Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (19)

Participants:  Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Jorge Cancio, Paul Szyndler, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy   (10)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei, Sharon Flanagan, Tyler Hilton

StaffAdam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Jim Trengrove, Laena Rahim, Theresa Swinehart,

Apologies:  

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


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #31 30 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #31 30 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p12ovvcki0n/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-30apr15-en.mp3

Action Items and Notes

ACTION ITEMS (see details in notes)
 
ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary
AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation

ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11

ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work

ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2)
 
ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission
ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed.

ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes
 
ACTION ITEM - # paragraphs
 
ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference
 
ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language.
ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40

ACTION ITEM -  Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership

ACTION ITEM - Remove "2 alternatives"

ACTION ITEM - Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline.

ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made.

ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications

ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349

ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period

ACTION ITEM - Delete 695
 
ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed.
 
ACTION ITEM -Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception.
 
ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC
 
ACTION ITEM - CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC.
 
ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week
 
ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation
---
 
NOTES
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. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call

Reminder: please complete your SoI on the wiki and contact staff if you need any assistance.

2. Review of Changes

Sections 0 & 1

We have tried to incorporate all the changes that were made on Tuesday but please check your comments have been adequately reflected. We also ask that you speak to relevant section(s) of report for everyone to follow.

The executive summary outlines the essence of what we have been working on. It sets the scene for the community.

ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary

1-5 were moved to appendices - a summary was plugged into the report to provide the reader with context (section 1)

Feedback:

- We refer to the preferred community empowerment mechanism as reference mechanism. Instead of saying reference, clarify that it's the "membership model".

- What does reference mechanism mean? There is no definition.

--> We haven't moved any option - hence the wording "reference"

- Membership model as an alternative might lead to confusion to some who might not read our report carefully about who the members would be. This would raise question of whether ICANN should have members or not. We could call it "SO AC Membership Model"

- We should introduce both "AC/SO Membership Model" / "AC/SO Designator Model"

--> Usual order is SO/AC
- If we change wording, keep in mind that it is a reference, not a preference.

- Recommendation to delete sentence on page 6 paragraph 16.

--> Only SO/ACs would have member

- paragraph 11 – clarify IANA functions

- Should we cross check IANA functions and separability?

--> It is not specifically an AoC review

AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation

ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11

ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work

Section 2

- Law firms working on line edits and remaining questions that will be sent within 24 hours.

--> Legal "sanity check"

- Comment made that we want IRP to be available for other claims: breach of fiduciary duty for example. Thoughts?

- Suggestion to reflect Becky's proposal in report

Feedback::

- p 17 para 56 - good addition but we need to strike consensus policies. Para 60: too much constraint is being put on ICANN - we want a multistakholder organization and will end up with dead multilateral organization due to constraints

ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2)

- Para 60 - ICANN's mission is defined and cannot change without decision

- Legal terminology needs to be fleshed out

- Capitalize mission. There are well-defined missions at start of Bylaws - as longer as interpreted in same way of Bylaws, no problem. We need to be aware of interpretation

ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission
ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed.

We plan to issue an updated version of this document as soon as possible after the call and will give the group the opportunity to go through the document for at least 24 hours. Comment will be invited: by 23:59 UTC on May 1. After that we will check for consistency,  add final touches but will not edit content for final comment.

--> Suggestion to wait for lawyers' edits

- paragraph 95 - Change sentence to reflect diveristy of internet. paragraph 99 add "and its users"

ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes

 
Sections 2.6

Input from legal is coming. SO/AC membership model will be reflected.

ACTION ITEM: # paragraphs

Difference between recalling entire Board and removing individual Directors has been reflected.

Feedback:

- "rooted in private sector" objection - ICANN has had involvement with governements and users - roots are just as deep. Claiming that it is because ICANN is rooted in the private sector is incorrect

--> Alternative A - Rational: more closely ICANN to existing structure and keeping ICANN in private sector. Suggest moving text in yellow to D.

--> Suggestion to remove "and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector"

ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference

- We need to clarify in document 1) with regard to creating unincorporated association: SO/AC would not become UA and lose current identity but would create UA that would be alter ego of SO/ACs used to exercise functions; 2) Each SO/AC will be a separate class of member - If all members are in same class then right to spill Board is right of majoriy of member but if each in separate class we can have a higher threshold.

ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language.

