Members:  Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (18)

Participants:  Alain Bidron, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Bob Takacs, Carrie Devorah, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Keith Drazek, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojediji, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Tony Holmes, Vrikson Acosta, Yasuichi Kitamura   (22)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Marika Konings

Apologies:  Alan Greenberg, Olga Calvalli, Thomas Rickert

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript CCWG ACCT #18 31 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #18 31 March.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest

2. Confirm conclusions from Istanbul

    • WP2 fundamental Bylaws
    • Jurisdiction approach
    • Legal Subteam working methods & input received
    • WP1 community mechanism
    • WP2 mission & core values, reconsideration process
    • ST-WP progress and planning

3. Timeline

    • Buenos Aires

4 Engagement 

5. AOB


These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript 

1. León Sánchez reminded the group that outstanding Statements of Interest need to be filed.

Legal Subteam Methods & Updates

León Sánchez reported that Adler & Colvin - Sidley & Austin were on the call and would speak to documents.  

Working methodologies were elaborated to coordinate work across firms/groups. León Sánchez noted that the legal sub team remains open. A call for agreement was made: does the CCWG feel comfortable with executives from legal subteam acting as liaison between firms and larger group? It was stressed that the subset of Subteam would have obligation to collect any concerns or questions from larger group and relay them to lawyers. It was commented that questions or concerns from group should be raised on main CCWG-ACCT mailing list.       


- All correspondence between lawyers and subgroup should be open and transparent. Agree that should not be entire team but anyone should be able to join the list on read-only model

--> This is what is in place. Anyone who wishes to join the legal subteam can join the list on read-only mode. Only executive Subteam members have posting rights.

- When posting concerns on main mailing-list, include header.

CONCLUSION: Working Methods are adopted - this issue is closed. 

Adler & Colvin

- Preliminary responses to 10 questions

Q1 relates to available legal mechanisms. We reviewed structures available to ICANN. Different models of governance. Likely will end up using membership or designators.  

    • Statutory members (entities or individuals) would elect directors and would be given bundle of rights (positions of directors can vary); 
    • Self-perpetuating Board may not be something you will use; 
    • Designators:  appoint seats but no constellation of membership rights, more a matter of drafting a structure;
    • Neither members nor designators have fiduciary duty unlike directors;
    • California law principles designates Board as ultimate authority; 
    • If members or designators are unhappy with Board performance, they can remove particular director or Board;
    • Possible to have an executive committee (highly engaged) of a larger group. The larger group would be entitled - in discharging duties -  to rely on smaller group i.e. the superBoard option. Certain authorities would have to be exerciced by full group. 

- This document will be reviewed in detail on Wednesday, 1 April during legal subteam call.

- Q2 Responsibilities and liabilities (fiduciary).

- Q3 Bottom-up process for decision-making (vs. top-down) - identifying issues we see in defining bottom-up group (more empowered): what decisions it will have, who is in the group etc.

- Q4 Ways to prevent ICANN from experiencing mission drift e.g requirements for amending bylaws or articles, designators to consent. 

- Q5 Fiduciary duties: what they are and who has them. How do you reconcile representing constituency and acting in public interest?

- Q6 Board bound to accept IRP decisions e.g. contract or super board structure.

- Q7 Attorney General: unlikely unless assets are misused.

- Q8 How incorporate of AoC into bylaws.

- Q9 Interim mechanisms for caretaker Board: California law is not designed to accommodate that but suggested mechanisms to take this on. A&C has reservations about spilling entire Board and advises that group reconsider.

- Q10 Suggested steps to manage litigations risks.

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on mailing list for anyone to join

Sidley & Austin 

- There seems to be overlap between questions asked to A&C and S&A. 

- CCWG has a lot of tools to accomplish what it needs – how to use them needs to be determined. Through expressed provisions in articles and bylaws, there are mechanisms you could use e.g. to influence Board composition, limit ability from Board to limit changes to Bylaws, decisions around budget etc. With respect to mission creep: bylaws and articles can be used to ensure purpose is met. 

- A jurisdictional review of every place in world where you could reincorporate is premature and would be an expensive endeavor. Any state in USA would work. California is a great place to focus and cannot think of other state that would be automatically more advantageous. Switzerland has a structure that include membership structure we can look into, if needed. 

- Antitrust: it is an issue you have to be mindful of but no significant concerns. 

WP2 Fundamental Bylaws

CONCLUSION:There would be provisions in bylaws where any change would require affirmative approval with specific procedure requirements from community. Scope of bylaws would include: core mission of ICANN, provision creating special bylaws, independent review panel and powers to change bylaws and spill board. 


- Considering high sensitivity of topic, CoChairs not comfortable using first reading to include it in the Istanbul statement.

- Call for agreement on Istanbul conclusions.We were not tasked to change jurisdictions of ICANN but to enhance its accountability. Question is whether ICANN's accountability would be enhanced depending on law applicable to its actions (legal input useful here). We concluded that 1) we would not be making specific recommendations regarding jurisdiction in WS1 ; 2) we would consider it in our scope as a topic when a requirement we set cannot be met or achieved within California jurisdiction ; 3) we would rephrase question as a problem statement we would use within WS2. 


- A change of jurisdiction is not appropriate for WS1 but an expectation has been set by ICANN CEO about importing the AoC obligation #8 (ICANN to remain in US jurisdiction). If bylaws ought to to be amended to incorporate AoC obligations including #8, that needs to happen through CCWG work.

