Attendees:
Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Participants: Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Keith Drazek, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Malcolm Hutty, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Larry Strickland, Paul Twomey, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thomas Schneider, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Advisors: William Currie
Legal Counsel: Edward Morris, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit
Visitors: Alex Deacon, Antranik Hagopian, Asha Hemrajani, Benny Nordreg, Beth Bacon, Boyoung Kim, Caroline Greer, Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Cake, David Johnson, Francisco Obispo, Helen Han, Jim Prendergast, Kate Perl, Kevin Murphy, Konstantinos Komaitis. Luca Urich, Lynn St. Amour, Mark Buell, Monika Ermert, Ole Jacobsen, Wendy Profit, Wisdom Donkor
Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Kim Carlson, Leana Rahim, Mary Wong
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here:
- Part 1 (AM) https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1568bzabs9/
- Part 2 (PM)
The audio recording is available here:
Proposed Agenda
Agenda
1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)
2. Drafting response to public comment received (08:15-10:10)
Break (10:10-10:30)
3. Drafting response to public comment received (10:30-11:15)
4. Debate on enforceability: for and against (11:15-12:15)
Lunch Break (12:15-13:15)
4. Drafting response to public comment received (13:15-15:15)
Break (15:15-15:30)
5. Drafting response to public comment received (15:30-16:15)
6. Responding to NTIA query on timeline (16:15-17:15)
5. Preparing for community engagement at ICANN 53 & establishing Buenos
Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)
Notes
Part 1
Roll call: no remote participants.
Robin Gross attending.
Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us to
consider as a reply. The public comment tool has been populated. CCWG
meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear from
the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,
Review, and then a dive into details.
Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting.
Questions received in the comment need to be explained. We as a group are
deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of the
community.
The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step. The
board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying,
rather than the community trying to work together of solutions. This
process has brought to community together in seeking consensus on
improving ICANN. And this reflected in the comments and review of the
powers we want to bring to the community. A lot of consensus on the basis
proposals.
Shared goal.
Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN.
co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group
We should review the models we have been considering. The reference
model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we are
asking those who want to speak to a particular model for community
empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented.
plan for the day:Review of the public comment: hear the models; and
review these in the afternoon.
Order of speaking for the models:
Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan, Sam, Greg.
The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues point
of view.
Request to hold a random draw for speaking. Request that new voices make
their thoughts about the model. New chairs of working groups and open the
membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership
A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reform
was top-down, the initiative of a few board members. The process not yet
process but we have moved a long way forward.
Review of public comment report.
WP2
Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the comments
Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support
Need work on ICANN's defined powers. Suggestion to consider Human Rights,
a sub group working on that.
Contract compliance should part of the core values. A balancing test.: A
change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core values
against each other
Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead,
but may need to be reconsidered.
Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening
Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical part
of public interest. Some new ideas and some missing aspects.
Notion of fundamental bylaws. Some major themes. String support for
having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental,
and some additions. Clarification on who can change and how. Question if
the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.
The headquarters issue important for the group.
IRP:
The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process more
accessible. Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.
Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound by
binding arbitration.
Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment
Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be
independent. There needn't be a compromise of independence, and group
needs to rethink this. And also comments about the selection process.
Reconsideration:
Roll of the ombudsman. The board reviewing itself, and conflict of
interest issues.
To avoid frivolous requests.
Next step: the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.
And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do a
consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.
Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our further
deliberations this week.
Comment: Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.
Some issues about the binding nature. About the number of panel. About
the way selected. And the issues of diversity of geography.
Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP. Anglo-saxon dominance of
ICANN processes. Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.
Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation
Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational. A
critical task to seek out the right persons. Agreement on the need for
diversity, but how to achieve is out challenge.
Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground
of what we agree to and move forward.
On the issue of the IRP, further consideration of enforceability.
The impact assessment review from the Board received last night. And need
for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal
to explain what they think the answers are. So the answers can be shaped
into the public comment.
As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passed
on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which will
cause the group to rethink.
The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this. The board
does not have answers to those questions. And the Board has no
preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was no
intention to be anything other that constructive.
Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking for
answers. The point of the questions was to say how you considered from
this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers.
Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not the
board itself.
What do you as the board think the answer's should be? As they have just
read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions?
Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday
3pm.
WP1. High level community feedback was positive. Responses on the
community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions were
on the webpage until late in the process.
