Sub-Group Members: Alan Greenberg, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Matthew Shears, Pär Brumark, Philip Corwin, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco (15)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Adam Peake, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Bernie Turcotte
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7qbavq697b/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-01jul15-en.mp3
Process call not substance. What do we need to do in the next 4 weeks as we lead to the 2nd public comment report
Might need to look at the tracker document, and the work Steve Del Bianco produced
By end July: new content for the report. We will work through the WP1 sections of the scorecard.
Steve will discuss work done on taking AoC into the bylaws. taking this work and the output of the paris meeting. Looking at new drafts of the
report in Paris. Beginning with the controversial areas. Considering the public comment and the dialogue from BA
Pubic comment tool has already replied to comments received. A freeze on July 14 for Paris, And then a rush to complete the proposal for the end of the month
Kavouss: Suggestion to follow the CWG process and group connected issues and then address in design teams. And this mirrors how we developed
work for the 1st comment proposal, with individuals and small groups working. We do not need all replies to the pubic comment by Paris, but the
key and contentious issues.
To develop specs and update the bylaws. With he AoC reviews and the first pilot, to see how the two legal teams can work together. Developing
these species in parallel to the other drafting work. AoC alone, as pilot, or more? The answer is all of it should be as bylaws specs by the end of July.
Will need to identify leaders for the chunks of work. From the scorecard, volunteers for the work identified.
Some parts are not candidates for the bylaws as they are functional and operational. The AoC has been reviewed, and the 1st PC document presented that work.
Coming to the 1st three elements of community empowerment, how does this fit with the larger issue of deciding which model we will adopt. Understand
that this will come from a comparison developed by the lawyers and will be the core of discussion in Paris. There will not be a model group.
First 3 items there seems to be overlap with the new WP3.
Community empowerment where WP1 begins. The mechanisms etc, that is being done by the model group, and the other work, not WP2. The powers
area, do need to be updated inline with all feedback received. And can be divided out, not as a single block. Individuals or smaller subgroups could take
the drafting. Be aware of consistent language.
Not spent as much team as needed on the community council. Need to revise composition given comments in BA, esp SSAC and RSAC and their role
as advisory communities. Need to explore the composition, and if it is a discursive council or a voting counting body. And don't feel GNSO constituencies
are not adequately represented.
Weight of voting and nature of the council. And reminds to the accountability forum that was suggested in public comment.
Alan: What Kavouss is suggesting with the CWG drafting teams is actual what we are doing as methodology. Greg's reference to the 2nd two A's at the
bottom of the table. The first is a refinement of the model, if we are not going to do it who is? Is the representation concept viable without the SSAC and
RSAC and possibly the GAC, with such a small number of representatives? If something needs 2 SO and 1AC, may not have more than 1 AC.
Steve: my impression we had broad support for the community powers, and should incorporate public comment so we can update our document, and begin
bylaws drafting. And those powers should be available to all SO/AC, regardless and if they become a designator or member. Means of enforcement not
relevant to participation and example voting to block bylaws, still want to write up a voting scheme for all AC and SO. Participation in that voting doesn't rely
on the model. Defer the enforcement question to a later section that will be drafted with the help of counsel in Paris. Community council is like a permanent
CCWG of all SO/AC regardless of whether they decide to active designator or member.
Jordan: SSAC and RSAC seem to want to have their influence in ICANN based on the quality and power of their advice. And not participation in the
community power, irrespective of designator or member question.
Suggest some confirmation with those two groups, SSAC and RSAC, do they want to participate, and how.
When exercising the list over powers, there's a group who come together to discuss and cast votes, or where there's simply a relative weighting of influence
between the SOs and ACs. And this doesn't replace the whole CCWG discussion about the empowered SO/AC model is the right way to go. Need to clarify
roles with the co-chairs.
Kavouss: not convinced GAC will favor membership. And not clear the community council is different from the model. Need to review all comments,
public comment and from BA. There is disagreement on the member model.
On the community council - concern about creating additional representative bodies, and not to create new structures. Examine the role of the GAC
under each stricture, And add to that the role of the nominating committee, are the to be considered designators?
If end with a member model, then their decision cannot be over ridden. If someone opts in to be a member or designator. If SSAC/RSAC do not
participate in the council then the dynamics significantly changed.
Room for a council for those who do not wish to be members, and groups then exercising powers in different ways. Are they exercising their
own view or the view of some collective council. Look past labels, and see how the council supports the multistakeholder community
End is the AoC reviews and transcription into the bylaws. Steve's work, to talk through and is this a working method for other parts of the report.
3 steps. 1. Analyze public comment, 2 update the document, 3. back to the public comment tool to explain what has been done
Some questions and suggestions, some areas where we were not clear on the comments. Cut and past the proposal text. Provide context for each
chapter. 6.2 assumes that reader has seen 6.1 The red text pulls context forward to explain why the AoC reviews were being moved to the bylaws.
