CCWG ACCT Meeting #14 (24 February)

---

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #14 24 FEB.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #14 24 FEB.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2h0wpdxdd4/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-24feb15-en.mp3

Notes

1. Statement of interest to be uploaded/updated - contact staff if help needed

2.  Activity report from Work Parties

WP 1 

- WP1 has developed a draft work plan, has agreed on working methods, is working with an aggressive deadline and plans to deliver WP output by March 11. 

- Volunteers are developing templates for each power and mechanism. Current gaps will be picked up. Editors will review content.

- Triggered and non triggered categorization has been applied to items in paper, resulting in an initial allocation between two Working parties. WP1 is awaiting WP2 feedback to allocate tasks.

- WP1 has structured mechanisms around powers and finds the accountability mechanism template challenging in some ways: some questions are more relevant to mechanisms and vice-versa. It envisions to produce recommendations on how to improve it. It was commented that questions would not have same relevance to both categorizations and will be reviewed and addressed as progress is made. 

- It was observed that a mechanism gives structure to power and there is need for a procedure and vehicle to support the power. Threshold (consensus/full consensus) also comes into play. 

- The recommendation is to commence with the analysis of powers and to attach them with mechanisms.

- The WP1 walked the CCWG through proposed Bylaws additions on amending ICANN Bylaws to incorporate AOC reviews. The text is merged with periodic structural reviews text that currently exists in Bylaws. Edits to the AoC review process were also suggested. Feedback to suggestions included: should Bylaws give a prescriptive headcount? Stakeholder Groups being subordinates to a structure, is it really necessary to include them? ; It is important to reflect diversity and balance; While support for selections made by SO/ACs, lack of diversity was flagged as a downside and an aspect that could be preserved through selectors; Specifics may change in the future. With the objective of stable Bylaws, consider high level principles that can be included in the Bylaws instead, along with a reference to an external document where specifics would be given. In this approach a very high threshold on ability to change that document would be added; A Bylaws categorization  was proposed: 1) fundamental and constitutional provisions (stable); 2 functional and operation (less stable); 3) rules relations to elections etc; consider more lengthy timelines.

- No decision will be made on the call. 

---

WP2

- WP2 has produced a revised scoping document to reflect changes and results of WP 1 work on triggered and non-triggered. Scoping documents for WP1 and WP2 are harmonized.

- Close coordination with WP 1 is needed.

- A work plan and working methods (based on WP1 modus operandi) has been circulated. Standards of work will be discussed. 

- WP2 plans to have a document available by face-to-face meeting (17 March tentatively)

---

ST-WP

- ST-WP wrapped up presentation of  stress test 18 (If GAC changes operating procedures from consensus to majority voting). A contributor suggested looking into the preliminary injunction (IRP) regarding delegation of Persian and noted absence of GAC advice and a group of GAC members invoking IRP. Objections were raised by another contributor i.e. outside CCWG mandate and references made to the South Africa communiqué.

ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline

- ST-WP walked the group through  stress test 17 (ICANN adds a new TLD in spite of SSR concerns). Feedback included: What is our definition of success within context of stress tests?; Stress tests are going to be measures of degrees -t say yes/no answers will be rare. 

- No decision will be made on the call. 

ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 

 

3. Legal Subteam Update

- Questions have been suggested and the Subteam is awaiting questions from WP1 and WP2.

- Robin is working on framing questions into a letter that can be delivered to law firm that will be selected. Background and context will be included.

- Call with final list of law firms will be held.  Update on final candidate that will be put forward for hiring by ICANN will be shared asap. 

- Questions are divided into 3 categories: 1) corporate governance; 2)jurisdictional matters; 3) protection of ICANN, antitrust and other law suits.

- Given concerns about ccTLD delegation and redelegations remedies (e.g. dispute resolution), feedback is needed.

