Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Mejier, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (18)

Participants: Amrita Choudhury, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Peterson, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Martin Boyle, Oanh Nguyen, Paul Szyndler, Wisdom Maduka, Yasuichi Kitamura  (17)

Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei  (7)

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Kim Carlson, Marika Koning, Laena Rahim

Apologies:  Alice Munyua, Eberhard Lisse, Greg Shatan, Olga Cavalli

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


Transcript CCWG ACCT #36_9 June.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #36_9 June.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll-Call & SoI;
2. Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;
3. A.O.B


Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;

Review of how we will approach our work. We agreed to an initial run through by the whole group of public comments received. Before allocation to the sub-groups, so all see where were are.

So were will go through the public comment (PC) review tool, and see how to allocate those areas to the working parties (WP) The recommendation is:

Revised Mission, Commitments & Core Values
Fundamental Bylaws
Independent Review Panel Enhancement
Reconsideration Process Enhancement
Mechanism to empower the Community 
These to WP2

Mechanism to empower the Community and powers to WP1

The section of Bylaws Suggested by Stress Tests to the stress test team

Public Comment Input, Framework and Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 will be reviewed by the whole group.

We will build consensus in an iterative fashion. From topics where we have convergence to work on the topics where we have divergence. 

You will see in the review tool that all comments received for a particular question have been grouped together. 

ASO representatives have described in the past how we interact with our community, generally through the RIR meetings.  The most recent RIR meeting was last week, and we received some comments, both verbal and in email.  We still need to deliver those comments to the CCWG, more comments to insert into the process.  For transparency purposes, how best to do this?

Understand groups have their own processes and timelines for meeting.  Suggest you add to the comment process and follow the deadline for other language comments which is Friday June 12  at 23:59 UTC. 

General discussion

Who responded to the comment period?

Question: is the distribution of comments telling us something?  Is it covering the stakeholders we were seeking, is it lacking?

From SO/AC, from GNSO constituencies.  Significant number of governments, and of ccTLDs.  Strong from US business organizations and some international.

Personal comment:  that while there are comments from the US-led private sector, European business seems missing.  Comments from 4 advisors.  

From outside the direct ICANN community - IAB and some comments from organizations in India. 

ICANN focused.  External observers might say outreach not sufficient. 

What parts of the report drew the most comments

The Mechanism to empower community  and unincorporated associations (UA).  Comments on IRP, and some good recommendations on improvements.  Comments on votes and voting powers.  Divergence on the introduction of a fundamental bylaw on location of ICANN HQ in the US.   

About the need for greater participation and inclusion.   The need to maintain the multistakeholder community.

But it seems the comments reflect debates we had in our group, which suggests we are anticipating the broader concerns and interests. 

General comments

Tighter principles and core values are important.  The community's own accountability and participation was noted.

Need to take specific steps to ensure Board/ staff adopt what the CCWG recommends

Focus on the board. Need a deeper look at management and staff, which also need to be held accountable 

ICANN must be clear and transparent in all aspects. Comments suggesting implementation in full before the ending of the IANA contract

Need to broaden ICANN to become an international organization, and representative of the global public

Non-supportive statements, identify substantive issues and flag these. Introduced and then share perspectives

Most general comments are supportive.  Exceptions.  Including from .NA - that the whole process is in contradiction with our charter.  And Roberto Bissio, advisor, who would have liked us to move to considerations of an international organization.

See general support for the building blocks and the general approach

How to deal with issues raised in a factual way.  What comments are being made and who is associating with them.  The weight of the comments.  Criticisms, suggested improvements.  

Look at level of support.  Example support for the building blocks, except for one suggestion that an additional block for staff was necessary.  If we have agreement on the building blocks, can we ask for consensus support for this.

There are calls for enforcement, and is clearly an area for further work.  

Same comments repeat in contributions:  member model, enforceability, role of staff. 

Categories.  Another sub-category.  e.g recall the board.  For, against, and then with or without any improvement.  

Look at the source of comments - outreach is not what we expected. 

Lack of issues with our approach.  The way we went about the overall project was not criticize the way went went about the work except Namibia .NA Eberhard Lisse.  

Criticism about the shorter public comment period.  Note there is a second opportunity to respond to work product in a second 40 day PC period

Suggest that great outreach needed.  And should acknowledge this.  And analyze what groups and regions were reached, etc.  

Request about jurisdiction. Unless you disagree, suggest we defer jurisdiction to other areas on the report.  And we would be working on jurisdiction in WS2. And that should be our response if you agree. Await the group's decision on this.

Approach on jurisdiction, can't just be move to WS2.  Should review in light of comments, and perhaps the decision would be the same.  If WS2 then an explanation as to why and how is will be dealt with.  Something for the whole CCWG rather than within a WP

The role of staff and the community, how can the community be held accountable? Comments on this by our advisors. Need more thought on this.

Staff accountability, we were thinking this came under board accountability.  Views of the group on this would be useful.

Some discussion of what the staff does, our discussion was that the board is responsible for staff and accountability would be backed up by the IRP and reconsideration process.

Community accountability needs more work.  Comments on the role of Governments, and this is also referred to in other sections of the report.  Some requests for definitions of the terms we use, such as "public interest"

Definition of public interest could take all of our time.  And to not look at staff accountability, this goes to micro-management.  

A limited mission statement could provide limits to what ICANN addresses in terms of the public interest.  

Comment on stress test.  

Impact analysis vs stress test, a request from the board.  Should it be a separate action item from the group 

Community seems to like what's being done, in general terms.  

