Transcript

Transcript WP2 Meeting 30 March.doc

Transcript WP2 Meeting 30 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8uq0cmgvd7/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-30mar15-en.mp3

Notes

WP-2 Compactmission Discussion on IRP and Mission/Core Values issues post Istanbul Meeting - 30 March

• These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
• This call will be recorded
• Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
• These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

NOTES:

Rollcall:  all present in the AC room

Mission and Core Values from Istanbul.

Updated text and accepted suggestions regarding formatting and proposed changed

Proposed language:  new, is in red text.  With notes and comment in the right column.  As the process moves on, suggested that this column can be used to consider questions for the Public Comment/

Need to add the roles of names, numbers, protocols and port parameters and evolution of the DNS root/

To provide more specificity, added new language around names

RIR/IETF may have specific language they wish to use to describe their role.

Language new from Istanbul on limiting ICANN mission.

The right column includes relevant language from the AoC and from the new gTLD agreement (Spec 1)  Group should consider how Spec 1 becomes durable.

Coordination of administration.  Coordination of operation.  Coordination of policy development and implementation

If someone were to make a challenge that some activity were outside the text, could the challenge be easily upheld? 

Theoretical stress tests:

Some of what ICANN does in administering community consensus might be considered as regulating content (e.g. the new gTLD app guidebook).  Need to take care that new "rules" do not prevent desirable actions.

Theoretical stress tests:

Timezone database. Does it fit under protocol parameters?  But it does not fit under the current contract.

Endorsement of least the change principle.  Future rationalization may be needed.

IETF discussion about use of TLDs for other uses.  ICANN not exclusive, and this needs to be reflected. There is language that may address these concerns. 

AoC for WHOIS - language in AoC broken from the beginning and would not wish to see it extended, but revised. Revision should take place outside of the transition process.

Reconciliation - fundamental commitments and core values, or between core values.  It has to meet a high bar of public interest goals, and be narrowly tailored and necessary.

CCWG conference call - for consultation and to raise questions.

Fundamental Rights.

Bylaws provisions that talk if 11 core values.  The mission describes what ICANN does.  The fundamental rights talk about how ICANN accomplishes its mission. 

Core values 8 and section 3 of the bylaws mention non-discriminatory treatment.  Changes made reflect Istanbul discussion, the sources of language being proposed will be noted.

References in the right column where these are picked up in the AoC.  Also discussion about ICANN's competition mission: two ways to look at this, as affirmatively of promoting competition, or acting in ways that does not impede competition.

Para 6.  While remaining rooted in the private sector... taking into account govt advice, etc  A discussion about how the group feels about this issue. How to continue to treat GAC advice, when it may conflict with core values. Consideration needed of reconciling GAC advice which is inconsistent with ICANN's own bylaws.

In the explanatory language, note that the policies are under review

Action Items

ACTION:  Malcolm to revise text, based on gathering like issues together.  With clarity on what is/is not being changed

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (3/30/2015 10:37) Hello and welcome to the WP2-compactmission Discussion meeting on 30 March.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:57) Morning/Afternoon All

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (10:58) Happy Monday everyone

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:59) I would debate the ability of Mondays to ever be happy =)

  Matthew Shears: (11:00) hello

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:00) Hey Matt

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (11:00) My tongue was firmly in cheek, James

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:01) =)

  Becky Burr: (11:01) hello all, waiting for the operator here in DC

  Paul Rosenzweig: (11:01) I don't know ... I like Mondays   Prospect of a good week of work ahead etc!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:02) I wish I had your enthusiasm Paul

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:03) Greetings, once again all!

  Matthew Shears: (11:03) dinner?

  David McAuley: (11:03) ok - virtual lunch accepted

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:03) cocktail time Matthew :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:03) I'll take mine on rye

  Matthew Shears: (11:03) true

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:03) Im with Malcom n the coctails

  David McAuley: (11:04) Its virtually delicious

  Paul Rosenzweig: (11:04) I am green today

  Matthew Shears: (11:04) from the sandwiches?

