Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (19)

Participants:  Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Beran Gillen, Chris LaHatte, Chris Mulola, David McAuley, Edward McNicholas, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Holly Gregory, Jonathan Zuck, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Sabine Meyer, Sarah Kiden, Steve Chiodini, Vivek Mohan, Vrikson Acosta   (28)

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

Apologies:  Leon Sanchez, Eberhard Lisse 

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


Transcript CCWG ACCT #21 7 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #21 7 April.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest

2. Update on sprint by various groups

    • WP1 
    • WP2 
    • ST-WP 

3. Legal group update

4. Timeline 

5. Correspondence

6. CWG input

7. AOB


This call is being recorded. 

Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

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


WP1 Drafts -

WP2 Drafts -

ST-WP Drafts -

Legal Subt Drafts - 

Notes/Action Items

1.  Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 

Tijani Ben Jemaa on the call only.

2. Update on sprint by various groups

Work Party 1 (WP1)  

WP1 team of drafters formed following a work plan adopted April 1.  

Content further reviewed at calls on April 10 and 13 with a view to completion to allow for a 2nd reading by CCWG

reviewing community powers mechanism, stress test on GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, and recall of board members. 

Update and process.  Questions arising from drafting.  In terms of removing directors looked at removal of individual and the whole board.  Focus from Singapore was 
the whole board.  Advice from lawyers, suggests removing individual directors more consistent with other mechanisms being considered by the group.  Should this 
be WS1?

Agreement noted in the chat.  Caveat that if more complicated than anticipated then it may be delayed. 

Some objection, that is may be a more difficult thing to do.  And a question if this is necessary for the IANA transition. 

Removal of the board should be exceptional and stringent.  

Where an SO or AC appoints a director they should be able to remove them.  And WP1 is discussing options for NomCom appointees.  Following legal advice, likely 
that it should be the appointing organization that removes them.

Comment that members have argued that Director removal was not needed for the transition.  Keep WS1 light.  

Concern that removal of the whole board might introduce instability to ICANN.  

Recalled that L Strickling suggested that removal of the Board may be a useful mechanisms. And removal of the whole board was WS1.  Legal advice suggested that removal of the board may be difficult and take time, which caused removal of individual directors was reintroduced as potential WS1.  

Removal of the whole board and the potential difficulties needs to be discussed with legal advisors.

Q.  sending back a strategic plan and budget to the board: to avoid a repetition of the process, documents can only be sent back once on the same issue. Or more 
restricted, perhaps once per budget or strategic plan cycle.  And some suggestion that the Board have a requirement to take feedback into account.  Points of view on this?

If the board does not adequately pick up on these concerns on request to "re do".  Will already have an idea of community's view, and if 
sent back by the community then the mechanism to remove the board my come into play if the community view is ignored.

Are there teeth in remanding back to the board?  Or it becomes a meaningless power.  If a single opportunity per cycle to send it back, then it indicates the importance 
of the action.  

If sustained disagreement then ICANN could continue to operate under the previous year's budget spending.  No introduction of new issues in later rounds of objections. 

Continued operation on the basis of previous budget

To invoke the process so the community has sufficient power and the power has teeth

Community should voice all concerns in one submission

Community may consider to removing the board in parallel 

WP1 issues:  Mechanisms ro reject changes to ICANN bylaws.  To be an approval body for the fundamental bylaws.  Board recall, all/individual.  

Work Party 2 (WP2)

Independent review and on mission, commitments and core values.  The ombudsman process, questions being drafted and enhancements to the process.  And 
development of templates.

Community standing, and potentially affected parties: parties who would be affected if a particular action taken, but not affected in advance of any party.  Someone 
who would not be harmed until the action was taken, would those people have standing?   What is the standard of independent review.   

Under ICANN current arbitration standard, have been cases where the panel has issued a stay preventing ICANN taking an action.  Question will be sent to the group. 

Reconsideration process will be updated.  Comments welcome. 

IRP, reconsideration, mission and core values, and update of ombudsman process ready for the next call. Review of the ombudsman process will be considered as WS2.

Stress tests 

Test 18, GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, wording for potential bylaws wording for went to WP1.

Looking at addressing topics the CWG are requesting. 

Test 18.  