Impact analysis.  When adopting the powers in the community mechanism, this would have impact on the whole community,  Would the member structure introduce new stresses on the organization.  Think minimal as only enforcing devisions not revising.  

Generally supportive.   Some confuse the notion of jurisdiction and ICANN's location of incorporation. 

2 GAC comments, that we parked stress 21. One GAC member differed on text 18.  Danish govt that we should look at potential capture of ICANN by other elements of the community.  Test 12 addresses, but deeper dive suggested.  2 new test: enforcing ICANN contracts.  What if the contracts have contradictions with the newly limited mission statement.  Suggestion to remove test 14.  

Analyze if comments are supportive, are they repeating these already taken into account, to they add new elements and then how to incorporate those ideas.  

There should be possibility of appeal process to be binding. Call should always be available. Handling binding decision without going to Court will be difficult. 

We might need to distinguish governements or others in terms of resort. There are trade-offs we will need to deal with.

Several comments pointed to suggestion that a party would not have standing in front of IRP unless it has participated in comment period. 

There is a WP2 call on Wednesday at 21:00 UTC.


Reconsideration Process Enhancement

Supportive comments. Relationship between IRP and reconsideration was raised. Composition of panel and independence from ICANN legal were mentionned several times. There was a comment asking whether we had considered decisions from external panels. 

Some refinement will be needed. Reconsideration and IRP are complementary to each other - they do not replace each other. We should not go to IRP directly. 

Clarification on how these interact is needed. 


Mechanism to Empower the Community

Different comments received on mechanisms to empower community seem to be supportive. However, there is still discussion. Main concern is how will community mechanism will be held accountable to SO/ACs.

We have to be able to present a coherent explanation. 

Leading community to Court is another concern that was raised. The fact that the proposal considers membership model as the most viable way to achieve powers was raised. There were calls for discussion on whether designators model is viable and whether Chairs of SO/ACs should be designated as members. There are many members that this will carry complexity.

Complexity is payment for process. Issue of membership has been properly mentioned in several legal assessments. If we want powers we need to go for membership models. There is no simple way. 

Either way: designators or members - we would need to form unincorporated associations. 

RSSAC and SSAC mindset that they want to remain advisory and GAC concerns about joining system that is member-driven. There are a lot of parameters we need to take into account. It is important to factually comments we are receiving and moving the discussion forward. 

We should give ability to participate in all powers to whole community

In order to have powers, we need to have SO/ACs become UAs, it is for legal enforceability only. There are alternative possibilities: e,g, Bylaws. We should not conclude that UA is only way.


Power Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans

We have received a lot of support. Two caveats: 1) need for consultation process between Board and community to ensure it does not have to exercised (because it is disruptive) - we need to be clearer on that requirement; 2) There might be a back and forth between community and Board - we already have something in our proposal to prevent that but we might need to be more transparent on what it is. 


Power: Approve Changes to "Fundamental Bylaws" 

There are some concerns about time limits to 15 days to initiate. There are threshold related comments. 


Power: Reconsider/Reject Changes to ICANN "standard" Bylaws.

Most comments are supportive. There are comments on whether should be implementable Bylaw.

Is the Board being descriptive ot today or endorsing the change we are recommending.  There should be some clarification.

It's not black and white - Board takes into account public comment. 


Power : Recalling Individual ICANN Directors

Broadly supported power. There is a comment from .NA that is an overarching objection. A comment from AFRALO is not supportive. We have requests for refinement of process. Question of how to deal with NomCom appointed Board members still needs to be resolved.

AFRALO did not object but asks for recall to be done by whole community. 

If we are to remove individual members it should be a community action. There is difference on which way it should be. We need clartiy from legal counsel on what is legal and what is not. We should only be removing people for cause that could be documented and presumably appealed. We need guidance from counsel on to what extent legal or exceptional.

Do ACs that do not designate are still called designators - do they have that power? We need a table to understand who exersice power on what conditions. 

It is up to SO/ACs to decide if there should be any members or designators.

What is SO/AC position if they don't want or can't be a member? Could they participate or not?


Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board

Concerns about potential disruption: caretaker etc. We need to elaborate on this. 


Incorporating AoC into ICANN Bylaws

Supportive comments but highlight to take into consideration different approaches and current situation. Some comments that need to be incorporated into Bylaws. Concerns with respect to ICANN being incorporated into the United States. 

Wide support for incorporating review into Bylaws. 

There are also comment with respect to language of ICANN being a private sector - governments have raised participation on equal footing.

We should talk about provisions.Voting capacity: director or SO. 

How the AoC progresses - we may want to define that. 


Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests

There is support but there is considerable discussion with respect to stress test 18. This work will be taken on by Steve and Cheryl. 


Items for Work Stream 2

Work Stream 2 comments should that we need to be clear on demonstrating Work Stream does not mean we are putting a topic under the carpet. 

Jurisdiction was highlighted several times as important.

Board - Staff was brought up several times. It was more about transparency than redress part.

Whether we should introduce the assessment of efficiency of Work Stream 1 mechanisms was raised. Abstract will be undertaken by Cochairs.


Three tasks for Work Parties:

- WP to go through allocated sections and draft responses for CCWG response/action items. Preparation of feedback

- Classify feedback received and state whether agreement or not so that we can take stock of that and proceed to consensus building.

--> These two items need to be completed before June 16 freeze. 

- Digesting input. 

Suggestion to move steps around. 


17-18 July face-to-face meeting will be held in Paris. 

