Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT LEGAL #11 15 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT LEGAL #11 15 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2p6fkcyupl/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-accountability-legal-15apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1.- Welcome and roll call (5 minutes)

2.- Review of comparative chart on member/designator structures (30 minutes)-

3 - Review of issues arising from discussion on the legal Presentation by Counsel (25 minutes)-- 

-----Counsel joining-----

4.- Summary of discussion on the first hour and feedback from Counsel(20 minutes)

5.- Overview of WP2 work on mission statement and core values, IRP, fundamental commitments and reconciliation of core values and fundamental commitments (30 minutes)

6.- AOB (10 minutes)

7.- Adjourn 

Notes

Accountability LEGAL Meeting #11 on 15 April.

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  

Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc

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

1. 

Discuss scheduling and address Samantha Eisner email 

Intensive two-days: decision on presence of lawyers will be made on Tuesday based on agenda. 

Suggestion: 1 lawyer to listen in on meetings to understand what proposals entail and what we are trying to achieve. 

No downtime - lawyers are needed

CONCLUSION 

1 lawyer on each call would be desirable

ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate agenda as soon as available. 

Suggestion to have legal subteam call in between intensive sessions to iron out details and touch base with a note that it may overload agenda. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions 

ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. 

2.

Teased out what are the specific 6 community powers we are trying to achieve - and looked at how would enforce it in models. All 6 powers can be created in both models although more complicated in designator model because we would rely on Bylaws. Contractual mechanism would be needed 
in membership model. For both models, we would need to create intra ICANN judiciary to resolve disputes that could arise from these powers. 

Feedback:

- Expectation is that with good accountability mechanisms in place, judiciary won't be needed. Litigation based on violation of corporate vs. contractual may be 
easier - need to look at this. Up to next Friday, we need to focus on ability to get directional proposal. 

- Concerned that larger group would think that under membership model, we constantly go to court. Dangerous impression to give to anybody. 2 problems/2 solutions 
to making chart more representative. Approve Bylaws: right to enforce lawsuit is a problem. - 3 columns needed under each: how can right be exercised? and 
how can right be enforced (recourse etc). Designators have one less option than members regarding judiciary. 

ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart

3.

Questions have been compiled: IRP, Board inaction, removal of Board etc 

ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers

Suggestion to prioritize and filter questions 

ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions.

We have not received legal guidance on WP2. The legal subteam reviewed IRP, Board inaction, internal Bylaw option related questions. 

Feedback: 

- Both membership and designator models threw limitations on IRP. To give teeth to IRP decision, both sides will need to go towards that with a contract for Board members. It can be done for action and inactions. 

- Could have contract with Board when Board member takes seat, it signs letter of resignation when disagreement with IRP decision. 

ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place to achieve goals. 

- Power would be in community to enforce decision. There needs to be a way for community to disagree with parts of the IRP decision - middleground necessary. 

`ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers

ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. 

Which would be mechanisms that would trigger action from community to have Board act on something that has not been addressed is a valid question. Answer would depend on final structure we would be proposing. 

- Suggestion to highlight there is a path on Board inaction  

ST-WP frustration about absence of input on WP2 and use of Board removal as tool. 

- Request guidance on whether there are problems for CCWG identified options. 

- - - - - Counsel joining

4. 

Expectation to have 1 lawyer on each calls and might ask to have more members present on certain calls (in light of agenda).

ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers 

Lawyers present on CCWG-Acct calls, legal subteam calls and, upon request, on WP calls. 

Columns will be added to chart. Updated version will be sent. 

- Time needed - heavy lifting on judicial side. 

- Helpful to know whether private arbitral enforcement or judicial.

ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today

- Need to look what type of escalation path can be taken before ultimate judicial can be enforced. This also ties to WP2s. Ask to look at existing mechanisms 
instead of new arbitral mechanisms 

5

IRP panel could result on binding and scope could be expanded. Trigger mechanism to bring things to Board. WP2 focusing on reconsideration, ombudsman 
and mission + core values. 

Request for reconsideration - Robin walked through template. Reconsideration process is in Bylaws - edits in doc are Bylaws changes so important to have check by lawyers. 

Prioritizing needed 

CONCLUSION

#1 Priority assigned to chart (Friday)

#2 WP2 (Tuesday)

#3 Rest of assigned questions 

Clear confirmation on whether IRP can be binding. 

ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate agenda as soon as available. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions 

ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. 

ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart

ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers

ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions.

ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place to achieve goals. . 

ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers

ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. 

ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers 

 ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today

 ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/15/2015 09:38) Welcome to the Accountability LEGAL Meeting #11 on 15 April.

  Brenda Brewer: (09:38) 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 

  David McAuley: (10:07) agree w Robin on one lawyer at least present

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (10:08) agree w Robin. One lawer.

  Avri Doria: (10:09) In accountabily there are few technical issues

  David McAuley: (10:09) agree w Avri - no down time

  Avri Doria: (10:10) And in CWG, have begun to notice the value of lawyer in the technical discussions as they bring up issues that may need codification.

  Greg Shatan: (10:10) @Avri, also true, especially as they are gaining understanding of the issues.

  Avri Doria: (10:10) e.g. in the just complete discussion trying to line up the work of 3 Design Teams, a lawyer being present was useful.

  Samantha Eisner: (10:11) we should probably be clear if there's an expectation for observation or participation for each meeting, which will allow the attys to staff appropriately. observation would likely be one attorney.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:11) good idea, Leon, to have the legal subteam mtgs.

  David McAuley: (10:11) Agree with suggestion Leon, will be a packed day

  Sabine Meyer: (10:12) sounds potentially lethal but smart.

  David McAuley: (10:12) suggest time be "up to" two hours

  David McAuley: (10:12) may not need it all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:13) right, Sam.  I'm thinking it would be mostly observation, but if we start to do something incorrectly, they can say "hey, wait!  you can't do that".  It would save us time in our work.

  Sabine Meyer: (10:13) +1 Robin

  Samantha Eisner: (10:13) not on audio right now

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:15) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xooHfJXRBc/edit?usp=sharing

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:17) this is very helpful thank you Robin

  Samantha Eisner: (10:19) agree Robin - the focus shouldn't be on the last resort of suit, but on building interim measures and escalation paths.

  David McAuley: (10:21) good point Greg

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:21) Agree, Greg.  Let's fix that point.

  Edward Morris: (10:21) Agree with Greg.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:22) +1 Greg

  Leon Sanchez: (10:23) Good points Greg

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:23) All good points, Greg.

  David McAuley: (10:23) Interesting point about how to exercise right also, Greg

  Samantha Eisner: (10:24) agree Greg. what we found captured in the advice is the ultimate enforcement mechanism

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:24) that's excellent point Greg would nightlight any differences on those additional elements

  David McAuley: (10:25) This very conversation is a good example of why counsel should listen in, at least one

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:25) I'm happy to do it

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:26) highlight - sorry I am typing from iPhone and it suggests words I didn't mean :)

  Greg Shatan: (10:26) Thank you Robin!

  Greg Shatan: (10:26) Too early for nightlight.  :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:26) Thanks for the very constructive suggestions, Greg!

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:27) (indeed :) while it is already midnight in Tokyo)

  Greg Shatan: (10:27) My pleasure....

  David McAuley: (10:29) agreed

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:29) Agreed.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:29) agree

  Sabine Meyer: (10:30) yes. just one question: do we feel the need to prioritize wrt to some of the questions already passed on?

  David McAuley: (10:30) good point Sabine, especially given drive to get a high level doc out

  Sabine Meyer: (10:31) much better

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:31) better

  David McAuley: (10:32) thanks Sam, good suggestion

  Samantha Eisner: (10:33) I can take a first pass through this morning

  David McAuley: (10:35) Leon, have you sent the questions

  David McAuley: (10:35) no problem, can you email now

  Avri Doria: (10:39) and how is such a question triggered.  does there need to be a formal recommendation or advice they did not act on.  I assume it can't be opne to anything they did not do.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:41) does this apply to reconsideration as well? I recall this was raised in ST WP

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:42) sorry I meant IRP (not reconsideration).  working on too many things at once.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:42) so just wondering if this could be expanded in addition to IRP

  David McAuley: (10:42) new hand Leon

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:43) important to note, however, that it doesn't actually over-turn a decision.  it is just a deterent.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:43) I think that is fair, David.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:44) great suggestion.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:45) yes Robin understand this is about IRP we are discussing now. if we are taking step by step and not to expand scope but if confirmation about reconsideration could be added

  David McAuley: (10:45) Yes, I think so Leon

  David McAuley: (10:45) Paul's concern is a fair one, there may be a way to approach it

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:45) without confusion just thought it may be efficient to ask at the same time

  David McAuley: (10:50) @Avri, I assume it can be open to anything but we should consider that

  Avri Doria: (10:53) David that might be impossibly broad.