  Alice Jansen: (11:06) you should all have scroll control

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:06) thats perfect now

  Adam Peake: (11:06) think you now have scroll control now

  Adam Peake: (11:06) no... it's adam... do not expect the same level of hugh skill :-)

  David McAuley: (11:06) I have draft of 30 march - isn't that a better one

  Adam Peake: (11:06) Hugh... High

  David McAuley: (11:06) sorry = that is fundamental rights doc

  Brenda Brewer: (11:06) Michael Romo is on audio only at this time.

  Greg Shatan: (11:06) I am on AC only.  Waiting to be dialed in.

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:11) Fine with me

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:12) This new language on content regulation seems a bit wordy and complicated.  What was wrong with last week's language?

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:12) That is last week's language

  Alice Jansen: (11:12) Documents available at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:13) Hasn't changed since Monday morning in Istanbul

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:14) I thought we had a simple statement about ICANN avoiding content regulation in its mission.

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (11:14) Becky, you may have just answered this (possibly stupid) question, but it would be helpful to clarify that the exclusions re ICANN's mission do not inadvertently hinder or lessen ICANN's contract compliance and enforcement work related to consumer protection provisions in RA's or RAA's.  Thanks in advance to the numerous lawyers on the call.

  Becky Burr: (11:15) yes, the intention, as the notes say, is to maintain ICANN's current mission - not  to expand or diminish

  David McAuley: (11:18) +1 James

  Matthew Shears: (11:18) + 1 James

  Greg Shatan: (11:18) I think that if  IANA were put in a subsidiary/affiliate controlled by ICANN, items 1-3 would remain in the Mission.

  Matthew Shears: (11:19) 3 is on policy but  on 3 b,c d - what is ICANN's policy role?

  Matthew Shears: (11:20) it says mission - but it is about policy

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:22) Thats a fair point Malcom, its easy for us to know what the read of it is, but someone indepoendant might come up with different reads

  David McAuley: (11:24) Good question

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:25) Perhaps ICANN should consider the extent to which its rules are regulating content?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:27) If it was an IETF request then I think it would come under protocols. 

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:27) @Suzanne: We need to be very careful with such language. As you say, we need to avoid hindering or lessening ICANN's contract compliance and enforcement work *with respect to items within ICANN's mission*. But we absolutely want to prevent such contract compliance being applied to requirements outside ICANN's mission.

  David McAuley: (11:28) Time zone database good issue – but it argues for grandfathering things in rather than arguing for a relatively open mission going forward doesn’t it.

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:28) +1 David

  Matthew Shears: (11:29) can we change the word "mission" in 3 a - d to "role" - the overall doc is a mission statement

  Markus Kummer 2: (11:31) +1 Paul and Becky - least change makes it easier!

  Avri Doria: (11:34) Does defining something as a protocol parameter make if mandatory for IANA?

  Becky Burr: (11:34) why Matthew - can you hum a few more bars

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:35) Understood

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:38) If it was decided that it needed to go into a missions statemnt change then it could be considered WS1 work possibily. Playing devils  advocate

  Avri Doria: (11:38) i tink these make things much more complicated. less clar. and confusing.

  Avri Doria: (11:39) This IETF allocation of names is something that has concerend me for a while.

  Avri Doria: (11:39) allocation of a name is not necessarily an architectural role.

  Avri Doria: (11:40) are we really accepting IETF Standard as normative and required in all cases?

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:40) +1 to Steve re: Tor: just because ICANN has certain responsibilities for these identifers doesn't mean it is invested with the same authority for other identifiers

  Avri Doria: (11:40) that goes even beyond the definition the IETF gives of its protocols.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:49) Malcom, I don't know if your mail made it to the list, Im not seeing it, not sure if problem is my end or the lists end.

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:49) wp2 list

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:50) sorry, wp2 compactmission sublist.

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:50) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-compactmission/2015-March/000057.html

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:51) Looking at wroing list thanks Malcom

  Avri Doria: (11:55) i have yet to read.