Documents Presented

CCWG-ACCT Public Comment - 8 June.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Kimberly Carlson: (6/8/2015 09:34) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #36 on 9 June!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  arasteh: (23:37) Hi Kim

  Amrita: (23:38) Hi Everyone

  Kimberly Carlson: (23:39) Hello!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (23:53) Hello everyone

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (23:57) hello all!

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler & Colvin): (23:58) Good evening!

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (6/9/2015 00:00) Good evening

  Rosemary Fei: (00:00) Hello, all.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (00:00) Hi all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:00) Hello everyone

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:00) Good morning

  Avri Doria: (00:00) hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:01) looking at the pile of things to read :/

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP: (00:01) Hello

  Becky Burr: (00:01) Good morning/afternoon/evening

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (00:01) Hi all!

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:01) Hello

  arasteh: (00:01) Hi Everbody

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:02) lost audio?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:02) this audio is, strange

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:02) hearing call in instructions by Steve

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:03) I guess we get the wrong canal

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (00:03) @david: me too

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:03) we have lost everyone's audio

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:03) someone has broken something

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:03) maybe Steve - you are all we hear

  Rosemary Fei: (00:03) I can hear Leon just fine.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:03) cant hear Leon at all

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (00:04) @Steve: I think she's going to ask for your number...

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:04) Audio fine here

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:04) +1 Sebastien

  Becky Burr: (00:04) have people who have not filed been notified?

  Alan Greenberg: (00:04) Steve, good thing no secret passwords

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:04) Leon is back

  Amrita: (00:04) The audio breaks at some time

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (00:04) People have been reminded multiple times, also with individual communication

  Alice Jansen: (00:05) Participants can see status of their SoI on -

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:06) Hi all, apologies for delay

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:14) thank you very much, we will do that

  Adam Peake: (00:14) That is Friday June 12  at 23:59UTC

  Avri Doria: (00:14) why not both tot he list and the co-chairs.  so we can see them as soon as ppossible.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:16) Is it possible to expand the view so the text is a bit larger?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:17) we have our own zoom control?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (00:17) Ahh, thanks Jordan!

  Kimberly Carlson: (00:20) SSAC comment has been posted:

  Alice Jansen: (00:21) The list of contributions is in alphabetical order. The comments in the table are in chronological order

  Avri Doria: (00:22) is it just me or is AC somewhat unstable at the moment. 

  Alice Jansen: (00:22) We will fix order for auDA

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:22) I should hope so, Alice! ;)

  Avri Doria: (00:22) i guess it is just me.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:22) AC seems fine here

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (00:22) we are pretty forgiving ...fear not...:-) :-) :-)

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:23) Avri, admitting you're unstable is the first step...

  Avri Doria: (00:23) good thing i am on the phone bridge a well.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:23) "au" before "AF" is likely a quirt of a sort which differentiates lower from upper case.

  Avri Doria: (00:23) thanks you jonathan.  are you offering to be my sponsor?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:24) I haven't been through enough steps yet to sponsor. Still in denial.

  Paul Szyndler: (00:24) ".auDA" everything is to the right of the dot.....

  Avri Doria: (00:30) might be good to distinguish in some way those comments that are model killers and those comments that are for improvement.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:32) Avri, I'm sure that the "model killers" are thought to be improvements by their originators!

  Avri Doria: (00:32) ok, replace improvements, with stepwise refinements.   same diffference.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:33) +1 Avri

  Alan Greenberg: (00:33) zJust trying to introduce some humor into these procedings. I will stop.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:33) Please don't Alan - we're all going to need it

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:33) :-)

  Keith Drazek: (00:35) I think we've assumed (to date) that the community would hold the Board accountable, and the Board would hold the management accountable. I'd be happy to discuss new mechanisms for holding future senior management accountable, but we're not trying to replace the Board.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:35) Just FYI, Nell Minow is a movie critic known as "Movie Mom" ; she is also a well known member of the governance community in the US

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:36) Agree Keith I think it's about using board based mechanisms to keep management accountable

  Avri Doria: (00:36) agree that we can decide to put some of issue in the WS2 pile.

  Avri Doria: (00:37) not so sure we can say, that is the Board's problem.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:38) What is a PDP, please?

  Avri Doria: (00:39) an SO policy development process

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:39) Gosh, it might be better to organize this document by question, comment and assign one or more commenters to each

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler & Colvin): (00:39) Would it be possible to mention the comment number being discussed?

  Rosemary Fei: (00:39) THank you., Avri

  Rosemary Fei: (00:39) We're on 13

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:40) presumably we don't need to respond to supportive comments, just tally them, no?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (00:41) Danielle (she)

  Avri Doria: (00:41) some supportive are supportive but, with might big conditions.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (00:41) we're on page 4, 40 mins into the call. 10 pages per minute, 85 pages?

  Avri Doria: (00:41) ( :

  Keith Drazek: (00:42) @Avri: In the interest of time and efficiency, I agree we could discuss management accountability in WS2. I assumed most would prefer leaving management accountability in the hands of the Board, but I'd certainly be open to further discussion on that.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (00:42) I mean 10 mins per page, 85 pages in total...

