Members:  Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (18)

Participants:  Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jonathan Zuck, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Maura Gambassi, Paul Szyndler, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Sabine Meyer, Thomas Schneider, Tracy Hackshaw, Yasuichi Kitamura   (23)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei   (5)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Kimberly Carlson, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies:  Alice Munyua, Giovanni Seppia

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



The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Proposed Agenda

  1. Welcome Roll call SoI 
  2. WPs update on respective work plans towards Paris 
  3. Initial outline of Paris meeting agenda 
  4. Presentation by lawyers on the community models 
  5. AOB


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

1. Welcome, roll call & SoI

Contact staff if you need assistance to update/post your SOI.

Keith Drazek, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Greg Shatan are on phone. 

2 WPs Progress updates


Calls have been set up for Wednesday and Monday to focus in on getting work done. An annotated comment tool has been circulated to the group and an update will be sent soon. Tool will need to be reviewed in advance of calls. We have significant issues to discuss.


Call on Wednesday, Friday and next Monday. We have volunteers working on drafting content for second report based on BA disucssions and public comment period. Voting rights and mechanisms will be discussed in upcoming calls as well as AoC. After Paris we will update the public comment tool. 


First call held on 6 July. We will be dividing work with regards to emerging issues into three subgroups. Reading list in place. They will build inventory of mechanisms already in place. If no mechanisms in place, we will create a list of items to discuss at Paris meeting. 


Call planned for Wednesday.


All volunteers with availability should join and help with drafting for Paris. A short number of key principles can help us focus on what matters: 1) stay focused on issues for which we have wide support and not reopen new issues. We have tremendous summaries of public comment that were produced ahead of BA. Read public comment summaries and check what was agreed on. 2) we have spent time to define WS1 and WS2. WS1 is measures that would enable implementation. This should help us draw line on what can be done now and in WS2. 3) To have a productive meeting in Paris, we will need to have documents in advance. Frozen deadline for Paris documents is: 14 July - 23:59 UTC. We are freezing document supporting F2F discussions 2-3 days prior to meeting for all to be given opportunity to review documents and avoid last minute submissions. 

Initial outline of Paris meetings

Outcome: find common ground on discussions labeled open so that second proposal can be drafted for WS1 in time for PC2. 

Agenda will include: Work Stream 1 items out of WP3, discussions on community mechanisms (models and modalities), removal/recall of Board members, contributions from GAC, refinements needed on IRP, CWG requirements. 

We will build agenda on topics rather than review report line by line. 

We will provide a consolidated agenda by next Tuesday.


- Removal and recall Board - why?

--> Individual Board member removal and recall of Board yielded comments that were not unanimously in favor and a number of comments requested refinement. 

--> It may no longer need to be considered depending on model. 

Lawyers' presentation  

The slide-deck will allow further discussion in Paris. The independent legal counsel walked the CCWG-ACcountability through the slide-deck. See - - for more information.

Slide 3: we left BA with better understanding of hoe community works. We would like to provide you with pathways but don't have a biaised in terms of the outcome. We heard that the current mechanisms are insufficient. The concerns underline difference of opinion. The models put on table in BA address some of the concerns. 

Slide 4 Trust and enforceability continuum

Slide 5 - Empowered SO/AC membership relies on direct membership but it does not require legal personhood. The empowered SO/AC designators model expands on current rule of selecting designators. Both of models respond to concerns of lack of enforceability.

Slide 6 Common elements: 1) they rely on SO/ACs to operate; 2) they rely on staff, Board to apply Bylaws. Enforceability is enhanced through direct rights or indirect rights around powers that are described in initial proposal. CWG dependency power was added. Some of powers are subject to indirect enforcement. 

Slide Empower SO/AC membership model - nobody would be required to be a member and any can choose to opt-in. It requires legal personhood. Exercising powers would not change. Door would remain open for membership. 

Slide 8 - refer to set of questions. 

Slide 9 - Slide 10 - Slide 11

Slide 12 - More detail about powers, how they would be enforceable primarily through encouraging binding process (IRP process). 

Slide 13 - We are trying to provide detail on implementation. We have had to make some modification.

Slide 14 - We have model where Board has full control over ICANN subject to Bylaws and articles of incorporation. Powers to amend articles of Bylaws are currently solely in hands of Board.

Slide 15 - One of the problems is that with membership model, we would be trying to draft a structure where there may be no members. In corporate law that would be a problem. Both models start with voluntary compliance phase. There is a difference between going to membership and designators. There is a trigger: both models are essentially relying on rights giving to non-members. Read slide for description of Bylaw enhancements. Designators have agreement as to when will exersice rights. Any SO/ACs could opt in at any time in both models.

Slide 16 - The models were modified to drive them as far as we could drive them. It does not mean we were able to get 100%. Models may involve trade-offs. Enforcement issues depending on model.  There is a risk members could capture organization, hence the majority trigger. We will need to work on limitations on voting agreements. 

Slide 17 -  Slide 18 

Slide 21 - CCWG to populate this slide in Paris

Slide 22 -  


This is an introduction to Paris discussions: a common baseline of information around these models. 



- We should have asked to consider how two models will impact on overall proposal: mission, core values, principles etc. We need to understand to what extent models can deliver on elements of proposals. Slide 16: it is noted that designator model would not have reserved powers etc - it is important to draw that out more clearly. 

---> In interest of time, issues are more straightforward. Focus on difficult areas. This needs be looked at holistically. We can add more detail in Paris on how issues are impacted. 

- If the escalation is not decided by the whole community as described, does that enable member to do enforcement he wants? Quid of third model - can we have a review of it? 

---> Third model is not a separate model, it is a modification. Both models think about legal personhood. 

- The way the empowered designators model is described implies right to rejection. To what extent can we request preapproval on issues that require rejection?

- Balance of powers of SO/ACs is an important point we need to look at. Are we happy with voluntary model? Do we need a full legal enforceability mechanisms? This is something we need to think strongly about as we go into Paris. A set of questions will be sent to list after call. 

---> We are not prejudging level of enforceability needed. It is for community to resolve levels of enforceability. 