--> Anything that would incorporate AoC might be redundant with existing mechanisms (Bylaws, articles). Legal group could look into this. 

- Is there something that we have identified that cannot be accomplished according to California law?

- This is unecessarily bringing negative political attention onto this work and transition. Is anyone driving this issue for it to be a must-be? Where are those questions originating 

--> There were questions raised whether California law would constrain accountability. No reasons to believe there is something that cannot be achieved outside California law. The question whether ICANN can remain accountable to global community if remains in California is being brought up. 

--> Jurisdiction question are being assigned to lawyers and expecting answers shortly. Included initial questions in legal scoping document as well as adding input from Jorge Cancio on whether there are provisions on jurisdiction issues. 

--> Input from Pedro (Brazil), Arun

--> Jurisdiction is #1 question within French Business constituency and civil society.

-  Jurisdictional question is not necessarily centered around where the corporation is based, rather legal questions governments may have for which they could not come to US court. They are looking for method of raising legal issues that are not necessarily restricted to US courts but rather involving international arbitration decision-making that is adequate at government level. T ere is no appropriate mechanism for governments, international bodies to bring actions, questions, issue before appropriate court of judgement. We are conflating these two issues. Moving ICANN is not a WS1 issue but addressing questions of appropriate mechanism for others to get jurisdictional response is perhaps a question that needs to be tackled. 

--> Let's focus on facts and requirements instead of second-guessing political implications.   

--> Sovereignty concerns from governments when dealing with national courts 

--> Who are the people that can approach the US court? Question of which legal jurisdictions provide for ideal balance has not been answered by Sidley & Austin  - answer needed. 

- It remains to be discussed within WS1 whether AoC article 8 will be incorporated into Bylaws

CONCLUSION: Discussion whether to incorporate article 8 from AoC still generates questions. Still in agreement that our goal is to enhance ICANN's accountability and therefore the topic of jurisdiction comes into scope when a requirement we have for accountability cannot be achieved within California jurisdiction. Based on potential requirements that could not be achieved in WS1, the jurisdiction issue might be pursued within WS2.

ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub team):

  • What extra accountability would be brought to community if AoC article 8 was incorporated;
  • Balance of jurisdiction need to further explored. 

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to specifically review notes on jurisdiction.  


Community Mechanism

- WP1 meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 1 April 21:00 UTC – quick drafting will be done to tighten up options that were discussed in Istanbul in regards to community mechanisms and see if can come to understanding to debate with lawyers and CCWG. 

- CONCLUSION: there was agreement that voting would be involved and transparency would be needed. Except for Board recall, votes would not be directed by SO/ACs. SO/ACs would be the basis for determining who has vote. For all powers, there was a common ground that there is no specific cause for a decision to be made. 

AoC reviews 

- Migrating 4 reviews into Bylaws with suggested improvements.

- Discussion point on ways to appoint members of Review Team (intention that community selects representatives but comments about diversity balance). 

- CONCLUSION: Increased transparency features (access to documents, annual report on accountability & transparency), potential for incorporating new reviews, when necessary

WP2 mission & Core Values 

-  A revised document was circulated to reflect input from Istanbul (substance and format). 

- We will circulate a revised draft which compares existing Bylaws with proposed changes and incorporates input.  

ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement later this week.

WP2 Independent Review

No further discussion on this item. 

CONCLUSION: IRP will be part of WS1. It is meant for ICANN to be accountable to all stakeholders with provisions against frivolous claims.There were a number of items to look at how how binding it could be, subject to legal advice. 

W2 Reconsideration Process 

- Issue of standing: there was a thought to amend who has proper standing to file reconsideration request i.e. widen its scope and include any party that is impacted by ICANN's decision or inaction. 

- Standard of review: Amend standard to include reexamination of underline merits of arguments/decisions and broaden type of decisions that can be reexamined; amend when Board Governance Committee may dismiss a request; clarify that a frivolous claim amounts to a cost that would extraordinary in nature; word changes (actual to notice etc); 

- Composition: Less reliance on legal department to guide Board Governance Committee on its recommendations and recommend more Board members engagement early on in decision amend rules so that Board governance committee cannot make final decisions without fuller Board briefing and discussion of issues; call for more transparency in decision-making process. 

- Precedential value: Ability to challenge precedential value of previous decisions without reopening old cases.  

- Accessibility: Extending time deadline for filing reconsideration request to 60 days from when requestor learns decision. 

- Implementation: Follow-up process regarding implementation of the decision. 

- Process concerns: Briefing materials sent to Board should be provided, subject to confidentiality; final decisions should be issued sooner; criteria for urgent requests should be broadened.  


What is the interaction between IRP and reconsideration request? Do we need to articulate how it connects?

--> In order to get IRP, reconsideration request would need to be filed. We should spell this out,

--> It depends on what the substantive work of the independent review, what standards of evaluation is (exhaustion of remedies). Clarification needed.  

- Are we broadening scope to go beyond (new information, facts) - would this tie into violation of Bylaws standard or other standard?

--> Standards (put in Bylaws) would be standards against which reconsideration requests could be measured to see if Bylaws were actually followed. Reconsideration request avenue would be available to rectify situation. 

- Potential paradox between extending timeline for filing and timely issuance of decisions.

ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for reconsideration 

- Call for agreement on whether this is WS1

CONCLUSION: Reconsideration process is WS1.


- Informal meeting held in Istanbul to discuss #21 (delegation/redelegation).

- Minor edits were incorporated since Istanbul. Weekly stress test meetings will start again next week. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate ST-WP call invites.

- Edits added to # 21, added new stress.

- Veto (supermajority) is distinct from from IRP and reconsideration. 

- CWG raised stress testing comments - Cheryl and Avri served as liaison between CWG and CCWG on this and will work with leads on RfP 4. CWG took on board some of our stress tests to test against some of their proposals. 


- Target date for finalizing recommendations is April 20.

- Need to provision for 2 public comment periods.

- ccNSO Council has confirmed that endorsement of proposals would require a face-to-face ccNSO meeting so that all members could attend and discuss. 

- Berry Cobb walked the group through timeline update - 


- Public comments before SO/AC endorsements.

- Public comments could not amend outcome unless go back to SO/ACs.

- What is standard length of public comment period? When should be deadline to publish prior to meeting? What if one of COs want changes to document delivered on October 1: how will we deal with that and what will consequences be? 

-> Objective is to get input from SO/ACs at each public comment phase. 

-> 40 days by default but shortened subject to approval by 2 global leaders. Given aggressive timeline, attempting 30 days subject to change. 

- Issuing new document between comment period and Buenos Aires is not a good idea. Suggestion: have the public comment period in April/May analyzed to prepare for discussions in Buenos Aires and prepare next draft using input received. Prepare a document in between is not practical. Depending on nature of feedback, we will be able to prepare second draft with little effort or will need F2F to re-engineer. How can CWG finalize its proposal without finalized accountability proposal? 

- Set aside face-to-Face meeting right before Buenos Aires to analyze comments received and finalize after Buenos Aires.

- Need to be aware there is a significant difference between expectations set on group by some of SO/ACs, Board etc. 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG, Board, ICG and COs (transparency) on expected timeline and engage with relevant stakeholders

- CoChairs will touch on expected timeline when coordinate with CWG Cochairs. 

- Considering organizing CCWG meeting on 19 June - will liaise with ICG (conflicts with meeting)

ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs 


ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing list (in interest of time).


ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.

Action Items

  • ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on mailing list for anyone to join
  • ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub team):
  • ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to specifically review notes on jurisdiction. 
  • ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement later this week.
  • ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for reconsideration 
  • ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG, Board, ICG and COs (transparency) on expected timeline and engage with relevant stakeholders
  • ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs
  • ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing list (in interest of time).
  • ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Alice Jansen: (3/30/2015 13:29) Welcome to the CCWG-ACCT call #18! Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:

  Vrikson Acosta: (3/31/2015 00:42) Good night Brebda :)

  Brenda Brewer: (00:43) Hello Vrikson! 

  Adam Peake: (00:52) Hello :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (00:54) Hello everyone

  Sabine Meyer: (00:57) hi everyone!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (00:57) Hello @Sabine!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:57) Hello everyone !

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (00:58) Good Morning everyone!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:58) Good night!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:59) hello all!

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (00:59) Hello everyone

  Jordan Carter: (01:00) Hell-o

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (01:00) hello all

  Jordan Carter: (01:01) Leon, can you hear us? We can hear you

  Keith Drazek: (01:02) Hello everyone

  Holly Gregory: (01:02) good morning all

  Rosemary Fei: (01:03) Emily Chan is on the line with me

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:03) and as I am for once AT my desk  I get to select colour and change my log in details :-)

  Sabine Meyer: (01:03) and here I thought I could pick purple...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:03) You can :-)

  Sabine Meyer: (01:03) yay!

  Jordan Carter: (01:04) Woah what is that noise?

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:04) unusual noise

  Jordan Carter: (01:04) It sounds like someone is in a helicopter

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:04) Cannot hear.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:04) Bizarre noise?

  Keith Drazek: (01:04) Sounds like a locust swarm. Possibly an alien locust swarm.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:04) there is a funny noice, I cannot hear

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (01:04) strange noise

  Keith Drazek: (01:04) Everyone please mute phones and computers.

  Jordan Carter: (01:05) oh thank god, there we are

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:05) ahhh  better

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:05) all good now

  Sabine Meyer: (01:06) just FYI - it doesn't seem like Dr. Lisse has made it to his desk yet. I would guess that he would be interested in this agenda item.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:07) Ohhh DEAR`!

  Jordan Carter: (01:07) Oh seriously?

  Brenda Brewer: (01:07) apologies, we are trying to identify the static

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:07) that is *some static* @Brenda !