  David McAuley: (10:53) it could be - need to look further in WP2

  Avri Doria: (10:54) As fi we were aksing the Board to read our minds about what needs to be done.  I thnk it has to be limited to rcommendations and advice they did not consider.

  Avri Doria: (10:54) or did not act on.

  David McAuley: (10:54) I think that maes sense Leon

  David McAuley: (10:55) @Avri, I think I agree - need time to think more on it but some way to gate this to avoid everyhting being thrown up

  David McAuley: (10:55) "makes sense" Leon

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:56) Josh Hofheimer from Sidley joining

  Rosemary Fei: (10:56) Hi, I'm here

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:56) Holly Gregory is joining

  David McAuley: (10:58) sounds good

  Vrikson: (10:59) Why not make the 2¡day multiple session (22nd & 23rd) into an F2F?

  Vrikson: (10:59) Why not make the 2¡day multiple session (22nd & 23rd) into an F2F?

  Adam Peake: (11:00) The transcript of yesterday's CCWG call (call 22) is available https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728

  Holly Gregory: (11:00) I'm here

  Michael Clark: (11:00) Michael Clark from Sidley just joined

  Rosemary Fei: (11:00) We need not only agenda, but whether the schedule of calls has been fixed yet

  Steven Chiodini: (11:01) Steven Chiodini from Adler & Colvin here

  Rosemary Fei: (11:02) Have invitations gone out already?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:02) Thanks Leon, Could we ask that invites for all the sessions be sent to the lawyers now, if the calendars are fixed, so that we can block time on the calendar. We can worry about staffing as we get closer.

  Rosemary Fei: (11:03) We saw the schedule on yesterdaty's call -- is that still the schedule?  Comments were made about changing the schedule

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:03) thanks you

  David McAuley: (11:04) @Vrickson, as for a F2F that would be up to the entire CCWG but is probably impossible to schedule at this point

  Rosemary Fei: (11:04) Yes, thanks.

  David McAuley: (11:04) and I think F2F is 23-24

  David McAuley: (11:04) not F2F but intensive calls

  Sabine Meyer: (11:05) intensive work period is 23/24 April, F2F on 19 June (if I'm not mistaken)

  David McAuley: (11:05) That sounds right Sabine, F2F in Buenos Aires

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:05) that is my understanding

  David McAuley: (11:06) Holly - may be on mute

  Sabine Meyer: (11:06) exactly, David. We'll be getting off the plane at 7 AM and can go straight to the conference room :)

  David McAuley: (11:07) sounds like fun -

  Sabine Meyer: (11:07) Which part? :)

  David McAuley: (11:07) I will treat you to a capucino

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:07) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xooHfJXRBc/edit?usp=sharing

  Sabine Meyer: (11:07) noted.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:07) that's the link to the chart online.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:08) I'm going to update it to include a column for "how would the right be exercised".  And also add enforcement mechanisms for Membership.

  Rosemary Fei: (11:10) Can't wait a day or two if WP1 wants it Friday

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:10) in the next 24 hours

  David McAuley: (11:11) I suggest we start namimng charts with distinctive names - this is mind-boggling stuff (at least for this mind)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:11) I'll send an update in the next 24 hours.  I am in the WP1 mtg this afternoon.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:12) @leon, Robin just said she was going to be adding requests for additional information and responses, not just columns. 

  David McAuley: (11:12) +1 Greg, especially the ones you mentioned earlier

  Holly Gregory: (11:13) my hand is up

  Leon Sanchez: (11:13) will go to you in a moment Holly

  Holly Gregory: (11:14) thanks Leon

  Greg Shatan: (11:17) This chart is on Google drive.  If I could get edit rights, I can make the changes there.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:17) I'll give you the rights now, Greg.

  Holly Gregory: (11:18) I'm assuming both internal and external enforcement mechanisms

  Greg Shatan: (11:18) I may be able start earlier, through the miracles of multitasking.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:18) @Greg, I think I understand your comment.  The "how is right exercised" refers to whether the right can be added to the bylaws or a contractual right would be created.  The how is right enforced refers to whether there is a judicial right of enforcement, or would it require the creation of a private mechanism.  Is that a correct read?