- Summary slides would be welcome. Community is mixed about enforceability. Is there a way to reduce down to questions of preference. 

---> We are trying to extrapolate how law would apply. We can come up with questions designed to guide further discussion and determine where group is. 

- Lawyers are pushing for membership. There is nothing new in this presentation. Unilateral presentation and no time for questions. Counterproductive.

- If there is no community escalation, does that prevent any SO/AC or member to become a legal person and enforce what it wants.

---> There is issue with membership model. Slide 16 talks about suits: it is unclear how strongly we will be able to limit single member exercising statutory rights. We have suggested delaying conversion to membership status.. We are not sure how we can constrain power (bullet 3 - slide 16). We can channel process to IRP. Should someone decide to go around it, still deciding how to constrain that. 

--> Membership model unquestionably gives the community the strongest amount of control  Members can override Board decision. If that is your priority, it is the strength and weakness of member because that power goes to whoever is a member. The designator model has weakness of not being able to force Board to do certain things.

- Deritative law suits: we should know what we are getting into. What does it mean for community? Are we going to have situation where Board members could be under threat of litigation?

---> We have not been able to determine whether we can have Bylaws or contracts stipulate that these type of disputes need to go through IRP. There are cases in Maryland but it is unclear in many States whether that applies. We can attempt to draft Bylaw that prescribes it. Difficulty comes when get in a severe dispute, I don't know we can prevent that. 

- I understood its advantage is to avoid a particular SO/AC taking power of the the other - are there any observed weaknesses we should note?

--> All SO/ACs would participate in community mechanism. Instead of having SO/ACs be legal person, you would make body the legal person that would be sole member of ICANN. It would function as contemplated. It is not an avatar. Whatever vote of community is, it would be vote of member in regards to powers with respect to ICANN. Bylaws that community mechanism is to be recognized as legal person. Details to be worked out.

--> It would be resolution of group. We would draft bylaw for resolution to be sufficient to confer legal personhood. It is not the unincorporated association that was referred to as avatar. 

- Could you provide us with overview of how it might work and solve problems with membership model or if these problems don't exist with single member. Wary about how solving group. Would appreciate if analysis of how it meets criteria. 

--> It is  for Cochairs to order work. 

- Single membership - we have seen a lot of problems. We are working on theory. We can't sell product. We have not made progress. We have to simplify matter - reconsideration and power to remove board. No point in membership. 

- Lawyers will be speaking on third option - no one is deciding anything. We will be looking at models in Paris. 

- How to protect minority rights in this model?

---> Through IRP mechanism e.g. More work is needed on what minority rights are we seeking to protect and how to protect them

--> Concept of single member model is that we move membership status from individual SOs Acs and move it up to whole community. The membership model gives power to the members - it gives it to each member and to member collectively. The individual component community won't have statutory rights of members.  Questions really go to pros and cons. You asked us to push two models. You have to agree which of the models provides best trade-off. 

- Third model seems good but would like same analytical work. 

ACTION ITEM – Prepare analytical slides on third model.

- Would delegate option be a valuable option to investigate and why or would this option not have advantage? 

--> Delegate option was raised early in process. Outside of religious corporate context, delegates are representative of members. delegate structure is a refinement of membership structure. Delegates are used where you have such a large membership that you could no longer expect members. Delegate structure is designed to challenge membership rights through delegate. 

- What kind of threshold would it need to make decisions. How does it save us from pitfalls. 

--> It would be helpful to have additional guidance. 

-Explain why your views on delegates defer from Jones Day's views.


- The superset is not a large number of SO/ACs. Focus on that as we make decision. We can't ignore it.  

---> Communities should consider who is going to participate and at what level

- Are we looking at designators model with pre-approval rights? 

---> Expecting leadership to tell us what is on table. 


Traction to solidify the further investigation in writing of model as single members, taking into account questions in the chat related to this model. We have sufficient traction for that and it will be valuable ahead of Paris. 

ACTION ITEM: Investigate single membership model

We should take suggestion to strengthen weakness to recap analysis. It will help us focus on benefits and concerns associated with each model. 

Delegate option is triggering legal controversy. Suggest it is off table

Pre approval rights: before certification - we need to get back to requirements and initial discussions first. It is too early to get legal search on this. Note

concerns raised in Istanbul about budget paralysis etc. This would be a change from the position we put forward in the first proposal.  

We must have a reference model in Paris or the timeline will be broken.

Frozen deadline will apply to legal counsel's document. Counsel can ask questions to group to help guide thinking for meeting. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM – Prepare analytical slides on third model

ACTION ITEM: Investigate single membership model

Chat Transcript

Kimberly Carlson: (7/6/2015 16:47) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #39 on 7 July!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (7/7/2015 06:41) Good morning to all!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:41) Kimberly, I just sent Alice updated slides.  Did you receive?

  Kimberly Carlson: (06:42) Yes, thank you

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:42) can you send me the US phone number?

  Kimberly Carlson: (06:42) I just got the new ones, let me upload new ones

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:43) my iphone cuts off after United Kingdom so Im always struggling to find

  Kimberly Carlson: (06:48) us dHolly

  Kimberly Carlson: (06:48) sent you a PM

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:51) thanks

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (06:54) Good morning, all.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:55) hello everyone!

  arasteh: (06:56) Hi everybody

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:56) we might need the slides as a pdf too

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:56) Good Afternoon everybody!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:56) Morning/Afternoon all

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:57) When did we get the fancy blue banner at the top =)

  arasteh: (06:57) Hi Holly

  arasteh: (06:58) I  am sorry 

  Chris Disspain: (06:58) Hello All

  arasteh: (06:58) I do not understand QUASI DEGINATOR

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:58) Hi everyone

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:58) who is the heavy breather? 

  arasteh: (06:58) In fdact I am againbst any new term

  Eberhard  lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:58) hi, there. Can the heavy breather please mute the microphone?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (06:58) @arasteh: I think you're not muted

  Chris Disspain: (06:59) I can hear some fairly heravy breathing..