"With respect to GAC advice that is supported by consensus"  The condition is that the advice is consensus. A change to the bylaws that is proposed as WS1. 

Full debate on this topic during next weeks call. 

3. Legal group update

To inform the group's deliberations.  How to interaction with the legal advisors.  Sidley is the coordinating firm.  They will work based on memos drafted by the legal sub-group.  The legal advisors will work with the work parties.  Are CCWG's proposals adequate and legally viable. 

Greg Shatan coordinating legal sub-group this week. 

Formally assigning questions to the legal advisors, how is this done?

Only if through memorandum through the legal sub-team. 

Circulating on the legal sub-team list shows the issue will be on the agenda of the sb-team and consideration for forwarding to the advisors.  

4. Timeline

To the target of 21 April, our date for finalizing for public comment.  Under our current call schedule this only allows 4 hours of CCWG call for discussion of 
proposals, suggest need more time, and we want to add additional calls,:

Tuesday April 16, Friday 17, April 20 and April 21, to close the last round of discussion.  Translation time needs to be factored in.  

Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements.

New timelines documents.  F2F before BA, June 19.  To have informed conversation with SO/AC in BA.  Second PC after BA, to address outstanding items from the 
first comment.  How to get interim commitments.

First public comment period is the main comment period. Second public comment is to address issues outstanding from the first comment period. Important the first 
round be treated as most important. 

New during the second PC might be any new powers or mechanisms that are suggested in the first public. The second public comment also an opportunity to comment 
on details.  

Some of the implementation work should start as quickly as possible, and need to engage with Board and Staff. 

June 19 meeting.  ICG has been informed, they meet on 18-19 June.  Coordinating to adjust our agendas.  

ICANN will support travel for members and liaisons

5. correspondence, ICG)

6. CWG input

Correspondence from Sidley on internal accountability and hybrid models, and what the CWG --according to Sidley-- is requiring as accountability mechanisms from CCWG.  This Sidley memo has not yet been discussed by CWG. 


Call with GAO, Mathieu and Thomas.  Spoke as individuals as c-chairs trying to reflect the current state of the group's deliberations.  Comments in line with public 
statements.  The same questions have been asked to a range of community members.  Their report will be shared before publishing to check reflects what 
was said.  Once approved the report will be published. 

Action Items

Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Vrikson Acosta: (4/7/2015 13:43) Hello everyone :)

  Brenda Brewer: (13:46) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Meeting #21 on 7 April.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:53) Hello!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:55) there is no audio, is it ok or is my computer?

  Edward Morris: (13:56) HI Olga. No sound here either so I think it's OK.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:56) ok thanks Edward

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (13:57) Hello everyone!

  Keith Drazek: (13:58) Hi all

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:58) Hi!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:58) Hello everyone !

  Sébastien (ALAC): (13:58) Hello

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:00) Good afternoon all .... is the sound on yet?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:00) nope  silence

  arasteh: (14:00) Good time to evry one

  Beran Gillen-ALAC: (14:00) good evening all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:00) Hi

  Beran Gillen-ALAC: (14:00) @Pau doesnt look like it

  Beran Gillen-ALAC: (14:00) i cant hear anything either

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:00) There are some background noises so I assume sound is on

  Beran Gillen-ALAC: (14:00) well there you go

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:00) Now we are on!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:00) they do this silence thing until start time

  arasteh: (14:01) Hi to evry body

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:01) it is called meditation Cheryl - enables focus ;-)

  Chris LaHatte: (14:01) I enjoy silence ...

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:01) some sound

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:01) What is this you seak of @Mathieu ??

  arasteh: (14:01) alice I AM NOT CONNECTED TO CHAT

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:01) ok thomas

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:02) good morning

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:02) we'll take this offline Cheryl ;-)

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:02) What is in our future Jordan?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:02) We can see your Chat  Kavous

  Alice Jansen: (14:02) Hi Kavouss - you are connected to chat - we can see your chat

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:03) Hello, all.  Three co-chairs walked into a bar....

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:03) How manny co chairs does it take to...

