Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (21)

Participants: Alice Munyua, Andrew Harris, Avri Doris, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, Chris LaHatte, David Maher, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Jonathan Robinson, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Josh Hofheimer, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Lise Fuhr, Mark Buell, Mark Carvell, Michael Clark, Michael Niebel, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rosemary Fei, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Steven Chiodini, Tennie Tam, Thomas Schneider, Tracey Hind, Tyler Hilton    (37)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Steve Chiodini, Tennie Tam, Tyler Hilton  (8)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Jim Trengrove

Apologies:   James Gannon

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


Transcript CCWG ACCT #23 21 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #23 21 April.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI

2. CWG CoChairs update


€   Correspondence from CWG Chairs (15 April 2015)

€   DOC: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.docx ­ PDF: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.pdf

€   DOC : Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.docx ­ PDF: Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.pdf

3. Stress-Tests

# 18  - GAC consensus advice, page 73

#14 & 15 - Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Section 8b, pages 76-77

# 11 & # 17 - Board inaction, pages 61-62 DOC: CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.docx - PDF: CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf

4. Timeline & agenda for intensive meeting

5. Legal advice

6. Concluding Remarks

7. A.O.B 


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


Holly Gregory phone

3. Stress-Tests

Stress tests relevant to the topics we may look at during the intense work day calls on Thurs/Friday

18, 13, 14  (17 if time allows)

26 tests in all  -  3 tests require changes to the bylaws.  Test 18, GAC advice.  The GAC could change any time how it arrives at the advice it sends to ICANN, many methods, but on receipt of the advice ICANN must treat all the same, not recognizing the significance of GAC consensus advice, and the triggers caused by such advice

The requirement is that the GAC use consensus if it wants to trigger the bylaws provisions, the newly worded test allows the GAC to define what it means by consensus (as ccNSO and GNSO do).

Note: doesn't interfere with GAC methods of decision-making.  ICANN always has to explain why it might not accept GAC advice, still the case.

GAC delivers different kinds of advice, and all GAC advice should be considered.

This is an issue that will be open for input until BA, in no way a closed issue.

Historical note: prior to this bylaw being added to the bylaws, the GAC only delivered consensus advice.

Noted that this has potential as an issue that slows the CCWG down in it's work.  And there are other tools being developed that might address any board decision that the community disagreed with.

But not about how the GAC makes decisions, but how they give advice and have their advice is considered.

The deference given to GAC advice is because it is consensus.  Anything less should not merit the same level of deference.

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

We anticipate the GAC will continue to consider this issue and to give further feedback, and there is public comment to come where may be addressed.


2. CWG CoChairs update


€   Correspondence from CWG Chairs (15 April 2015)

€   DOC: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.docx ­ PDF: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.pdf

€   DOC : Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.docx ­ PDF: Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.pdf

Update on the CWG work and where the CWG needs input from CCWG

CWG meeting just ended to review the CWG draft report.  The report is structured to be comparable with the other proposals for the ICG, to help the reconciliation process of the ICG

Attempt to publish for public comment on 21 April and a 28 day public comment period.

In its recommendations the CWG is relying on the CCWG, creating dependencies.   Expectation that the CWG proposal may be conditional on the CCWG mechanisms being put in place. Lawyers to draft those contingencies.

3 issues from the CWG:

ICANN budget.  Working with ICANN and IANA staff, but more details and transparency. Specified response:  need costs by item

CWG asks the CCWG not to deal with ccTLD redelegation and delegation

Community empowerment:  a review of the IANA functions, and a possible special review. These need to be triggered by and accountable mechanisms.

Review and redress, a fundamental bylaw to make sure that review teams' recommendations are addressed.

Q.  Can ICG consider the draft document before you receive public comment?

A. The CWG draft won't be submitted to the ICG.

CCWG response:  the issues the CWG proposes are being addressed.

The two groups have different timelines: can CWG share thoughts on the conditionality and how this effects the timelines.