- Language in 2.6.1.1 - 4C - will clarify language.

- #178: what is intended by "tabled" - does it mean issues explicitely raised?

ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40

ACTION ITEM -  Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership

- Paragraph 163 p 36 - We are talking about current structure. Specify that it's not meant to be that we won't evolve structure.

- Paragraph 169 p 38 - 2 alternatives will be 4 solutions

ACTION ITEM: Remove "2 alternatives"

- 2.6.2: paragraph 174 Current planning to set up budget is very tight - we need flexibility on timing. Paragraph 175: open financials

--> Timing is implementation detail. Financials is also WS2.

--> Ask for feedback on this.

ACTION ITEM: Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline.

 
Section 2.7

Paragraph 262 p50: decision to approve is subject to challenge

ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made.

- Mismatch between CWG to have review fundamental and CCWG point that standard.

--> p55 - periodic review of IANA functions - paragraph 326 we have verbatim of CWG comment that it be a fundamental Bylaw.

ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications

 
Section 3

Management abstract conclusions and how to apply stress tests have been added along with a handful of small edits.

Feedback:

- Paragraph 349 text incorrectly pasted

ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349

 
Section 4

Item added: enhancements should be made to ICANN's whistle-blower policy

 
Section 5

Significant changes have been added.

Timeline has changed  - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/R-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.7.4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430316024000&api=v2 . We have incorporated aspects that were described on Tuesday. Input on Bylaws approval was received and included.

Feedback:

- "only as required" - understanding that we would use second comment period to hammer out some of the details. We won't be putting out new issue. Make sure the text does not preclude ability to hammer out details.

ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period

- P88 paragraph 695 - No need for representative to speak for SO/ACs - reword so that it does prejudice that decision.

--> 696 replaces 695

ACTION ITEM - Delete 695

- Have timeline in Word document

- We are having meeting on 19 June - not intensive meeting.

ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed.

- Legal counsel presence requested at 19 June meeting

 
Section 6

16 questions and IRP questions have been moved to a separate detailed appendix I

Questions will be in a document for comment period: easier to provide/collect input

- Specify in report that shorter comment period and second comment period and apologize.

ACTION ITEM - Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception.

- Suggestion to have the 40-day comment period.

--> If we go to 40 responses will arrive on June 14 and we won't have time to review by Buenos Aires and have next steps discussion

- Consider 40 days for second comment period

- This work will impact future of ICANN - we don't have to rush.

--> Intersessional meetings are hard to achieve. This would push the timeline even further.

- There used to be rule that documents need to be published a certain amount of time before meeting.

--> That rule is still in place - analysis of comment will inform Buenos Aires discussion.

 
3. XPLANE material presentation and discussion

This proposal is in draft mode.

2 sections: 1) empowered community overview and details of individual powers; 2) improved IRP.

This represents overview of empowered legal structure - it answers 1) what is it; 2) how does it work; 4) who gets to vote; and 5) how is it exercised.

Key elements of community powers are described.

Surfacing key elements of IRP that are new including details of new IRP panel, process flow of IRP, decision characteristics of IRP decisions.

ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC

Feedback:

- It will help us to explain mechanism to our communities. Is this meant to be part of the report?

--> Tool to help community understand our work - appendix to report

--> Facilitate understanding of what we have been doing.

 
4. Next Steps

We will be getting legal counsel's feedback today at 18:00 UTC. In the meantime, we welcome editorial comments on the version of report we have so far. We will strive to provide updated version including legal updates and any other updates received by 23:59 by April 30 to give final check for review.

Deadline will be 23:59 UTC May 1st for final comment at that point will turn into mode to provide document for public comment on Monday.

ACTION ITEM: CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC.
We will circulate graphs from Xplane to the list - comments invited on whether graphics reflect proposals accurately and do not create misleading impressions. We invite you to send feedback on Xplane graphics by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC so that we can issue graphical explanations simultaneously

We are also working on translation - hopefully we will receive them asap.

We will start planning webinars with community and will put together engagement plan on Monday.

ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week
 
Request to include a before/after approach.
--> Before or after will be not be ready for Monday but staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation
ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation

Documents Presented

 

XPLANE presentation of draft diagrams

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/29/2015 23:39) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Meeting #31 on 30 April at 05:00 UTC!   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 

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:59) Hello everyone !