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley Austin): (14:04) Good afternoon CCWG!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:04) 0500 here in AU  @Hoilly ;-)

  Michael Clark: (14:04) Hello CCWG

  arasteh: (14:05) Thomas

  Becky Burr: (14:05) Hello all, i apologize but will be joining a bit late for reasons out of my control

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley Austin): (14:05) A very good early morning to you Cheryl!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:05) audio is lost

  arasteh: (14:06) Thomas I RFERRED to you  co-chairs in an international meeting as wonderful co-chairs

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:06) @Olga: it works for me

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:06) is back thanks

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:06) @Kavouss we are honoured ! Thanks

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:06) Thank you very much Kavouss. That is very  kind of you.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:11) Removing individual directors should definitely be in WS1.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:11) Agree with moving to WS1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:12) Yes agree

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:12) It makes sense to be in WS1 - consistent with legal advice

  Keith Drazek: (14:12) I also agree it should be aWS1 topic.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:12) Strange, thougth it already was WS1.  Also agree.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:12) agree it is low hanging fruit - should be WS1

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:12) agree wJames thought it was WS1

  Avri Doria: (14:13) do not understand how it is low hanging.  does not each  (s)eector of a board member needs to figure out how it should do it?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:13) @Sebastien, you are presuming what the mechanism is. That is premature.

  Matthew Shears: (14:14) should be WS1

  Avri Doria: (14:14) i thought a vote of no confidence that recalls the entire board was sufficne tguarantee for iana.  i see this as more complicated.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:15) We should leave it up to each grouping who selects to decide how and when to remove their director.

  Samantha Eisner: (14:15) @Avri, I think that the WS1 effort is to give the ability to remove individual directors.  The timing of the components of the community to give effect to that power could follow in the implementation

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:16) removal of the whole board should be enough but there's a growing consensus that alone it wouldn't be that credible

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:16) I would say that I believe the CWG is expecting that removal of individual directors will be in WS1, as well as removal of the board as a whole.

  Avri Doria: (14:16) well, when you call something low hanging, that bring up the need for some analysis.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:16) I think I can ear Tijanin asking for the floor

  Avri Doria: (14:17) really Greg?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:18) @Mathieu, I hope both!

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:18) That is definitely my view.

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:18) of what the CWG is expecting, based on the discussions and documents in play.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:19) If I sign on twice, can I get to speak twice?

  Avri Doria: (14:19) was not mine, though i am not particlarly convvinced either way except for dififculty of the task.  But I do not remeber us discussing this specifically.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:19) Helpful to know what the existing power and process are for removing a miscreant Board member.

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:20) However, I don't think there has been serious contemplation in either WG of having one SO/AC pick off the directo appointed by another group.  That appears to be FUD.

  Avri Doria: (14:20) so the excersicise of actually figuring out how to do that would be left for later?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:20) team, can I grab a dial out?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:21) Avri: I am not sure what you are asking. If you mean the drafts of bylaws to deliver, yes. If you mean clearly scoping the power and how it will work, no. That's being done for this public comment round.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:22) I should also have added that from what I have seen from the lawyers, it will be harder to get a "remove the whole board" power in place than it will to get individual director removal.

  Avri Doria: (14:22) so each AC and ALAC would figure out how they do that?  and someone will figure out how a recall nomcom process is created?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:23) Avri: we've got a chat later here in this agenda about the timeline which looks at implementation timelines

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:24) which staff member can help me with a phone dialout?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:24) Brenda

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:25) there is however NZo ability for NoimCom to do so,  but explore the community possabilities  for those appointed  is worthy to do...

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:25)  +1 to Alan regarding removal of "NomCom Directors"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:25) argh typos

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:26) I think the discussion on this matter has moved on since our initial discussions.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:26) Your observation is consistent with mine Jordan - more difficult to get removal of the entire board than indivisual members legally

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:26) That's why I'm happy to see it in WS1.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:26) And if we can't get Board removal, then we are definitely going to need this.

  Matthew Shears: (14:26) if there is an escalation path to spilling the board and that includes recalling individual board members then recall of those board members should be in WS1

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:26) Removing the entire Board because they do not choose to remove a single Board member is a bit of overkill.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:26) exactly @jordan

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:27) Jordan introduced this saying that it was in WS2, but it may be possible to easily move into WS1. So let's give it a try.