Need clarity on direct and indirect costs.

The IANA function will be subject to periodic review, every 5 years after a first review, which will take place after 2 years.  And also subject to special review, which can be called for as necessary.

May say that a proposal will take place dependent on the mechanisms proposed by CCWG.  The CWG must feel it can rely on theses mechanisms.

Asking lawyers to frame the conditionality.

CWG chose not to use the term revocation.

CWG wants the IANA function review to be part of a regular calendar process. No reason why the IANA review could not be added to the CCWG AoC section and the review triggered out of calendar request also fits.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.

CCWH noted the sense of urgency raised by the CWG

3. Stress-Tests (continued)

Stress test 14 and 15.  AoC into the bylaws.  Pages 76/77

The commitments ICANN makes in the AoC should be taken into the bylaws, so

those commitments continue, as WS1.  Changes have been made to the old AoC text to reflect the move from a bilateral to global relationship.

Global public interest.  Enhance consumer trust and choice.  The commitments to transparent budget processes, to participation, and advanced notice to facilitate stakeholder engagement in budget processes.

AoC section 8b commits ICANN to keeping its headquartered in the USA.

There is a need to reconcile the core values recommended by WP1 and WP2

Word "commit" does not appear in ICANN Bylaws --> "shall"


4. We are preparing for launch of public comment period - we are not presenting a consensus position.

We will use philosophy that should be focusing on requirements first - and will tackle implementation as time permits.

The simplicity test of our recommendations, particularly from the Singapore meeting.

Please at least read section 6.

The intense work period calls will be based on:

    • CWG input
    • Legal input
    • Issues as discussed on the list in the last week
    • Aware people may not join all calls, and we do not take decisions on a single call/on the first reading.
    • The agenda will explain when an issue will be discussed,  and we have give high priority to the availability of the rapporteurs to introduce their respective sections.
    • Between call try to circulate updated version. of the documents.

5. Legal advice

Documents: To be circulated prior to meeting

New documents: 

Comparative chart on the designator and member model, presenting rights of the models and how the rights can be exercised.

Legal sub-team preparing a summary document of questions asked of the legal advisors and their answers to those questions.

WP2 template received shortly before this call

Legal sub-team will hold a session at the and of day 1 (Apr 23, 20:00 - 21:59 UTC)

Note. Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager] Just for the record I renew my objections against the "intense work days"

What the CCWG wants to do is largely possible, but the devil is in the details.  A route for members, designators, or the looser arrangement of ICANN today

The legal advisors have asked questions to try and understand what the CCWG really wants, priorities, and what tradeoffs are acceptable.

Focuses on 6 core powers:  recall of the board, recall of individual boardmembers, ability to approve amendments to the articles or bylaws, ability to approve the fundaments bylaws, and ability to approve/reconsider the strategic plan and annual budget.

Approving changes to the bylaws, fundamental bylaws, replace/remove their board members, can be exercised by designators and members.  Needs to be articulated in the bylaws which are subject to amendment. The case of full board recall, some triggers will be required in the bylaws or contracts, but can be done.  So there are differences in implementation, but the first 4 are achievable.

Approve the strategic plan and approving the budget are more difficult.

Both are the same conditions so the note only refers to strategic plan.

Designators and members have very different powers on these two issues.

Corporate law contemplates members being able to second guess the Board.

Interfering with a board's fiduciary duty is usually hard, except for members who have this right.  Designators do not have this right.  To be given the authority to overturn a board decision would requires a contractual regime, cannot be done in the bylaws.

Noting that the CCWG is asking for reconsideration of board decisions, members again would have that right.  Concern that it may interfere with the fiduciary duties of the board so may be difficult for designators.

Cannot interfere with the Boards statutory rights to direct the company, taking too many powers undermines the stability of the corporation.

Under a members model there are viable legal mechanisms.  Much more suspect under the designator model. 

