Attendees:
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji, Wanawit Ahkuputra (13)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, James Gannon, Konstantinos Komaitis, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Paul Szyndler, Rudi Vansnick, Sabine Meyer, Suzanne Woolf, Tracy Hackshaw, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (14)
Legal Counsel: Jim Hitzeman, Sharon Flanagan
Staff: Grace Abuhamad, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Alain Durand, Theresa Swinehart,
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. Update on Legal Input 209484804_5.pdf
3. Update on SLE Work
4. CWG response (if any) to ICG Public Comment (see: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/)
5. CWG response (if any) CCWG-Accountability Public Comment (see: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en)
6. AOB
a- Response to Richard Hill
b- SSAC Response
c- Update on Transition Facilitation Calls
7. Closing Remarks
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
- Calls are nominally scheduled every two weeks
- IPR memo sent to group yesterday
- Sidley also working on a Bylaws matrix
2. Update on Legal Input
- Memo addresses domain names and trademarks
- 3 structures that Sidley looked at:
- ICANN maintains ownership of rights
- PTI becomes owner of rights
- a Trust (could be IETF Trust) becomes owner of rights
- The owner of the mark needs to exercise some control/oversight of the mark(s) -- risk of "naked license" otherwise
- Would be useful to understand how the IETF trust manages existing trademarks
- Suggestion: Create small group including the Chairs + 2 others from each community + ICG chairs
- Aim to complete this before the end of the ICG public comment in September
Action (Chairs): reach out to the Chairs of other communities and provide update and suggest next steps.
Action (all): share the memo as widely as possible
3. Update on SLE Work
- Still working
- Aiming to finish before September (public comment close)
4. CWG response (if any) to ICG Public Comment
- Suggestion not to comment on the proposal as a full group
- ---> Agreement
5. CWG response (if any) CCWG-Accountability Public Comment
- Sidley will assist with validating that the requirements are met in the CCWG proposal
- The CWG will submit a public comment to confirm this
- Group will be able to review before submission to the CCWG
6. AOB
- Response to Richard Hill: Chairs are working on a draft response (the draft is in line with the ICG response)
- SSAC Response: 24h for review of draft. Andrew Sullivan already sent a comment on list.
Action (all): review the draft and provide any feedback on list within 24h from call (so 13:00 UTC Friday is deadline).
- Update on Transition Facilitation Calls: Fadi had opening remarks on tracks as presented in Buenos Aires (Track for development of plan under Theresa Swinehart; Track for implementation under Akram Atallah). ICANN and NTIA working on extension of contract: two 1 year extensions are envisionned. All calls are recorded and transcribed for reference.
7. Closing Remarks
- Calls are scheduled every two weeks.
Action (Grace): cancel Client Committee call
- See you in two weeks! Next call will be at 17:00 UTC 20 August.
Action Items
Action (Chairs): reach out to the Chairs of other communities and provide update and suggest next steps.
Action (all): share the memo as widely as possible
Action (all): review the draft and provide any feedback on list within 24h from call (so 13:00 UTC Friday is deadline).
Action (Grace): cancel Client Committee call
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3omkhteuof/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-06aug15-en.mp3
Documents
209484804_5.pdf (Sidley)
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (8/6/2015 05:34) Welcome to CWG IANA Meeting #62 on 6 August @ 11:00 UTC.
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (05:53) hi all
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:55) Ma'am: Grace, you've made Cheryl queen of the UK (and Australia) and my day!
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (05:56) :-) :-) :-)
Grace Abuhamad: (05:57) I'll thank my parents on the ma'am and sir. People always seem to like it. My father immgrated so it was his way of raising us like good Texans.
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) Akkerhuis (SSAC): (05:57) Looks I made it
Andrew Sullivan: (05:57) Good day all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:57) Hi Paul
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:58) hey guys
Paul Kane: (05:58) Hi all
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:58) And for Sharon and Jim its oh my god what day is this even!
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (05:58) Good morning from London.... Good morning your Majesty!
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (05:58) I can't tell - it's still dark out!