  Megan Richards: (06:59) since I can't attend the Paris meeting am joining you here :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:59) Hello everyone, please kindly mute your mics when not speaking

  arasteh: (06:59) Iat is difficult to digest nbewq element

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:59) you can join the F2F remotely, too, Megan :)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:59) @Megan: welcome !

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:59) Hello everyone

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:00) hello all

  James Bladel: (07:00) Good morning.

  Chris Disspain: (07:01) Evening down here

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:01) Good evening Chris

  Chris Disspain: (07:01) :-)

  Brenda Brewer: (07:01) recordings are started

  Maura Gambassi - IT: (07:02) Good Afternoon :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:02) Good morning, follks!

  Chris Disspain: (07:03) Nice to see you full of the joys of early morning Robin!

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:04) evening all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:04) yes, very early - still dark here :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:05) 0000 here

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:05) @Jordan: hope you don't turn into a pumpkin !

  Greg Shatan: (07:06) Hello all, 8:00 am in NYC....

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:06) happy NetHui, I guess?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:07) Thanks Sabine! Yes, very busy prepping for this

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:07) won't turn into a pumpkin, will turn into a sleeper

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:08) fingers crossed for a successful meeting!

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:09) also ISOC Intercommunity is about to start, being run out of NZ too

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:09) I should have added: thanks to all the volunteers working on stuff in WP1

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:10) slides for agenda item 4 have been circulated in PDF also for your convenience

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:10) Has anyone received hotel information for Paris?

  Chris Disspain: (07:11) information in what sense Alan??

  Chris Disspain: (07:12) Mathieu - for those new to this...could you explain 'frozen"?

  CLO: (07:12) Finally made it into the AC:-)

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:13) is there a place on the wiki where all the latest reference doc, like the summary of comments and the agreed upon conclusion can be found.  i get confused trying to find them.

  Chris Disspain: (07:13) thanks Mathieu..

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:13) @Chris: What hotel it is, confirmation that each of us has a reservation for the correct days.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:13) i.e a place for all the docs that show what is frozen.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:14) i keep looking for  a repostitory i can trust of the latest and greatest.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:14) @Avri we'll make sure there is a place for all frozen documents for the Paris meeting. We have also asked staff to circulate frozen documents to the list so everyone can have them handy :-)

  Chris Disspain: (07:15) @ Alan - Hotel is Meridien Etoile -

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:15) and Alan, it's the Méridien Etoile, as indicated on the F2F-wiki

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:15)

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:15) that is not what i am looking for, though grateful for that.  i am looking for a spot on the web where one can be sure of finding the latest official version of each doc.  when we are told to rely on information that has already been decided, we should be able to find it.  And waiting until Paris for that, while we are working now is a bit anti climatic.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:16) yes, I'm having difficulty finding the docs I need to review for WP1.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:16) It was a challenge to find the PC tool

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:17) @Avri, understood. We'll look into that with staff asap

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:17) where is that PC tool, Alan?

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:19) please tell, were is the latest PC tool.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:19) I could only find it as an attachment. Sent June 18th I think.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:19) Staff will be posting the link in a moment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:20) thanks

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:20) we haven't updated it since then?  thanks.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:20) Sent by Kimberly Carlson

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:21) Don't think so.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:21) thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:21) various updates are under way but that's what you'd expect as a working document

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:22) so to clarify: the review of public comments recieived for the inital draft is done by the resp Working Parties, not the CCWG as a whole?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:22) Re : PC tool and summaries, we'll work at sharing back the remarkable summaries from WP1 and WP2. They are very clear and useful

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (07:26) Excellent slide - Slide 4.  Clear.

  Chris Disspain: (07:30) next slide please

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:30) Next slide, please.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:30) Slide 8 please

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:31) Holly is on slide 8

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:31) this is the wrong slide

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:31) could whoever is driving it please catch up

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:31) ta

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:31) slide control very important in this presentation

  Kimberly Carlson: (07:31) sorry everyone, my computer locked up

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:32) In case there might be a non-lawyer on the call, can we have a definition of derivitive lawsuit?

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:34) i am using

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:34) A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. Because[clarification needed] derivative suits vary the traditional roles[citation needed] of management and shareholders, many jurisdictions have implemented various procedural requirements to derivative suits.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:34) source :

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:35) I would like to better understand the impact of derivative law suits on ICANN and the community.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:35) this isn't 100% helpful while trying to listen and read along with the slides :/

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:36) Last q. on slide 10 re: CWG dependencies - is CWG being asked this q. on sufficiency?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:39) Sabine, the slides have circulated and we are just providing a high level overview so you can study and think about pre-Paris

  arasteh: (07:41) leon

  arasteh: (07:41) pls stop the presenrtation

  arasteh: (07:41) it became a unilateral paasive presentration

  Chris Disspain: (07:41) Kavouss...we agreed to let the presentation run until complete before questions

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:41) Please can we let the lawyers go through the presentation before we have any questions

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:42) Many of us want to hear what they are talking about

  arasteh: (07:42) you agreeed

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:42) I'm happy to wait

  arasteh: (07:42) I did notr agreed

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:42)  +1 @Chris, @James

  arasteh: (07:42) this is not productive

  Chris Disspain: (07:43) are someone who believes you should be allowed to speak uninterupted...let us show our lwyers the same courtesy please

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:43) @Arasteh: it is, in my opinion. At least now we get the whole story uninterrupted. Otherwise, I would bet we would get lost in questions leading us off-track

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:43) how is this IRP more enhanced if we cant judicially enforce it without legal personhood. ...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:43) I am finding this extremely productive.

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:44) +1 @James

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:45) @Farzaneh, IRP outcomes need to be enforceable. Sadly, we keep forgetting about the IRP because it's not one of the five so-called community powers. This risks a complete breakdown

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:45) "legally untested" appears twice on this slide.   Should I be concerned about that?

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:45) totally agreed Malcolm

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:45) do we need to reverse board decisions on budget or strat plan?  Maybe a gating (pre-approval) right is enough.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:45) Appreciate this very helpful summation but a helluva lot to take in.

  Edward Morris: (07:45) Good question Farzi.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:45) @Malcolm: adding some drama..