CCWG member suggestion: The right for the community to send the document back, budget or strategic plan, and that it not to be implemented while sent back.  A proposal that allows the board to still be the decisions maker. 

Lawyer response: If that is the consensus of the group, then that is helpful.  Consider as reconsideration, it is better within a fiduciary system.  Still more satisfied with a member structure, but an option to consider.

If there is ever a dispute with the Board then having right to go to court is useful.

Lawyers ask, what's needed from them this week and for the calls?

A potentially endless reconsideration and a block process to prevent anything happening while an issue is being reconsidered will be problematic under a designator model, but doable under membership.


Stress tests are reasonable clear and will be addressed in the next intensive work sessions. The CWG inter relation is clear and know our way forward,  Legal advice, made good progress in understanding the progress and different implementation models.  Our requirements are ok, but different choices for us to make.  Need all the facts on the pros and cons and then for us to make recommendations to the community on the tradeoffs we can make.  Taking into account ease of implementation, the risks the costs, and all factors.  

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.


Action Items

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/21/2015 11:23) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Meeting #23 on 21 April!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:56) Hello everyone

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:56) salut Mathieu!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:57) Wie geht's ? (not sure of that spelling)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:57) Hi all!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:57) spelled correctly. A+ :)



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

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:58) Hi Kavouss!

  ARASTEH: (13:58) HI par

  Alice Jansen: (13:58) Please mute your lines


  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:00) Hello everyone

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:00) Big week ahead

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (14:00) Hello everyone

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:01) Hi all!

  Rosemary Fei: (14:01) Hello, everyone

  Lise Fuhr: (14:01) Hi all, Jonathan will join later

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:01) Just joined


  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:02) hi all

  ARASTEH: (14:02) ARE CHAIRS OF cwg with us

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:02) CWG is ongoing

  Holly Gregory: (14:03) Hi All

  Greg Shatan: (14:03) Lise Fuhr has joined from CWG

  Becky Burr: (14:03) hello

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:03) Apols for lateness, hi all

  Lise Fuhr: (14:04) Hi all - one of the co-chairs is here - Jonathan is still chairing the CWG call

  Alice Jansen: (14:04) The group is on agenda item # 3 - item #2 and 3 were switched

  Chris LaHatte: (14:04) hi all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:04) Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:05) What are the page references to in the agenda? Are they to the Stress test WP paper?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:05) in AC only and keep dropping in and out of decent connectivity

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (14:06) you're not even purple! hoping your connection picks up soon.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:06) am having issues dialling in, am trying again

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) @Jordan, agenda documents both frozenDoc and Stress test v10.1 doc

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (14:07) Could we have the document released for individual scolling so that we may go to the sections being discussed. Thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:07) Thanks Mathieu

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:08) Dear all, just to remind that there has not yet been any substantial discussion nor agreement by the GAC on stress test 18 and the pertinence of its recommendation

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:08) page 54

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:08) Page 54

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Recommendation is on page 56

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:12) personally I still do not understand how an "advice" can capture an organisation... if the contingency is the government "capture", it is quite a stretch to obtain capture through advice

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:12) I have joined. Hello to all on the CCWG Accountability

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:12) it's the forcing of the reconciliation negotiation that is the issue, and whether that having to happen from a simple majority could lead to greater than existing influence

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (14:12) Hi Jonathan, we have swopped agenda items and discuss stress tests first. We will turn to agenda item 2 afterwards.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:13) there is also a stretch from consensus to simple majority...

