Sub-Group Members: Avri Doria, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Gary Campbell, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Matthew Shears, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (16)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Brenda Brewer


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


Transcript CCWG WP1 Meeting #8 10 April.doc

Transcript CCWG WP1 Meeting #8 10 April.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


1. Agenda review (2min)

2. Second draft of public comment report content (60 min)

3. Balance among groups in the mechanism (10 min)

4. Work Plan review and agenda for Monday 13th call (10 min)

5. Any Other Business


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.Kavouss Arasteh joining on the phone, not in the AC room

2. Second draft of public comment report content 

(top of 2nd page)

Action on the budget and strategic plan.  New: cannot raise new issues, but can reject updated versions presented by the Board. 

new: 1st rejection at 50%, and 2nd 60%

standing to bring a complaint?   

Issue of budget was discussed in Istanbul, review (from memory) that it was a complicated matter to add to the budget process. And it would be important to put 
process in place if a budget was rejected. 

Question to the call: can the bold and underline be removed to illustrate that there is now agreement on those issues.?

Suggested that the maximum impact should be that the Board has to operate under the previous year's (agreed) budget. 

Escalation paths through these powers haven't been discussed.  Nothing is stated about what happens next.  

The removing Directors power is left so it can be used with any issue of the core mission, bylaws etc. There is no direct connection between these mechanisms 

Is there agreement on removal of bolding 1st and 2nd (para 4 and 5), subject to discussion happening in  the CCWG.  

Para 6 (page 2) keep in bold as CCWG not discussed and keep para 7 bold to emphasize powers being suggested

6.5.3 reject changes to ICANN bylaws

Threshold proposal added.  Not changed that there's no limit on the number of times a bylaw change can be sent back

Batches of bylaw changes.  Should be specific on which change is causing the vote to ask if it should be rejected.  Same for budget, where there are batch of changes to the budget, be specific and explain why.  Explain the challenge with specificity both for the budget and bylaw change, make explicit in the document.

60% threshold - to and the bylaws the board requires a 2/3 vote, suggest community should at least meet the same standard, or higher.  

The bylaws should be hard to change, is it logical to have a low threshold to block changes?  An extraordinary remedy, and don't want smaller factions having influence rather than the will of the community.

Propose 70% and keep it bold, for discussion with the CCWG?  Amended to 70%. Footnote board is 2/3.  

Para 2 (page 3) can be unbolded. 

6.5.4 approve changes to "fundamental" bylaws

6.5.5 Recalling individual ICANN directors

added: any board member can be removed with 75% of the board with no criteria.  Removal process: an internal process for SO/AC, and share the same majority requirement for any process, with the complication of the NomCom appointees.  Not specified what the majority would be required, but until know the mechanism that is hard to know.   

Last para, assumes a member or designators mechanism, the trigger may be low, but high decision threshold, then it becomes clear if the Director maintains a mandate.  

ALAC also needs to be included.  Whatever percentage, then adding "or equivalent" would allow the different SO/AC strictures to be accommodated.  Concern 
over the NomCom mechanisms.  

To what extent do we proscribed one size fits all for the SO/AC. May be the call for the SO/AC themselves.  

To what extent do we proscribed one size fits all for the SO/AC. May be the call for the SO/AC themselves.  A common threshold without specifying process, to represent that Directors are serving the broader community, not just the entries that selected them. 

Suggest on the last CCWG call there wasn't agreement on the power to remove individual directors.  

The principle of the appointing organization removing the director will be the subject of legal advice expected later 10 April. 

Should be the ability of a "designator" to remove their board member, but can add a minimum threshold and allow groups to move above that threshold.  In some cases Board members removed by those who put them in place, GNSO contracted/contracted parties should be considered.  

Action:  Jordan check direction with Board liaison.  

Different rule under the current bylaws for different liaisons, GAC and the others.

Replace threshold from 66% to 75% (or equivalent).  Petitioning threshold of 40%, but that there are suggestions ranging from 33% to 50%. 