  Chris Disspain: (07:45) Mark...the idea is to take the slides away and come to Paris having digested them and the

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:46) @Robin, many of us would prefer a blocking right rather than an approval right for budget/strat

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:46) Haven't seen the source presentation file. Are there slide notes?

  arasteh: (07:46) if few person desiging the issue fior the entire comminity

  arasteh: (07:46) then iit is a button up process

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:46) In the notes view of the slides you will find cross references and links to prior legal memos

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:46) James, what is the difference?  Why must it be a reject decision rather than a pre-approval decision? 

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:47) @Steve Worrying yes, but with some of this I think we are going to realise that we are going into some uncharted legal territory, its up to us the community to define and balance our risk appetite when it comes to that

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:47) Thanks @Holly. Going to open them up now in parallel

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:47) @Robin I have conerns over timelines and parish politics with an approval right. Whereas with a high threshold rejection right I feel its a lower risk approach

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:48) Kavouss, with respect, this work appears to be lawyers’ distillation of views heard in BA and prior weeks. It is a good and decent effort and we can learn from/use this as we see fit.

  arasteh: (07:49) we are far from learning sdtage

  arasteh: (07:49) we have a week to propose a process to community

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:50) Just a thought but should we stop the multitasking in the chat and actually pay attention to the presentation so that we don't waste time disagreeing about what was said later?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:50) @ Chris: sure but I fear a rush through complexities of pros and cons in order to take key decisions in Paris. But this is very helpfully comprehensive.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (07:51) This is simply an intro of material that we will go over in more detail in Paris, right?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:52) @Jordan right

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:52) Yes Jordan,  Given its complexity we wanted you to have this in advance so everyone can study, digest and consider

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:53) Maybe an "xplanation" infogrpahic might help distill further?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:54) that's basically the appendix if I interpret that correctly

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:54) I really wanna know how long it takes to go from the first column to third model . also I wanna know how when we operate in a consus based process we can easily go to from column one to column three .

  arasteh: (07:54) Leon

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:55) Excellent work by counsel, thank you

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:55) Yes Kavouss?

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:55) The Discussion Notes are very helpful. Thanks very much to the Note Takers!

  arasteh: (07:55) It is totally disappointing and frustrating tat ccwg became a totiorialk

  Avri Doria (atrt): (07:55) yes, thanks for these explanations.  the slides are very useful.

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:55) Holly, Rosemary: lots of work/thought in this presentation – thank you.

  Megan Richards: (07:55) I didn't see anything on time involved in implementing - perhaps I missed this or it has been discussed before - that is perhaps a factor too (most important is content/impact of course)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:55) Yes thanks Holly and Rosemary, a lot of food for thought

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:56) totiorialk? That acronym is even unsurpassed @ICANN

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:57) “legally untested” is a term that needs more depth – are there indications one way or the other?

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:57) Thx Holly and Rosemary. Brilliant!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:58) @Kavouss you had your hand up right after Malcolm, are you not willing to speak anymore?

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:58) +1 to all who congratulating Holly & Rosemary. Indeed.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:59) Malcolm, we have considered those issues as well but believe that those areas are more staightforward -- hence our focus on the more difficult issues

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:59) Agreed with Malcolm.

  Becky Burr: (08:00) i believe that ICANN legal has determined that they can in fact agree to be bound by IRP decision.  Is that correct Chris D.?

  Chris Disspain: (08:01) In a totally non-binding way....yes Becky :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:01) =)

  Phil Buckingham: (08:01) .  Holly + Rosemary  impressive summary . Thks.  Clarity  !

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:01) :) !

  Chris Disspain: (08:01) seriously though....yes baecky, I believe that we can be bound and we can agree to be bound

  Chris Disspain: (08:02) Becky... not baecky!

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (08:02) Who is "we" Chris?

  Chris Disspain: (08:02) ICANN

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:02) so you will be legally bound ? or just voluntarily

  Chris Disspain: (08:03) to be clear, it is MY understanding that it is possible for ICANN to agree pursuant to its bylaws to be bound by an arbitration decision

  Christopher: (08:04) Client not speaking with one voice? Thankgoodness for that! CW

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:04) no one can take ICANN to court if it doesnt respect that decision , in certain models or it will be extermely difficult.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:04) If there is a Third Way, I will put my centrist hat on and say hooray

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:05) I'd like to hear it as well.

  Chris Disspain: (08:05) might be dangerous to assume the third way is centerist Jordan :-)

  Eberhard  lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (08:05) I lost audio

  Eberhard  lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (08:05) breaking up a lot

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:06) works for me

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:06) has anyone contemplated the use of the "delegate" structure available under Cali law?

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:06) very curious about the notion of the community having legal personhood.  what does that mean?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:06) Chris: in this arena, everything is dangerous

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:06) Indeed I have a same question Avri

  Chris Disspain: (08:06) Could we ask ourl lawyers to set out the third way  in a note for us to consider please

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:06) We took the budgetary review/rejection from the initial proposal

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:07) @Avri @Izumi please do raise the question :-)

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:07) @Leon raised my hand :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:07) yes, I'm asking to look at that - pre-approval rights.  Thanks

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:08) Strickling said we need to explore all our options.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:09) indeed Robin!

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:09) Great James, thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:09) legal personhood for the whole community; delegates as an alt to designators/members

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:09) I would also be interested understand how pre-approval would work

  Becky Burr: (08:10) i'd like to hear 3rd way as well

  Becky Burr: (08:10) could we get high level today

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:10) if there is a fourth way, that one too

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (08:10) Echoing interest to see the Third Way.

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:12) I was expecting to see a range of models rather than a dual model (either this or that) .

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:12) @Farzaneh: slide 4 has already 4 models

  Chris Disspain: (08:12) well said Rosemary!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:13) Farzaneh, we have no view that there are only 2 models under discussion .  We were asked to provide more detail and analysis of the 2 new models that were proposed in BA

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (08:13) Jonathan, yes, boiling down/shortening would have taken more time than we had to prepare this

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:14) Would like to respond to current speaker

  Christopher: (08:14) Most of this discussion is about how the Community would control the ICANN Board, whereas the principal issue is how ICANN regulates the Registry and Registrar industry. Thus the real issue is the balance of power among the AC/SO that can effectively excercise the regulatory responsibility, including anti-trust.. CW

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (08:14) We could compare strengths/weaknesses of each model, if that would help

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:14) ok. Thanks Holly.