Jonathan Robinson: (05:59) Hello All. Welcome back!
Jonathan Robinson: (05:59) We have a couple of live microphones. Please mute when not talking
Konstantinos Komaitis: (05:59) Good day all
Lise Fuhr: (06:00) Hello
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:00) Sharon, I think it's an indicator whether you think it's dark already or still dark :)
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:00) Heya KK
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:03) @Grace: I always hate being called sir! But that's the child of the 60s in me, I guess. And there are worse things to be called :-(
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:04) duly noted, Lord Boyle ;)
Grace Abuhamad: (06:05) Nice, @Sabine
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:05) =)
Grace Abuhamad: (06:05) Transition Facilitation Calls background: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transition-facilitation-calls
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (06:12) sorry being late, had connectivity issues
Avri Doria: (06:12) and you have the new ICANN accountabilty mechansims.
Avri Doria: (06:13) i.e if ICANn holds it they can be held accountable for negative decsions. who else do we have an accountabilty structure with?
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:16) For the meeting notes I belive its "naked liscense" and not "naked trademark"
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:17) @Sabine: not a relation, I'm afraid!
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:18) for transparency reasons: I had to look that up.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:19) James, that is correct -- "naked license" = license without quality control provisions. "Naked trademark" is a party at the INTA Annual Meeting.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:20) haha
Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) The protocol community did not say that
Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) the protocol community does not have a dog in this race
Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) and has been clear about that
Jonathan Robinson: (06:23) @Andrew. What did the protocol community not say?
Andrew Sullivan: (06:24) that it wants the mark(S) or domain name under a trust
Andrew Sullivan: (06:24) only the numbers community proposed that
Alan Greenberg: (06:24) I think that Sharon mispoke and said protocol comunity when she meant numbers community.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:24) she said "both"
Alan Greenberg: (06:24) Ahh. worse!
Andrew Sullivan: (06:25) I just want to be very clear about this, because this is really an issue with the numbers community
Andrew Sullivan: (06:25) the IETF keeps getting hauled in because of the Trust
Andrew Sullivan: (06:25) but the IETF just said it was willing to do this as a favour to the broader community
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:28) By "holding" the IANA trademarks, the IETF Trust essentially becomes the IANA.
Jonathan Robinson: (06:28) @Andrew. Thansk for the clarfication. It may be worth getting that on audio / transcript record as part of the responses / Q&A to Sharon's input
Andrew Sullivan: (06:29) Happy to do so. I'll have a question anyway
Avri Doria: (06:32) If the marks and names stayed with ICANN, could not the separation process recommendation include instruction of how to hanlde the trademarks.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:33) yes avri - it could
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:34) @ Jonathan: I think it is only necessary to find out how the IETF Trust manages IPR but also ICANN.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:34) The USPTO lists the owner of the IETF mark as " (REGISTRANT) The Trustees of the IETF TRUST, a Virginia trust, the trustees comprising Stephen D. Crocker, Lucy Elizabeth Lynch, Lynn M. St. Amour and Raymond G. Pelletier, Jr., all U.S. citizens, Brian E. Carpenter, a United Kingdom citizen, Leslie L. Daigle and Edmund B. Juskevicius, both Canadian citizens, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, a Swedish citizen and Jonne Adam Soininen, a Finnish citizen TRUST VIRGINIA 1775 WIEHLE AVENUE #102 C/O RAY PELLETIER, IETF ADMIN DIRECTOR RESTON VIRGINIA 201905108"
Avri Doria: (06:34) Stawart IETF particpants
Alan Greenberg: (06:34) avri, it is unclear why addressing separability of the TM and domain name will be more dodgy than the actual operation itself.
Alan Greenberg: (06:35) But they wrote what they wrote.
Avri Doria: (06:35) completely trustworth vis a vis IETF
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:35) I should have said: think it is NOT only necessary to find out how the IETF Trust manages IPR but also ICANN.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:35) Exactly, numbers are the only one who have
Alan Greenberg: (06:35) One of the problems with us coming in third.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:35) Avri, that's good to know. But we are not the IETF.