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (23:59) hello :)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (23:59) Good morning everyone!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (23:59) Hi all

  Greg Shatan: (4/30/2015 00:00) Good night, everyone!

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:01) Hello All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (00:01) I have muted my line  then :-)

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (00:01) Hello!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:01) Hello again!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (00:01) Hi Josh

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (00:02) again Indeed Robin!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (00:02) ahh now purple

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:03) Should we celebrate our #30 call ? Or not ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:03) onlky #30?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:04) Seemed like 50 or 100 right ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:04) Staff please check  who is waiting to enter AC  I know Jordan is qued as well

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:05) Definitely in favor of celebrating call 30. We don't know if we'll make it to the 40 :P

  Jordan Carter: (00:05) made it in

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:05) :-)

  Rosemary Fei: (00:06) Hello, All.  Sorry for being late -- I had a little trouble getting into adobe connect

  Becky Burr: (00:06) Hello all, had trouble getting into the adobe room

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:07) Seems you were not alone in this Becky, welcome !

  Jordan Carter: (00:07) If it's of interest to staff, the first couple of times it didn't present the acceptable use stuf

  Jordan Carter: (00:07) the last time, when it di, I got into the room

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (00:09) Good suggestion, Robin

  Jordan Carter: (00:09) that's wrong. It is defined.

  Greg Shatan: (00:09) "Reference Mechanism" flummoxed me as well.

  Jordan Carter: (00:10) it's on page 36 of the PDF.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:10) so a global  replacement  with  "the Membership Model" ?  is that correctly proposed??

  Greg Shatan: (00:10) Is there some field of endeavor where the term "Reference Mechanism" is actually used?

  Jordan Carter: (00:10) Problem is it needs to be defined the first time it is come across, not dozens of pages later.

  Jordan Carter: (00:11) It's a label guys, just like any other label. It means what we say it means.

  Greg Shatan: (00:11) If definitions ae our biggest problem, we are in good shape....

  Jordan Carter: (00:11) Preferred mechanism? Suggested mechanism?

  Jordan Carter: (00:11) Mechanism A? ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:11) I could  live with them  labled  as ACSO Membership Model    Yes  that is clearer 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:12) I can too.  It is more descriptive of what is meant.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:12) @Jordan, I have no problem with "It means what we say it means" but that means we must say what it means. And we haven't.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:12) +1 to Mathieu's suggestion

  Jordan Carter: (00:12) Alan, yes, we have

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:12) Exctly  Robin   we shoiuld  propose to go with that as soon as practicale in this que...

  Jordan Carter: (00:13) we just haven't done so in the summary.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:13) +1 to Mathieu by Izumi too

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:13) So Cheryl wants ACSO membership model, we have an alternate SOAC membership model

  Jordan Carter: (00:13) we stick with the SO/AC order that we usually use, surely?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:13) great suggestion, Josh.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:13) the terms  just outlined by Josh for both  has my support

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (00:13) AC/SO model is better

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:14) ACSO Membership Model and ACSO Designator Model as the two terms appear to be intuitive. 

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:14) And for the record the lawyers are also working on providing us with a simple and comprehensible definition for "designator" and "member" to be included in our glossary section

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (00:14) yes Josh

  Jordan Carter: (00:14) ICANN everywhere already labels these things SO/AC - so there is only confusion to be gained by rversing the order.

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (00:14) +1 Thomas

  Jordan Carter: (00:14) We also always use it in that order in this report

  Greg Shatan: (00:14) I agree it should be SO/AC and not ACSO.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:14) lost audio

  Jordan Carter: (00:15) and it has to be mentioned / described the first time it is used

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:15) can't listen to anything

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:15) I do not think the Action Item  reflects  the agreement  for Action Correctly

  Brenda Brewer: (00:15) Leon, your line is still connected.  we will call you again

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:15) Thanks Brenda

  Jordan Carter: (00:16) we could easily describe it, once naming it, as the "reference model"

  Jordan Carter: (00:16) so be clear that it isn't the preferred or whatever

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:16) the clrification  in Glosarry proposed by Thomas  was bot as writ... it was to ensure  the SO/AC Membership Model is fully efined  and I assume the same for the Designator Model  as well

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:16) Action item should be : substitute SO/AC membership model to "Reference mechanism" when we refer to this model in the doc, especially exec summary