  Avri Doria: (14:27) omething like a bylaws change from "SO can elect a board member as defined in the operating principles ' to 'SO has ability to elect and recall board member according to the operating procedures"

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:27) Can we have a show of checks and crosses on whether this is WS1 or not?

  Avri Doria: (14:28) nomcom remains an issue though.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:28) The detail will be fleshed out by WP1 and come back to a future call

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:28) Empowering the community to remove only the whole Board and not individuals is too big a leap.

  Avri Doria: (14:29) understood, stil trying to understand the meaning of low hanging fruit.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:29) Need to ensure continuity and diversity in Board membership when enacting any of such community powers.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) Hang on, are we rally saying the Spill the Board is no longer in WS1?  

  Avri Doria: (14:29) did not realize removing the entire board was off the table.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:29) Avri: that it's clearly contemplated in the governing legislation, the advisors have been talking about it, and that it will be relatively straight-forward to organise. All of that is reasonable based on the information to hand.

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:30) Let's provide a sledgehammer to kill a fly, but not a flyswatter.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:30) We all want Spill the Board in WS1

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:30) I suggest ejector seats.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:31) the question is whether it is possible or not is a question that's been obliquely raised.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:31) Who gets the button?????

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:31) It's a question for the lawyers to answer for us soon.

  Beran Gillen -ALAC: (14:31) good question @Alan

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:31) @Greg : you are in joking mood I see...

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:31) We are CCWG adn our motto:  "The difficult we do right away.  The Impossible takes a little longer."

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:32) I thought the chairs' instruction to tell jokes was still in effect.

  Matthew Shears: (14:32) this could be ridiculous - one should not spill the entire board to get rid of one bad apple

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:32) @Greg : no mistake, please go on !

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:32) can we please not talk about the whole board issue today?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:32) the only person mixing them up is Kavouss :-)

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (14:32) But seriously, this should not be so difficult to deal with in WS1.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:33) It isn't difficult.

  Avri Doria: (14:33) well, the are connected.  we need some board removal capability and if spilling the entire board were to have been taken of the table, then the removal of single members becomes more importnat.

  Avri Doria: (14:33) can we remove nomcom appointeess as soon as they are announced?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:33) Now @Avri ;-)

  Keith Drazek: (14:34) This should be part of the package of mechanisms in WS1.

  Becky Burr: (14:36) i am about to get on the voice as well

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:36) @Kavouss : can you lower your hand(s) in the AC room please ?

  Becky Burr: (14:37) still waiting for operator

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:38) we hear yoiu Becky

  Becky Burr: (14:38) now in

  Phil Buckingham: (14:38) Jordan  - is there  a  level (s)  of sign off  , per amount of budget expenditure 

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:38) does this mean spending on mission creep cannot be stopped absent spilling the board

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:38) Phil: this isn't about a sign off - it's about sending the whole document to the Board

  Matthew Shears: (14:38) does the one-time only encourage the board to just refuse - shouldn't we be seeking a commitment to work with the community?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:39) and there is an interaction with the review and reconsideration request - if scope is being exceeded, Becky's WP has some remedies there

  Phil Buckingham: (14:39) thanks Jordan .

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:39) +1 Alan - that's why I think it's once per issue, personally

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:40) If the numbers will be limited there should be futher escalation path

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:41) once oer issue per budget

  Matthew Shears: (14:42) I think we should be encouraging resolution rather than bouncing it baack and forth?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:42) I agree Matthew

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:42) I do hope and expect that a first bounce would lead to a conversation

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:43) +1 Steve

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:43) Continuing to run is a bit problematic if the scenario is a radically shrinking budget.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:43) So all issues on the table first time, but can re-object if not resolved - that's @Steve's point

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:44) with previous caretaker budget the contingency

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:44) That makes good sense to me @Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:45) Interesting to explre that option @James

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:45) Yes, mandatory discussion is a good requirement.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:45) I think there is a fiduciary responsibilitiy issue looming there, James - we don't want to turn this into a co-decision process I don't think. But mandatory discussion can do no harm

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:45) (as long as there's a body to discuss it with, of course :-) )

  Matthew Shears: (14:45) should we require that returning the budget would require a best effort to work it out

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:46) Immproving the budget process generally is a WS2 thing

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:46) @Tijani, but remember that the final budget may include provisions that were not seen before.