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:13) just thinking aloud

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:13) Thank you Steve for that

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:14) jorge: yes. this is to avoid the gac having that choice all to itself

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:14) this just ties in the status quo, more or less

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:15) This is the NTIA statement I was referring to:  "we interpret the proposd stress test as capturing this important distinction in GAC advice, with an appropriate remedy in the form of a Bylaws amendment to reinforce the ICANN cmmunity's expectation that anything less than consensus is not advice that triggers the Bylaw provisions"

  Finn Petrsen, GAC - DK: (14:16) Denmark can accept the wording for public hearing - ST 18 have not been discuss in the GAC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:17) Kavosh nothing in this proposed text is counter to you POV as far as I can tell

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:17) IMO, the clarifications Steve mentioned are good and I agree w/Jordan that this now maps to current state of play

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:18) @Kavous -- nothing in this bylaws change affetx the GAC's ability to change its voting method.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:18) yup time to move on

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (14:18) good point, Finn. we're "only" looking at the input for the public comment phase.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:18) Nothing in this proposal has any impact whatsoever on GAC decision-making.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:19) this is only about what *others* do with that advice

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:20) Agree with Finn (Danish govt): this text can go to public comment ahead of GAC consideration in BA.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:20) Agree with Becky.

  ARASTEH: (14:20) Is Thomas Schneider with us?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:20) The question is what triggers the GAC's special bylaws provision.  I guess at a lower level, they would be subject to the same treatment as other AC advice.

  Greg Shatan: (14:21) GAC Advice gets a particular amount of deference from the Board not only because it's GAC advice, but because it's consensus advice.  Take the consensus aspect away, and it no longer deserves that level of deference.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) @Avri -- even if not consensus, the bylaws require ICANN to explain its decision not to follow GAC advice

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:21) I think there was some discussion on the list that there would be a disclaimer that this draft for public comment is not a "consensus" view of the ccwg, right?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:22) Yes @Jorge that is right and the disclaimer will be made in time

  Greg Shatan: (14:23) More advice would not be better advice.   The Board should not be forced to give the same deference to non-consensus advice.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:23) exactly

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:23) NTIA's letter on this proposal is at

  Becky Burr: (14:24) yes, the Board doesn't have to follow GAC advice, but in fact, GAC advice is treated with extraordinary deference and creates significance uncertainty to other stakeholders given the fact that it often comes very late in the process

  Edward Morris: (14:24) Agree with Jordan.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:24) Agree that we are not telling the GAC how to speak, only how / when the Board must listen.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:24) Agree w Becky & Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:24) +1 to Jordan and Becky

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:25) This should not be a hang up - in magnitude, this change is just a careful quarantine of a potential future risk.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:25) Steve et al: made my point on #18 with enormous respect for the great work you did on the tests

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:25) So let's see what the GAC comes to in BA

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:25) I would add that GAC advice is not only consensus or governmental, but intends to convey public policy views and public (as complementary to private) interest

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:25) It will be worth teasing it out so long as it doesn't distract from the bigger issues in this paper

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:25) Indeed. I agree with the explanation by Jordan on why we are addressing this and we are not affecting the way GAC makes decision. It's a good balance solution in addressing the stress test .

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:26) Withdrawn.  Audio isn't connected. :)

  Greg Shatan: (14:26) That's one way to control the queue.

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:26) Suppose that anything expressed by the GAC that does not have consensus cannot be called "Advice"?

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:26) Call it a "GAC View" or "GAC Comment"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:27) interesting to know - does GAC distinguish?

  Greg Shatan: (14:27) @James, I'm fine with that.  We often talk about "capital A" advice...

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:27) Jordon: Not that I"m aware of, just floating the idea.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:27) presently, I believe that all communications from GAC to ICANN Board are considered 'Advice'

  James Bladel - GNSO: (14:28) Steve:  Correct, this would distinguish between any communications that did not enjoy consensus as somethign less than "advice"

  Greg Shatan: (14:28) No rest for the weary.

  Samantha Eisner: (14:28) Steve, if you read the recent communiques, the GAC tends to clarify the status of different parts of information - some are for information, some are preceded by "the GAC Advises"

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (14:29) Thanks, Sam, I was about to say the same thing.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:30) Yes - post ATRT "advice" is now clearly defined and marked in communiques and records of exchanges with Board.