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:08) hello, good morning... on the Sidley response I would like to comment that the part on competition seems to adress more the CCWG itself, instead of the envisioned ICANN structures - is this ok?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:08) so just made it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:08) Ahh good timing @Eberhardt

  Keith Drazek: (01:08) Welcome Eberhard, glad you are here.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:09) traffic was quite unreasonable

  Jordan Carter: (01:09) I have a confession: because the subject lines for the emails with the Sidley and Adler responses were ialmost identical, I didn't notice they were different

  Jordan Carter: (01:09) so haven't read the Sidley memo

  Jordan Carter: (01:09) apologies

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:10) I want a debate please

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:10) No Objections for the use of the subset group as Liaisons

  Keith Drazek: (01:10) I fully support the liaison role of the legal sub-team.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:10) calling for a agreement without discussion is not acceptable

  Jordan Carter: (01:11) I am happy with this as long as the legal sub-team has an obligation to be quite open, to note questions asked and to summarise those and share them with the CCWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:12) I beleive this *is* onlky re Instructions to act,  the cirrespondence and list activity IS open

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:12) Taht is exactly as proposede

  Keith Drazek: (01:12) In the interest of time and efficiency, I believe a coordinating function is desirable if not necessary. Agree that everything should be open and transparent.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:13) Agree Keith

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:13) +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:13) Ahree Kieth  That was what was discussed in Istanbul and proposed in second reading here today

  Keith Drazek: (01:13) Exactly. Thanks CLO and Jonathan.

  Avri Doria: (01:14) abstained from voicing an opinion of the setup.

  Jordan Carter: (01:15) If we jsut preface legal question emails with "Legal Question:" or something, it might make it easier

  Jordan Carter: (01:16) obviously not compulsory :-)

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:16) Cheryl, as I wrote tot he list, I missed that in IST and to be honest, haven't seen this exact proposal on the lists. But no harm done.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:16) Good idea @Jordon

  Jordan Carter: (01:17) JordAn ;-)

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:17) Though Nobody will ever do that, nobody on this list even has the discipline to mute even one has serious coughting fits.

  Avri Doria: (01:17) i assume we are allowed to address them diectly in this meeting.  or do wee need to hold any comments until we can send them through the 'liaison' committee.

  Jordan Carter: (01:17) I assume same as Avri, that this is a q&a

  Sébastien (ALAC): (01:18) When and with witch tittle this document was send?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:18) Avri,  addressing in meeting is something different from engaging them, ie instructing them to do work.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:18) That is *my* assumption as well

  Jordan Carter: (01:18) Sebastian: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Response to Legal Sub-Team questions

  Jordan Carter: (01:18) sent at 0519UTC on 30 March

  Avri Doria: (01:18) just maiking sure, in this rule bound situation.

  Jordan Carter: (01:19) Sebastien: apologies for spelling your name wrong

  Keith Drazek: (01:19) In the interest of time and efficiency, we should use this opportunity to pose clarifying questions, but recognize that the answers may require time for an informed response.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:19) I *REALLY* hate going back to Membership    GRRRR  just warning you all

  Jordan Carter: (01:19) I have a view that I don't have enough information yet to have a view. So I am listening with interest

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:20) entity representation  ok  Members needs a LOT more work  especially in the desiogn detailed now  f that happens I *may* be pacified

  Jordan Carter: (01:20) I did have a sense, reading this memo, that some aspects of the status quo (e.g. how directors are elected today) hadn't quite been taken into account

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:20) EXACTLY   @Jordon   

  Jordan Carter: (01:21) If you call me Jordon again I will start calling you Sheryl ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:21) our voting for Board  history and current activitiers  is "kinda important' I'd have nievly thought

  Keith Drazek: (01:21) Let's keep an open mind about the best (simple/effective) structure that gives the community the powers we need. There's a lot of detail and nuance yet to be addressed.

  Greg Shatan: (01:21) Designators is essentially the status quo, I believe.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:22) Typos @JordAn  but call me as you will ;-)

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:22) @Jordan, I agree with your sense

  Jordan Carter: (01:22) Designators without any legal entity?

  Chris LaHatte: (01:22) There must some historical information from 1998 when first set up which sheds some light on all of this, and I hope they have read that

  Greg Shatan: (01:23) this is just a general review.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:23) BLOODY  well hoope so @ Chris!!!!

  Jordan Carter: (01:23) Adler have said they have reading to catch up on, so that's OK and I think that's what we should expect given when they were engaged

  Jordan Carter: (01:23) and it's nice and useful to have a perspective that **isn't** informed by all the history, too.

  Keith Drazek: (01:23) 1 Jordan

  Chris LaHatte: (01:23) I did wonder when they diverted into membership

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:23) WTF!

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:23) Agreed, Jordan.  Happy to do anything that I can do to help point to relevant background material

  Jordan Carter: (01:23) only as a starting point tho ;)

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:24) Agree, @ Jordan – and this outline of possibilities is useful, IMO

  Keith Drazek: (01:24) @Chris: I  don't think it was a's a reading of California not-for-profit corporate law in the context of what the community is seeking.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:25) with what specific context to our past and present operations @Kieth?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:25) Let's stop playing lawyer and listen to the lawyers guys

  Stephanie Petit: (01:25) I agree that the current structure is very important.  I think at this point Rosemary is presenting various options of  what the law permits.   We are still doing some catchup, but hope to have that completed soon.  Thank you for your patience.