Avri Doria: (06:36) Alna, i did nto say it was. I was just seeing how the processes fit together. I already indicated that I think the new accountabity mechansims are an important consideration.
Avri Doria: (06:36) Greg, exactly my point.
Alan Greenberg: (06:36) @Greg, So Sharon is correct in how the TM is registered, but the IETF Trust has not kept the list up to date...
Avri Doria: (06:37) and Alan, if the recommendation for how to fdeal with it is part of the separation process recommendation, it has all the recourse to new redress mechanisms.
Alan Greenberg: (06:38) @Avri, certainly. If you choose to trust ICANN at all...
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:39) So should we have as an initial question to the CRISP team is the IPR issue something that they cannot move on their position on. Have we asked that question?
Donna Austin, RySG: (06:40) @James, it would be a good question to ask them.
Jonathan Robinson: (06:41) I think we have a sense that it's as much about whetehr it can be moved as it is about the time to make such a move
Alan Greenberg: (06:42) @Andrew, If I understand correctly, the protocol community has not specific interest in where the TM/domain registration reside, but you do have an interest in ensuring that it continue to be securely held and work. If that falls apart, the numbers community probably has the most skin in the game. No?
Lise Fuhr: (06:43) @James I think we needed to have an overview of where we are regarding this issue before asking into that question
Andrew Sullivan: (06:43) Some of us in the IETF community (there is no consensus on this) think that there are only two possibilities
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:43) I think the number community relys on the marks the least actually when looking at it operationally
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:43) @Lise understood just wanted to put the question out there
Andrew Sullivan: (06:43) which is either that, in the event of separation, it will be friendly or else it will be nasty
Avri Doria: (06:43) Alan, well i am of several minds on that. i personally trust ICANN about as much as i trust most major organization. on the other had, if i were to speak with the voice of the NCSG rep, I might have less trust than that. I probably do have a lower level of trust in ICANN vis a vis names decsions than I have in the members of the IETF Trust vis vis IETF issues.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:43) if it's nasty, IMO, no agreement will protect us
Andrew Sullivan: (06:43) and in such an event IETF will have to have an emergency change, abandoning the "IANA" term immediately
Andrew Sullivan: (06:44) Others disagree with me about this, note
Andrew Sullivan: (06:44) but the upshot has been that we have no consensus
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:44) You don't have to rely solely on trust.. Binding, enforceable agreements are an important part of ensuring that separation will happen according to plan.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:45) And of course, the numbers community trusts ICANN enough to provide the IANA services.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:45) @Greg: for the IETF, even a dispute underneath an enforcable agreement would be an unacceptable interruption of regular business
Andrew Sullivan: (06:45) I imagine the numbers community feels the same way
Andrew Sullivan: (06:46) note that it's really the domain name (because people look things up there) that most of us care about. The tm is just along for the ride because of the unfortunate link between these two topics
Avri Doria: (06:46) Greg, assuming the accountabilty mechansism are indded put in place in a reasonable manner, and not undercut in the implementation, I personally would probably agree.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:46) The ICANN Board has also stated that they will cooperate in any transition.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:47) Yes wants vs needs are important, and lets not assume anything about the CRISPs position on their needs until we have directly asked them.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:47) Note for clarity that there are three trademarks: (1) INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY, (2) IANA, (3) the IANA logo.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:48) The way the IETF uses "IANA" is in mention
Andrew Sullivan: (06:48) I don't think the IETF needs a license
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:48) I agree with Andrew.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (06:49) Thanks
Andrew Sullivan: (06:49) That is, you don't need a license to say, "Here are tickets to Disney"
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:50) And the histoical use without litigation over the use probably reflect that position aswell
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:51) +1 Chuck
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:52) @Chuck +1
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:52) Chuck, +100
Avri Doria: (06:53) Greg, why do you assume you have more than +1 ( :
Alan Greenberg: (06:53) Greg and 99 of his friends
Avri Doria: (06:53) ah
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:53) Damn IPC loading the bases =)
Avri Doria: (06:54) yes, form a group.