  Avri Doria: (11:55) still just finding my feet at home and catching up/

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:02) do we want to say "without singling out any particular party..."?  What if are singling out a small class of participants?  Don't we just want policies to apply uniformly?

  Avri Doria: (12:03) umm.  think we have enough to worry about globally

  Matthew Shears: (12:03) Re James' point - isn't ICANN employing the MS policy development processes?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:03) +1 the ethos, but lets work global before we go intergalactic

  Greg Shatan: (12:03) universal shows up often enough in legal documents.

  Becky Burr: (12:03) good point Robin

  Matthew Shears: (12:03) rather than assisting/participating in....

  Avri Doria: (12:04) and it is not a exclusion, it takes us beyond local or provincial public interest.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:04) "rigourous advice" sounds good to me (however you spell it!)

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:04) sorry analysis

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:04) Concur with Jonathan

  David McAuley: (12:04) "global" appears twice in #1 - are both being removed

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:04) Dont rub it in :P

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:04) I think 4 is too narrow as drafted now.

  David McAuley: (12:05) party may work as it could be one, or more, small or large

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:05) "without applying any discrimanarory treatment?"

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:06) party(ies) ???

  Avri Doria: (12:06) i think we need to keep the GLOBAL

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:06) I would suggest retaining "global interoperability"

  Avri Doria: (12:07) but would accept the slightly hyperUNIVERSAL if necessary

  Avri Doria: (12:07) ... slightly hyperbolic  UNIVERSAL ...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:08) +1 Avri =)

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:08) I actually worry that "universal" could mean something else which is unattainable.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:09) I like the new #6.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:10) I was just thinking the same thing, Jonathan. We want DNS to be interoperable for DNS users worldwide; we don't require that DNS interoperate with telephone system, or dewey-decimal library system

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:11) nor do we want to constrain innovation or evolution. ipv4 is not 100% interoperable with ipv6, for example.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:18) Yes Steve, it's called the multistakeholder process

  Greg Shatan: (12:19) I would say the opposite situation is equally problematic: that the "global public interest" is uniquely the purview of governments.  "Public policy" does not equal "public interest."

  Markus Kummer 2: (12:20) It's a difficult issue and an interesting discussion. However, governments have to respect ICANN processes!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:20) I agree with Becky.  ICANN should not defer to govts to determine public interest OVER the multi-stakeholder model, which develops public interest in a bottom-up way

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:21) +1 Malcom +1 Robin

  Markus Kummer 2: (12:21) @Malcolm: +1

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:21) If govts hold the trump card on "public interest" then we can all go home.

  Matthew Shears: (12:22) + 1

  David McAuley: (12:22) ICANN has said to governments (EU data protection authorities) that registrars must ask for an ICANN waiver to stay in compliance with data retention regs in Europe. There were good rationales on both sides. This is extremely complex/difficult at times and thanks to Becky/Steve, useful discussion.

  David McAuley: (12:24) +1 Malcom

  Matthew Shears: (12:24) agree re: public authorities

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:24) Agree with Malcom

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:24) good point, Malcolm.  govts is enough.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:25) If LE needs to provide input they can provide it via the GAC

  David McAuley: (12:25) I agree re public authorities but it is legacy language - will that be a heavier lift?

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:26) The GAC did just agree (in Singapore) to create a working group to address consumer protection and law enforcement issues

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:26) it's in red, doesn't that mean new language?

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:26) Under the GAC

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:27) its on the left aswell I think its red as its a rephrase

  David McAuley: (12:27) stabnd corrected thanks

  David McAuley: (12:28) agree - 30 min over

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:28) Yes =) Your all running on Irish time

  Avri Doria: (12:31) i a sorry i had to drop off audio dfor another call, but am watching the chat.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:33) Steve is talking about WHOIS, and how its suprising that its still standing up at all, and how the definitions re Technica/Admin contacts have changed over time since inception.

  Markus Kummer 2: (12:35) Good call -very productive! Thanks and bye.

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:35) Thanks to all

  David McAuley: (12:35) Thanks  and good by

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:35) thanks, all.  bye.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:35) thanks all

  Matthew Shears: (12:35) thanks!