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:32) Just to add that the GAC also sends letters to the Board and drafts principles

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:34) I can't find the previous document having been shown, the 82 page "CCWG Draft Report" in my mailbox. Can I please have the EXACT subject line of the email so I can review it?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:36) IRP here

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:37) So CWG is not asking for mechanism or standard of review for ccTLD appeals.  So our Stress Test 21 is not a factor for the first round of public comments.   Do I have that right?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:38) I think so Steve (personally)

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (14:38) me, too

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:38) Right Steve, so it seems

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:39) WHy are we using the wrong terminology?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:39) And, where does anyone take the right from to speak for another ccTLD?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:40) That is simlar to ST 11 and 17, Lisse. And we have proposed a bylaws change to force a board decision on AC advice.  It's described on page 53-54

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:42) As for Review Team recommendations, we propose a change to the formal reviews, saying the board shall consider approval and begin implementation ..."  If the board decides not to approve, we believe that decision could trigger an IRP

  Phil Buckingham: (14:42) Kavouss - I totally agree ( as an accountant)  need to clearly define direct and indirect costs and allocation/ apportionment  of costs

  Chris Disspain: (14:43) Greetings all - apologies for joining late

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:43) indeed @steve

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:43) What was previously called Re-delegations is a Revocation and Transfer.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:44) "relentless" does seem to fit!  ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:46) indeed!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:48) pages 48-52 show the 4 peiodic reviews CCWG is bringing into thte bylaws from the AoC.   That might be a place to insert the periodic review CWG is proposing.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:48) i.e. without fndmental reviews being estalblished by this group, we can't use them.  likewise if we don't have AOC-like reviews, then CWG can call its IANA Function Review an AOC-like reveiw.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:48) There is a deliberate placeholder for a CWG review

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:49) Only item we need to consider is ability to trigger review i specirfic circumstances

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:49) i know.  just going deeper on the dependency

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:50) The FoI report was unanimously endorsed.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:51) And the difference in terminology is not semantic.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:52) thx @avri

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:53) We have a 'chapeau' for periodic reviews on page 48-49.   Some of that may not apply to the CWG's periodic review.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:53) I'll make sure we address this during intense days

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:53) We do need to make sure that such a review can be empowered in the way it needs to be

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:53) Steve, i think it does.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:55) There may also be other ammendents that the CWG needs, not peripdic reviews, but which might take advantage of the fumamental bylaws mechanism

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:55) but i do not think they are a task for the CCWG.

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:55) Thank-you all

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:55) just the nature of a fundeental bylaw would be needed.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:55) Thank you - good comments

  Lise Fuhr: (14:56) Good bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:56) bye

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:57) Has this document been emailed out?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:57) This is the combined report that was mailed out some days ago Eberhard - I can forward to you

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:57) Please do

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:57) Yes, Eberhard, it is here (PDF)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:58) OK

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:59) I am getting an echo

  Alice Jansen: (14:59) You should all have scroll control

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:00) I am having so much echo I  can't understand anything

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:00) it's ok on my side

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:00) I have clear audio

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:00) I support these bylaws proposals on p.44

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:00) ok I'll redial

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:00) @Eberhard it must be your line. It seems you're the only one with an echo

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:00) i have no echo either.  might be a local effect.  it is sort of hollow sounding, but no echo.

  Phil Buckingham: (15:01) + Innovation  - Steve ? P 44

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:01) I also support the proposed bylaws text on p. 45

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:01) figured it out, the shockwave player crashed on my side

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:02) and I support the proposed text on p. 46 text also

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:03) exactly, hard to see what else we need other than that.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:03) they are not responding to the call, am on hold...

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:04) How about "sufficient advance notice" as addressing the need and allowing necessary flxibility.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:04) although putting it in a fundamantla bylaw does make it harder to change.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:04) it's worth noting that the othe rbit sof the AOC are administrative or relate to USG commitments

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:04) yes

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:04) thats' why these are the only parts highlighted

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:05) all good proposed additional text on AoC 3-8

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:05) cna someone wake these people up and add me to the call?!?!?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:05) @Kavous, see item e on page 43

  Thomas Rickert, co-chair: (15:07) Eberhard, staff is working on it.