  Jordan Carter: (00:16) +1 Mathieu

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (00:17) I am back in the audio bridge

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:17) And also the point  re Glosarry that gives details  as per Thomas's interjection after the new use of terms as outlined by Josh  was 'carried'

  Avri Doria: (00:17) i have an editorial for para 11: it is IANA Function Review. the nme was changed in the latest draft.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:17) yes P 6

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:17) @Mathieu will not substitute but add

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:18) Para 16 page 6

  Jordan Carter: (00:19) delete "as well as ICANN's nominating committee"

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:19) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter: (00:19) it's too much detail to att it - let's just delete it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:20) Yes  I thought  the NC  wa sto be a 'Designator'  within a Member  Model  and the new "...Council option"    will need  further discussion,  but  we need t clarify  this  in Doc  (in not in Para 16) 

  Jordan Carter: (00:20) it doesn't foreclose taking that option under closer analysis

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:20) para 04 (and others beyond exec summary, e.g. 27) mention 254 participants when should say 154

  Jordan Carter: (00:20) but as it is it will just riase eyebrows

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:20) the uodate  should obviously be in keeping with and refer to the new input  from  Legal Ciuncil just mentioned by Josh

  Jordan Carter: (00:21) ok - gr8, ta

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (00:23) Sidley is reviewing with CWG issues in mind as well

  Samantha Eisner: (00:29) On the Bylaws language on page 17 of the document, I thought that on a call over teh past week we'd agreed on a re-formulation so that we'd remove the term "Consensus Policies" and the reference to a portion of contracts

  Becky Burr: (00:30) i have no actual proposal, just a question.  will include question in report

  Jordan Carter: (00:30) so do I, Samantha

  Rosemary Fei: (00:30) Thanks, Becky.  I was trying to figure out what the reference to your proposal meant!

  Becky Burr: (00:31) i'm sorry, Sebastian, where do you want to strike consensus policy

  Becky Burr: (00:31) ?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:31) paragraph 56

  Jordan Carter: (00:31) oage 17

  Jordan Carter: (00:31) para in red starting with 56

  Samantha Eisner: (00:31) Page 17, the para numbered 56

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:32) Yes  I thought  that had been agreed to go...  good catch

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:32) that was ref to para 56

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:33) Para 60 seems to be one of the key components of WS1.

  Jordan Carter: (00:33) I totally oppose para 60 being taken away

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:34) Indeed it does Robin    and I see now reason to strike para 60 based ion what I have heard in the majority of the group

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:34) +1 Sebastian

  Chris Disspain: (00:34) Hello all...sorry for being late

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (00:34) +1 Sebastian

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:35) We are on Para 60 P 22 Chris

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:36) BTW   my text above  shule read I see NO  reason to strike para 60

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:38) yes Alan  clean text  doc will need to go out  for us all to double check as well...

  Becky Burr: (00:38) promoting international participation, etc. is in Mission. 

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:39) @Becky, is your team intending to insert language in paras. 58 and 59, in which it says "[Insert]"?  Or will it be deleted.

  Becky Burr: (00:40) we need the IETF and the root server group to provide language for those insertions

  Becky Burr: (00:40) iwill reach out to them

  Rosemary Fei: (00:40) But in para 60, the reference to "mission" is NOT to the Mission in the bylaws.  Perhaps revise to say "any mission other than the Missions specifically authorized in these Bylaws."?

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:40) @Becky not internationall but worldwide please

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:40) @Becky, I agree. Only issue is whether others at some point in the future take a far more narrow view of what "mission" means.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:40) Comments on page 23

  Becky Burr: (00:43) ok Rosemary, that works.  and ok Sebastian on worldwide (global?)