  Greg Shatan: (01:26) members has been on the table for discussion.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:26) I am  this is me keeping calm @ Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:26) We know  @Greg

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:27) wasn't there someone trying to put a question?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:27) Thanks @Jordan. We are taking notes on the questions and will formally assign them to the lawyers

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:28) @Jorge I have taken note of the question you raised in the list and will be assigning it formally to the lawyers

  Jordan Carter: (01:28) It's important context to note that in some domains (about the corporation per se) the community will have more powers. In other ways (e.g. in the making of the consensus policies that ICANN the corporation basically exists to support), it is about protecting the current powers

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:28) a question which arises from the paper is that the more power you give to actors different to the board, the more it is likely that they become liable in some fashion - this should be further investigated

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:29) @Jorge point taken and noted

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:29) Good point Jorge and I believe there are plans to examine liabilities

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:29) thanks @Leon - I guess you'll take also the one on members' liability and the one on common practice in bylaws on treating jurisdiction issues... gracias!!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:30) Both questions noted @Jorge :-)

  Jordan Carter: (01:30) I think they cover member liability OK from memory? What any structure like this would need to ensure is that the other actors don't end up being deemed directors and subject to those fiduciary responsibilities - but careful structuring can work around this I would expect/hope

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:31) Agreed

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:31) Finally, and apologies for being so lawyerish (which I am in the end), it seems in both papers (Sidley and Adler) that there would be some difficulties in finding solutions for independent and binding appeals panels - I guess this will need to be explored in depth

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:32) The difficulty of spilling the board points to why we must design a way to give explicit powers to the community

  Vrikson Acosta: (01:32) At what time is tomorrow's legal subteam meeting?

  Jordan Carter: (01:32) It also firmly puts individual board member removal back on the table, @Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:33) Agreed @Jorge  this certainly neeeds more discussion/work

  Sabine Meyer: (01:33) the meeting is from 15:00 to 16:00 UTC, IIRC.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:33) ZI assune ot has to @Jordasn

  Keith Drazek: (01:33) Spilling the board should be the last resort in an escalating package of accountability mechanisms. It's not the *only* accountability mechanism, obviously...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:33) (sorry @Jordan  more typos that even I average usually

  Jordan Carter: (01:33) Here's a question: when do you legal beagles need written feedback or other feedback on these memos?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:34) Now! The sooner the better @Jordan!

  Jordan Carter: (01:34) Well I will read it before I give comments on it (this time) :)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:34) LOL

  Jordan Carter: (01:35) it was a good ~40 pages to read, so it takes a read or two.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:35) I agree

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:36) I still need to do a second read to grasp all details

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:36) So we'll write in that the provision that ccNOS policy is only made by ccNSO as "golden".

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:36) @Leon : are you allowed to assk questions without a 2nd reading ? As a lawyer I mean... ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:36) :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:37) LOL @Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:38) That is usefuk information re US States and at least 1 external choice

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:38) Thanks Rosemary and Holly

  Avri Doria: (01:39) ok, so i assumed wrong.  good thing i do not have a questions, otherwise i would be mighty frustrated.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:39) Why are we doing this call if we can't ask questions?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:39) Yes thank you, we have much to discuss...

  Jordan Carter: (01:39) 4-5am tomorrow if Sam is right re timing - i will apologise now

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:39) @Eberhard we can't do questions because of the time and our packed agenda

  Becky Burr: (01:39) apologies for being late and hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:40) Hi @Becky

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:40) I don't really want to have this meta-discussion with the external  lawyers present, but this is SHAOUTING for me to object..

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:40) @Eberhard please do submit your questions to the list or join us in the call on Wednesday ir you are able

  Keith Drazek: (01:40) Very helpful, thanks very much to Rosemary and Holly.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:40) thanks to the lawyers

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:40) yes, great introduction. 

  Holly Gregory: (01:40) it's a pleasure Keith, Jordan, Robin etc

  Keith Drazek: (01:41) If anyone has immediate questions, perhaps they can be typed into chat and captured for inclusion in follow-up questions?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:41) That is besides the point, I really do not have the time to listen to this for two hours and then be told "go and read the paper and ask later". Then we do not need these calls.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:41) Yes @Keith

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:41) I think in general, we should only agenda items if we agenda them with enough time to discuss them

  Keith Drazek: (01:41) Eberhard, do you have a specific or particular question for the lawyers?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:42) unless it's clearly flagged in advance that we are just doing the item as an "update/briefing" item

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:42) I do not accept that voicing of content is sunject to deadlines and available time.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:42) @Eberhard  perhaps the co-chairs would agree to have taff capture any specific questions here in caht and use them as Q with 'notice' ??

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:42) I do object against this.

  Keith Drazek: (01:42) I agree with Jordan, but I also welcome the briefing.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:42) If we continue to consider Membership options, would that also be included in Golden Bylaws?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:43) SO much to now contemplate (re)contemplate  @James  yes

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:43) Please take into account GAC input to CCWG on basis set of principles

  Holly Gregory: (01:44) you could: 2 distinct options that may be used in combination

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:44) GAC input --- was that to the CCWG? Or to the CWG?

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:44) •      ICANN should operate in accordance with a set of basic principles, providing inter alia for: o        A concise description of its limited mandate and a clear commitment to operate within it.o Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.o A guarantee of its multistakeholder nature, as a not-for-profit organisation with stakeholder communities worldwide, including with representation from developed and developing countries, contributing to a transparent, bottom-up policy development processes, duly taking into account the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy issues.o         Principles of checks and balances, strengthened rules on conflicts of interests, good governance and with clearly implementable, transparent, efficient and verifiable accountability mechanisms. Consistent with these principles, ICANN should have policies that are predictable, transparent, necessary and sufficient, and should institute effective compli

  Holly Gregory: (01:44) James, that was for you

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:44) Yes, that is what we agreed, Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:45) Keith's hand is up