- Feedback included: formulate questions to be list of powers and ask for mechanisms that can accomplish powers as opposed to putting mechanisms up; frame questions using how to trigger response (as opposed to yes/no); lawyers need to know what our requirements are so that can advise what empowerment can be implemented. In context of jurisdictional: global survey of jurisdiction can take ages and cost a fortune; changing jurisdiction will make transition impossible: the group needs to decide if these questions are for WS1; Keep jurisdictional issues open: are there any arbitration or international panel can go to for jurisdictional issues, is there a way to get step into resolution with something simpler to begin with; Jurisdiction might be too complicated, keep it simple (recall Board, Independent Appeals mechanism etc).  

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 

 

4. F2F meeting

- Confirmed for 23-24 March 2015 at Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center.

- Agenda will be circulated in time.

- Discussing May F2F meeting in coordination with CWG-stewardship leadership.

 

5. A.O.B 

The CCWG discussed removal of individual Board members with a note that architecture needs to be revisited if allowing for entire Board or individual Board. Feedback includes:

- Current Bylaws allow that Board can dismiss individual board members if CoI. Individual removal might lead to unhealthy environment, create a witch hunt. 

- Be careful to not penalize whole group if one group is concerned.

- Spilling of Board is a nuclear option and disruptive step. We are seeking incremental, implementable ways to challenge Board decision. The community does not have anybody that represents their interest. We need ability to override and challenge decision.

- Board members are appointed because they share a mindset – if not in line with mindset, should be able to remove this Board member.  There is also the case of NomCom appointed members: ability to remove them is needed.  Significant consensus among SO/ACs would be needed – the member would be removed for serious reasons. On the other hand, removal of entire Board is a whole set of issues (interim etc).

- A mechanism is needed for the three above: spilling entire board is not disruptive as long as there is a defined method; spilling an individual Board members is a SG/C decision, not a community decision to make. Recall mechanism within process defined for NomCom would take a lot more time. Vote of non-confidence on the Board or all the other need to be in WS1.

- Predictability and stability is important: recall of Board members will undermine predictability/stability. Consider reducing term and don't reelect.

- Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community).

- We should not allow community removal of one Board member in particular – must come from the concerned community.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline

ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen: (2/24/2015 11:33) Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability call #14! 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

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:55) Hello everyone

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (12:56) hi there im trying with the phone bridge with some difficulties

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (12:58) solved!

  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue): (12:59) Hi all!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:00) We will wait a few more minutes for other participants to join and start shortly

  Thomas Rickert: (13:01) Hi all, waiting to be allowed into the room!

  Chris LaHatte: (13:01) morning all

  Alice Jansen: (13:02) Please mute your lines if not speaking

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:02) Good evening everyone

  Suzanne Radell: (13:02) Hello everyone.

  Rudi Daniel: (13:02) good morning All..well it is afternoon here

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:03) Apols for lateness, good morning from 0400 in Fukuoka

  Alice Jansen: (13:03) This call is now being recorded

  Edward Morris: (13:03) Good morning Jordan

  jorge cancio: (13:03) good evening from Europe

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:04) good morning all 0400am in Tokyo too :)

  Becky Burr: (13:04) hello all

  Alan Greenberg: (13:04) Bad sound quality.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:05) Yep I am here

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:06) @Jordan: 4am?! You're my hero

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:07) You too, Izumi

  Alice Jansen: (13:07) You should have scroll control

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (13:09) audio from Jordan is low

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:09) Thank you Roelof, great work on filling in the template btw

  Alice Jansen: (13:09) WP1 draft documents are available here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents

  ARASTEH: (13:12) ALICE,

  Rudi Daniel: (13:12) audio is breaking up occasionally

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:13) I am on a very low bandwitth connection in this hotel

  ARASTEH: (13:13) GE I DID ASK THAT ALL WILKI LINKS AND ALL WORK PLS BE SENT TO ME AND IT WAS SO AGREED BUT I DID BNOT RECVD ANY THINFG

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:14) I find audio MUCH better via adobe connect than on bridge.