  Keith Drazek: (14:47) +1 Alan

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:47) But agree that the earlier issues are raised, the better.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:47) agree with that allocation @Jordan

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:48) this has been very helpful discussion for WP1, thank you

  Phil Buckingham: (14:48)  Steve +  1   more than one bite .  budget is an iterative process  , but must be an agreed end date. 

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:48) Agree that community particpation in budget deciosn is the answer - otherwise the budget will never be agreed and unlikely to be innovative = later blocking power is a recipe for stagnation.

  Matthew Shears: (14:49) + 1 Mark

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) Looking at ICANN's recent IRS 990 filing, the budget is something the community needs to get some handle on.

  Becky Burr: (14:50) back

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:51) no audio

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:51) lost audio

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:51) lost audio?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:51) is back

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:51) There is also the incorporation of AOC reviews and other AOC matters into the bylaws

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:51) yes!

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:51) that sits alongside the mechanism & alongside these powers

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:51) Audio comes and goes...

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:51) some of us missed the WS1 list

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:51) The spending in the 990 makes for an issue we need to look at.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:51) Hell YES

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:52) that was t the AOC  not the 990

  Adam Peake: (14:52) Noes of the WP1 call of 1 April may be helpful

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:55) Apologies, but I need to drop at the top of the hour.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:55) For the record, Pedro Ivo Silva represents the Brazilian govt, not the Spanish.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:55) @Mark: I think the comment was made by Spain

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:56) @Mark: Rafael

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:56) Thanks Mark :-) but I did not make this comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:56) Reconsideration Request reforms are also in the works.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:56) the WS1 powers list was: reconsider budget / bus plan / strat plan; block bylaw changes; assent to golden bylaws changes; remove individual directors; remove whole Board

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:56) thanks Jordan

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (14:57) plus the mechanism to do these, plus incorporating AOC reviews in bylaws and perhaps other AOC commitments

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) Need CEP looked at in IRP.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (14:57) that would be good if you can send a note @Becky

  Edward Morris: (14:58) +1 Robin.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:02) can Becky brief us on ETA for substance from WP2 for the comment report?

  Adam Peake: (15:02) link to reconsideration process

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:02) pardon if I have missed this

  Berry Cobb: (15:04) WS2 bases on last status chart

  Berry Cobb: (15:04)

  Chris LaHatte: (15:05) ws2 from my discussions

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:05) yes WS2

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:05) I think that was for reconsideration, a possible element of standing to take a case to IRP

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:05) yep

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:05) agree

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:05) I think it was just the standing question

  Chris LaHatte: (15:06) I have some form views on standing

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:06) audio slipping out more frequently now

  Chris LaHatte: (15:06) firm views

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:07) when will Becky's report content draft come?

  Chris LaHatte: (15:07) will contribute at appropriate time

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:07) or is it remaining separated as it is now?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:08) (echo chamber?)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:08) @Joardan, let's discuss that during rapporteur co-chair call

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:09) ok

  Alice Jansen: (15:09) ST-WP documents

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:10) This is a direct link to the doc regardingin ST 18

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:10)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:13) We will now discuss this ST#18  as a 'committee of the whole'  next week with a 30 min part of the Agenda...  This is to allow you all to havce time to prepare for this  based on the by laws text proosal text...  Sec J P2 of the Doc on your screens...

  Avri Doria: (15:14) and if it decides that majority is concensus?

  Becky Burr: (15:14) any limit to that?  what if the GAC says "consensus" = "majority"

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:14) good questions

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:15) where can I find this document Steve?

  Sabine Meyer: (15:15) naive newbie question: what's the difference between rough consensus and majority?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:15)

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:15) Thanks Steve and Cheryl

  Keith Drazek: (15:16) Thanks for the excellent prep work on #18. Very helpful.

  Avri Doria: (15:16) rough consensus means that most agree and thsoe that object have had an adequate tm to convince the others and to be understood. slightly differetn from ICANN consensus.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:16) + 1 Keith

  Sabine Meyer: (15:17) thank you, Avri.

  Avri Doria: (15:17) for ICANN consensus i would say, some form of supermajority as defined by bylaws or operating procedures.

  Sabine Meyer: (15:17) so in both cases not necessarily unanimity, right?