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:47) Agree with you @Kieth

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (01:47) @Mathieu, enhancing accountability not just as a consequence of the laws applicable - which naturally changes with jurisdiction --  but also the rights and responsibilities for constituencies. Is accountability being enhanced or limited because change in jurisdiction broadens or confines the community

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:47) On jurisdiction I'd like to remind that there is a question which as I understand will be posed to our legal advisors on common practice regarding provisions included usually, if any, on jurisdiction issues in Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation (and the current situation in the case of ICANN)?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:47) I can confirm that Congress heard what Fadi said and asked questions indicating they understood he was promising ICANN would retain headquarters/presence in US

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:47) @Jorge it will be assigned to the lawyers

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:48) I personally see a big division between the practicalities of  jurisdiction and the symbolism/politics of this issue

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:48) Agree with Keith on jurisdiction.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:48) @Steve your words are "exact"  yes??

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:48) Agree with Keith and Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (01:48) Perhaps we should refer to "Headquarters" and "Jurisdiction" as two separate issues.

  Holly Gregory: (01:49) good point Keith

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:49) Indeed they are @Kieth thus my question to clarify with @Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:49) This is the line from AoC, section 8: remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:49) Yes, there are two points we seem to conflate as one

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:49) @Mathieu, The Bylaws do not currently contain a requirement that ICANN remain a US-based company

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:49) AOC point 8 is the issue @Sam

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:50) Right, AoC item 8 says: remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:50) And as others have pointed out, it is meaningless to put it in the bylaws, as a general commitment - it would have instead to be an enforceable prohibition on the board changing the location of the head office

  Keith Drazek: (01:50) Yes, thanks Steve, that's the point I was trying to make.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:50) Exactly @Becky

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:50) @Cheryl, yes.  Mathieu asked if it was already in the Bylaws

  Holly Gregory: (01:50) that is correct.  you can accomplish your objectives under the CA law

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (01:50) @Samantha doesn't article XVIII section 1 talks about that?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:50) Practically speaking, the California law looks like it can do everything we need

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:50) One thing seems clear from legal advice so far, i.e. Cal. law is quite flexible

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:51) Exactly

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:51) the political point is, how can we square what the CEO has pledged and what Congress expects, with what can be agreed in a way the community and other governments can live with

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:51) nd actually @Sam that is the reasoin for a careful and well considered work allocations to WS1 :2

  Holly Gregory: (01:51) David, yes.  the law isvery flexible.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (01:52) +James!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:52) Be very happy ti have it WS2 but that is a personal not polled AP view

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:52) +1 Mathieu

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:52) @Leon, it clearly states that ICANN is headquartered in the U.S. but likely does not comprise a commitment that ICANN will remain as such

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:52) I don't think anyone disagrees considering this in substance is WS2. The question is what we commit to or write down in WS1 given what the CEO has promised.

  Keith Drazek: (01:53) The key question is, IF we're going to import AoC obligation #8 into the bylaws, as Fadi told Congress he expected would happen, isn't that a WS1 issue for the CCWG to address? Any future *change* of headquarters shold be WS1, but the importation of AoC #8 into the bylaws must be a WS1 issue, no?

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:54) Sorry...I forgot which Chair was speaking> :(

  Keith Drazek: (01:54) sorry, any future change of headquarters would be WS2

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (01:54) +1 mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:54) I agree WS2

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:54) 2am here, apologies to Leon & Matthieu

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:54) I do not believe that this political question is one that the lawyers have any relevance in answering - the issue is as Keith says

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:54) @Samantha, thank you for this clarification, very useful

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:55) If we just want to preserve status quo of AoC and jurisdiction, does that support Fadi's promise to bring AoC into the bylaws now?

  jorge cancio GAC: (01:55) Just for clarification: my question on common practice was a follow-up from debates on the mailing list between different members on this issue

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:55) 'Welcome to feeling like an antipodean @James

  Chris LaHatte: (01:56) +1keithand Jordan

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:56) I am having a hard stopp in 4 minutes, though I will be able to keep Adobe running.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:57) Please note my formal objections to the interaction witht the two law firms by email to the main list.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:57) I thought it was Symbolism as the major driver here

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:57) Right, Avri.  AoC section 8 is just about preserving headquarters and thereby maintaining a US legal presence -- and having legal presence in many other nations, too

  Chris LaHatte: (01:58) sound is erratic

  Keith Drazek: (01:58) +1 Avri....Jurisdiction and Headquarters are 2 separate issues. As we read the AoC #8 language, we're really talking about Headquarters needing to remain in the US. Jurisdiction is a much broader and nuanced question. Headquarters needs to be addressed in WS1 and jurisdiction can be addressed in WS2.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:58) (on the part of people raising this - not on the part of what is actually in the AOC language)

  Holly Gregory: (01:58) a ride, very helpful perspective

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:58) What's wrong with the HQ stuff in the bylaws now?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (01:58) ARTICLE XVIII: OFFICES AND SEALSection 1. OFFICESThe principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (01:58) Agree @Avri ( and well said)

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:58) I think 3 issues: (1) HQ, (2) Jurisdiction/Domicile (3)governing law for contracts.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (01:59) But not a lawyer...