  ARASTEH: (13:14) 1. is the pace pof 23 24 meeting is fixed'

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (13:15) thanks Alan for the advice, will leave the bridge now

  Alice Jansen: (13:15) Hi Kavouss, we will have the wiki links sent to you.

  ARASTEH: (13:16) and the venue of 23-24 March pls

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:18) The venue was confirmed today via email -- Istanbul. Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference CenterSILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here)

  ARASTEH: (13:18) AS i am czurrently sick pls advice of the arrangements fior that meeting for me

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:18) Grace, I need to know about the May meeting, I am not sure I can make the March meeting

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:19) @Kavouss, can you confirm your attendance in person for the 23-24 March? If so, we will send your name to travel team and they will contact you for travel arrangements

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:19) I had the same question so thank you for asking Roelof

  ARASTEH: (13:20) place of the meeting

  ARASTEH: (13:20) IO CETAINLY COME

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:20) @Eberhard -- the location and dates of any future meetings have not been fully discussed/confirmed.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:21) we need to at least fix the time, I have to work for a living and have to arrange my absence.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:21) Thank you Kavouss, we will note your confirmation and please stay tuned for further information

  Alice Jansen: (13:22) please mute your line if not speaking.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:22) I see our job in the WP as being really clear about the powers given to the community and then trying to attach each of them either to an EXISTING mechanism, or to as FEW/SIMPLE as possible "new" mechanisms.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:24) Thank you Jordan for clarifying - this has made things more clear to me

  Edward Morris: (13:24) Totally agree with your perspective, Jordan.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:26) +1 Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (13:26) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:26) Roelof: I keep mispronouncing your name, I apologise

  Chris LaHatte: (13:26) +1 Jordan

  ARASTEH: (13:27) I CON FIRM MY ATTENDANCE

  ARASTEH: (13:27)  PLS INDICATE THE PLACE

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:28) The venue was confirmed today via email -- Istanbul. Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference CenterSILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:28) Kavouss: it is really difficult to understand the meeting when you keep interrupting with things that are not on the agenda yet... is it possible to help us all by sticking with the agenda?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:28) PS - I hope you feel better soon!

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:32) Great work, Steve cs!

  Keith Drazek: (13:33) I strongly support the concept of community structures taking on greater responsibility in establishing review teams and appointing represenatives or leaders accordingly.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (13:34) The key concern is balance.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:35) Agreed with both Keith and James.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (13:36) Agree with Alan

  Keith Drazek: (13:37) @Alan, we need to ensure our language gives necessary latitude for each SO/AC to ensure their own relavant participation.

  Keith Drazek: (13:37) so i agree with you

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (13:37) well by supporting RALO, we get at least some regional repreentation

  James Bladel-GNSO: (13:38) Generally I think the bylaws that are less prescriptive/specific, are those that more likely to be resiliant over time.

  Markus Kummer: (13:38) Diversity is important! It could be introduced into the by-lawas as an aspirational goal.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:39) Aspirations are fine, but if each group has ultimate control over who is named, you get what they give.

  Markus Kummer: (13:40) I support the suggestion of having high-level principles.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:40) agree

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:40) @Stevem no one is arguing against ACs and SOs. It is the addition of SG that changes things.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) Keeping it high level principles provides for some needed flexibility for the unforeseen.

  Keith Drazek: (13:41) High-level principles also provide wiggle room for future interpretation. That can be positive or negative.

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (13:41) Yep for example the GNSO has operating procedures and more and more of the detail has moved to that doc..  I think at-large is simlar in that respect.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (13:41) Exactly, Keith. 

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:42) I did talk about balance, but said I did support people eing explicitly named by their AC/SO.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (13:42) So, all, please provide your feedback on the templates for powers 1a, 1B, 1C and the two tier board construction. There're in the wiki

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:42) YOu hae to be as specific as necessary and as light as possible with bylaws

  Markus Kummer: (13:43) High-level principles need to be fleshed out in operational implementation rules that are more specific.

