Transcript

Transcript WP2 Call #5_3 June.doc

Transcript WP2 Call #5_3 June.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6lwjmjv8ri/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-03jun15-en.mp3

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:

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

The comments on mission statement and commitments have been pretty positive. We do have questions regarding the balancing test: why the existing balancing test is inadequate and whether the proposed one is appropriate or not. We will need to pay attention to this. We also received a request for more clarity with respect to certain terms (community, public interest...) Reasonnable points we might want to take into consideration moving forward. 

Feedback:

- Problematic: auDA and AFRALO comments - other than than positive. Suggestion for mutual accountability roundtable WIllie Currie made is a good idea. 

--> Willie Currie's suggestion should be discussed

- UA model or general reliance on goodwill of Board or combination of those, that is clearly drawing the most comment and focus throughout these. For WP2 purposes, it comes up in form of questions about how we are driving things to litigation and are we creating situation where California is interfering with ICANN's operations. FR comment pointed that sovereign governments can't necessarily sign up for binding arbitration. There was also comments about how  people should not be able to gain process in IRP if they did not participate in policy development/public comment process. We are going to face hard questions on binding finality, accessibility and abusive resort. 

- We have ability to cause people to go to dispute resolution (IRP) as opposed to just running to Court. Courts in California will clearly defer to the findings of IRP. It would be a Court enforcing holding of IRP. If we want to we can ensure Court in California is not involved in resolving disputes.  Concern about excessive litigation. BC suggested abusive discretion. There is an insertion that clear error of judgement equals an abusive discretion. 

- We might expect: 1) issue of precedential nature; 2) potential gap between limitation and scope of IRP. 

--> We can't deprive member of right. These two issues we will need to dealt with. 

What scope of holding could be - 

- IRP panel would draw rules. Concerns that no idea of what these rules are. These rules could be submitted to community for adoption. 

- Idea that we can implement IRP through Bylaws that specify that they need to go through IRP instead of going to Court. BC wants access to IRP might be further constrained 

There are inherent risks we are trying to mitigate. 

We do have to be careful about how we craft this. 

We have to think carefully that sometimes disputes are commercial related. We need to ensure we are not imposing limitations on commercial interaction and ability to resolve disputes.

Plans for comments division, work plans for next week and BA - three hour  call on Tuesday. Staff is putting together comments and will ask for volunteers.

- If we could clear up factual disputes, we could get to ideological disputes and hammer those out. Try to go through factual issue so that we can engage in educated way. 

- Might need to do a better job at laying out alternatives, choices and options

- Clearing facts will help us have conversation on enforceability

- No enforceability is an option, although problematic with stress tests

- We need to pull together a document that reaches agreement on facts e.g. matrix of enforceability.

Chat Transcript

Kimberly Carlson: (6/3/2015 13:14) Welcome to the WP2 call #5 on 3 June.  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 

  Becky Burr: (14:53) Welcome all

  Becky Burr: (14:55) weird music in the background?

  Brenda Brewer: (14:56) Trying to identify it. 

  Becky Burr: (14:59) sounds better now

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:59) Hi all!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:59) Saluttions

  Becky Burr: (15:00) hi there, we will wait a few minutes to see if others join

  Alice Jansen: (15:04) https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:04) think there are two more hours

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:06) on the core values?

  David McAuley: (15:08) @Jonathan - I may have misunderstood question

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:12) nothing

  David McAuley: (15:13) I would add the notion of precedent as well Becky

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:13) david, was just asking for clarity on what Becky was looking for feedback on

  David McAuley: (15:13) Thanks @Jonathan

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:14) Slide 2, everyone

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:15) excellent

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:19) for sure

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:19) needs to be made explicit

  David McAuley: (15:23) agreed

  David McAuley: (15:24) +1 @Steve

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:25) agree

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:27) should be some sort of introduction on inherente ridks

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:27) risks

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:27) Materially affected folks can alrady sue ICANN today, right????

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:29) okay, I guess I need a call out. damn.

  David McAuley: (15:29) bad cooenction?

  David McAuley: (15:29) connection I meant

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:29) i'll get a call out

  Kimberly Carlson: (15:29) Yes, we'll dial out

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:30) I was going to suggst that we do some kind of FAQ because so many folks are making "factual" assumptions. if we can get square on the facts, we can really boil this down to priorities based on those facts

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:32) not on yet

  David McAuley: (15:32) Good idea Jonathan - Stephanie Petit sent round a nice FAQ yesteray on membership/UAs

  David McAuley: (15:33) a more complete faQ a good idea

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:33) no. sorry

  David McAuley: (15:34) by next week will have been some time to read and reflect

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:35) FAQ is good idea and could be part of our response to comments

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:36) that's my thought

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:36) As we lay out alternatives, some want us to show no enforceability as an option.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:38) perhaps it's a matrix of enforceability

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:38) That option won't do so well on teh Stress Tests, however

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:39) Agree.   It is divisive to count on the US Congress to oppose the community proposal.   I am working to get Congress to RESPECT the community's consensus -- wahtever it is

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:41) as am I

  Avri Doria: (15:45) bye

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:45) Thx all!

  Kimberly Carlson: (15:45) Thank you, bye All