Co-chairs:  Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

Legal Counsel: Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Rosemary Fei

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Kim Carlson


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




Objective of call: Synchronization call between independent counsel and Co-Chairs in order to ensure we are clear about the next steps after discussions that took place in Buenos Aires and on the way to the Paris meeting.

Questions, comments and updates since Buenos Aires.

Counsel is well advanced on a slide deck that compares the two models proposed in Buenos Aires: some of the legal issues raised, what similar and what's different about the models and how the two models might be implemented. This means some adjustment.

Next steps, ready for presentation by phone next week for the CCWG if wish to do pre-Paris. Need a walk through, not read independent.

Two issues. Idea for a third model, might be simpler still. Aware you haven't asked us for this. Direction needed. 

 Ed McNicholas. Will, working on IRP, will be in Paris, can attend with not travel/hotel cost.

Question about two of the powers fundamental Bylaw vs. standard Bylaw. Based on understanding difference is about threshold, but in Buenos Aires there seemed to be distinction between Board and community's role, not just threshold, but done by community not Board. What is the community's desire when it describes fundamental Bylaws. And the difference between fundamental and standard and how changed.

Fundamental Bylaws sets right to approve Bylaws. Under California law third parties can be given the right to veto bylaws but not initiate and approve bylaws. So comes up while thinking of the powers under designator model.

Higher threshold to initiation. The initial draft, does speak of the community imitating. Doesn't mean that we can't give you the power, on the threat of veto, to do it.

May be an issue to raise with the CCWG for clarification? Not for this call perhaps. 

We've seen standard bylaws as a veto right with a certain threshold and fundamental bylaws as an approval right with a certain threshold. 

Counsel: We don't see the difference between the power to veto and the power to approve. Seem the flipside of the same decision.

No, because the veto needs to be triggered by a petition. This is not the case with fundamental bylaw.

The vote to veto by the community would have to be the flip of the approval vote.

To reflect what you want the model to do. In some cases giving rights indirectly.

These issues fall on a continuum between trust and enforceability. While the reference model is clean from enforceability standpoint, we heard the concerns of the group and the community, and may not be where you want to be on that continuum. So we put the models on this continuum, of voluntary compliance and enforceability. We explain the risk to you. But we will not say how much risk you are willing to accept.

Concern as we move to Paris, presentations might be perceived as trying to influence one way or the other. The goal is to give the group information so it can make informed decisions.

Lawyers do not have a view about how much risk you should take on. The questions raised are only questions with no bias behind them.

Provide an outside reader to give feedback.

The table of pros and cons.

ACTION ITEM - Send the comparative model description to legal counsel.

40 min are needed to present the slide deck, straight through, and 40 mins of Q&A.

The discussion will need to take place this week. 1h15 min can be dedicated to that item.

Presentation of two models on Tuesday, Q&A, and you explain why a new model is worthwhile exploring. That will enable us to certify request to investigate a new model so that in Paris we have three models to discuss. 

Slides to be shared with Co-Chairs today. In advance of meeting check with Becky Burr, Fiona Asonga/Athina Fragkouli that descriptions of their models are accurate. Make sure counsel got it right. 

ACTION ITEM: Holly to reach out to Becky to discuss support for Paris IRP discussion.

Alice is compiling info on lawyers management. We will also send a note to the list.


Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Send the comparative model description to legal counsel.

ACTION ITEM: Holly to reach out to Becky to discuss support for Paris IRP discussion.

Chat transcript

Kimberly Carlson: (7/3/2015 06:18) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Leadership with Lawyers Meeting on 3 July!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Alice Jansen: (07:01) Please mute your computer speakers if you are on the bridge

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:02) Good morning, everyone

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:03) Hi all.  I'm here.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (07:20) But could it be clarified what should be the fundamental bylaws amendment process, if possible.  If legally possible, would ccwg like community to itself put a bylaws amendment on the table and vote on it, without it being first proposed by board.

  Mathieu Weill: (07:22) @Ingrid : that was not in the initial proposal, at least

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (07:23) @Mathieu: Thank you!

  Mathieu Weill: (07:33) Please ban the word HYBRID

  Leon Sanchez: (07:33) yes, no Hybrid label

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:34)  the transcript needs to be corrected  it says -- and we will say how much risk you are willing to accept -- when if fact I said we will NOT say how much risk the community is willing to accept -- that is for the community to decide.  We simply are educating on risk so that the CCWG can make informed decisions

  Alice Jansen: (07:35) Jordan Carter?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:36) Please have transcript fixed

  Alice Jansen: (07:36) yes Holly, Adam will be fixing it

  Adam Peake: (07:36) done

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:36) Thanks!!!

  • No labels