  Samantha Eisner: (13:43) To be clear, I was not arguing for or against the use of any terms that were in there now, but a more general comment on construction of bylaws and companion documents, moving  specificity  of numbers of people, etc (if that is seen as important) into documents that could also have to be subject to community input prior to changing. 

  Markus Kummer: (13:44) @Sam: +1

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:44) @Sam Agree.

  Keith Drazek: (13:45) Agreed

  Samantha Eisner: (13:45) Any selection of experts would likely need to be bounded by budget constraints

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:46) I note that Steve's question might sound like it is asking the CCWG to "Agree" this doc - that's not the case, he is just working through this content to share it and get you looking at the details. There will be more chances to look at this material. No decisions today.

  Samantha Eisner: (13:46) thanks for the clarification Jordan

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (13:46) thanks jordan for clarifying

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:46) Remember we don't make decisions in any single meeting

  Samantha Eisner: (13:47) There would clearly need to be considerations of non-disclosure agreements, etc., for access to documentation

  Alice Jansen: (13:49) WP2 documents available here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:50) fair use!

  Chris LaHatte: (13:51) apologies but have another call great ideas and work!

  Rudi Daniel: (13:52) apologies ..but have to leave the meeting @this point. will catch up via the transcript. thank you all.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:52) For both of us, I think we need to have very clear guidance about concrete deadlines for when content is required

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:52) but that will be part of the item for the face to face, right?

  Thomas Rickert: (13:54) We will make sure you get that information so we are all aligned.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:57) if we need a call between co-chairs and rapporteurs to iron it out, that would be useful to do soon :)

  Becky Burr: (13:58) agree with Jordan

  Thomas Rickert: (14:00) I agree also. We will reach out to you

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:00) This document will eventually need to be 3D so that we can evaluate what subset of recommendations is necessary to meet all the stress tests ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:03) :-) 

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:03) Sure, any accountability mechanism needs to deal with decisions as granular as the board might consider. we shouldn't get caught up in a particular sample.

  Keith Drazek: (14:04) I think Becky said it was members of the GAC getting together outside the GAC, not the GAC itself acting on .persiangulf. It was also just an example.

  Becky Burr: (14:04) sorry Kavoos I read the decision somewhat differently and  I happy to discuss.  I completely agree that there was NO GAC advice  on the string

  Becky Burr: (14:05) I only raised this because it is a unique use of the IRP

  Edward Morris: (14:05) Its important to note that all of these stress tests are preliminary and will see alteations throughout the pocess as other decisions (such as structures) are made.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:06) Right, Edward.   We have to run the stress tests against the package of proposed accountability enhancements once the CCWG reaches that point

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:06) Exactly @Edward  as was pointed out in kast weeks call

  ARASTEH: (14:06) THERE WAS GAC ADVICE ON . PERSIAN GULF PLS READ gaC COMMUNIQUE IN SOUZTH AFRIACA

  Becky Burr: (14:07) Apologies again for being imprecise.  You are correct - the GAC said it would have no objection

  ARASTEH: (14:07) I DO NOT WISH TJHAT ccwg get into the CAG ADVICE AT ALL

  ARASTEH: (14:08) I DO NOT KNOW WHY TJHIS WAS PICKED UP .

  ARASTEH: (14:08) our mandate is not to inrefere with the GAC ADIVCE AND INTERPRE THEM

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:09) @Kavouss, stress tests are illustrative examples. No one is pretending or even trying to go outside our Charter mandate

  ARASTEH: (14:09) IS IT IS TOTALLY OURTSIDE OURMAMDATE

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:09) @Kavouss I kindly ask you to continue this discussion off-list with Becky in order to clarify any doubts you may have

  ARASTEH: (14:10) I OBJECT THAT ANY< ISSUE RELATINFG TO SPECIFIC , GTLD APèPèEARS IN OUR RECORD

  ARASTEH: (14:10) it is unconstitutional

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:10) No, it isn't.

