advice, as we have the GNSO voting thresholds for policy development, which tie to how the Board must respond to those recommendations?
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:19) The issue is here what ios consensus according to OP 47
Sivasubramanian M: (01:19) I am not sure if it would be 'constitutional' on the part of ICANN to stipulate that the GAC advice has to be a consensus advice. What we could emphasize is the freedom for the Board to consider or not consider
James Bladel-GNSO: (01:20) Still not seeing it in the adobe, but I'm good with Steve's response. :)
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:20) Alos I do not think you would get the agreement with GAC for such a change of the bylaws... do not forget taht GAC is a chartering org of teh CCWG...
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:20) it's all about the context in which the board would pay deference not about what the GAC would do
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:21) We would NOT be changing what GAC can regulate through its operating principles.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:21) We would simply define what consensus meant that ICANN's Board had to take cognisance of.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:21) My feeling is taht USA uses consenus as a right o veto. I think may otehrs hope tath we could use consensus shaping like with do in teh EU
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:22) On aper UN in reality not
Sivasubramanian M: (01:22) By discussing this imaginary contingency at such length, we are only 'giving ideas' to GAC to modifiy its advisory policy
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:23) The point really is that if we create a situation where GAC can by majority tell ICANN what to do, we fail the NTIA tests and the transition won't happen.
David McAuley: (01:23) Agre with Steve, GAC Can decide what consensus is, ICANN bylaw can specify level of consensus that gets special treatment
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:23) Thank you Mattieu. I can unfortunately not speak from this computer
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:23) That's a test we need to work through to a solution for.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (01:23) THe GAC idsn't getting ideas from us. There has already been discussion in the GAC about modifying their voting rules
Sivasubramanian M: (01:23) @ Steve Thanks. But we are making such a discussion a core focus for GAC now
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:23) Lars: maybe it's Rough Consensus that is needed? *grin*
Greg Shatan: (01:24) Could add "or a substantially similar definition of consensus" to give GAC some wiggle room, but not to call 51% "consensus".
Carlos Raul: (01:24) and ex memebers
Carlos Raul: (01:24) i have written a short note to steve on #18
Carlos Raul: (01:24) its on the mailing list now
Carlos Raul: (01:24) very dificult to do it in this type of calls
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (01:25) Steve this is mainly teh voting process...(electronic voting etcGreg this is the way we in EU sees it. Anyway we are likely to haev this discussion in GAC if not in BA in Dublin... It is likely to be very intereseting
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:25) One thing that is very hard about these calls is having two conversations at once, in this chat and on the audio. Tricky stuff.
Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (01:25) +1 to Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:25) +1 to getting GAC input if we can.
Sivasubramanian M: (01:25) Internet Community goes by rough consensus. What if
Sivasubramanian M: (01:26) GAC wants reciprocal privileges?
Sivasubramanian M: (01:27) (That was to go along with the thinking that this imaginary contingency must be discussed. I am adding my bit
Sivasubramanian M: (01:27) )
Samantha Eisner: (01:27) We may need to address in our work how we would propose a community veto over a board decision that is following GAC advice (consensus or not consensus)
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (01:27) +1 Mathieu: shouldn't we look for an agreed "consensus" level for the wholeorganisation?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:28) Martin: Not for some ccTLD things, I shouldn't think.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:28) +1 steve
David McAuley: (01:28) +1 @Steve
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:28) -1 steve
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:28) +1 Steve. That's going to hopefully be the meat of the discussion at the next Face to Face meeting.
Edward Morris: (01:29) +1 Samantha
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (01:29) Jordan: some constituencies could always argue higher: look for threshold?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (01:30) Just a thought as we should beware imposing one rule on one party, but not on others
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:32) Yes, Martin. Some serious complexities here.
David McAuley: (01:34) This is a tough one (i.e. #19), even what constitutes a court of competent jurisdiction could be quite complex
Sivasubramanian M: (01:34) @ Bruce Tonkin "The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on .... public policy issues" We could emphasize that the GAC advice could only originate based on views expressesd by GAC members in GAC that refelect the official views of the respective governments. Sometimes, GAC communique might emerge based on views expressed by GAC members in the GAC that might not necessarily qualify as official views of the respecive governments. By asking for a GAC advice based only on official positions of member governments, we might be able to mitigate a certain degree of harm
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:35) Siva: I think that GAC would utterly reject that.