Amendments to the planning process to make sure concerns taken into
consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned. The
response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable.
Standard bylaws: request for more time to review. Something for the
group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review
Fundamental bylaws. Mostly in favor.
Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have a
consistency of process and thresholds.
Real of the board. Request for higher threshold.
AoC: concern about location. What happens in the future to the AoC,
should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition. And
composition of the groups and to ensure diversity
Mechanisms: generally supported direction. But comments show need
decisions around enforceability.
1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2. The model
presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable
approximation of the community. Members favored over designators.
Concern about implementation. Concern about the voting weights. RSAC and
SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power. And hard to judge the range of around the model, further
discussion by the CCWG is needed. Importance of avoiding insider capture.
Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who
watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for a
forum.
Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policy
process, and ensure that the responses address accountability
specifically.
Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view of
accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go
to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want. GAC unsure.
Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might it
look more and more inward looking. End result may be a devaluing of the
ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.
If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. But
community feedback doesn't suggest that.
When discussing replacing the old mechanisms. Remember the community
mechanism we are seeing up. The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, and
key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all. The community
mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa
There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need to
address those. The models are complex and there must be clarity.
Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at. Now
should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, more
accessible to outsiders.
Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model. A different analysis now
and what we would do in a crisis mode. In a crisis model, where we
question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such a
time.
Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all those
other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, which
has some similarity. Private international organizations, such as FIFA, a
negative example. And then the key question of who is the global
mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to. Can the IGF set
iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that represents
the global public interest.
There are general ares of agreement. We are arguing around details. Now
we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.
Break - thank you
Action Items
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 05:11) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud. All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:52) Greetings all. Nice to be here in person. Looking forward to connecting faces with names. Come say hello.
Rosemary Fei: (05:53) Good morning, all. Looking forward to today's session.
Michael Clark (Sidley): (05:53) Good Morning
Stephanie Petit: (06:00) Good morning
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:04) Hello from Amsterdam. I am sorry I wasn't able to be in BA today. I'll be there with you on Sunday :)
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:05) Izumi sends her apologies. Will join you later on
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:07) Hello everyone
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:07) Buenos dias!
Brenda Brewer: (06:08) Audio line is working.. Ready to go!!
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (06:08) Hello everyone!
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:08) kia ora
Greg Shatan: (06:11) Hello, all!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:13) applause from here too
Becky Burr: (06:13) good morning
Matthew Shears: (06:16) morning
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) morning all...
Avri Doria: (06:34) if sales pitch is offensive we can call them elevator pitches.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:36) I hope never to be in an elevator for six minutes :)
Avri Doria: (06:37) i thought it was 3-5 minutes.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:40) Confirmed 3-5 minutes. Jordan don't try to expand !
Greg Shatan: (06:41) Elevator might get stuck between floors....
Rosemary Fei: (06:41) Is there any way to allow the document being displayed to fill the window, so more of it can be viewed at larger size?
Alice Jansen 2: (06:44) Hi Rosemary - There is a full screen button on your presentation pod (4 arrows) -
Avri Doria: (06:50) please repeat that prooisal?
Avri Doria: (06:51) oh, not a consensus call, but talk of a consensus call. ok, thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:52) someone has an open mike
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:53) please ensure mikes are off unless you are the current speaker
Avri Doria: (06:56) us jewsih folk don't thik of ourselves as anglo saxon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:57) not sure I do either :-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (06:58) Anglo Stralian?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:58) It's about english mother tongue isn't it ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:58) closer. though less Anglo roots in AU than ever before in pop dynamics ATM
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:05) would it be helpful for Sidley and Adler to look at the questions from the Board and ICANN legal?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:07) @Holly -- yes, it would be helpful. And it might well be very expensive.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:08) my POV is yes @Holly
Rosemary Fei: (07:08) Counsel will be sure to await formal direction.
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:08) We will not do anything @Steve unless certified to us
Rosemary Fei: (07:10) Is there a link to the Board's questions, please?