If only one comment, then continue with the consensus view.
Removed the confusing word "member" and used SO/AC, nothing to do with the member/designator structure. Some were confused as to how
the Affirmation could still be out there. Now saying the bi-lateral agreement should be terminated.
Relatively easy, and work between 2 documents. And in the end will need to go back to the PC tool to explain to the commenter what has been done.
If only one made a comment - then do need to make sure it is on an issue already discussed. Only reflect what we have said in our comments
to the public comment tool.
Do we incorporate the whole AoC and AoC, there may be some aspects that are left outside.
Need to make clear the incorporation of the AoC need to be brought in, but some commitments, like those of the USG, will not be brought in. And
may need to keep some aspects of the affirmation live. Just to keep in mind.
The three steps: analysis public comments, and follow up if not clear (inc BA discussion). Update the proposal document. The update the public
comment tool, to explain what was done.
Will be separate section for each of the powers. And same process for each. And for the voting elements of the model. Jordan to set out the areas
of work and call for volunteers. WP1 calls will need to be scheduled and there will be a number of them. Debating substance. Around the clock.
And nothing decided in a single call.
Prioritize difficult issue for early discussion. And people volunteer for those.
If any of the powers rely on member/Designator, then those would be prioritized. Don't believe they do. Want them independent of the model so the
drafting stands whatever model.
Keep to the same WP1 list.
Please review and comment on Jordan's email.
Come up with a schedule of calls before the July 14 freeze.
Kimberly Carlson: (7/1/2015 09:06) Welcome to CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #15 on 1 July! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Avri Doria: (15:58) My meetings ended early, so i am able to join after all.
arasteh: (15:58) Hi Everybody
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:58) Hi all!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:59) Hello everyone!
arasteh: (15:59) Pls kindly seriously consider that this is a new round of calls
arasteh: (15:59) Every one is kindly requested to begin with a fresh look
arasteh: (16:01) We all should forget our own pwersonal views and just think of what we heard and discussed at BA
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:01) i think there are more karma points for doing this during vacation, than as an escape from a pile of other work.
Matthew Shears: (16:01) hi all
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:01) Our rapporteur Jordan Carter will join in a minute
arasteh: (16:01) WE SHOULD AVOID TO REPEATING OURSELVESS
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:02) +1 Kavous. Really good advice.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:02) hi everyone
arasteh: (16:02) We ave little time to wind up the discussion
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (16:02) hi all
Greg Shatan: (16:02) Hello, all!
Matthew Shears: (16:03) were any docs circulated - didn't see any but wanted to make sure
arasteh: (16:03) next two weeks NOT FOUR WEEKS
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:03) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_kGo1EXNQs/edit#gid=1327274628
Matthew Shears: (16:04) thanks
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:05) @Matthew -- did you receive my first cut at AoC Reviews? You were a drafter of that section, along with Avri and Fiona
arasteh: (16:05) Jordan
arasteh: (16:06) We should not only consider public comment but those views we heard and discussed at BA
Matthew Shears: (16:06) yes thanks Steve
arasteh: (16:06) WE SHOULD NOT ONLY CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT but those other comments we heard and discussed at BA
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:07) Jodan just agreed with you
arasteh: (16:07) Jordan
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:07) agreed, Jordan
Alan Greenberg: (16:08) What is passcode for bridge?
Samantha Eisner: (16:08) Alan - WP1
Alan Greenberg: (16:08) Thx
Brenda Brewer: (16:09) Thank Sam!
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:09) Agree Jordan
arasteh: (16:10) I suggest we establish little group to study part of the whole works before us
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:15) Jordan is right, see pages 134 - 143 of the Frozen document
arasteh: (16:16) The first group dealing with AOC could called AOC Group
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:16) Staff -- could you please display a link to the Frozen public comment tool doc?
arasteh: (16:17) The second group that I suggest is to discuss Model
Greg Shatan: (16:17) I seem to recall spending quite a number of hours poring over the AoC on several calls....
arasteh: (16:17) IT COULD BE CALLED " mODEL gROUP
Matthew Shears: (16:17) ok good thanks
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:17) that wasn't a nightare, Greg. We really did that
Greg Shatan: (16:17) and contemplating which and how they would be imported into the Bylaws, etc.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:18) No need for another subgroup on AoC Reviews, in my opinion. We have plenty of active and experienced participants on that subject
Greg Shatan: (16:18) I thought it was a DT (delerium tremens, not Drafting Team).