Noting this is to start the discussion in the CCWG. Risk that a low threshold may lead to an abuse of the process.  

All bolding remains.

6.5.6. Recalling the Entire ICANN Board

Whatever the mechanism, required a very high majority.  Proposal of a two round process, with quorum requirement for the first round.  Assumption of representatives, which is not yet agreed, amending text around directed voting. Anticipating the lawyers will make recommendations on the single mechanisms later today or on Monday Apr 13 call.

Action Robin and Jordan to amend text

And  text remains bolded.  

6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws,  and 6.6.1 Preserving ICANN Commitments from the AOC .  Placeholder for discussion on Monday's call.

Should the drafters focus on material that has been moved to mission and core values, or all of the AoC.  The latter provides an audit trail of how all the 
text of the AoC has been handled.  

6.7 Stress Test: GAC advice and forcing the board to respond to Advisory Committee formal advice .

Only emphasis this parts of the AoC where ICANN is making a commitment: paper 3,4 7, 8.  The other text are commitment of the US Govt and other.  And 
AoC para 9 stands alone.  And can summarize why the text we selected or ignored. 

Action: Drafters clarifying the explanation in the text.

Some of the ATRT recommendations have to deal with the requirement for transparency etc.  But they are ICANN obligations to the AoC statement, can increase slightly the scope of the table to reflect the two ATRT recommendations.  

Where to put other elements, such as transparency reviews?  Note that some recommendations made that are not captured by WP2 or others, and need to be in the document and should be bylaws changes.  There is a section about issues to come on WS2, to show that issues will be considered and not forgotten.  

Drafting changes required, for Monday 13 Apr WP1 meeting. Google doc to comment mode.  

Core item of business on Monday should be a simple red-line, but main is discussion with the lawyers on their recommendations and the mechanisms. 

Not to CCWG before the call on Monday.  To WP1, circulation of contributions from the drafters by Midnight UTC on 12th.

Action Items

Action on the budget and strategic plan.  New: cannot raise new issues, but can reject updated versions presented by the Board.

Action:  Jordan check direction with Board liaison. 

Action Robin and Jordan to amend text

Action: Drafters clarifying the explanation in the text.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/10/2015 11:56) Welcome to WP1 Meeting #8! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: --------------- (04/10/2015 11:55) --------------- Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): hi team

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (11:57) Good Evening!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (11:57) Staff: in working through the document we have on the comments, can you have both the red-line and the plain v2 text (with the odd comment) available? I am not sure which one we will choose to use. thanks

  Edward Morris: (12:00) Hi everryone. Regretably on AC only and then only for a portion of the meeting. Apologies.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:00) @Jordan -- the redline is really difficult to read.  Especially on the AoC Reviews, where I just added page breaks, but the redline is a red mess!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:01) that's true, it is.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:01) Looking at the clear text will be a much more sensible discussion.

  Adam Peake: (12:07) Document on screeen available as an attachment to the mail linked here:

  Adam Peake: (12:07)

  Adam Peake: (12:08) redline referred to:

  Adam Peake: (12:08)

  Suzanne Radell: (12:09) Jordan, it's somewhat hard to hear you clearly; would it be possible for you to get closer to the mic?

  Suzanne Radell: (12:10) Yes, thanks!

  Suzanne Radell: (12:10) I hesitated to even ask, so apologies

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:13) No worries.   Just wanted to know if we are consistent with Istanbul discussion

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:14) No, I don

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:14) My recall is consistent

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:15) sorry for joining a few minutes late

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:17) I believe this budget veto/reject IS distinct from the bylaws veto coming up on the next page

  Matthew Shears: (12:22) Jordan can you restate the vote - apologies

  Adam Peake: (12:23) Jordan: you are refering to the text in para 4 and 5?

  Matthew Shears: (12:23) I apologize Jordan but where are we in the text

  Matthew Shears: (12:24) OK got it thanks

  Avri Doria: (12:24) i am not objectioning, but the second bold just seems too ambiguous.