  Becky Burr: (00:43) noted Sebastian

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:45) @Becky Global is OK

  Jordan Carter: (00:48) Robin can probably explain that

  Chris Disspain: (00:48) sorry - which para are we discussing please?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:48) para 169

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (00:48) Page 40 I believe

  Alice Jansen: (00:48) top of p 39

  Becky Burr: (00:48) private section led is in the White Paper actually, and the "rooted in the private sector" is in the current bylaws Alan

  Alice Jansen: (00:48) 40 sorry

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:48) para 169 f page 40 in yellow

  Jordan Carter: (00:48) top of p40 in the PDF

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:49) note: I meant to add that text in yellow to (d) since that is where we provide the rationale for the alternative

  Avri Doria: (00:51) Part of the problem is the definition of private sector.  In a UN type  definition there are governments and all else is private sector, including users.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:51) that is my understanding too.  users are private sector for sure

  Jordan Carter: (00:51) Lawyers have suggested the higher threshold can be done through the bylaws, as I understand it? lawyers?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:52) @Robin, yes, it should have been in d.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:52) Agree with understanding of Avri + Robin

  Rosemary Fei: (00:52) Yes, SO/AC activities could continue to be conducted within ICANN; only the member/designator rights (under bylaws and contracts) would be in the UA.

  Avri Doria: (00:53) Additionally, from the beginning the GAC was both connected to ICANN but not really of it.  This has become less apparent recently, but historically that formal relationship between ICANN and the GAC, was considered important.

  Greg Shatan: (00:53) Perhaps counsel can make the changes I suggest in their draft.  Frankly, it's almost 2 am and I have a 7 am call and I have a terrible cold, so I am not in a position to line-edit the document right now.  Sorry.

  Becky Burr: (00:54) Article I, Section 2.11 "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.'

  Rosemary Fei: (00:54) Yes, since each member would be in its own membership class, the community vote to recall the board could require a higher threshold to pass and trigger the termination.

  Becky Burr: (00:55) @Robin - resistance is futile

  Becky Burr: (00:55) :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:56) :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:56) its too late for many of us!

  Avri Doria: (00:56) resistence is never futile, just sometimes it becomes less necessary.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:56) para 178 p41

  Greg Shatan: (00:57) I thought 4(c) was too abstract.  We need to show the engineering at some critical spots.

  Jordan Carter: (00:57) raised

  Jordan Carter: (00:57) identified

  Jordan Carter: (00:57) specified

  Jordan Carter: (00:57) noted

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (00:57) all the issues must be raised"

  Greg Shatan: (00:57) Tabled means opposite things in US and non-US english.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:57) as I learned in a GNSO council meeting one time, Greg....

  Jordan Carter: (00:57) Raised

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:57) "tabled" can mean start discussing something or stop discussing. Best to avoid the word.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:58) To me, "tabling" means setting aside for later consideration.

  Avri Doria: (00:58) yes 'tabled' has a culturally variant definition.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:58) I have comments on §163 and 169

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (00:58) @Rosemary, it ALSO means to put something on the table for discussion!

  Becky Burr: (00:58) Bylaws and AoC. 

  Jordan Carter: (00:58) tabled is dead

  Greg Shatan: (00:58) Or is it merely tabled?

  Rosemary Fei: (00:59) Long live tabled

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:59) Josh, 2..6.1.1 at 4c looks good but don't two people have to join?

  Greg Shatan: (00:59) @Alan -- I think the formal use there is "lay on the table"...

  Greg Shatan: (00:59) in the US at least.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:00) and exactly opposit   in AU

  Rosemary Fei: (01:00) @David, yes, each UA will need 2 "persons" -- others can be non-person participants

  Greg Shatan: (01:00) @Jordan, thank you for your support...

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:01) thanks Rosemary

  Jordan Carter: (01:01) it's a critical thing to describe right, and describing it briefly isn't super easy

  Jordan Carter: (01:07) thanks team, that was good

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (01:10) @David, yes, for an "association" to be a legal entity, at least two people must associate together, so it requires the participation of two individuals.  Our FAQs and answers on the UAs may be a useful appendix, or at least paraphrasing the text from there.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:10) Thanks Josh

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:11) Avri is referring to page 55

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:13) Josh, I would very much welcome such an appendix.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:15) note: para 349 contains some text that seems cut and pasted incorrectly.  Particularly 2 Clause k on p. 59.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (01:16) Agreed Sabine, I suggest the CCWG working team start with that prior deliverable from Sidley and can decide what to include or leave out

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:18) page 68

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:18) Conclusion is on  p69

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:19) p74 para 540

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:20) ST13 p76 561

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:21) para 562

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:21) and 566

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:21) ST23 p79 para 619

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:21) para 619  p 79

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (01:22) Thanks  Steve  :-)

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:23) THanks, Robin.   I've fixed para 349.  SHould not be an outline, just paragraphs

  Alice Jansen: (01:24) Timeline: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/R-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.7.4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430316024000&api=v2

  Jordan Carter: (01:25) I think we have to display this work plan / timeline in a way that is legible

  Jordan Carter: (01:25) maybe we can just slice it into three or four month chunks and have them one below the previous

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:26) am I inferring correctly that the F2F on June 19 has been replaced by an intensive work period?