  Avri Doria: (15:18) correct.  that is full conseusnsu, which is use, for example, the GNSO standing commiittee on inproviing procedures.

  Avri Doria: (15:18) pardon the typos, please

  Sabine Meyer: (15:18) not at all. thank you again for the explanation.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:20) is there a copy of the new timeline on the web somewhere?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:21) the link sent out last week didn't work

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:23) agree with Greg and this process is helpful to the outside lawyers

  Michael Clark: (15:24) What Greg just said is our understanding of the process as well

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (15:24) I'm glad we are aligned.

  Greg Shatan (Bari Sax): (15:25) I must leae the call shortly for a 4:30 call that I am leading.  Thank you and goodbye.

  Matthew Shears: (15:26) are the calls on the 13 th and 14 th next week going to overlap with the CWG calls?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:26) bye Greg...

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:27) Where is the time for translation - i.e. when would the public comment be launched?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:27) I support these calls being done

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:27) we need to take the time

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:27) I am oik with these calls in principal  but I (for one) really need t have them as *placeholders* at least in my calander ASAP  so other doodles and call planning can go on around them...

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:27) +1 Cheryl

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:27) calls are ok with me.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:27) I support adding calls as place holder

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:27) the extra calls make sense

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:28) I don't think we can factor it in - I don't think we can finish any earlier than set out above

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:28) I think we may need to add additional sub group calls as well.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:28) I think it will just be a question of how long they will need to do it :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:28) Of course re translation, it is possible that some text wull be ready ahead of other parts  so can we get some translation started at least...

  Sébastien (ALAC): (15:28) The 20 April CCWG or WP1?

  Adam Peake: (15:29) We will contact the language group about translation

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:29) so we have two CCWG meetings on 21 April?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:30) yes we would have

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:31) On overall timline, can co-chairs clarify expectations for meetings in BA in June

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:32) I don't think PC2 is only "if required".  Of course the nature of these reforms require engagement.

  Sabine Meyer: (15:32) excuse me for being thick, but if we have two meetings on the 21st of April, could the public comment phase really start on that day as well?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:33) Sabine : this is our finalization proposal target date

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:34) So PC might not be issued on same day ;-)

  Sabine Meyer: (15:34) ah, thanks for the clarification.

  Berry Cobb: (15:35) No comment, thank you

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:37) The first PC will really be on the approval or not of the otherall mechanisms plan.  The PC2 would be the hammering out of those details, which is not insignificant, so we will surely need PC2 to hammer out the details of the mechanisms agreed to in PC1.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:37) is there going to be a staff member appointed as Implementation Manager?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:37) I agree we will need a PC2

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:38) cool ta

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:38) I also support a BA meeting on 19 June

  Brenda Brewer: (15:38) no please hold I will find it

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:39) possibly a few sub group meetings on 20 and 21 in BA also.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:39) seems so

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:39) ive totally lost audio/

  Brenda Brewer: (15:39) Yes, still connected

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:39) ah we lost Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:39) I'm here.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley Austin): (15:39) I need to sign off. Bye all.

  Sabine Meyer: (15:39) we hear you.

  Adam Peake: (15:39) can hear you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:39) yes we can

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:39) yes we hear you now

  Michael Clark: (15:39) Loud and clear

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:43) Staff -- coudl you please post a link to this doc?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:44) and please post a link to the timeline.  Thanks.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:44) Cheryl -- my calendar shows WP-WT call on 15-Apr.   Didn't we schedule one for THIS week as well?

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:45) There's a STWP call in fifteen hours and fiteen mins

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:45) wait 14h15

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:45) at 1100 UTC on Wednesday

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:45) I think Greg had to drop off

  Avri Doria: (15:46) CWG has not discussed this yet.

  Avri Doria: (15:47) this == sibley discussion memo

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:51) Thanks, Mathieu, agreed.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:51) thanks all!

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:51) Tanks all

  Jordan Carter (ccTLDs, member): (15:51) bye!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:51) Thx!

  Michael Clark: (15:51) thanks

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:51) Thanks all

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:51) thanks all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegion Member: (15:51) Thanks all ... Bye

  Sabine Meyer: (15:51) thanks!

  Matthew Shears: (15:51) thanks

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (15:51) bye

  • No labels