arasteh: (16:18) tHE THIRD GROUP WILL DEAL WITJH CORE VALUE
arasteh: (16:18) iT COULD BE CALLED cORE vALUE gROUP
Alice Jansen: (16:19) Please mute your line if not speaking
arasteh: (16:19) tHE FOURTH GROUP DEALS WITH mISSION
arasteh: (16:19) It could be called Mission Group
arasteh: (16:20) The fith Group deals with empowering the community
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:22) +1 Greg
arasteh: (16:24) Community Council is worth to be reconsider
arasteh: (16:24) AS GAC MAY ALSO DECIDE NOT TO BE A MEMBER
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:24) i agree the idea of community council is worth reconsidering.
arasteh: (16:25) tHIS DISISION HAS NOT BEEN YET MADE
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:25) Yes, Alan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:25) what we aren't doing is chartering them, bureaucratising them
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:25) :)
Greg Shatan: (16:26) That's our nod to the Canadians in our midst, eh?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:26) Well, it is Candada Day ;-)
arasteh: (16:26) Does the Community Council could replace the Model Approach?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:26) Canada Day, that is...
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:26) no Kavouss - they are separate issues, I think
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:27) Happy Canada Day to all Candians and Candian wannabes.
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:28) even Canadians ...
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:28) A new nationality has been born: Candia!
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:28) :)
arasteh: (16:28) Pls kindly reply whether the Community Coucil could resolve the issue of Model?!
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:28) Kavouoss: no, I don't think so
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:28) i thought the Council was simlar whether Members of Designators at al.
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:28) ... members or designators ...
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:30) Agree, Avri
arasteh: (16:30) why?
Alan Greenberg: (16:31) The community council could NOT overrule Members - they have statuatory rights which cannot be overridden. With designators, the council is a bylaw construct and works fine (as I understand things).
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:31) it's the vehicle for organising / enacting these powers
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:31) whether it's an assembly of the members, an assembly of the designators, or beither
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:31) the "Model" discussion is about which one they are
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:32) right, but the organization of the council could be similar. and even include the AC that would not have wanted mebership.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:32) Yep.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:32) Thats why I am saying they are separate
Matthew Shears: (16:32) agree Avri
Greg Shatan: (16:32) The "council" is on a different level of the framework. Without a status as members, designators, they have no execution methodology (other than the current "trust" model).
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:33) @Greg -- think of the council as the AC/SO reps who vote on a community power.
arasteh: (16:33) gREC
arasteh: (16:33) i MAY DISAGREE WITH YOU
arasteh: (16:34) gREC
arasteh: (16:34) wHY the Community Council could not be given an excutive power
Matthew Shears: (16:35) decisions could be made by the existing leadership of the SO/ACs
arasteh: (16:35) Robin
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:36) I don't think we have ever said that NomCom was given community powers like the AC/SOs
arasteh: (16:36) I disagree with you as we could replace the model with community coulcil with executive power
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:36) in a designator model, could the nomcom have some of the powers ;ike designating and de-designating, but not the other powers?
arasteh: (16:37) It seems to me that some people in this little group attending this call insist on their own views
Greg Shatan: (16:37) Kavouss, what do you mean by "executive power"? The only executive powers I am aware of at ICANN are those of the Chief Executive Officer.
arasteh: (16:38) Alan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:38) Kavouss: we are doing the opposite. We are trying to say there are issues we need to explore more and clarify more. Not trying to close down or anything like that.
arasteh: (16:38) I think if we replace the two model by Community Council perhaps everybody agree to participate at the Council
Alan Greenberg: (16:39) I was told (but have not verified myself) that the term "designator" applies solely to the right to appoint Boar members, and the other rights that we are associating with them are just Bylaw-granted and can applied to thos e who appoint Board members or who don't
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:39) Kavouss - doesn't solve the problem, which is - what are the participants. Members, Designators, etc. That's the "Model" discussion. Still need to make a determination about that in Paris. Whether they act/organise through a council, or a ballot, is the "implementation" question.
arasteh: (16:40) I mean that Community Council through voting procedure exercise all those empiowerment issues like change of NBaylaws and recall of the Board
Avri Doria (atrt): (16:40) btw, are we still talking process of getting it done or talking substance.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:40) back to process I hope
arasteh: (16:40) Grec
Alan Greenberg: (16:40) 2AVRI
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:41) I think of the empowered AC/SOs as a permanent Cross-Community Working Group. If you agree, we don't necessarily need a "Community Council" and that may actually confuse people
Alan Greenberg: (16:41) @avri, we are taling process, but have not yet come to closure on what the process is involving.
arasteh: (16:41) You have narrow down the Multistakeholder community to technical commuinty like IETF
Samantha Eisner: (16:41) @Alan, I think that's right. The issue of the how the community identifies when it needs to exercise its powers/voice its opinions is separate from the issue of whether there is a membership model, designator or otherwise
arasteh: (16:41) No I have difficulties to accept your evaluation
arasteh: (16:42) I understand that some of us pushing for MEMBER mODEL
Greg Shatan: (16:42) No, quite the opposite. I am counseling that whatever structure we adopt, it has to empower the multistakeholder community, with an emphasis on the "multi".