Sivasubramanian M: (01:36) @ Jordan In this case, what we say is reasonable.
Sivasubramanian M: (01:36) We have a "right" to say that
Sivasubramanian M: (01:36) At least we could use that as a card on the negotiating table
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:36) It would call into question the legitimacy of representation of governmetns in GAC. It hsa to operate under the assumption that its participants are representing their governments.
Sivasubramanian M: (01:36) If GAC does not agree on other things, we will place this card
Carlos Raul: (01:36) sorry
Carlos Raul: (01:37) roboems with the mic apparnetly
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:37) It - the GAC - has to operate in that way. Just as all the other SOs and ACs do.
Carlos Raul: (01:37) continue pls
Carlos Raul: (01:37) yes
Carlos Raul: (01:37) sorry
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:37) remember folks, the browser sometimes blocks access toyour mic (esp if Chrome)
Samantha Eisner: (01:37) If this stress test is trying to answer the question of "do we have sufficient processes to keep people from resorting to the courts?"
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:37) it doesn't necessarily follow that some "ntia transition" will cause a change in the composition of the root zone management partners.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:37) Don't really understand the wording of the stress test - as wouldn't ICANN also be subject to the curt order. I t seems to be talking abuot ICANN ignoring a court order but root zone maintainer choose to follow the court order?
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (01:38) IANA is function NOT an entity!
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:38) Bruce: "... a national Court".
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:38) Conflict of laws.
el [ccTLD Manager .NA]: (01:38) Can we PLEASE use the correct terminology?!?
Carlos Raul: (01:38) +1 to @Bruce comment
Avri Doria: (01:38) this is just about gTLD legal issues?
Carlos Raul: (01:38) further more he metioned indpendenet external instance...
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:38) the stress test is a conflict of laws issue folks. That's why it says "a national Court"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:39) A modification of the stress test would be if a gTLD registry operator say in Ireland got an injunction in Ireland. how should ICANN, based in the US, react?
Samantha Eisner: (01:40) (hit send too soon) then it would be something we could take on. I'm still not clear how the focus on the root zone maintainer lends itself to accountability mechanisms
David McAuley: (01:40) Might be a good area for one of our advisors
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:40) [we also, from an Accountability point of view, need to take a view on whether ICANN could or should ever be allowed to be the Root Zone Maintainer.]
Avri Doria: (01:41) shows that we need something stronger than "might not be adequate" in Col 2
Samantha Eisner: (01:41) @Jordan, there are many ways to enforce judgments from external jurisdictions, but it would be a conflict of laws issue, you are correct
Avri Doria: (01:42) a possible solution space item might be international arbitration of an adequate sort.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:42) Sam - yep. Especially if ICANN got an order in a U.S. court, I guess.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:43) @sam, i agree. the rzp are seperate from icann, and the controlling hypo would be something along the lines of a crypto process challenge, not revisiting the g or c del or redel.
jorge cancio: (01:43) agree that PEG expert on international law should advise on options for resolving/tackling such jurisdiction issues
Bruce Tonkin: (01:43) Not sure even whether the root zone maintainer is protected from lawsuites. I would needd to look athte agreement - so I asupport NTIA could have indemnified the root zone maintainer - but that would be after a law suit was successful with damages etc.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:44) This feels like a rathole - as each party in this sitaution can be subhect to law suits - there is no accountability measure that makes any party immune from a court order.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (01:44) It is a threat to ICANN and the RZ, but not an accountabilty issue.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:44) Bruce: there is a bit of a myth (or is it a fact?) going around that both ICANN as IANA functions operator, and Verisign as RZM, are immunised by means of the Functions Contract/Cooperative Agreement respectively.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:44) agree on rathole.
Greg Shatan: (01:44) Probably end up with ICANN going into court to overturn the order....
Bruce Tonkin: (01:44) Dealing with jurisidctional issues - woudl be ona case-by-case basis.
Fiona Asonga(ASO): (01:44) I agree with you Bruce Tonkin
Samantha Eisner: (01:44) ICANN is not immunized from suit in its role as teh IANA Functions Operator
Samantha Eisner: (01:44) Just to put the myth as it relates to ICANN to rest
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:45) Thanks Sam.