  Megan Richards: (08:15) a strengths/weakness analysis would be very helpful I think

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:16) Yes Megan, agreed and in part that is what the appendixes slides drive toward

  Chris Disspain: (08:17) Kavouss, I think you have misunderstood that view of our lawyers

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:17) I don't at all agree with Kavouss, for the record.

  Becky Burr: (08:17) I respectfully disagree Kavouss. 

  Chris Disspain: (08:17) they are not advocating either model

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:17) +1 @Becky

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:17) i always hope to learn something when i go to a meeting.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:17) @ Megan: agree to help find way through the complexities in the short time available.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:17) I diagree Im afraid Kavouss,

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:17) I disagree as well. In this we ARE here to learn something

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:18) Kavouss, we need to hear this info from the lawyers.  It is what we hired them for.

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:18) disagree with Kavouss

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:18) +1 @Holly

  James Bladel: (08:18) I found the presentation informative and valuable, and I predict we will be referring to it (esp. Slide 4) for the remainder of our work.  Disagree.

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:19) I hope we work on slide 4 too James.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:19) I disagree totally with that statement Kavouss!

  Hillary Jett: (08:19) All, following up on an earlier discussion about locating documents, please see this draft document page here: it will direct you to all Plenary drafts and links to all WP drafts as well. We will also circulate it with notes from this call.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:20) I think this is very helpful in enabling the CCWG to move forward with precision. Many thanks to Holly and Rosemary for presenting.

  Greg Shatan: (08:21) This was a very helpful and comprehensive presentation.  Much food for thought.

  Megan Richards: (08:21) indeed - very useful and thorough overview and very helpful in setting out the issues

  Greg Shatan: (08:22) It was very useful for the lawyers to go through the entire presentation so that we could see the totality of their considerations.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:23) +1 to Greg's comment

  Christopher: (08:23) The membership model controls the Board only if ALL  stakeholders are Members.  CW

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:24) Excellent summary rosemary

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:25) My main concern is about the differential rights between members and non-members. I think that needs to be still sorted out.  

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:25) It seems I have issue with the mic

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:25) A question of some interest is if we did go to a Membership model, what is the likely MAXimum number of AC/SOs that would become members.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:25) My question was simple: How exactly does the community personhood works

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:26) I suspect the number is quite small.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:26) Thanks Izumi, I'll raise it for you

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:26) Izumi, I wanna hear that too.

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:26) Thanks Leon

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:26) I understood its advantage is to avoid a particular SO/AC taking power of the the other - are there any observed weaknesses we should note?

  Phil Buckingham: (08:26) Exactly , Robin .

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:26) Perhaps someone can read my question?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:27) We will Izumi

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:27) Thanks Mathieu!

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:28) I note the point being made about the strength of  the membership model but this is very difficult option for the GAC which does not fit easily with membership concept and must have primacy on public interest.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:29) +1 Mark. I also see that as being difficult for the GAC.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:30) thanks, we need to consider what that means to the community.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:30) Thew "community" valuing voluntary cooperation does not prevent any single entity (and particularly one with money) from deciding to take legal action.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:30) Thank you Leon for asking the question

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:32) how to protect minority rights in this model?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:32) so the major downside would be that every SO/AC would need to agree to join in this single-member-model if I understand correctly.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:32) there wouldn't be a need to join tho, right?

  Becky Burr: (08:33) right Jordan, i think the bylaws do that

  Becky Burr: (08:33) this seems to me to most closely capture the concept of collective action

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:34) Mark: there's no necessity for GAC to become a member to benefit from improved accountability / enforceability that would arise from such a model. even if it remained entirely advisory as it is today

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:34) Sabine, the Bylaws could simply provide that the communicty mechanism is  the sole member; and by participating the SOs and ACs show that they intend to participate

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:34) thank you for clarifying!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:34) Gah! UA! No! (Sarcasm)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:34) how do we protect minority rights in this model?

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:35) Can an SO/AC opt in to legal personhood (level of intent for a purpose) in order to pursue enforcement and then opt-out once the enforcement effort ends? Can they do the same again and again?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:35) on this Third Way, do we need to get something in writing?

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:35) I see understood thank you vermuch

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:35) Minority rights are no different in this model than in to any other model.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:35) @Jordan: we will have to decide whether we ask Counsel to investigate further in writing

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:35) We are happy to provide slides on this

  Becky Burr: (08:35) could you expand on your question Robin?  is this something missing in the voting mechanism and is it something IRP could solve

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:35) @Holly @Robin : probably we need to clarify concern ?

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:35) It then makes me wonder whether it addresses a potential issue with the GAC while it probably is more of a question to ask the GAC

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:35) I think we have to get this explored in writing

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:36) Indeed Jordan

  Becky Burr: (08:36) they DONT need to be legal persons to join the group

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (08:36) Yes thank you

  Becky Burr: (08:36) the whole group is the legal person

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:36) correct Becky

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:36) for example, in order to get member rights to documents.  Would the entire member need to agree to access documents or could a SG or SO on its own access docs?

  Chris Disspain: (08:37) interesting Becky/Holly

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:37) Document rights only come with legal membership, right? But a DIDP could give rights to individual ICANN participants?

  Chris Disspain: (08:37) would need to have very clear 'rules' on how the single member would act

  Becky Burr: (08:37) presumably that would be goverened by the voting model

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (08:38) Jordan, what is a DIDP, please?

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:38) While there is something appealing in the community as a single member, we would need to deal with issues such as how to apportion seats on that body and what sort of voting thresholds (could it work by consensus) would it need to force decsions. 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:38) but this third way is single member membership, Jordan, as I understand.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:38) @Rosemary, ICANNS version of Freedom of Infomration request

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:38) Avri, it could function just as contmplated to date

  Chris Disspain: (08:38) and also need to be clear that by having a single member we are not actually giving the community more powers that are less workable than in the designator model

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (08:38) Thanks, Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:38) but DIDP doesn't actually disclose documents, hence its inclusion in WS2 for reform

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:39) great question Robin. I wanna see more details on how we can work out these models. Also I wanna know how long it takes to get legal personhood etc. If it takes long it  might not be effective.