  Becky Burr: (15:08) yes, agree.  I am working on this issue

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:08) Am back

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:08) I don't quite agree with ICANN "committing" - but the question is to whom. If the answer is to the ICANN community, it makes a little sense - but it also makes sense not to be ambiguous.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:11) @Jorge Cancio does that address your concern with regards to clearly stating the non-consensus condition of the public comment?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (15:11) I think it's good that the outsiders are clear on the status of the doc

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:12) Agree it is very important that status is clear to all

  Alice Jansen: (15:12) link to draft report dedicate wiki page -

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:16) agree w/Kavouss on work of chairs and WP rapporteurs

  Rudi Daniel: (15:17) +1...on the valuable work done.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:18) Just for the record I renew my objections against the "intense work days"

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:18) +1 Mathieu

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:19) @eberhard : noted, can staff put it into the notes please ?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (15:20) Staff, Leon is describing the other document at the moment, the one with the governance chart

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:21) I will not participate, but as I object I can not "apologize"

  Chris Disspain: (15:24) no need at this stafe Leon

  Chris Disspain: (15:24) stage

  Chris Disspain: (15:24) thank you

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:24) Leon, for those interested, I believe there is a legal sub-team call tomorrow as well, at 15:00 UTC?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (15:26) @ICANN STAFF, please put up the governance chart memo and table.  We would start with that document.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:26) @David yes, we do have our regular legal sub-team tomorrow as well

  Rosemary Fei: (15:28) Page 6

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (15:28) thank you, Rosemary

  Alice Jansen: (15:29) document can be found -

  Chris Disspain: (15:30) I thought we were talking about veto of bylaw change and budget not approval??

  Holly Gregory: (15:30) veto and approval are two ways of looking at the same power.

  Rosemary Fei: (15:30) Chris, your question is exactly what we hope to tease out with legal counsel's questions to the Legal Subteam

  Chris Disspain: (15:31) thanks Rosemary

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:31) Budget proposal on the table re Budget is : reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:32) So no approval needed at this point

  Chris Disspain: (15:32) one thing I would like to see addressed is what, if any, are the risks or consequences of becoming an association as suggested...

  Holly Gregory: (15:34) I see the absence of reconsideration or rejection as implied approval.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:37) It seems the ultimate goal is for the board and the community to be on the same page about the budget & strat plan.  I really like the analysis giving us options on these different terms (reconsideration, approval, veto, etc.).  So if we can get on the same page with one of these words and not the others, let's look at how to do it under that word.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:40) I think we are getting there on the sense of this

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:40) but I have some ways to articulate this

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:40) @Jordan why aren't you green anymore?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:40) restarted adobe

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (15:40) it's not easy being green :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:40) there we go

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:40) good back to normal

  Holly Gregory: (15:41) +1 Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:45) ICANN as always been breaking new ground on corporate governance.  And it will continue to.  One of the problems is trying to fit a global governance institution into a California corporation.  It is not always a good it, so we have to get creative.  :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:45) *fit :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:45) yes, "fit" - thanks!

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (15:48) @Jordan, can it be sent back an unlimited number of times, and must it be held in abeyance while  it is being sent back?  IF so, that is equivelent to rejection.

  Chris Disspain: (15:48) Jordan I  agree re always pushing up to a spill but doesn't the same apply to always puhing up to enforcemant in a californianm court?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:49) in the absence of the effects of the NTIA contract, we're going to have to have something, Chris... :-)

  Chris Disspain: (15:49) true

  Chris Disspain: (15:49) but external court mechanisms need to be paid for

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:50) Thanks Holly - to get it really clear, without the NTIA external force or counterbalance, we will need something. So far there is growing weight behind your argument that membership makes the most sense.