Alice Jansen 2: (07:11) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Some of the questions are very helpful
Keith Drazek: (07:12) No one said we wanted to ignore the Board's questions. I think the issue is more about time allocation. 60+ questions will require a substantial amount of work on top of our current load, so there's a potential impact on timelines.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:12) Others of the questions areentirely loaded
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:13) as Thomas said, it would be simpler to just put on the table from the ICANN Staff's point of view, what it is that they actually DO want. (Chris D just confirmed that it was not the Board that prepared them.)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:15) @Jordan: I noted Sam is on the pitch list
Samantha Eisner: (07:15) I'm in the room if anyone would like to speak with me
Samantha Eisner: (07:16) And we do not have "the answers"
Alan Greenberg: (07:19) @Sam, wasn't claiming that you do, I just wanted clarity on what was said.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:20) not the "answers" about what to do but more fleshed out concerns about what the impacts might be
Greg Shatan: (07:21) The questions are rather negatively phrased, oriented toward risks, with terms like barriers to entry, chilling global participation, risks of capture, unintended consequences, potential adverse consequences, etc.fff
Greg Shatan: (07:23) Speaking as a lawyer, I recognize the approach. We tend to look for risks and worst case scenarios. The next step would be to try and solve for them.
Greg Shatan: (07:24) I would hope that no matter what proposal we came up with, even if it was one that was perfectly aligned with the board's desires, that the list of questions would have had just the same risk-probing approach.
Greg Shatan: (07:27) We'll never know if that would have been the case, or if an entire piano keyboard of questions was generated because the Board or management of ICANN has deep concerns about aspects of these particular proposals.
Robin Gross: (07:40) Greetings, everyone. I finally got on the network in this room.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:40) Well done Robin !
Keith Drazek: (07:41) Kavouss raises an important point concerning the dependencies between the CWG proposal and the work of the CCWG. The CWG proposal makes certain assumptions based on securing fundamental bylaws related to a number of items, including PTI. We should ensure we understand those dependencies, or the CWG transition work may be undermined.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) @Keith : we have planned to prepare how we can indicate our progress regarding CWG dependencies during the week/ later today
Keith Drazek: (07:42) Thanks you Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:42) I agree fully on importance
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:43) I indeed it is essential
Matthew Shears: (07:44) + 1
Avri Doria: (07:47) i do not understand Pauls'point - which 8 people?
James Bladel - GNSO: (07:48) I'm wondering if there's any basis for Paul's concern. Is this fear of a narrow group of "insiders" reflected in te public comments?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) A bit, yes
Kevin Murphy: (07:49) The audio streams listed here (https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ccwg-accountability) don't seem to be working.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:49) that's why I referred to it in the summary
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (07:50) Audio broken?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC) 2: (07:51) AT some point, those who feel unrepresented bear the burden of participation. No one can be entirely passive. Our constant attempt to act "in the interests of" those who have not yet spoken can be just as dangerous as a lack of diversity
Keith Drazek: (07:52) ICANN is both a multi-stakeholder model and a global multi-stakeholder community. It's current SO-AC structure is the multi-stakeholder mechanism. It is open and inclusive. The current proposal recommends empowering the SOs and ACs. It is the definition of transitioning authority to the global multi-stakeholder community.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (07:57) We are closing the queue for questions/comments with Avri
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:04) Holly and Rosemary -- can you react to Tijani's question just now?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:04) Tijani: I think that it's required by California law for members/designators to have that power
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:05) @Steve, could you state the question?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:06) +1 to Sebastien in this sense - submissions / comments "are for reading not counting"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:09) sell said @avri
Matthew Shears: (08:09) agree with Avri - we are close on the powers we just have to figure out the implementation mechanisms
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) I would just add to Sebastien's comment that divergence does not undermine the process but on the contrary, it enriches it as it allows us to get feedback on different points of view
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:09) +1 @Avri
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:10) good point, Leon.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:10) Agree with Avri, +1!
Giovanni Seppia (EURid): (08:10) Well said Avri!
Alice Jansen 2: (08:11) We are now on a break and will convene at 10:30 ART
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:41) Reconvening
Matthew Shears: (08:48) its not just about assessing eficiency of the CCWG proposal its about monitoring the effectiveness of the community powers, are they fulfilling their intended purpose, etc. I believe that some review of the mechanisms and enhancements is important
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:49) @Matthew sorry if my summary was misleading but agree with your better description
Matthew Shears: (08:50) Thanks Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:52) Why is the screen so appallingly set out?
Matthew Shears: (08:53) can we move hte chat and notes to the side?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:53) (in the adobe room, not in the room)
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:53) +1 to Matthew's request
jp: (08:54) +1
Mary Wong: (08:54) Hello all, this is the ICANN meeting setup so it may look different from the usual meeting setup.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:55) That's for sure.