  Becky Burr: (08:39) correct Chris, but that is a task in all cases

  Chris Disspain: (08:39) ;-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:39) so we need to explore pre-approval rights for Designator Models

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:39) Agreed Farzaneh

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:39) Rosemary, DIDP is here:

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:40) Yes, Crhis, hard to define how this fits into a set of check and balances.  And ow we prove to NTIA that this new entity is accountable to the larger community (i.e. thos who do not  have seats on this council)

  Chris Disspain: (08:40) fair point Avri

  Becky Burr: (08:40) but Avri we have that problem no matter what

  Greg Shatan: (08:40) I think this "master member' model has much merit.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:40) why do we worry about that with our accoutability tools, but not with the tools that do our core work of policy development, Avri?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:40) Agreed Avri, that is an issue under any model as is the issue of protecting minority rights

  Becky Burr: (08:40) I don't understand how this could be less accountable than status quo and/or voluntary

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:40) SIngle "community" member or designator may have interesting implications for appointing directors. Would that need to be done via the community council (including NomCom appointments)?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:41) it's as if people want to hold the holding to account mechanisms to higher standards of community connection than the actual substantive work of ICANN at times

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:41) Becky, more so in the member models than in the designator models where the Board still has some power to persuade the SOAC to look beyond the indisers.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:42) the Board *are* the insiders, aren't they?

  Christopher: (08:42) The rights that ICANN and its community should be protecting are those of ALL registrants and Internet users. That is not a minority. CW

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:42) Jordan, they are selcted to be more that just insiders as their fiduciary repsonsiblity is large than just their stakeholder group.

  Becky Burr: (08:42) I guess that's the question - why is the Board less likely to reflect insiders than the SO/AC structure

  Chris Disspain: (08:43) @ that one commewnt you have summed up the fundamental difference between your view and my view about all of this....\

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:43) In the sole member model, the ACs/SOs share the enforcement power through the community mechanism

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:43) But they are the ultimate insiders, that doesn't change because of the duties they have to the company's mission and mandate

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:43) I worry that a single member model won't satisfy those who aren't part of the ICANN community.  That problem is still the same, whether it is single member or several members.

  Becky Burr: (08:43) But Chris, then you've just squared the circle on who distrusts whom

  Chris Disspain: (08:43) correct Backy!

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:43) Robin: how can anyone satisfy those people when the whole ICANN structure is in principle open to participation?

  Chris Disspain: (08:43) Becky even

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:44) Chris - in which one?

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:44) every one both trusts and distraust the others.  That is the beauty of checks and balances.

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:44) I don't understand why we are beating ourselves up so much about which model we "like" or "don't like". We should be focussing on what each model can ACHIEVE

  Becky Burr: (08:44) ok, i buy that Avri, totally. 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:44) Jordon, I agree, but many don't see it that way.  And they can't be forced to see it that way.

  Chris Disspain: (08:44) @ Jordan 'the Board *are* the insiders, aren't they?'

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:45) we could provide individual SOs/ACs bylaw rights to certain documents

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:45) Robin: no, but our job isn't to force them to do anything or believe anything

  arasteh: (08:45) I  see few people talk and fewon chat

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:45) it is to build a coherent accountability system to overlay ICANN's existing system with least disruption

  arasteh: (08:45) These are almost stable in evry call

  arasteh: (08:45) therefore there is no community repesentation

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:45) Chris: it's just an axiom - anyone who is on the Board of an organisation is not able to credibly claim to be anything else, are they? It's just the reality, surely?

  Chris Disspain: (08:46) I could not disagree more Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:46) LOL! Do speak on

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:46) @Kavouss we cannot force anyone to speak. It is their choice to do so or not so I don't agree with your statement

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:46) Good points Tijani

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:47) I think that Board members can take off their Board hat which both constrains and empowers them, and speak as individuals.

  Becky Burr: (08:47) Kavouss, I do not understand your point. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:47) Being a member of a governing board cannot leave you able to claim outsider status in an organisation, surely...

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:47) I'm not attaching any disdain to the term, to be clear

  Chris Disspain: (08:47) the mere use of the term 'insiders' is a fascinationg insight into how you view the workings of the multi-stakeholder mode

  arasteh: (08:47) Leon

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:47) Please include pre-approval rights for Designator Model.  We are supposed to consider ALL our options.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:47) is it? Those who are most involved are most inside?

  arasteh: (08:47) Yes but there is no representation

  Becky Burr: (08:47) Robin 0 pre-approval rights for what exactly?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:48) i'd have thought that was a trivial statement of the obvious, but hey, this is ICANN and I'm not exactly a veteran :)

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:48) Jordan, but their fiduciary repsonsiblities force them, with their Board hat on, to look beyond  to the values and mmissions of ICANN..

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:48) budget and strat plan, Becky.

  Chris Disspain: (08:48) and just because I claim not to be an insider does not mean that I believe I am an outsider

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:48) Avri: that doesn't change them from being insiders

  Chris Disspain: (08:48) the 2 are not mutually exclusine

  Becky Burr: (08:48) ok, thanks for clarifying Robin

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:48) Avri, board members are fiduciarires and with respect to decisions about ICANN are constrained in their ability to "take of their Board hat" except where they have a clear disclosed conflict they may recuse themselves

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:48) Youc annot seriously be claiming not to be an ICANN insider, Chris

  Samantha Eisner: (08:48) Holly, are member rights to inspect documents as broad as Board rights to inspect documents? my understanding was that membership inspection was more about financial records, but I might be wrong about that. I understand that changes are likely needed to ICANN's disclosure practices (DIDP) but I want to make sure that we're not conflating the issue of seeking broader access to documents with the governance model of the organization.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:48) as we might say in this part of the world, "pull the other one mate"

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:49) it's just a matter of proximity and involvement - nothing more, nothing less

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:49) No Sam, you are correct.  Member rights are generally not as broad with respect to document inspection

  Chris Disspain: (08:49) @ Jordan...I'm deadly serious....your joice whether to accept that but I can ssure you I am DEADLY serious

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:49) SHould we consider forming ICANN as a religion, the tao of multistakeholderism

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:49) in contending what - that you aren't - what?

