You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 7 Current »

Attendees: 

Sub-Group Members:   Alain Bidron, Becky Burr, Beran Gillen, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez, David Maher, David McAuley, David Post, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Kavouss Arasteh, Martin Boyle, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Steve DelBianco   (17) 

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:  James Bladel

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


Transcript

Transcript WP2 Meeting #2.doc

Transcript WP2 Meeting #2.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9o55kjm4m8/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-02mar15-en.mp3

Notes

WP 2 Call # 1 - Repeat 

This call is being recorded 

Link to WP2 wiki https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents  

Volunteers 

Compact with Community 

David Post 

Alain Bidron 

David Maher  

Ombudsman 

Chris LaHatte 

Robin Gross 

Edward Morris 

Need: leader 

Reconsideration  

Chris LaHatte 

David McAuley 

Robin Gross 

Edward Morris 

Need: leader 

Independent Review 

Paul Rosenzweig  

David McAuley 

Jonathan Zuck 

Robin Gross 

Chris LaHatte 

David Post 

Greg Shatan 

David Maher 

Need: leader  

New Mechanisms 

Robin Gross 

Need: more volunteers 

Need: leader 

Standards  

Robin Gross 

Paul Rosenzweig 

Need: leader 

------ 

Notes/Action Items 

Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March - 

5 work items were identified on Friday (refer to https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Principles%20For%20Our%20Work%20annotated2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285125000&api=v2): 

1 Contact with community on ICANN mission, core values 

2 Refinement, improvement to ombudsman function 

3 Refinement, improvement to reconsideration process 

4 Refinement, improvement to independent review process 

5 New Mechanisms 

Jordan and Becky have compared notes and decided new mechanisms should be moved over to WP1  

Feedback: 

Principles for our Work:  

No comments  

Work Item 1:  

- What do we mean by community? Definition needed.  

Suggestion to incorporate communities identifed by ICG 

- Do you refer to mission understood to be Bylaws - have you considered AoC integrated in Bylaws?  

--> For volunteers to explore 

Is ICANN's mission other than technical? Define technical.  

--> Technical used to essentially limit role to reasonably necessary tasks needed to achieve coordination 

- How do we contact community? Would there be designated people? 

--> this goes hand in hand with what is the community   

Work Item 2: 

- Conflict between empowering community and giving powerful role to ombudsman - ombudsman would be a vector, not empowering.  Do we need an ombudsman if we are empowering community?  

- Ombudsman connected with community through triggered/non-triggered  

Work Item 3 

Work Item 4 

- Suggestion to combine 3 and 4 

--> Reconsider - change mind whereas independent review - assessment whether consistent with mission and core values.  

- First review then reconsideration 

- Reconsideration is made to BGC whereas independent review is more heavy-weight process involding outside arbitral body (time consuming, resources) - these are two different recourse mechanisms. Reconsideration is first step on road.  

Work Item 5 

-- 

Times for regular calls will be circulated for reports on progress 

-- 

IAP-IRP  

CWG did ask the CCWG whether would have independent appeal mechanism for purpose of challenging delegation, redelegtions. CCWG responded we would have independent review mechanisms that might be usable by affected community but noted that some parts of community (e.g. ccNSO) feel strongly that it is their job to design any independent appeal mechanism. We might be providing tool they could use. Our task is to suggest IRP to create standards for ordinary policy issues.  

IRP could be used for IAP process but defining  IAP standards is not within CCWG work.  

IAP was designed for only IANA related matters - it could be a subset of matters IRP currently takes on.  

ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions  

Action Items

Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March 

ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions

 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (3/2/2015 11:47) Welcome All to the WP2 Meeting #2 on Monday, 02 March.

  Becky Burr: (11:55) hello everyone

  Edward Morris: (11:56) Hi Becky.

  Becky Burr: (11:59) Hello everyone

  Becky Burr: (12:00) Hi Alice - could you put up the Principles for our Work document that I circulated yesterday?

  Alice Jansen: (12:00) Hi Becky - document is up on the screen

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:00) Hi Becky, hi all

  Becky Burr: (12:00) thanks

  Alice Jansen: (12:01) It can also be found here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

  Becky Burr: (12:01) we'll give others a couple of minutes and then get started

  Beran Gillen: (12:01) Hello everyone

  arasteh: (12:02) Dear Grace,

  arasteh: (12:02) May you kindly confirm that I will be called up 8dialed up

  arasteh: (12:02) Kavouss

  Brenda Brewer: (12:03) Kavouss, we will call you asap

  arasteh: (12:04) tks

  Brenda Brewer: (12:06) Problems calling Kavouss...we continue to try

  Alice Jansen: (12:07) The recording is now being recorded

  Alice Jansen: (12:07) and I meant the session is now being recorded...

  Brenda Brewer: (12:09) Kavouss is on phone line now.

  David Maher (GNSO - RySG): (12:42) +1 Becky

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:42) that's how I would understand it, Becky

  Adam Peake: (13:01) thank you.

  Alain Bidron (ISPCP): (13:01) Thank you

  • No labels