  Chris Disspain: (15:50) anyway..I will write to the list with my conerns re current recommendations in the next couple of hours once I get to the airport

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:50) Chris so do internal dispute resolution systems

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:50) I think it should be also acknowledged that the affecting Icann reputation is also an effective mechanism. before turning to courts, reconsideration of budget would already have a significant impact

  Keith Drazek: (15:50) I'm sure we can scrub the proposed 2016 budget and find the necessary resources.

  Chris Disspain: (15:51) Jordan - no - internal dispute mechanisms can be cost convered by the organisation

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:51) I'm seeing stronger possibility for the designator model.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (15:51) good points kavouss

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:52) than we've seen before, that is.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:52) @Robin this will certainly be in our discussion on tomorrow's legal sub-team call

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:52) Agree w/Jordan re: membership, as Holly said, much greater complexity with designator model

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:52) Robin: funny. I just heard questions over whether a fundamental component of our proposals can be done at all with designators.

  Keith Drazek: (15:53) Didn't the legal team just say that Designator was more complex than Membership?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:53) @Keith yes that is my understanding

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:53) Complex to IMPLEMENT might be easy to OPERATE for decades to come.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:53) there are "legal" complexities and there are "community" complexities and they are different issues.

  Chris Disspain: (15:53) I apologise but I need to drop off now

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:54) I agree Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:54) Keith, the memo says they are roughly equally complex, but in different ways.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:54) @Robin, Holly said briefly ago that designator was much greater complexity, I think I heard that

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:54) maybe we need high level legal advice to parse through the legal complexities in order to satisfy the community complexity issues.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:55) I think overall complexity is different to that of a specific power

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:55) I was refering to p.3 of the 17 April memo that says they are roughly equally complex

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:55) ,+1 Leon

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:56) So my request to the lawyers is to distinquich complexity in creating a power vs complexity in exercising & enforcing the right.   (using the columns in your Annex A)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:56) and please - all - I think we are agreed we need a solution we can describe simply and elegantly, and we all want the fewest possible changes imposed on what we do in ICANN, but getting there isn't going to avoid complexity, and in the end the community is going to have to change how it relates to ICANN because the NTIA is changing how it relates to ICANN

  Holly Gregory: (15:57) well said, Jordan

  Phil Buckingham: (15:57) Complexity is not the issue , it is  implementation and being operationally ready .  Dare I say gTLDs rollout

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:59) So in the end under membership, the Board will win a power-struggle in the detail with the community

  James Bladel - GNSO: (15:59) Agree, reconsideration must be limited.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:59) but in membership, the members have the upper hand

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:59) is there some reason we couldn't put a limit on it?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:00) James - that is precisely NOT what we have proposed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:00) and recall the board before we get to the limit?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:00) The consensus that emeged from WP1 was NOT to limit, after several very explicit disucssions.

  Holly Gregory: (16:00) I agree with you Rosemary.  I did not mean to imply that it was clear cut

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:00) is "unlimited" really the only option?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:00) That just takes us back to Board recall being the only clear and reliable mecchanism.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:00) It's a binary choice, Robin. Either the community can block the board til it changes its mind, or it cannot

  James Bladel - GNSO: (16:01) Jordan: This was also discussed in Istanbul, and it is an unacceptable regulatory environment for commercial interests.

  Greg Shatan: (16:01) That's not really the desired result from a reconsideration process.  That's using it as a blunt instrument.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:01) I would have thought the instability of only being able to remove directors or the Board was the blunt instrument that is the alternative

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:02) I think we should be thinking creatively about how to get where we want to go, not why we can't go the route with the words we are using.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (16:02) Thx all!!!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:02) and that the instability that would give rise to would be far more prejudicial than anything else

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (16:02) thanks all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:02) thanks all, bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (16:02) bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:02) thanks!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (16:02) look forward to carrying this on ;)

  Keith Drazek: (16:02) thanks all

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (16:02) thanks all

  • No labels