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:42) Agree Avri. i don't mean supportive overall but specific statements within a 'comment" which are supportive

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:42) I don't think anyone is absorbing this in a practical way

  Chris Disspain: (00:43) Roelof and Jonathan + 1

  Avri Doria: (00:43) Keith, some of us have been mightly disappointed with the Board in regard to that over the years.  We assume that the Board has control over staff, but its way of working only gives it control at one point, the CEO.  perhaps this model is problematic and needs review.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (00:43) Roelof and Jonathan + 1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:45) +1

  Keith Drazek: (00:45) Agreed Avri. Happy to support those further discussions. If the community has the ability to effect needed change (from WS1) we can address in WS2. Otherwise, it should be a WS1 issue.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (00:45) @ co-chairs, can we try to optimise and make this call more effective? Respectfully, I do not see the added value of going through the comments like this.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:46) The Board controls the staff only to the extent that they choose. There are multiple examples, many of them long past, and some not, where the Board has ceded control over certain issues to staff. Nominally the Board is still in control, but by blindly accepting input as definitive, they may be giving it up.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:46) The advantage is that it is allowing me to read the comments...

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:46) Interesting concept to take managerial oversight away from the board;  from legal perspective issue will be whether the board without managerial oversight  is still the legal oversight body with fiduciary obligations;  if given to membership body this could make membership body into the fiduciaries -- in other words the defacto board;  would need to research

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:46) has staff prepared a presentation like in CWG with major trends detected in the consultation inputs?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:47) YES Thanks Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:49) Will the staff do a written summary as well, or is that basically what the WPs are tasked with ?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:49) @jorge : no, there was thata request that the initial analysis be undertaken within CCWG

  Keith Drazek: (00:50) Thanks Holly. We'll need that research if we're going to pursue.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:51) In law the board for sure is responsible for what staff do - we can't look to structural changes for a failure on that side, can we?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:52) @Mathieu: I feel it would be useful to have such a presentation and it does not preclude the CCWG from doing the analysis as such

  Keith Drazek: (00:52) @Jordan, I think the key is ensuring the community can compel the Board to act when it has not done so, not replacing the Board's role.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:52) Under reference model, community would have clearer and powerful ways to hold Board accountable, and so force board to oversee staff differently if needed

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:53) +1 Rosemary

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:53) Good point Rosemary

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:53) @Jorge: can be done of course

  Keith Drazek: (00:53) +! Rosemary....said better than I did.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:53) Rosemary, yup.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:54) that is correct Rosemary

  Alan Greenberg: (00:55) Real question is whether a Board member is honoring his/her fiduciary responsibility to ICANN if he/sh relies on input from staff as definitive.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:56) Under CA corporate law, directors are entitled to rely on employees to discharge their fiduciary duties, so long as the reliance is warranted, and the director has no reason to believe can't rely

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:56) good point Alan.  Members of a board need to determine if their reliance on staff -- or expert or anyone else -- is reasonable based on the persons experience and diligence and that is the core of oversight

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (00:56) ANd further - the hardest thing is where conflicting advice comes, from staff v "community"

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:56) I don't think they could fuction if they couldn't rely on staff. that feels case by case, not structural

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:57) Correct Jonathan;

  Rosemary Fei: (00:57) So if director is aware of complaints about staff operations, director's fiduciary duty would be to investigate to determine validity of complaint, and if investigation reveals valid, then couldn't just ignore

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:57) Agree Rosemary

  Alan Greenberg: (00:58) There are cases in the past and arguably now where reliance of such staff results in capture by that staff.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:58) Agree, Jonathan, directors cannot be expected to know everything the staff knows, and micromanage staff

  Alan Greenberg: (00:59) It can be construed as one of the reasons the cwg and ccwg felt so strongly about having independ. legal counsel.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:59) By creating more rigourous mechanisms for the community to hold board accountable there should be a real counterweight to capture by the staff

  Keith Drazek: (00:59) Transparency of staff briefing materials to the Board would help greatly.

  Rosemary Fei: (00:59) +1, Holly

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:59) +1 Keith

  Rosemary Fei: (01:00) Community's role is to hold Board accountable; board's job to hold staff accountable

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:00) Keith, agreed that transparency can go a long way.  At the same time, I am skeptical of systems that require board meetings to be fully open to public.  Leads to more a legislative style of governance than a fiduciary style

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:00) I think that from a staff level we believe that we need to be accountable to the community, and not just the Board

  Keith Drazek: (01:01) Thanks Holly, agree with the distinction you note.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:01) but Sam, how would you ever operationalize that "chain of command?" As a practical matter, you need to responsible to leadership

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:01) I think Keith’s idea sounds plausible, though, maybe even if board briefing materials were disclosed with a lag in time (short)

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:01) The key is getting balance right between transparency and  need for board to have opportunity to discuss and debate issues in private to come up with a consensus approach often reflecting some compromise that can be difficulat to achieve in public

  Rosemary Fei: (01:02) Agree, Holly.  Sam,  staff reports to Board, not community -- how does community hold staff accountable?

  Rosemary Fei: (01:02) Agree, Holly, that open board meetings create some problems

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:02) @Sam: is it not the same as staff in corporation being accountable to customers while reporting to managers ?


  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:03) I meant serving customers but reporting to managers ?

  Alan Greenberg: (01:03) Oops - sorry for caps

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:03) good point Mathieu re accountability of staff to customers

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:03) Mathieu, that's an interesting comparison. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:04) ICANN staff might practically wish to be accountable to the community, but legally it's through the management to the Board through the CEO. We don't need to reinvent this relation.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:04) of course, it all comes down to enforceability and that path is through senior management and the board so while I might assign you the responsibility to act accountable to  customers, you are ultimately accountable to me as your manager.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:04) #staffaccountability. See CENTR comment "any accountability process be linked and strongly supported by actions that improve the accountability literacy, culture and attitudes of the ICANN Board and staff."