James Bladel-GNSO: (01:45) Wondering if we should just ensure that ICANN indemnifies the root zone maintainer, and move on.
Samantha Eisner: (01:45) I do not know if there is immunity on the RZM side
Greg Shatan: (01:45) But the US role in delegation is very small , and the other parties are not immune from suit.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:45) I don't understand how Jordan. You can of course blame someone else - but if you take an actionthat affects a third party surely you are subject to the law?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:46) James, it would be itneresting to consider the incentives that created for various parties. Bruce: I don't see how either but some people seem to think it exists.s
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (01:46) Steve did say that this would take more than 10 miuntes!
Greg Shatan: (01:46) It's only the validation/authorization function that would be at issue here.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:46) It is just a contract - it is not as though the root zone maintainer is followig a law - it is purely an agreement with another party.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:47) I think we need to udnereand a law suit that invovles dmages and the abiolity to cliam those from a panother party in a countract from the ability to be sued.
Bruce Tonkin: (01:47) Anyone can be sued.
Greg Shatan: (01:47) Technically, this is an issue of "cross-border law" not "international law" but even lawyers tend to use the terms interchangeably in casual conversation....
Greg Shatan: (01:48) Stress test 19 needs to be clarified -- who is being sued here?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (01:48) @Greg -- the RZM is being sued, not ICANN
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:48) so the usg.
Greg Shatan: (01:49) RZM is Verisign, not the USG
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:49) wrong
jorge cancio: (01:49) agree with Rickert
Bruce Tonkin: (01:49) The RZM could be subhject to a court order - indepdent of its agreement withthe USG Government. AS far as I udnerstand it has some "financial" protection through its agreement ithe USG - but it is n ot immune from courts as far as I understand the laws.
Greg Shatan: (01:50) Eric, I believe I'm correct, and Bruce is using term in the same way. What's your support for your assertion that the RZM is the USG?
Greg Shatan: (01:52) NTIA is Root Zone Administrator. See, e.g., SAC 067.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:53) @greg, i've no doubt you believe you are correct, but you're not involved in developing a plan for rolling the DNS root zone key-signing key (KSK). The KSK is used to signtheroot zone zone-signing key (ZSK), which in turn is used to DNSSEC-sign theInternet’s root zone.
Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (01:54) @greg, you're free to ignore what you're not familiar with, but the usg is one of the rmz partners, whether you find that convenient or not.
Avri Doria: (01:55) f2f is 23/24 Mar?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:55) Avri: that's waht this suggests.
Greg Shatan: (01:55) Eric, all well and good, but irrelevant as to which party is the RZA (NTIA) and which is the RZM (Verisign).
Avri Doria: (01:55) conflcit with ietf, guess i am the only who cares?
Greg Shatan: (01:56) Not a matter of convenience a matter of definitions.. These are the terms used in the IANA Functions Contract and the Cooperative Agreement.
Avri Doria: (01:56) so it is the whole cwg _ ccwg week that overlap with the whole ietf week
Avri Doria: (01:57) bummer.
Greg Shatan: (01:57) And please don't assume my lack of familiarity, or that I am ignoring anything.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:58) Avri: that isn't good, especially given that this group is meant to be inclusive across the ICANN community (more so than the CWG).
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:00) Can we have some diversity in F2F locations? It wouldn't be inclusive to have all those meetings in Europe over time. A thought for the May one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:00) sure skype
Greg Shatan: (02:00) @Jordan -- you can see Asia from Istanbul....
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:01) Greg: It would be three hours closer to do Istanbul than London, for instance. :-)
Carlos Raul: (02:01) next call?
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:01) thank you all
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:01) Thanks everyone for this.
Carlos Raul: (02:01) please use other time
Yasucihi Kitamura: (02:01) thank you, all
Adam Peake: (02:01) thank you
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (02:01) thanks all, bye
Fiona Asonga(ASO): (02:01) Thanks
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC: (02:01) au revoir
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:01) bye
Sabine Meyer: (02:01) bye!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:01) Bye everyone !
jorge cancio: (02:01) thanks, bye