  Matthew Shears: (12:26) is a two week window enough???

  Matthew Shears: (12:27) I don't know what a typical window might be.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:28) Matthew: neither do I

  Avri Doria: (12:29) yes, common sense.

  Avri Doria: (12:30) but yeah makes sense to them someone why soething is being rejected, in detail and with specificity.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:30) Any vote to reject a proposed bylaws change should be accompanied with a rationale and with specificity regarding the bylaws change that is being rejected

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:30) Agree, Greg

  Avri Doria: (12:31) or higher

  Avri Doria: (12:31) 75%

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:31) 2/3 for the board.  Not 60%

  Matthew Shears: (12:32) agree

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:32) Agree this threshold should be higher.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:32) I agree should be over 2/3

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:34) the challenge would not be a faction creating a change but blocking one that everyone else wanted in order to get its wau

  Matthew Shears: (12:34) shouldn't bylaw changes be discussed with the community before their adoption??

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:34) They should be

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:35) are we discussing a threshold of ... 75% ?

  Matthew Shears: (12:35) is there a process for community engagement in bylaw proposals - if not shouldn't there be one?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:35) 70% is fine

  Avri Doria: (12:35) Atthew, they all have comment perdiods

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:35) 70% is a good starting place

  Matthew Shears: (12:35) OK thanks

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:35) That's OK

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:36) under that threshhold, lets add our obligation to explain with specifics as to the bylaws change that is being rejected

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:37) + 1 Steve

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:38) sorry I diNt' raise hand

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:38) this section looks fine

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:38) Yes I'm fine with this section

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:40) I don't understand what the text in purpose means.  20% ?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:41) ok - but we don't to let groups set their rules?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:41) I mean, don't we want groups to set their own rules?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:43) Amen, Avri

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:44) specifically, to your point about "or equivalent"

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:45) +1 to providing this option

  Avri Doria: (12:46) some may want trial by ordeal

  Matthew Shears: (12:52) fire, water, ice?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:52) wrestling in jelly?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:53) (I'll stop now.)

  Matthew Shears: (12:53) 20% is low - 1/3rd?

  Suzanne Radell: (12:53) This may be a stupid question, but could someone clarify that this provision applies to voting Board members? 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (12:54) Suzanne: how do you mean? What do you mean to compare voting board members with?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:54) Agree with Greg's point about GNSO groupings

  Suzanne Radell: (12:54) There are liaisons, such as the GAC Chair, who do not have voting rights/responsibilities

  Greg Shatan: (12:56) I assume the liaisons could be recalled by their groups as well.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:56) I agree Greg

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:56) @Greg -- the bylaws say exactly that: Section 7. DUTIES OF DIRECTORSDirectors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (12:56) I also share the same observation with Matthew and wonder if 20% is too low

  Suzanne Radell: (12:56) Yes, they can, so I'm only seeking confirmation that the provisions in the document apply to voting Board members.

  Suzanne Radell: (12:57) My comment also goes to Robin's point about not imposing a one size fits all across all SOs and ACs, as we have different types of representation on the Board

  Greg Shatan: (13:00)  I think that we should start by paralelling the Bylaws - 75%

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:00) +1 Suzanne

  Greg Shatan: (13:01) Agree 20% is too low.  33%

  Avri Doria: (13:01) i am not infavro of the low barrriers

  Avri Doria: (13:02) i do not want to see us all in a constant recall review.

  Greg Shatan: (13:02) Recall petitions are disruptive.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:02) right - this should be unusual process

  Matthew Shears: (13:02) as long as we don't have endless processes started up every time we don't like something the directors do

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:02) a "last resort" option

  Matthew Shears: (13:02) + 1 Avri

  Avri Doria: (13:02) i tink majority might be low enogh

  Avri Doria: (13:02) 50+% is my suggestion

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:03) I think that is right.

  Avri Doria: (13:03) if more than half want to impeach.