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:05) I think that we've seen from experience that there's a need to make more meaningful redress points as it relates to staff actions, so that the community doesn't have to go through ways to make staff actions a form of Board inaction in order to try to challenge it

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:05) See CENTR comment above fm Giovanni

  Rosemary Fei: (01:05) Customers can't really hold company reps accountable -- they have to get company management to do that.  Empowered community in reference model has much more influence than a customer

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:06) WS2 idea makes sense Thomas, as all accountability mechanisms are now based on current jurisdiction arrangements

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:06) agreed Rosemary, but good analogy in terms of staff recognizing  key constiuency they must satisfy

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:07) Thomas's suggestion makes sense to me

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:07) I agree wih the suggestion Thomas - for jurisdiction to go to WS2

  Rosemary Fei: (01:07) Absolutely -- customer satisfaction should be an important metric to evaluate customer service staff

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:07) Juridiction topic is fundamental

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:07) IPC comments reference an expanded role for Ombudsman as a mediator which I think applies to this question. There do need to be smaller escalations

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:08) re: staff discussion. I sense a confusion of words. Accountability is not only the "discipline/ target setting"/ redress .. Also abatioout consultation, transparency...

  Avri Doria: (01:08) in other words. no to my suggestion that this should not be pushed off to a WP.  oh well, ok.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:08) @avri the W

  Avri Doria: (01:09) i gurss it is good to have strong commanders.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:09)  can do a review and prepare a briefing and

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:09) "pushed off"? isn't it simply having a few people to work on the detail, and then back to all of us?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (01:09) I do not think we should separately look at Staff Accountability.  They are accountable to the board, which is accountable to us

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:09) external input should be judged on its merits, especially if voices from regions/stakeholders which are not so active ly participating within the CCWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:09) the whole CCWG should then work on the matter IMO

  Becky Burr: (01:09) +1 Steve and Thomas

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:10) AGREE

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:10) +1 @Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:10) sorry caps

  Keith Drazek: (01:10) @Holly. Agree jurisdiction is fundamental to our work. I think any CHANGE to jurisdiction and/or headquarters can be WS2 issue.

  Becky Burr: (01:10) i thought that meant you REALLY agree Cheryl

  Avri Doria: (01:10) when did we discuss staff?  you mean just now?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:10) Agree with Steve that staff is accountable directly to board and board directly to Members/community

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:10) + 1 Steve, no need to seperate staff accountability

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:11) Agree with Steve's comment

  Avri Doria: (01:11) i think discussing the staff relationship to the community is a good topic we really should discuss and not sweep under the WS2 carpet.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:13) #staffaccountability. Sorry for the question, but has ICANN ever developed a survey on accountability among its personnel? I am not so sure staff perceives being accountable to Board and/or all community

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:13) +1 Avri

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:13) Giovanni, I'm not aware of a survey during my time that addresses that issue specifically (since 2009)

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:14) BTW, I liked how Mathieu has described accountability, it is not about restricting, decipline, redress only but also about transparency and consultation

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:14) @ Sam, At my time, we were not certainly told we were accountable to the Booard

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:14) which is why it should be as narrow as a possible

  Becky Burr: (01:15) agree that this is VERY difficult Kavouss - we have said that it is identified through the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process (including of course GAC)

  Becky Burr: (01:15) i mean, definition of "public interest"

  Avri Doria: (01:15) i disagree, in a multistakeholder bottomup organization we do not need to communicate to the staff only through the board.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:16) @ Avri, + 1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:16) We should not be deciding on opening or re-opening discussions right now. First we need a clearer picture of what are the major trends in the public consultation. It is much too early to decide on this, especially when such inputs have been made by non-active participantsof the CCWG

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:16) Avri, not sure that communication and accountability are the same thing.

  Avri Doria: (01:16) i agree.  i am only making points when i thnk some comments are being handled and passed into WS2 a little too easily.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:16) ...who cannot make their case here

  Samantha Eisner 2: (01:19) On the issue of defining the public interest, ATRT1 spent time on that issue and has pages within their report on the challenges that were faced in trying to do so.  ICANN's strat plan and operating plan for the next year include a definitional exercise, with teh community, that will reach a community-agreed upon and understood definition of the public interest as an outcome of that work

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:20) Our advisors (some) raise public interest in the context of accountability to groups beyond community. And advisor Wille Currie’s Mutual Accountability Roundtable idea seems a good one to end the potential for endless regression of notion of “guarding the guardians.”

  Becky Burr: (01:20) i like the Roundtable idea as well

  Chris Disspain: (01:22) Steve - thanks for the name check :-) I think that the impact anlysis needs to be a tad wider than my examples but I'm happy to help!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:22) I am not able to get off mute. sorry

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:23) On impact analysis the board said (as I recall) it was working on questions , which would be better sooner than later

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:24) staff have unmuted my line now

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:24) appreciate this very cogent summary re comments relating to stress testing

  Avri Doria: (01:26) Does RB give us a new stress test when asking what happens in California becomes like Alabama?  is that in the stress test pile?

  Rosemary Fei: (01:26) Helpful summary, Steve.