  Greg Shatan: (11:18) Both

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:19) Greg, you've got editing rights now.

  Greg Shatan: (11:19) Also, existing and those that can be created.,

  Greg Shatan: (11:20) Thanks, Holly!

  Greg Shatan: (11:21) I need more coffee.

  Greg Shatan: (11:21) Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:21) I don't think any of us will be ready for Friday.  :-)

  Holly Gregory: (11:21) we will look at both internal and external enforcement mechanisms and what exists and what must be built.  again my caveat that there is work to be done on enforcement

  David McAuley: (11:22) +1 Sam on escalation avenues

  Holly Gregory: (11:23) Sam, yes absolutely re enforcement and internal vs external solutions, escalation, review processes, arbitration both what exists and what can be refined

  Holly Gregory: (11:23) +1 Sam

  Leon Sanchez: (11:24) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

  Holly Gregory: (11:26) IRP binding - will give more thought to

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:27) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Request+for+Reconsideration

  Holly Gregory: (11:28) core mission and values -- considration should be given to purpose stated in articles of incorporation since that is what matters most from a legal perspective

  David McAuley: (11:29) Thanks Holly, we are looking for IRP to address issues of subtance as well as process, and to make them binding somehow if the communuity feels the IRP decision is worth giving effect to, in whole or in part

  Holly Gregory: (11:29) Robin very helpful discussion now. is this in writing someplace? 

  Alice Jansen: (11:29) Holly - you can find the doc here https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891664/Request%20for%20reconsideration_v3.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1428647389000&api=v2

  Holly Gregory: (11:30) thanks. the doc that is up I take it covers the matters Robin is discussing?

  Leon Sanchez: (11:31) It does Holly

  David McAuley: (11:31) thansk Robin

  Holly Gregory: (11:31) thanks!  are you tasking lawyers on this?

  Holly Gregory: (11:32) +1 Leon. time frame?

  Rosemary Fei: (11:33) Prioritize, please, current tasks

  Leon Sanchez: (11:33) Yes Rosemary

  Holly Gregory: (11:33) my hand is up re time frame

  Leon Sanchez: (11:33) I will go to that next

  Leon Sanchez: (11:33) Will turn to you now Holly

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:33) How many templates will be forwarded.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (11:34) That sounds like a pragmatic approach to me David

  Rosemary Fei: (11:35) Does commenting on Robin's chart jump the queue?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:35) +1 David, Can I suggest that initial thinking would not be a detailed review of each proposed change; rather a few of the feasability of mechanisms and structures that are being proposed, and responsive questions from us?

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP: (11:35) Dead link in document.  Can we get a link to the current reconsideration process?

  Rosemary Fei: (11:35) Does comment on WP 2 jump the queue, but behind RObin's chart?

  David McAuley: (11:37) I like Josh's statement of approach

  Holly Gregory: (11:37) Chart, template for WP 2,  questions-- that is the priority

  David McAuley: (11:38) Article IV of bylaws is the place to go for these

  Holly Gregory: (11:38) high level review +1

  Rosemary Fei: (11:39) Suggest Legal Subteam review the older questions before we go back to any of them, as many seem obsoleted by later materials to me.

  Holly Gregory: (11:40) I love consensus!

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:40) Reminder please for the ICANN staff to send counsel the templates.  Thanks

  David McAuley: (11:41) I think older questions should be triaged to after next week's work - we need to help full CCWG get a document in order and that is most critical and I think counsel have those instructions in hand, IMO

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:41) ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 2 on the Reconsideration Request Process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV

  David McAuley: (11:42) Section 3 is IRP

  David McAuley: (11:42) yes

  Holly Gregory: (11:42) thanks Robin.  I now carry the bylaws with me!

  David McAuley: (11:43) You rock, Holly - you are now well and truly into the ICANN ecosystem

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:43) me too

  Holly Gregory: (11:43) iRP can it be binding. we will consider.

  Holly Gregory: (11:45) +10 David

  David McAuley: (11:45) Holly, one other difference we hope to achieve with IRP is to expand scope of review to issues of substance as well as process

  Holly Gregory: (11:46) yes. we will consider David the issue of substance as well as process

  David McAuley: (11:46) thanks to all the outside counsel - this is intense

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:46) Thanks, all!  Bye.

  David McAuley: (11:46) thank you Leon

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (11:46) thanks all

  Rosemary Fei: (11:46) Bye all