  Holly Gregory: (01:59) that was meant to be "Avri, a very helpful perspective"

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:59) Avri's approach makes sense to me

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (01:59) @Jordan -- as sam said, the present byalws make no promise to maintain headquarters in US.  So the board alone could vote to change that bylaw

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:00) we could entrench it as a golden section Steve, I suppose.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:00) Arun, if you're using Chrome, check out the title bar and enable audio

  Avri Doria: (02:00) Holly, thanks.

  jorge villa (ASO): (02:01) of course Athina. Avri is creating a good shortcut in an endless discussion

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (02:01) The issue of jusrisdiction is very important and agree with Avri regarding  the need for appropriate mechanisms for governments and international bodies

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:01) @Jordan -- possibly.  Alternative is to give community power to block a bylaws change.   Belts and suspenders, as they say

  Brenda Brewer: (02:02) Arun Sukumar is being dialed out to.  Should be with us soon by phone.

  Brenda Brewer: (02:03) yes

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:03) yes

  Avri Doria: (02:04) Mathieu =, i do not think we can avoid considering the political elements of the accountabity in this international exerrcise.

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:06) purely for practical reaons I too think it would not be an ideal WS1 item, but how will this issue be flagged ,and not be swept under the carpet post-transition

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:07) @Mathieu - fully agree

  Keith Drazek: (02:08) @Arun: Fadi's testimony is relevant because he told Senators he expected the AoC obligations, including specifically #8 related to Headquarters, to be incorporated  into the bylaws. If they are not incorporated, it becomes a reason for opponents to object to the transition and to blow it up.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (02:08) It is clear, Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:08) I think it is clear

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (02:08) No objection

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:08) Agree. Fadi had no authority to make that claim but that no longer matters

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (02:09) Thank you. It is clear

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:09) Clear to me too Matthieu

  Keith Drazek: (02:09) Thanks Mathieu, it's clear.

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:09) @keith - agree. it is a political concern that flows out of the legal fact that ICANN is based in California., right? I'm flagging it, that's all

  James Bladel - GNSO: (02:09) +1 Keith.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:09) Notes need to be super clear. Could we ask ICANN exectuives to not interfere any further in this multistakeholder process?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:09) ICANN is in CA today, but much of our public discussion is about moving ICANN at some point. Plus we have Fadi's promise to US Senate. That summarizes the poltical pressure

  James Bladel - GNSO: (02:09) Arun:  The concerns is that Congress could potentially delay or terminate that IANA transition over this issue.

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:11) @james - true, how can we ensure a sincere discussion under WS2 is the question.  After the transition, what incentives do US stakeholders have to engage this issue seriously

  Keith Drazek: (02:12) On the HQ/Jurisdiction issue, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact we're developing accountability mechanisms that are based in California law. We need to have confidence in the near term that our accountability mechnanisms will work in a predicable manner.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:14) The critical call we will have to make as a CCWG is what mechanism to recommend, or what mechanisms to show as options

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:15) I sent the new draft to WP1.  So many of you have not seen the doc Mathieu is talking about

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:16) Steve actually recirculated it on the full list about 14hrs ago

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:17) I think the summary you have mentioned is strong

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:17) increased transparency and the ability to incorporate new reviews when necessary

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:17) thank you

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:18) @Jordan - on the supervisory board option, the  Adler Colvin note suggests this is possible. I'm not entirely sure of this, based on a very cursory understanding of California law. Can we perhaps ask the lawyers if this has been put in practice under calif not-for-profit law before?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (02:20) @Arun we will ask the question in our call on Wednesday

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:20) thanks leon

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:21) Arun: I think they are two very different concepts

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:21) Worth asking the question tho.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:22) Their giant board/executive committee model doesn't seem at all the same as the supervisory board model

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi) 2: (02:23) hmmm true

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:23) I'm assuming they will comment on our mechanisms in WP1 once they get to that part of the readnig

  Edward Morris: (02:25) This is excellent work Robin! For all our attention to other areas, it is likely that the Recon process will be the most used accountability vehicle of all.

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:27) Thanks Robin,lot of good ideas

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:27) Fab work Robin and WP2

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:28) I tthink we need to state in IRP that a claimant first tried recon

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (02:28) So reconsideration would be a previous step in the escalation path for IRP right?

  Samantha Eisner 2: (02:28) Is there something between a 15 day and 60 day window for filing that could be used to provide a bit of finality to decisions, particularly those that people choose not to challenge?

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:29) Becky's point is good - RR and IRP need to fit together sensibly

  Samantha Eisner 2: (02:30) I also note a bit of a conflict between extending the timeframe for filing and then issuance of a final decision sooner, particularly when the BGC is removed from teh ability to make final decisions of a subset of reconsideration requests - that may need to be considered more

  Edward Morris: (02:34) Let's not forget the CEP as well as a step between Recon and an IRP.

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:34) Good point Edward

  Adam Peake: (02:35) the latest version of the Applying Stress Tests document (on screen) is on the wiki

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:40) Cannot forget the CEP.  There are serious due process considerations with the CEP.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:42) Agree, Robin.   CEP improvements should be part of our IRP proposal, right?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:43) Right, it is an introductory step to the IRP.