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:26) #Steve. Great summary. Thanks

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:27) agree with idea of needing to be open about the comments, mentioned by Kavouss

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:27) yes as usual excellent job steve

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:27) we should not be defending the draft proposal, but trying to understand the gist of comments, especially those of "external" stakeholders

  Keith Drazek: (01:30) I agree we need to have a fully open mind and seriously consider all comments, but I'm not afraid of defending the work product to date. This CCWG has done tremendous work and our initial proposal was, in my view, a strong first effort.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:30) agree @keith

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:30) +1 @Keith

  Avri Doria: (01:31) it depends on whether we consider comments as something to help us improve the proposal or as obstacles to be overcome.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:32) Avri, I think we'll find both  ;)

  Keith Drazek: (01:32) Constructive comments will help us improve, for sure.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (01:35) :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:38) the amount of input and thought we have is outstanding

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:39) (I'd wish for more but it's great)

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:39) +1 Jordan

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:40) approximately what comment numbers are we now on?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:41) 58

  Becky Burr: (01:41) 1 or 2, not that many

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:41) Is it not 122 and beyond ?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:41) Brasil was fundamentally opposed to that, Steve

  Rosemary Fei: (01:41) I thought fundamental bylaws section starts with comment 122, on page 28

  Avri Doria: (01:41) making it fundemanetal runs up against  dealing with the extended jurisdiction issue

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:42) I found multiple comments speaking to that

  Edward Morris: (01:42) Agree Avri.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:43) trouble hearing

  Keith Drazek: (01:43) Fundamental just means a higher threshold for amendment, not that it's off the table.

  Rosemary Fei: (01:43) Sorry, couldn't understand TIjani, bad line

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (01:44) it sends a signal in a particular direction tho, Keith, I agree wtih Avri

  Alice Jansen: (01:44) We are now on page 33

  Adam Peake: (01:46) Tijani: apologies, Alice and I couldn't hear your comment, bad line.  Could you summarize in chat.

  Keith Drazek: (01:51) @Jordan, yes, it does. It sends a signal that all the accountability mechanisms we're developing are secure, subject to community consensus in WS2 that a change is necessary or preferred. If ICANN's HQ and/or jurisdiction are easily changed, all our current work is built on quicksand. If anything is fundamental, shouldn't the legal foundation of the accountability mechanisms be first?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (01:51) @Alice&co-chairs: I am on the bridge from now on (in my car)

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:52) Welcome, Roelof!

  Alice Jansen: (01:52) Noted - thanks. Roelof!

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:52) Single member panels do present issues that we need to think through, especially as to precedent

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:53) Agree with Keith.  Legal context shouldn't be easy  to change, wherever it ends up

  Chris Disspain: (01:54) well said Becky!

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:55) Well said Becky

  Avri Doria: (01:56) the requirement for ahving particpated in earlier comment processes has to to be tempered with some consideration of whether the appelant is an insider or not.

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP: (01:56) Agree Becky.  A significant tension exists between having binding arbitration and preserving the ability to have a court reconsider the IRP decisions.  Courts would however remain as a backstop under the Federal Arbtiration Act with a limited scope of review

  Alice Jansen: (01:56) WP2 call is on Wednesday 10 June 2015 from 21:00– 22:30 UTC

  Rosemary Fei: (01:56) Is counsel needed on the call Becky just mentioned?

  Alice Jansen: (01:57) we are now on page 46

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (01:57) Thanks Alice

  Edward Morris: (01:57) While certainly understanding Keith's perspective if we're serious about dealing with jurisdiction in WS2 we shouldn't be making the headquarters location part of the fundamental bylaws in WS1.

  Becky Burr: (01:58) Rosemary, I don't think so, we will be getting deeper into the contents and likely to have some questions coming out of the call, but not sure we will need to deal with them on the call itself

  Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (01:58) @Alice and Co-chairs, I need to leave to attend another meeting. Thanks for the call, looking forward to reading the minutes.

  Rosemary Fei: (01:59) OK, Becky.  Just let us know if that changes.  Thank you.

  Becky Burr: (02:00) that's an interesting point Kavouss, which we will need to talk about.  Some folks expressed concern about delay, etc.

  Alice Jansen: (02:02) We are now on page 49

  Alice Jansen: (02:02) 50*

  Alice Jansen: (02:02) Please mute your line if not speaking

  Keith Drazek: (02:02) Mute phones/computers please.

  arasteh: (02:02) Thank Becky.We will find solution to avoid undue delay

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:02) typist pls mute

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:02) Team, I have to apologise that I have not read all the material yet. My fellow rapporteurs have totally beaten me in this race.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:02) Unlike Becky and Steve and co, I can't offer meaningful synthesis and views yet :(

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:03) Comment #222 through  265

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:04) How do community groups currently hold the ACs/SOs accountable?

  Chris Disspain: (02:05) the Sos and ACs ARE the community groupls

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:06) Agree Avri

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:06) Chris, then the ability of the SOs and ACs to be the Members or select the Members should provide accountability  (my question was rhetorical)

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (02:06) Agree, Chris.   We need transparency about the composition of AC/SOs, and wnat to see that they each have internal mechanisms to avoid capture by one segment of their constituency

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:07) The Mutual Accountability Roundtable (Advisor Willie Currie) is elegant, simple, effective, at least it seems so

  Chris Disspain: (02:07) Agree Holly...provided that it is the SOs and Acs that ARE membera then it would be fine...

  Chris Disspain: (02:07) and agree Steve

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:07) +1 Chris and Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:07) that's what the UAs deliver them, Chris. :-)

  Chris Disspain: (02:07) unfortunately it does not Jordan ...but let's not get in to that now!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:08) a minority opinion there, but one to work through for sure

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:09) Counsel - have we looked into a version of the membership model where say individual participants in SOs and ACs became members of classes based on those SOs and ACs,?

  Rosemary Fei: (02:09) What is the Mutual Accountability Roundtable?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:09) And where votes are on our proposed ratios between those classes?