  Jordan Carter: (01:26) No, Sabine

  Jordan Carter: (01:26) (Not that I have heard anyway!)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:27) it's not on there, that's why I'm asking.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:27) maybe it's a question of edits.

  Jordan Carter: (01:29) I think it's fine because it says "includes"

  Jordan Carter: (01:29) +1 Robin on this para 695

  Jordan Carter: (01:29) it needs to be changed

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:31) I think these "representatives" are the folks referred to in chat above - 2 people to "join" the community association

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:31) not sure thougj

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:31) lost audio?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:31) no audio from Jordan

  Jordan Carter: (01:31) i've lost audio

  Brenda Brewer: (01:32) Joran is back in

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO) 2: (01:32) I am there

  Jordan Carter: (01:32) there we are ,hi all

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:32) ha, I can't *6 myself

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:32) so I guess there are issues with the audio bridge.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:32) Yes, I've been disconnected two times so far

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:33) 696 seems fine

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:33) Very flacky  I froze  so often in the last part of this call I ad to log out and in again *sigh*

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO) 2: (01:33) the word doc that was sent out earlier is slightly different from the PDFs doc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:33) I have the meeting on 19 June confirmed

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (01:34) agreed with using 696, deleting 695

  Jordan Carter: (01:34) now I can't hear anything agian

  Rosemary Fei: (01:34) Leon, do you want legal counsel at the meeting on June 19?

  Jordan Carter: (01:34) oh there we go again

  Greg Shatan: (01:34) We are being haunted by Jordan.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:34) thank you, Cherly and Mathieu. then maybe it should be put back on the timeline.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (01:34) Would the co-chairs also please consider which meetings they would like outside counsel to attend in person, so that we may make travel plans as soon as possible.  thanks.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:34) Cheryl, sorry. still finishing that first cup of coffee.

  Rosemary Fei: (01:35) Where will meeting occur -- Buenos Aires?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:35) Yes  BA

  Jordan Carter: (01:35) We will def need the legal (I think) on 19 June

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (01:35) Just the June 19 meeting, or are there multiple days?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:35) Yes @Josh we will definitely let you know ASAP

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (01:35) Absolutely, thanks

  Jordan Carter: (01:35) unless the ONLY thing on the agenda is deciding how we speak to the community

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:35) There are multiple meetings in Buenos Aires Josh

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:38) shouldn't we also ask for input on the list of fundamental bylaws, i.e. what should be on there?

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:38) we do ask for input on that in the body of the document, Sabine

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:39) question 3 on page 36 of the PDF

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:39) alright, then I possibly misunderstood the purpose of the list of questions.

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:39) is it not in the summary on the end?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:39) nope.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:39) then I *did* understand :)

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:39) para 715

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:39) "list of requirements" is meant to include that

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:39) oh, I understand that differently.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:40) to me it only addresses the "how" not "what"

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO) 2: (01:40) +1 Cherly

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:40) how about "Do you agree with the list of requirements for this recommendation, including the list of bylaws which should become Fundamental Bylaws?"

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:41) yes, that's great.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:41) thanks again!

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (01:41) +1 Jordan, Sabine

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:42) Agree w/Mathieu and we do have a second PC period

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:42) I do NOT support extending the May Comment Period to 40 days.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:42) Nor do I

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:43) PC 2  is indeed another matter  Yes

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:43) that is a good compromise, Jordan.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:43) agreed

  Greg Shatan: (01:44) I do not support extending the first comment period to 40 days.  Remember that initial comment periods were only 21 days until a few months ago.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:45) Rememer we are providing interim results, no consensus position. This is another reason why a shortened pc period is appropriate - particularly since a second pc is planned for

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:45) I think we have  to stick with what we have signalled

  Jordan Carter 2: (01:45) I vote that we move on

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:45) Agree w/Thomas

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:45) you have my support for both suggestions, Jordan.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:46) just move on we have worked with these proposed timel lines  now for some time

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD): (01:46) let's get on with it

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:47) so we have until 23:59 utc May 1 for final notes - when can we expect next doc?