  ARASTEH: (14:11) , AFRICA, , AMAZON , PERSSIAN GUF DAT PSA .. AND ARE ZOTALLY OUITSIDE OF OUR DISCUSSION

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:11) @Jonathan => We can take that as a refinement to the recording of the ST outcomes  to indicate some sort of scale of RISK and likelyhood that current mitigation (and that in the end would include any proposed) in the lower section for "results"  Would that help?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:12) Then of course @Jonathan  I will be asking you to helo design that ;-)

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:12) I think I'm fundamentially talking about what it means to be "accountable" and I don't believe that means that nothing ever goes wrong but instead that board and staff are accountable to the community

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:12) @cheryl -- don't be too eager to propose that we develop numerical probabilities  or likelihoods.  THat is a fool's errand

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:13) Not talking numerical at all @Steve

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:13) I'm not proposing risk assessment. I'm talking about what accountability really is

  Keith Drazek: (14:13) Becky's reference was not about .persiangulf per se, it was more about that certain governments got together outside the GAC and elected to use the IRP. Her point was this is a new development that we might want to assess in light of our accountability discussions. It wasn't about the specifics of any particular TLD, rather the behavior around the move. It has nothing to do with our stress tests.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:13) I was looking at it froma RA  POV

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:13) okay, i'll circulate something on the list

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:14) excellent @ Jonathan ... Thanks

  ARASTEH: (14:14) Dear BECKY

  ARASTEH: (14:14) PLS KINF REFRAIN TO RAISE ANY QUESTION ABOUT . GTLD IN THE NAME OF ACCOUNTABILITY

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:15) agree. weighting isn't necessary

  ARASTEH: (14:15)  I ASK ALICE, GRACWE TO TASKE OUT WHAT WAS DISCISSED ON ANY SPECIFIC GTLD FROM THE RECOTFD OF THIS MEETING

  Edward Morris: (14:16) You don't censor meeting records.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:16) Kavouss: anything that ICANN does is appropriate subject matter for our stress testing. We HAVE to look at every situation. We aren't doing our job if we don;t. And I would like to raise my voice against "adjusting" minutes for convenience.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:16) if one group wants special treatment, other groups would want it.

  ARASTEH: (14:16) IT ISNOT SECORING THE RESCORD

  ARASTEH: (14:17) Dear all,

  Edward Morris: (14:17) I'm glad we agree that the chat discussion should not be altered and censotred.

  ARASTEH: (14:18) What I am saying is these gTLD WERE SENSITIVE, DELICAT AND WERE TREATED CASE BY CASE.

  ARASTEH: (14:18) qwE SHOULD AND COULD TALK ABOUT GEBNERAL ISSUE BUT NOT SPECIFIC

  Thomas Rickert: (14:19) Kavouss, can we please end the discussion of that point? You point has been well understood.

  ARASTEH: (14:19) THOMAS

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:20) we will need to trim these questions, wont we?

  ARASTEH: (14:21) I SAID , amazon and , afrixca,. and others includuinfg , persian gulf were discussed extensivelzy and there are GAC adviser

  Alice Jansen: (14:21) Legal subteam document available at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+Subteam+Draft+Documents

  ARASTEH: (14:21)  WE MUST AVOID TO GET INTO THESE DETAILS

  Becky Burr: (14:22) "what are the pros and cons of having ICANN based in California" is a very broad question - as opposed to what alternative?

  Samantha Eisner: (14:22) +1 to Jonathan

  Phil Buckingham: (14:22) Jonathan + 1

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:23) +1 Jonathan - we would get a very big bill from asking this list of questions as is, wouldn;t we?