Greg Shatan: (08:55) It makes the document illegible.
Avri Doria: (08:55) we need to find a satificing point, to say we are all eqqually dissatisfied is way too negative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:55) OK Mary but for e.g. now we are all well 'in sense/sion' we could ditch the Session Info pod for eg, gaining space to reorganise as requested
Avri Doria: (08:56) satsificing - meet minimal equirements at least though it may not meet all hopes.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) one of the more useful terms to emerge from the discipline of economics
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:56) (if that is where it came from?)
Mary Wong: (08:57) @CLO, we're requested to not change the AC setup as much as possible so as to leave it the same for other subsequent users. Let me ask (sorry, I'm not primary support for this CCWG so I'm just pitching in a bit here).
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:57) So for the excercise we need to guide our interventions with the "skirt rule" long enough to cover the subject but short enough to make interesting
Greg Shatan: (08:58) Can you at least mount the document so that it can be enlarged across the entire space allotted to it in this set-up?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:59) SIGH OK @mary but AC rooms are delightfully flexible
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) it's very disconcerting to see all this stuff moving
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (08:59) I am going only to speak in slogans
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:59) The AC room has a life of its own
Mary Wong: (09:00) We are trying to make the document more legible :)
Mary Wong: (09:00) And the chat
Greg Shatan: (09:01) AC room has developed sentience and is trying to run the meeting on its own.
Mary Wong: (09:02) All, hope this view/screen is better. If you still can't read the document as clearly as you'd like, you may want to try the Full Screen mode.
Rosemary Fei: (09:02) If it got us to legible, I'm fine with some moving around on the screen.
Matthew Shears: (09:03) in both screen modes the doc does not fill the screen
Rosemary Fei: (09:05) And full screen means you can't see chat or notes.
Brenda Brewer: (09:05) correct Rosemary.
Tech: (09:05) Everyone - i will move the pods around, please bear with us for few mins.
Keith Drazek: (09:06) Greg's point about the connection between the CWG and CCWG work and assumptions is very, very important.
Matthew Shears: (09:06) + I Keith - it is critical!
Brenda Brewer: (09:09) How is the view now?
David McAuley (RySG): (09:09) this view is better for me
Rosemary Fei: (09:10) yes, better
Matthew Shears: (09:10) better thanks
Brenda Brewer: (09:10) Good to know. Thank you.
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:11) Much better
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:12) Is anyone else having connectivity issues?
Mary Wong: (09:13) @Leon, are you having trouble with AC or with the wifi connection?
Brenda Brewer: (09:21) Techs are working on streaming connection. please stand by.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:22) hope that that made some kind of sense :)
Rosemary Fei: (09:23) Made sense to me, @Jordan.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:29) @Mary I seem to be having problems with wi-fi. Very unstable connection
Mary Wong: (09:30) @Leon, the techs are checking on things - stand by
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:36) There is so much commonality in all these pitches, which is really reassuring
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:37) @Jordan there is much more agreement than disagreement overall as I see it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:38) only thing I wished I had said that I didn't say: with the end of the NTIA Contract, which is a real tooth (remember 2012?), the world in which our current 'voluntary' model evolved is ending..
Keith Drazek: (09:39) +1 Jordan
Matthew Shears: (09:42) agree
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:49) "Empowered SO/AC model"
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (09:50) "No Perfect Headquarters" - +1 Erica
James Bladel - GNSO: (09:51) +1 to Erika. The Grass is not always greener.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:52) very true
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) so what is the difference between the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model? Aren't they the same things?
Malcolm Hutty: (09:57) @Paul Twoomey, Thank you for being clear about something you think would not work about a broad membership model. I certainly wouldn't want that outcome either. You assume that members would elect directors on a pure plebescite; that would be undesirable, but also unnecessary.
Malcolm Hutty: (09:58) I see the model I suggested as a variant on Becky's "Empowered SO" model: most of the powers are held, under the bylaws, by SOACs. Broad membership only have ultimate power of enforcement (individually, not just collectively) and the Board duty is owed to them.
Keith Drazek: (09:59) +1 Mathieu, this was a very constructive session. Thanks to all contributors.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:03) please consider my hand raised.
Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (10:04) @Robin you've been added to the queue
Keith Drazek: (10:05) At some point, in addition to the proposed benefits, we'll need to consider the potential risks of each suggested model. Addressing the risks, as the Board has suggeted in its recent memo, might help us find common ground.
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:05) thanks
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:05) Couldn't they just tear the letter up?
Chris Disspain: (10:06) well, phsically, Jordan, of course
Chris Disspain: (10:06) but legally no
James Bladel - GNSO: (10:06) Right, Jordan. If they think they have met the circumstances as Board member, why step down?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) because it is legally enforceable
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:07) @James: we have some legal advice on this. Need to research it
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:07) who'd have standing to enforce such a thing?
Chris Disspain: (10:07) Holly has previously confimred that such a letter would be enforceable
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:08) The empowered designator model does NOT rule out UA's. The lawyers said we need UAs in either model.
Chris Disspain: (10:08) but Matgieu I right that we need to confoirm all of this stuff
Chris Disspain: (10:08) Mathieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:08) by whom?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:09) certainly not by SOs/ACs unless they become legal persons
Paul Twomey: (10:09) @malcolm Thanks for your clarification. One thing I do worry about is not just votes for the board but also the ability for a mobilser to develop member blocks in a range of SOs/ACs to prusue a common policy outcome
Paul Twomey: (10:10) We already see the challenges in the GNOS of having contracted parities that are now both registries, registrars and in some cases ccTLDs.
James Gannon: (10:10) If we dont have legal personhood under this model then the legal enforceability woud remiain as it is now which is the California AG no?
Samantha Eisner: (10:11) is there a possibility that enforcement could also stand with other individual Board members? or could we identify an enforcement path in the letter?
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:12) Also enforeceable by any individual member of the ICANN board
Malcolm Hutty: (10:12) @Paul, That's a point worth addressing, but I think my proposal is entirely orthogonal; essentially, I am suporting Becky's "Empowered SOAC" model, but whereas people are arguing about whether SOAC rights are enforced through SOACs appointing members, or acting as designators, or not at all, I'm saying allow broad members the power to enforce. I'm not proposing transferring existing or proposed powers from SOACs to members
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:12) sounds me to like we are talking about the same thing: the Empowered Designator Model and the Empowered AC/SO Model.
Chris Disspain: (10:14) I admit to being confused....isn't the reason we moved to discussing UAs because we acknowledged that some SOs would not be happy creating legal personhood
Avri Doria: (10:15) what makes an empowered SOAC, different from a SOAC?
Keith Drazek: (10:15) I think a key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is it changes virtually nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN and the community processes. It introduces virtually no risk. It is not at all complex. It allows for future SOs or ACs to join the community. It is the LEAST disruptive option, in my opinion.
Paul Twomey: (10:15) Thanks Malcolm. That is clearer for me.
Avri Doria: (10:15) i do not understand what Jordan jsut said about not needing to join a SOAC inorder to be part of a member.
Rosemary Fei: (10:16) The director does not hold his/her conditional letter of resignation; some trusted representative of the community holds it. Once community believes triggering condition has occurred, the community would no longer recognize that individual as a director -- for example, not allow attending board meetings . So if conditions are clearly met, and letter is published, should be "self-enforcing"
Chris Disspain: (10:16) but doesn't it still invovle to SO becoming a leagl entity?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) Some people had said there was a perceived barrier around the UA system
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:16) an assumption that one might have to "join" a UA to become part of the applicability of the accountability powers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:16) as I understand it the resolution / inclusion of the statement of intention to come together to discus' that becky outlined is an elegant alternate to the UA
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:16) I think Alan may be asusming that SSAC and RSSAC decided not to seek voting because of the Member Model. But I do not believe that is true. We should ask them
Keith Drazek: (10:16) @Avri, my understanding is that an SO or AC only needs to explicitly state its intention to participate in the community process, under its existing bylaws, to gain the powers.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (10:17) I was trying to clarify that that was never intended and never part of the model
Chris Disspain: (10:17) I shall ask Becky
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:17) The fact that virtually the whole CCWG and almost all commentors on our proposal agree with the powers we forsee, but that we receive a lot of comments from in- and outside on a model requiring the creation of legal entities to enforce the powers, to me indicates that many are not convinced that this is the only workable option. So either, we convince them, or identify a workeable alternative
Avri Doria: (10:17) if the US is the meber, how can one not a meber of that UA has a say?