  Samantha Eisner: (01:47) Yes

  Samantha Eisner: (01:47) I can speak to it

  Samantha Eisner: (01:47) 15 working days in advance of the beginning of the meetings

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD): (01:47) my hope, my sincere hope, is that we'll have the doc out by 23:59 on 30 April UTC

  Samantha Eisner: (01:47) but if we're only discussing the first report, I don't think we're in any violation

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:47) thanks Jordan

  Samantha Eisner: (01:47) agreeing with Mathieu

  Greg Shatan: (01:48) Alan, I think that rule has been more honoured in the breach....  Noble thought it is.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (01:49) As I said, was not making an argument, just asking if it was an issue. Apparently not.

  Avri Doria: (01:50) are the pictures avaialble?

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:50) Agree w/Avri - can we get these slides

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:51) Yes, we will ask staff to forward them to the list

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:51) Thanks - would like to use them w next doc

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:51) please do keep in mind that they're in draft mode and of course not final

  Becky Burr: (01:51) i cant see the graphics

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:52) These are impressive.  Nicely done

  Avri Doria: (01:52) yeah but i really like to stare at pictures for a while to understand all they say

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:52) this is very helpful. thank you

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:52) In Who gets to vote, is there any way of stitpulating that there is ccNSO votes don't double up as GAC votes? i.e However hard it might be, would it be possible to stipulate that ccNSO members who are not from Govrnment?

  Rosemary Fei: (01:52) Please use "remove" for single directors, "recall" for entire board.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:53) The 'donut' is a good representation for empowered community, using dots to signify voting weight.

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:53) Know it wouldn't work, but if the distinction between GAC and ccNSO is blurred in most cases, either reduce the number of ccNSO votes or GAC votres

  Avri Doria: (01:54) a quick glance, nice pics

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:54) Thanks Rosemary

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (01:54) will make sure the slides reflect that language

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:54) Donut ? Isn't that capture by a specific stakeholder ? ;-)

  Adam Peake: (01:54) Link to the presentation file https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896621/1XPL_CCWG_IllustratedConcepts_v1.1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430376824748&api=v2

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:55) thanks for the link, Adam

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:55) as it is evocative of something else as well, I wouldn't think so Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:55) this is really terrific!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:55) Thanks Robin. Assuming terrific is positive (unsure of English here)

  Avri Doria: (01:55) good stuff!

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (01:55) Those graphics are very useful

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:56) indeed it is, Mathieu :-)

  Jordan Carter: (01:56) It's great looking stuff. Just need to make sure we aren't prejudging the matter of  a membership body

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:57) thank you for the clarification. good stuff!

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:58) That's an interesting and perhaps difficult distinction, Leon

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:58) on the IRP visual, I think we should note this improvement, shown on page 29 of our document:  ICANN wold pay costs if the AC/SO membership filed the IRP

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (01:59) thanks for the graphics - so far existing structures are being improved or complemented a before/after approach would be of use

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:59) And also add on IRP visual the clarification that its scope includes violatations of established ICANN policies.  That was a late addition to the text so visual drafters may not have seen it yet.

  Samantha Eisner: (02:00) +1 Jorge

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:03)   Thanks everyone,   bye for now...  

  Jordan Carter: (02:03) thanks everyone

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (02:03) Agree! +1 Jorge!

  Jordan Carter: (02:03) another excellent meeting

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:03) Thanks all

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (02:03) Thank you all!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:04) we have a very long way in a very short time.

  Jordan Carter: (02:04) we have ____ a ?

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (02:04) Thank you all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:04) sorry, we have come a very long way...

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (02:04) Thanks everyone!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:04) indeed we have  Robin

  Jordan Carter: (02:04) great success

  Jordan Carter: (02:04) bye

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (02:04) thanks!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:04) thank you all

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (02:04) good night averyone

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:04) thanks all! Bye!

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (02:04) bye

  Sivasubramanian M: (02:04) bye

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (02:04) bye thanks

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley: (02:04) Bye

  Rosemary Fei: (02:04) Thanks, and good night.

  jorge villa (ASO): (02:04) bye!

  Adam Peake: (02:04) thank you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:04) bye

  • No labels