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:43) IMO we should come up with holistic review processes that fit together from ombudsman, to recon, to CEP to IRP

  Edward Morris: (02:43) Agreed David

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:43) We agreed we would finalise our work by 20 April. How can consultation open on 21 April given the need for translation etc?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:45) Since CCWG is chartered by AC/SOs, it needs to allow each AC/SO to review BEFORE publishing for public comment.  THat's a key distinction between CCWG and CSG -- which was not chartered by the community.  Do I have that right?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:46) Woah, that's a process step I have never heard of befire, Steve

  Avri Doria: (02:46) i tink the CWG is community chartered as well.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:46) @Steve : not my understanding

  Avri Doria: (02:46) i think the requriements for public comment, before or after, is up to the various SOAC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (02:47) Sound??

  Avri Doria: (02:47) each will follow its own processes.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:47) I've lost the audio - did I break it?

  Berry Cobb: (02:47) my line dropped

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (02:47) los audio

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:47) speaker gone

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:47) It's JordOn's fault

  Berry Cobb: (02:47) dialing back  in.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:47) yes

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:47) yes

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:47) I hear you

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (02:47) we do hear you Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:47) Come come, Jonathon - I didn't think I did anything

  Rosemary Fei: (02:47) I can hear you

  Keith Drazek: (02:47) Yes we can hear  you Mathieu

  Berry Cobb: (02:48) still waiting......

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:48) I do not see how we can possibly ask for chartering organisation approavl to consult

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:48) I got the impression from the ccNSO letter that ccNSO had to review before we published for public comment.    Maybe I misread that

  Berry Cobb: (02:49) back.....

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:49) no - it was review before it is approved

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:49) not before there are comments

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (02:49) My understanding is as Jordan's

  Marika Konings 2: (02:49) @Steve - I understood that the ccNSO letter related specifically to the CWG proposal, not the CCWG

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:50) okay, never mind!

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:50) the ccNSO letter applies to both Stewardship and ACCT c/cwgs

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (02:51) that sounds fine - going for public comments I would imagine SOs and ACs can provide input through public comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:51) Would the mid-June "submit draft to CO's" event incorporate changes in response to the 1st public comment period.  And another revised pentultimate finaled draft goes out for public comment in late July.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (02:51) As Jordan noted in Istanbul, the CCWG has to 'finalize' proposals before publishing them.   Have we accomodated that finalization process in our timeline?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:51) @Robin : is the intent

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:51) Robin: I hope the answer to your question is "no".

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (02:51) Going back to reconsideration, it is the first time I heard this  level of details. May  I request  Chair s to give me time until the next  CCWG meeeing meeting to make  a judgement whether  this  is to be  WS1? Sorry for going back the agenda but wanted to clarify.

  Keith Drazek: (02:52) I expect the CWG will need to see the finalized proposal of the CCWG before they can vote on their proposal.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:52) @Izumi : sure, was just 1st discussion and no decision is made

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:52) Keith - in that case, they are going to have to change their timetable.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:52) Thanks, Mathieu, so basically 3 versions: roughly April 20, Mid June, Late July, Oct. - final.  Yes?

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:52) I agree with Izumi. thank you Mathieu for confirming we have more time more time

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:53) that's 4, not 3 versions though

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:53) can I strongly disagree with the steps Robin is proposing

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:53) @Robin: yes, although mid June incorporation of comments might not be full scope

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (02:53) great thanks Mathieu for clarifying this

  jorge villa (ASO): (02:53) great Athina and Izumi, We need to study this part more in detail

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:53) I'm not proposing, I'm asking for clarification

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (02:53) Clarifying :-)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:54) @Jordan: would like to hear your perspective on the steps

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:56) I'm guessing the changes won't be drastic from one version to the next, but it is good to document and get further engagement at every step.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:00) We could provide a summary of public coments instead of a new draft before BA?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (03:03) Sorry for talking too much just then

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (03:03) please forgive me for being dense, but ...  the CCWG needs time to read and finalize the new docs that will go out to public comment.   Is that accommodated in the timeline before publishing for pub comment April 21 ?

  Holly Gregory: (03:03) Apologies all.  I have a hard stop.  good evening -- or morning.

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:03) Thanks Holly

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (03:04) clear communication of this process is a good idea, Mathieu :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:04) Good point, Steve.  Let's be sure that step gets built in.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (03:04) Tanks Holly

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (03:04) Thanks Holly

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (03:04) I'm assuming that we need to get our content ready for the CCWG call on the 14th, with a doc out for review on the 17th? and final assent on the 20th?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (03:04) but we haven't talked about that timeline in detail

  Sabine Meyer: (03:05) would that mean the 12th or the 19th?

  Sabine Meyer: (03:05) of June, that is.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (03:05) 19th Sabine

  Sabine Meyer: (03:06) oh, we're on a plane to BA that day.

  Keith Drazek: (03:07) Thanks everyone. Thanks to the Chairs.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (03:07) Thanks everyone ... Talk soon

  James Bladel - GNSO: (03:07) Thank you.  Good night (morning?) all.

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:07) Thanks all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:07) Good night all!

  Pär Brumark (Gac Niue): (03:07) Have a good day/night all!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (03:07) Thank you

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:07) bye, thank you

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:07) thank you

  Tomohiro Fujisaki: (03:07) Thank you! Bye!!

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs): (03:07) bye

  Rosemary Fei: (03:07) Thanks.  Good night.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (03:07) good night!

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:07) thanks bye!

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (03:07) Thanks Bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (03:07) It should be Good evening from me I guess, Jordan  more night

  Michael Clark: (03:07) good night or good morning

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC - AP-Regional Member): (03:07) Bye anyway

  • No labels