  Becky Burr: (14:23) Do we want ICANN to be immune from lawsuits?  how does that serve accountability?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:24) no, we don't want that  ;)

  Becky Burr: (14:24) do we want ICANN to be immune from anti-trust law, does that serve accountability goals"

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:24) "best overall legal conditions" seems also very abroad.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:24) very broad*

  Sabine Meyer: (14:24) Also "best" by which standards was what I was wondering.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:25) Yup. that's my point

  Phil Buckingham: (14:26) is is not what are pros , but why  should CANN be moved from California 

  Edward Morris: (14:26) The broader (how can we accomplish x) and more specific ( can we do y) are not necesarily mutually exclusive.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:27) Edward, they aren't but at least in theory we shouldn't be wedded to any of the proposed mechanisms, only to the powers with which we want to embue the community

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (14:27) I agree, Thomas

  Keith Drazek: (14:28) I tend to agree with Thomas on the jurisdiction section.

  Markus Kummer: (14:28) @Thomas: +1

  Edward Morris: (14:29) Jonathan, I have no problems with your general approach but, assuming we are staying in California, I think it would be useful to have counsel advise as to the effect of the limited available mechanisms under CA law.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:29) Also +1

  ARASTEH: (14:31) Dear Becky

  ARASTEH: (14:31) J

  ARASTEH: (14:31) Here is the Gac advice of Persian Gulf in BdURBIN SOUTH AFRICA

  ARASTEH: (14:31) qUE

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:32) (sorry, no mic here) I don't quite agree with Thomas. Jurisdiction is an essential aspect of ICANN's accountability mechanism considerations. It needs to be taken into account by the CCWG. We may discuss whether this a short-term or long-term matter, but at some point, we need to deal with it.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (14:33) + 1 to Pedro´s comment

  Fiona Asonga (ASO): (14:33) Pedro I agree

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (14:34) I agree with Markus, see my "author's remarks" in the Supervisory board template

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:34) Markus, you sound like you're trying to write our final report ;)

  Thomas Rickert: (14:34) @Pedro: This is a good discussion. I did not try to suppress these questions, but I think we would not be well advised to get these questions answered in WS1.

  ARASTEH: (14:34) The GAC has finalized its consideration of the following strings

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:34) Good approach @Markus

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:34) good feedback for us to think about in WP1

  ARASTEH: (14:35)  and DOES NOT OBJECT TO THEM PROCEEDING .APPLICARTION NO. 1-2128-55439

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:36) :-)))))))-O

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (14:36) i think that if the indepednet appeals notion takes cross jurisdictional relaties into consideration, it can be sufficient.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (14:36) for may please be so kind to consider a different location not so far from latin america

  ARASTEH: (14:36) pèersian Gulf ,application nu. 1-2128 55439

  Edward Morris: (14:36) Totally disagree with Markus. It is essential we can recall individual board members and not the entie Boad to achieve tue accountability. I also  question the assumption that most govenments only allow for complete dumping; that certainly is not true in many municialities with whom I am familiar.

  ARASTEH: (14:36) GAC DID MNOT OBJECT TO THEIR PROCEEDING

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:36) How abiout NZ  @ Olga ;-)

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (14:37) @Cheryl NZ is good, it is only 13 hs with a transpolar flight

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:37) somewhere in Asia or the Americas would be helpful

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:37) for Maay

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:37) I reaise that

  Markus Kummer: (14:37) @Edward: happy to learn more about other models!

  Edward Morris: (14:37) @Markus. Me too!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:37) for this meeting, Leon: just sorting out the work needed and the angeda ASAP

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:38) and i urge you co-chairs to include the rapporterus in developing it, so we can make sure our WPs support it as well as possible

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:38) + 1 Pedro

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:39) well said @Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:39) im going to have to go folks

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:40) i don't tnk we should decide re one or all board spills today

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:40) i have an open mind on that question

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:40) Bye Jordan  Enjoy APRICOT sorry ti nit be there this time

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:40) sorry to miss you, Cheryl!

  Thomas Rickert: (14:41) We will not decide, Jordan, but it would be good to get a few more views.