Matthew Shears: (16:44) excellent approach Steve
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:44) I certainly don't have any idea where I want to land re members or designators, I need to see what the lawyers are going to come up with
arasteh: (16:45) tHAT DOES NOT WORK
arasteh: (16:45) Steve
Greg Shatan: (16:45) +1, Jordan. The lawyers and all of us, in collaboration.
arasteh: (16:45) WE NEED TO REVIEW YOUR COURSE OF ACTION
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:46) Kavouss: on this call, we can discuss the PROCESS, but not the SUBSTANCE
arasteh: (16:46) some of the paragraphs of AOC are operational thus should not put in Bylaws with either 2/3 or 3/4 threshold
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:47) Kavouss please review our Public Comment Report. It deals with all of the AOC.
arasteh: (16:47) They just need simple majority as they chage very rapidly thus we should not constititionalized them
arasteh: (16:48) jORAN
arasteh: (16:48) eVERY ONE SHOULD BE FREE TO EXPRESS ITS VIEWS AND IT IS NOT UP TO THEN OTHERS TO JUDGE THAT VIEWS
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:49) To summarize, I suggest 3 step process: 1. Analyze public comment (incl asking follow-up questions of commenters); 2. Update the CCWG proposal; 3. Explain our action/update in the Public Comment Tool.
arasteh: (16:49) Jordan
arasteh: (16:50) Pls clasrify what do you mean by proces
arasteh: (16:50) The problem is substace
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:50) Kavouss: the process as Steve just pasted above
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:50) We are not discussing substance on this call
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:50) we said explicitly in the notice for the call that we would only talk about organising our work
arasteh: (16:50) I do not agree with steve
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:50) we have to honour that, or we are exxcluding people from discussing the substance.
arasteh: (16:50) He pushing us to accept his views
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:50) 6.2 is just the Reviews, Alan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:50) Kavouss: there will be a chance to discuss this content
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:51) it's just not right now
arasteh: (16:52) eVERYBODY SHOULD BE LISTENED
arasteh: (16:52) but not only one or two
arasteh: (16:52) jORDAN$
arasteh: (16:53) Please rtell me the following
arasteh: (16:53) Is the location of ICANN SEAT IN cALIFORNIA A PROCESS OR SUBSTANCE>?
Samantha Eisner: (16:53) On the AoC, it may be worth seeking USG and ICANN input on what they see happening with the remainder of the AoC prior to recommending that it sunsets
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:53) since Jordan is focusing on process right now, let me repeat: 3 step process: 1. Analyze public comment (incl asking follow-up questions of commenters); 2. Update the CCWG proposal; 3. Explain our action/update in the Public Comment Tool.
Matthew Shears: (16:54) I'm confortable with that process
Alan Greenberg: (16:54) @Sam, said FAR more eloquently than I did, but that was what I was getting at.
arasteh: (16:54) Jordan
arasteh: (16:54) WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE
arasteh: (16:55) The problem at BA was not the process but substance
arasteh: (16:56) I am not comfortable that some individual imposes his or her views to us
Matthew Shears: (16:56) is there any prioritization given the upcoming F2F?
arasteh: (16:56) Dear All
arasteh: (16:57) We should not talk with ourselves but talk with others who are fully invloved in aceepting or rejecting our views
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (16:57) I have an input on Matthew's question
Matthew Shears: (16:57) community council might be good to have sense of that before the F2F
Keith Drazek: (16:57) @Kavouss, location of ICANN headquarters will remain in the Bylaws (as it is today) but will likely be a standard bylaw and not a fundamental bylaw. This will be in response to the public comments and feedback calling for further consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:57) Kavouss: nobody has been able to impose views anywhere in this process
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (16:57) we aren't starting to now
arasteh: (16:58) kEITH
arasteh: (16:58) wHY STANDARD bYLAWS
Keith Drazek: (16:58) Because it's already in the standard bylaws, and therefore it's not a change.
Keith Drazek: (16:59) It's already in the AoC and the Articles of Incorporation.
arasteh: (16:59) If we agree with you ,its change requires 2/3 of majority which results in that seat will never be changed
arasteh: (16:59) That satisfies some people but not allid
Matthew Shears: (17:00) thanks Jordan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (17:00) Thanks everyone
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:00) Thanks, Jordan! Bye all!
Greg Shatan: (17:00) Bye all.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (17:00) Talk soon
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:00) bye all
arasteh: (17:00) tHAT DOES NOT MEANS TO REMAIN THERE