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:10) referred to in Wille Currie's comment - an annual roundtable of challenge and explanation

  Rosemary Fei: (02:10) We considered it.  Having that many members raises a lot of issues

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:11) Jordan, yes there culd be classes of members and individuals could be appointed by the acs/SOs to represent them --  and not all classes must have the same rights.  If there is a proposal that you would like us to study we will do so 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:11) Not based on that question. no.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (02:11) +1 Kavous, but don't forget the CWG expects certain community power surrounding the Iana Function Review.  I would count that as a seventh power, and one that depends on a Member model

  Chris Disspain: (02:12) Rosemary, why are there more issues with lots of members than there are with a smakll number of members that in turn have lost of members?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:12) we need to digest all of the comments and highlight teh issues, and talk them through in two weeks, befor eadopting model changes

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:12) Agree with Rosemary that one issue is how large do you want the Membership body to be

  Keith Drazek: (02:12) +1 Kavouss. We want the simplest structure possible that still delivers the community powers we've identified.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:12) yes!

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:12) Agree w Keith and Jordan

  Chris Disspain: (02:13) Keith + 1 - in fact if we boil it down the ONLY area of disagreement here is whether 'legal enforceability' is a required power

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:13) Advisory bodies could have influence in membership body absent a vote -- just as the GAC is currently influential without a vote

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:13) SSAC not wanting "votes" and RSSAC teh same would be simpler. Governments not doing it even simpler. But that is probably leaping to a conclusion

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (02:13) +1 Holly

  Avri Doria: (02:14) Holly, but other ACs dont have the supper bylaws powers that GAC has.

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:14) bad connection

  Rosemary Fei: (02:14) Chris, as Holly said, if you want to assign it, we can address the implications of having dozens or hundreds of members, versus a handful.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:15) what super bylaws powers do you mean?  Avri --

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:15) @Rosemary @Chris : is this really a serious candidate ? Chris, could you elaborate on the model ?

  Chris Disspain: (02:15) Sorry Mathieu - which model - you mean individuals as members...not a serious candidate as far as I'm concerned

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:16) Chris was asking a question, rather than proposing a model

  Chris Disspain: (02:16) lots of individuals I meaN

  Chris Disspain: (02:16) a small number may work well

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:16) Holly - I think Avri refers to the need for the ICANN Board to reconcile with GAC advice as required by th ebylaws

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:16) @Chris: ok thanks. So let'snot wast's time lawyer's time (and Icann's money) on it ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:17) the UA model does what Tijani just said, his first point

  Keith Drazek: (02:17) +1 Chris. Enforceability is a key question we'll need to resolve. 

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:17) and enforceability is not a "power" it is the reality or non reality of the other powers

  Chris Disspain: (02:17) Jonathan + 1

  Chris Disspain: (02:18) Roelof is making the same point now

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:18) Agree that it is not a model that has been seriously considered but al the individuals who participate in ACs /SOs could be members in classes defined  to mirror the AC/SO and with vote power adjusted to assure that the vote was balanced in whatever way CCWG thinks best

  Rosemary Fei: (02:18) Agree that deciding about level of enforceability is key; the discussion keeps coming back to it, without consensus.

  Chris Disspain: (02:18) Roelof + 1

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:19) Even if we were only saying that "removing the Board must be enforceable", we still need to do all the things that make all the other powers enforceable as well, so we might need to look at the carry overs

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:19) / will need to look over everything :)

  Alice Jansen: (02:19) now moving to page 65

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:19) without enforceability this is all a voluntary system.  There is nothing wrong with a voluntary system -- except that any participant can undermine by not abiding by the voluntary agreement

  Keith Drazek: (02:19) Alternatives to legal enforceability are smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. I haven't seen or heard any specific recommendation that secures the community powers in any way comparable to legal enforceability.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:20) yeah, I"m not sure enforceability is a question of degree. it is or it isn't

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:20) Keith: it's a case of deeming which of the set of powers have to be enforceable

  Chris Disspain: (02:20) agree Johnathan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:20) that's more granular than saying "ALL MUST BE!" or "NONE NEED TO BE"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:21) There are already budget and strategy consultation processes, to be clea

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:21) and we have said improving them will be WS2

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:21) so this power really should be a reserve

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:21) @Jordan but I guess it's also a question of whether true enforceability of some powers will be any different in perceived implications

  Rosemary Fei: (02:21) Agree, Holly, on voluntary systems

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:21) Yep.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:22) Agree Jordan -- but if any of the powers are to be enforceable, need to address the issue of legal personhood, so analysis of which powers should be enforceable doesn't avoid the very difficult issues re who would be members/designators with enforceable rights.

  Becky Burr: (02:22) but don't we need legal persons to make any of it enforceable Jordan?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:22) +1 Becky

  Becky Burr: (02:22) great minds HOlly

  Keith Drazek: (02:22) Yep.

  Chris Disspain: (02:23) I think it's clear that any form of enforceability in a court needs legal personhood...that's why legal enforceability needs ot be decided as a principle

  Rosemary Fei: (02:23) Directors and officers are legal persons -- natural persons -- and they have standing like members.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:23) Becky: that was my point

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:23) if you solve it for one you might have solved it for the rest

  Alice Jansen: (02:24) Now moving to page 69

  Rosemary Fei: (02:28) Board may be saying that, regardless of legal power, Board can't change bylaws politically.