  Avri Doria: (13:03) the same

  Greg Shatan: (13:03) There needs to be a reasonable likelihood that the recall will succeed.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:03) and why can't they be the same?

  Greg Shatan: (13:03) Otherwise it's just a weapon and not a governance tool.

  Avri Doria: (13:03) well there are those who dont even want to remove individual directors, so making it easy is sort of in the wrong direction.

  Avri Doria: (13:04) starting impeachemnt should nto be easy

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:04) yes old sorry

  Greg Shatan: (13:05) Tyranny of the minority....

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:06) exactly, Greg.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:08) Could the notes reflect several of us have spoken against a 33% petitioning threshold?

  Keith Drazek: (13:08) Apologies for my tardiness...flight was delayed.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (13:08) 33 to 50 %

  Avri Doria: (13:09) as long as it is bold and underlined.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:09) Thatt works for me

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:09) options in the text?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:09) with options is fine

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:10) + 1 Robin

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (13:10) Thank you Robin

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (13:14) a neutral phrase is "votes available within the community mechanism"

  Avri Doria: (13:14) Directed representational voting and direct voting are not the same.

  Matthew Shears: (13:15) "the community mechanism" is the model that is under discussion?

  Matthew Shears: (13:16) ok

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (13:16) and we expect the mechanism(s) to be described in the doc before publishing for public comment, right?

  Greg Shatan: (13:16) I think the community mechanism needs to crystallize soon....

  Matthew Shears: (13:16) indeed

  Suzanne Radell: (13:16) The characterization of an abstention as a "no" vote may not apply across all SOs and ACs;in  the GAC, to the extent "voting" has happened, an abstention represents neutrality

  Greg Shatan: (13:16) Right now, I believe it is a "dependancy" of the CWG....

  Avri Doria: (13:18) varies. 

  Avri Doria: (13:18) i think

  Avri Doria: (13:19) not necessarily at council level, but in some voting for some things, like ammending a charter, are of the voting population not of the voters.

  Avri Doria: (13:19) i th you will find each in some groups.

  Matthew Shears: (13:25) thats fine for me Jordan

  Matthew Shears: (13:27) Steve is right in the differentiation between the USG and ICANN commitments

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:27) +1

  Avri Doria: (13:27) but there have vbeen so ATRT recommendations that should be included in these bylaws changes.

  Matthew Shears: (13:28) I good either way - whatever is most helpful

  Avri Doria: (13:29) they reates to ICANN obligations

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (13:30) The ATRT reccomended changes wouldn't be part of AoC section.    We did include one of them in the Stress Test section coming up next

  Avri Doria: (13:30) i disagree with that approach.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:31) we've got to the get the transparency recommendations in there

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:34) there's a distinction between commitments made in the AoC and recommendations made in the context of  an AOC mandated review, no?

  Matthew Shears: (13:34) sorry

  Matthew Shears: (13:35) its almost another table Jonathan

  Avri Doria: (13:36) i am trying to say some of those commitment should be added to the bylaws stuff of AOC

  Avri Doria: (13:36) ie. they shoud rise to the level of bylaw.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (13:42) Will you wait on Mathhew, Fiona, Avri and I to update the AoC table

  Keith Drazek: (13:45) I apologize for missing the beginning of the call, but have we discussed the ICANN jurisdiction question and the AoC obligation on US headquarters? Is this the right time/place or does that  belong in another discussion?

  Adam Peake: (13:45) yes 20:00 UTC

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:45) We all have no life other than this in these days.  :-(

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:46) Indeed Robin :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:46) and baseball seaason just started.

  Keith Drazek: (13:46) Fair enough, thanks Jordan.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:46) baseball is no kind of life

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) There's no crying in baseball....or CCWG work.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:47) :-)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:47) Thx!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:47) thanks all

  Matthew Shears: (13:47) thanks Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:47) Thanks!

  Adam Peake: (13:47) thank you

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:47) sorry to run late

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:47) thanks, Jordan and all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:47) ciao

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) Thanks all.

  • No labels