  Becky Burr: (08:50) oh no James

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:50) sometimes it seems like multi-stakeholderism is a religion ;-)

  Chris Disspain: (08:50) in rebutting yopur assumption/presumption that beign a Board member puts me in some sort of different privilkedged position because I am an ''insider'

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:50) no

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:50) it is the other way around that I meant

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:51) Very useful answer, thank you

  arasteh: (08:51) Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:51) becoming a Board member is part of being an ICANN insider, same as being a CCWG appointed member, or being a member of an SO/AC Council

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:51) or I guess same as being a staff member

  Christopher: (08:51) Membership of the general public: been there done that! CW

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:51) it doesn't imply to me anyway some kind of badness or problem - it's just a statement about proximity?

  arasteh: (08:51) I do not believe that we should pursue the delegate approach

  Chris Disspain: (08:52) so, Jordan, who is an 'outsider'?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:52) @Kavouss : agreed, answer was clear

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:52) a random internet user who never heard of ICANN?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:52) it's just a spectrum right

  Becky Burr: (08:52) Chris, i think you are making more of Jordan's observation than makes sense.  I personally don't see any reason to think that the Board is more representative of the global community than the SO/AC structure

  Chris Disspain: (08:52) WE are all insiders...yes?

  Adam Peake: (08:52) there was a review of Statutory Delegates is the document "Combined CCWG Cover Memo and Templates"

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:52) Random user < ------ > ICANN CEO?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:52) Avri, are those issues also the same for other models?

  Becky Burr: (08:52) yes Chris

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:52) Chris: I think if we suggested otehrwise, people would laugh at us

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:53) @Jordan is that not ALACs role? So they would be an At-Large insider by default

  Becky Burr: (08:53) question is just balance and allocation of power

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:53) I wasn't suggesting that for these purposes you are an insider and I am an outsider, if that's what you mean

  Chris Disspain: (08:53) then I respectfully apologise and accpet your distinction between all of us and everyone else

  Becky Burr: (08:53) -;

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:53) though I would say you are clearly more influential and know a lot more about what is going on than I do ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:54) and so I should call you a super-Insider, right? ;)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:54) Let's celebrate agreement between Chris and Jordan ! ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:54) I OBJECT

  Chris Disspain: (08:54) as do I

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:54) The queue is closed now

  arasteh: (08:54) Dear All

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:54) +1 (agreement)

  Chris Disspain: (08:54) ;-)

  Becky Burr: (08:54) ah, the world spinning on its axis once again

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:54) but in the voluntary community and designator models, the Board has the repsonsiblity tomake sure they are considered.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:54) six minutes to go

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:54) in a membership model, the Board has no power to do anything about that.

  arasteh: (08:55) it is too late to be engaGED in a new and fesh approach

  Thomas Schneider: (08:55) @J + C: but icann is a consensus based organisation. so you need to sort this out and make a public consultation about your consensus policy :-)

  Adam Peake: (08:55) apologies, review of Statutory Delegates is the document "Analysis of the viability of various accountability mechanisms and powers under consideration by CCWG (to 10 April 2015)

  Chris Disspain: (08:55) I do however think that the discussion we just have is indicative of the challenge we have to communicate!

  Becky Burr: (08:55) i don't understand why that's true Avri

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (08:56) Is there a reason why notes have stopped, or am I the only one not seeing it?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:56) Chris: it might not mean anything more than you are sensitive to the issues created by the multiple hats that you wear, but I don't know

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:56) Aresteh, i think we are working by progressive improvement to a form we can all agree with. Nothing being offered is toally new, but rather is 'derivative' of work we  we have been doing and things we have been discussing.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:56) Avri: what were your previous two comments in response to?

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:57) Thomas: do we have to have a 40 day comment on that? *dismal eyeroll*

  Chris Disspain: (08:57) Jordan: it might also mean that you are being deliberately provative but I don't know either...

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:57) Chris: not with the insider thing, no

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:57) Jordan, Sorry, they were in repsonse to Rosemary indicating we had the same problem of the broader community in all models. 

  arasteh: (08:57) Alan+1

  Becky Burr: (08:58) who is being deliberately provocative?

  Becky Burr: (08:58) pots and kettles guys

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:58) but the Board remains in role, and with fiduciary duties, in all models odesn't it?

  Becky Burr: (08:59) Alan, isn't the question really who is going to participate in the voting model in any particular circumstance?

  Eberhard  lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (08:59) We are running past the allocated time, I have to leave and start working again

  Becky Burr: (08:59) no matter what the form of organization

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:59) @Jordan, no, in the membership model, membership can take precedence.

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:59) Goood answer Rosemary

  Avri Doria (atrt): (08:59) Jordan, in a mebership model, effectively all power goes to the members.  that leave little left fo rthe Board other han admin duties.

  Becky Burr: (08:59) but membership checked by allocated voting

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (08:59) they can on specific decisions, but the don't govern the organisation and they don't remove the Board's responsibility to do its job

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:59) Its up to us to determine what's on table

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (09:00) Apologies I have to leave to attend another call

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:00) Avri: I live in an organisation that demonstrates that understanding is quite wrong

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:00) and I participate in APNIC that does the same

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (09:00) Yes, Jordan, you will always have board fiduciary duties. 

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (09:00) Membership does not remove board requirement to do their best, but the ultimate decision may not be theirs.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:00) There is interest in this group for exploring empowered designator with pre-approval rights.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:00) Some of us have been asking for this for some time now.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:00) having members doesn't turn the organiation into some kind of avatar for members narrow interests - the whole system is still organised around the mission and values of the organisation

  Becky Burr: (09:01) +1 Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (09:01) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:01) I haven't seen anyone argue we should change that in any of these models

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:01) We are supposed to explore all our options, that includes empowered designator with pre-approval rights for budget and strat plan.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (09:01) Jordan, what mitigates the pwoer of the community to ignore the mission and avalues.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:01) quite the opposite - we've all been trying to strengthen that

  Avri Doria (atrt): (09:01) i.e. the community as member.