  Becky Burr: (02:30) But Board HAS changed the bylaws over the objection of the only community group that was paying attention

  Samantha Eisner 2: (02:30) @Steve, teh Board was endorsing the notion that the Board should not have unilateral ability to change Bylaws, particularly on the accountability related issues

  Rosemary Fei: (02:30) Board does have legal power, now.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (02:30) So supporting the proposal, not trying to re-frame the status quo

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (02:31) @Samantha -- thanks for that helpful clarification.  

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:32) Thanks Samantha!  Overall it looks like the ICANN Board is fairly supportive of the expanded communitypowers

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:32) Tijani: Adobe Connect *so* much better than phone :-)

  Rosemary Fei: (02:32) Can we change "recalling" to "removing" -- to use different terms for individual directors versus full board?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:33) +1 Rosemaryu

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:33) Remove individual directors; recall entire board

  Keith Drazek: (02:34) @Tijani: I believe the appointing organization is the only body entitled to remove individual board members.

  Rosemary Fei: (02:35) Corporate law does limit removal power to the member(s) that elected the director, but perhaps could bind members contractually to give community the right to make the decision.

  Avri Doria: (02:35) i have to drop off the AC to go to the airport, but will try to stay on the phone bridge.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:35) +1 Keith

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (02:36) +1 Keith, as to a "not for cause" removal

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:36) Kavouss, this information has all been provided in a table already.

  Alan Greenberg: (02:37) Binding other AC/SO to remove the director of a particular AC/SO dies not address the problem raised. It still put s te power in the single ac/SO

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:37) WE are  working on an update of the powers chart and are waiting for the formal questions from Kavouss to be certified.  We have not seen these questions from CCWG yet.

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:37) Thanks Rosemary - sounds like flexibility if we need it

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:38) We only need to provide for a "without cause" removal.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (02:38) Kavouss is asking about powers that are 'exercisable' in each column.   It's just as important to understand whether/how powers are enforceable

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:39) Jordan is correct that this information is already provided in a chart and we are looking at whether it needs expanding.  In addition, on last call Kavouss was asked to put his questions in writing by the co-chairs so that they could be certified to us to answer if the co-chairs felt that they were not addressed to date.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:39) Such a table is on page 5 of

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:39) It is going to be updated with more details soon

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:40) Steve, we are including that info in the chart but still need other questions certified

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:40) sorry team I have to lea e.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:40) now

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:40) ciao Cheryl

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (02:40) Thanks @Cheryl!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:41) We could also expand on concept of advisory roles for SOs/ACs that dont want to be legal persons

  Rosemary Fei: (02:42) Shortly before this meeting started, counsel provided responses to GAC questions, some of which touched on roles of SO/ACs that choose not to have a member avatar

  Alice Jansen: (02:42) Page 73

  Adam Peake: (02:43) might also be helpful.  A response to quesions from Sam Eisner egarding member rights

  Adam Peake: (02:43) (regarding)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:43) I have a question to ask re stress-testing

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:44) Recall board -- not "spill"

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (02:45) "spill" came originally from Tonkin, an ozzie

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:45) oups sorry Holly

  Rosemary Fei: (02:47) @Alan, a member could agree that it will not remove its director unless the community votes to do so.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:48) I'm the "spill" police, Mathieu!

  Rosemary Fei: (02:49) Like the threat of litigation, the threat of removal of a director, or recall of the entire board, should be threats whose very existence should make it unlikely they will be used.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:50) +100, Rosemary

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:56) Uh oh

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:56) oh bad timing Mathieur

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:56) -r

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:57) Mathieu was spilled

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:57) good use of the term David

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:57) Thanks Holly, er police officer

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:57) I can still read !

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:58) ;)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:58) Apologies folks, was the 3 hour time limit from my telco

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:59) so - we DO NOT need to propose the implications for our work by 16 June for the suggestions for what is next?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:59) part 3 as Thomas just said is not part of the next ten days?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:59) @Jordan: if you CAN that's perfect, but not a MUST

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (02:59) ok

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:59) what are dates for the Paris meeting?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (03:00) correct, Jordan!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:00) 17-18 July

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:00) @Holly I anticipate that counsel attendance will be required under the same conditions of Buanos Aires

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (03:01) ANotehr question for THomas or Mathieu - are those judgements about the classifcation of ffeedback for the whole feedback in that area right - not per comment?

  Adam Peake: (03:01) We are in final negotiations with a central Paris hotel.  We will inform the group as soon as those negotiations are complete, expected within 24 hours.  ICANN will support members and liaisons as was the case for other F2F meetings.

  Rosemary Fei: (03:01) Thank you, Leon.

  Rosemary Fei: (03:01) Adam, please include counsel in your room count

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (03:02) That is fine Leon.  Have it on the calendar

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (03:02) great set of feedback

  Rosemary Fei: (03:02) I do as well, Leon

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (03:02) thanks everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:03) Thanks @Rosemary and @Holly

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (03:03) thanks all!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:03) Thanks all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (03:03) Very reasonable question and thank you for asking it, Sebastien!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (03:04) Thx all! Bye!

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:04) Thanks

  Rosemary Fei: (03:04) thank you, all

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (03:04) This has been a very helpful call.  Look forward to reconnecting soon

  Keith Drazek: (03:04) Thanks all.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (03:04) bye all

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP: (03:04) Have a good day; goodbye.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:04) thank you all

  Izumi Okutani: (03:04) Thanks bye all

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:04) And maybe also opening the WP?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (03:04) bye & thanks

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (03:04) thanks and bye

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:04) bye everyone

  Kimberly Carlson: (03:04) Bye, thank you

  • No labels