  Edward Morris: (14:41) Under California law, CCC  §5222, if we go to a membership structure recall of individual Board members is a statutory requirement.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:42) You can do a ot of damage in 3 years though Markus  I support the ability for sending bodies to recall Board Members under exceptional circumstancws with high thresholds

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (14:42) Elected official looking over their shoulder seem to be a good thing to me.

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (14:43) i think we need both mechansims, but perhaps not both in Track 1.

  Keith Drazek: (14:43) If we include ICANN's organizational jurisdiction in WS1, the transition probably won't happen. Therefore, that discussion really should be considered WS2. On timing and substnace and politics, suggesting that ICANN move jurisdiction at this time is a poison pill that will ensure no transition, IMO.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:43) @Jordan @Cheryl we will reach out to Rapporteurs to help us shape the agenda

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:44) noted @Leon

  David McAuley: (14:44) Dismissing the entire board to address one board member’s conduct is an effective bar on taking action at all, seems to me.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:44) Agree David

  Phil Buckingham: (14:45) Keith +1  

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (14:46) Spending more time stopping him from saying it than getting it said.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:47) @Kavouss for the record I kindly ask you to keep in scope and end the point of discussion as it has been well addressed

  Markus Kummer: (14:47) There are mechanisms in place to dismiss individual boar mebers for individual misconduct!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (14:48) BY the Board  YES  but NIT by the sending bodies

  Markus Kummer: (14:49) @Steve: many goverments have this kind of mechamism in place and have a care-taker government taking care of day-to-day matters until a new government is in place!

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:52) @Marcus, what mechanism are in place to dismiss indiv board members, EXCEPT by the Board itself taking action.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:52) Sorry - MarKus.

  Markus Kummer: (14:53) @Alan: you are right - it is the Board that has the power to dismiss Board members!

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:53) One thing we do NOT want is the community removing an individual AC/SO member. That would allow targetted removal of some the REST of the community does not want.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:57) Need to run to DMPM WG call...thanks folks

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:57) Jurisdiction is a cross-cutting topic, which concerns not only ICANN per se but also the discussion about the an appeals pannel, etc. It needs therefore to be in our agenda.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:58) So Markus, you are beginning to see why it is not sufficient for us to wait 3 years to not re-elect a director

  Markus Kummer: (14:59) @Steve: OK, lets reduce the temrs of office!

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:00) @Markus, No, lets continue designing ways for the community to challenge board decisions.

  Fiona Asonga (ASO): (15:00) Guys thanks I have to go now

  Thomas Rickert: (15:00) Downside of reducing terms is that board member' term is up before they are up to speed

  Avri Doria  (atrt, participant): (15:00) They may not be acting in the way a consitutnecy understand the global public interest.

  Edward Morris: (15:01) @Bruce. I trust the community to not in such an irresponsible manner as in your example.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:01) But if the entire ICANN community seeks to remove a board memer, how can they claim to represent the "public interest"?

  Keith Drazek: (15:01) @Pedro, I agree with you (and Avri earlier) that jurisdictional questions about appeals and other accountability mechanisms are important and could be in WS1. My concern is over including ICANN's organizational jurisdiction in WS1...I believe doing so could undermine the likelihood of a successful and timely IANA transition.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (15:02) To Bruce's point   I agree that is why I said  Ind Board Member recall being for specific and particular issues  and with huigh threhlds of Community / Sending Body  support

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (15:02) Time check   have anothe meeting already starting  so need to go

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:02) + 1 Keith

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:02) Guess we lost our bridge!

  Keith Drazek: (15:03) I can still hear ok.

  David McAuley: (15:03) I,m still on bridge

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (15:04) bye

  Markus Kummer: (15:04) Thanks and bye

  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue): (15:04) THx!

  Edward Morris: (15:04) THanks Thomas.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:04) bye

  Sabine Meyer: (15:04) thanks everyone!

  jorge cancio GAC 2: (15:04) bye

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:04) thanks all!