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:01) @Jordan, my organisation also.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:02) Robin, please provide more information by what you view as pre-approval rights and how that works

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:02) Avri: because of the balance of powers involved

  Becky Burr: (09:02) also, the IRP remains open to ANYONE affected by a decision in contravention of Mission, Commitments, Core Values, etc.  Not just members

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:02) the system is less likely to go AWOL with the distributed responsibility, than with powers concentrated in one place

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:02) @Avri, what would mtigate power of community to ignore the mission and values is an enforceable IRP

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:02) re Rinalia's question on notes

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:02) Agreed Becky

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:02) it looks like the Notes pod has crashed, staff

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:02) Holly, as I said earlier, we have a process laid out in the bylaws by which the budget goes to community for approval and then goes to board for approval.  This is how gtld policy is made - via bylaws.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (09:02) i do not see a balance of power in the member models, i see a concentration of pwoer in the members hands to the detriment to checks and blanaces.  no one has shown how the check and blanace works in a member model.

  Chris Disspain: (09:03) HOLD ON!

  Becky Burr: (09:03) the IRP is an important part of that balance Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:03) The only model that lacks balances of that sort is the voluntary model without the IANA functions contract in place

  Avri Doria (atrt): (09:03) the IRP cannot tell the members they were wrong.  there is no IRP against a member decsion.  is thee?

  Farzaneh Badii: (09:03) +1 Jordan

  Chris Disspain: (09:03) did I just hear Mathieu take the designator model off the table!

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:03) Avri, have you participated in a member organisation before?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:04) Chris no delegates

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:04) @Avri but the only membership models currently under consideration have the existing SOACs as members, so those check and balances are already buiilt in.

  Avri Doria (atrt): (09:04) ys, i have.  was the secretary of it and was on its board.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:04) did it have checks and balances built in?

  Becky Burr: (09:04) if it is beyond the mission of the corporation or undertaken in a manner inconsistent with commitments and core values, why not??

  arasteh: (09:04) Mthiueu

  Edward Morris: (09:04) Disagree. I've reached out to professors of law at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of California at Irvine: all of whom have told me that delegate IS an option. Jones Day tells us delergate IS an option. I would like justification in writing citing case law and precedent for why it is NOT an option.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:04) more membership..... sigh

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:04) I didn't hear that - did you take desinator off table @Mathieu

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (09:04) @Chris nothing is off the table until it's off the table :-)

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:04) OK, thanks Leon

  Christopher: (09:04) Leaving the call. Best wishes for Paris. CW

  arasteh: (09:04) In paris we would need to have one reference model

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:05) @Avri, actually, yes. In a sense. Members cannot force ICANN to act outside Mission and Core Values; their only power is to enforce bylaws, there is no power to force ICANN to disregard them.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:05) I don't understand why the chairs won't certify the legal work for seeing how far we can get with empowered designator with pre-approval rights.  I don't recall any insistance on rejection over pre-approval as being paramount in the decision.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:06) pre-approval breaks the fiduciary responsibility of the Board in my view

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:06) @Malcolm: however, bylaws aren't set in stone.

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:06) @Mathieu - when/how will we settle on new reerence model

  arasteh: (09:06) Mathieu we have 8 days to find that miracleous rfeference model

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:06) our goal is to be on the same page.  Not necessarily a rejection.

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:06) reference that is

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:06) I disagree with Mathieu's unilater decision to not explore pre-approval rights for budget and strat plan

  arasteh: (09:07) Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:07) A shame chairs are gating what we can explore.

  Becky Burr: (09:07) i understood Mathieu to be saying something different Robin, but i may be confused

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (09:07) Are the hands raised still meant to be raised?

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:07) @Sabine, no, they are not, but Core Values and Mission will be Fundamental Bylaws, so hard to change and well able to resist ill-considered or rash changes, and most importantly, implicit changes

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:07) @Robin -- could pre-approval have a 'shot clock' so that community has only a set period to indicate non-approval?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:07) What is the harm in exploring it?

  arasteh: (09:07)  Pls we have tio concentrate what uis possible, prAGMATIC AND REEALKISTIC

  Becky Burr: (09:07) i thought he was saying we needed to put some requirements and specifications around the ask

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:08) @Robin: we can explore but at requiremennt level. It is costly to explore

  Farzaneh Badii: (09:08) Mathieu said it was related to requrements. it has to be discussed there. I dont agree

  Chris Disspain: (09:08) I think Holly's suggestion is excellent!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:08) I do not believe "rejection" is a requirement, but pre-approval is not.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:08) asking us questions back is v good idea

  Phil Buckingham: (09:08) Yes to set a questions . Yes to decision tree .

  Becky Burr: (09:08) Kavouss - we also must focus on what actually creates the foundation for long-lasting accountability

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:08) Can Holly please repeat that please - I didn't catch it

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:08) Like the "shot-clock" idea

  arasteh: (09:09) wHAT IS HOLLY, S SUGGESTION

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:09) Hard to believe this is truly an objective process when models requested by members are so readily disregarded.

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:09) Steve: isn't that just the approach we have

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:09) Robin: saying the discussion should be around requirements isn't exactly fairly described as a rejection, is it?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:10) If Legal team could review the GAC member responses now being worked on to the set of questions agreed in BA before Paris that would be very  helpful.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:10) well if it is a "punt" such that it won't be discussed in Paris, that is exactly what it is.

  Chris Disspain: (09:10) thanks everyone!

  Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD member): (09:10) cheers all, thanks lawyers

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:10) bye all

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:10) Thanks all

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (09:10) Thank you Holly and Rosemary!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:10) Appreciated Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:10) Top-down at its best!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:10) Thx all!

  Greg Shatan: (09:10) Bye all.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (09:10) Yes, thanks, Mathieu, lots of people worked on the materials and deserve credit.

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (09:10) Thanks all

  • No labels