Avri Doria: (06:54) but of course the others have to agree to form a group, so manybe the chairs need to negotiate this with the other leaders.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:55) @ Jonathan: I think the first step is for each community to identify the best people to participate in the small team.
Avri Doria: (06:55) assuing the other communities agree to work it this way
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:56) I support Avris method
Avri Doria: (06:56) throughout this process i have been taught to never assume anyting about the other communities. are they willing to leave the recommendation come from this selected group.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:56) I agree with Avri there.
Seun Ojedeji: (06:57) Well it seem the Chair did not get my point, my point is that there is NO need to form any group on this
Seun Ojedeji: (06:57) The Chair of the respective communities is enough group to discuss way forward on this
Avri Doria: (06:57) Seun, we just leave it to the chairs to negotiate?
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:57) Seun some of us feel otherwise, one call of the chairs to agree and then the following week have the group meet
Seun Ojedeji: (06:58) @Avri they should discuss and go back to their respective communities to provide feedback
Seun Ojedeji: (06:58) we wil just be creating another CWG if we create a group for this
Avri Doria: (06:58) Seun, but how is the deal closed. through the auspices of the ICG?
Alan Greenberg: (06:59) As I said, the chairs (or their choice of one of them) plus whoever they feel will add value to come to quick closure.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:59) Remember that IETF chairs can't actually speak for thier WGs
Seun Ojedeji: (06:59) Well maybe you are not getting my point Avri, Jonathan already mentioned the chairs meet and are waiting for a memo like this and i think that discussion should continue
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:00) Seun that is not what Jonathan said.
Donna Austin, RySG: (07:00) If this group is formed, is the intent that they would only discuss this single issue or be open to other topics? It seems there could be some value in a discussion and perhaps comment on the ICG proposal?
Avri Doria: (07:00) do we invite ICG to the discussion?
Andrew Sullivan: (07:00) so they can talk to people and carry messages around and so on, but any actual decision would have to be put to consensus, unless it's already consistent
Seun Ojedeji: (07:00) Well @Jonathan so you will clarify what requirement will be used in identifying other participants of the group
Seun Ojedeji: (07:01) well @Greg the transcript is there but i won't argue about that
Alan Greenberg: (07:01) I don't class 12 is small for this type of discussion, but perhaps that is just me.
Konstantinos Komaitis: (07:01) neither can the co-chairs of CRISP speak on behalf of the whole community
Avri Doria: (07:01) does ICG 'çhair', assuming there is an ICG member who does not have pronounced and adamant views on what MUST happen.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:03) We (the CWG) need to continue our fact-finding and analysis whether or not the other groups are involved.
Seun Ojedeji: (07:03) Well have we even checked whether the community(RIR/IETF) is willing to join such a group....why are we going around in circle on this small issue
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:04) @ Seun: That is what our co-chairs are going to do.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:04) I don't think this is so small an issue. And if the other communities are not willing to talk, that is fundamentally troublesome.
Avri Doria: (07:05) ok, i had missed that part of the inivtation intent. thanks
Andrew Sullivan: (07:05) The chairs of the other WGs have in fact been talking, as already noted in the call
Andrew Sullivan: (07:05) there's no evidence of "unwillingness"
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:05) +1 andrew
Andrew Sullivan: (07:05) but as I tried to say in BA, it's not actually easy to "talk to" other communities
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:05) I would personally be very surprized if the CRISP and IETF Planning were unwilling to collaborate on this, but if that is the case, that is information we need to know.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:06) +1, which is why implying that there would be doesn't help the process.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:06) because IETF and (in a different way) the various RIRs have quite a different mode of working than any ICANN group seems to have
Seun Ojedeji: (07:06) @Greg i never said the other communities are not willing to talk because the discussion is already happeneing, i am saying the other communities may not be willing to select people from its communities to discuss this
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:06) Practicially speaking, that's the same thing.
Seun Ojedeji: (07:07) @Greg well some other communities may believe that discussion should happen on their public list and may not find it necessary appointing special people for this
Alan Greenberg: (07:07) If we cannot sort this out, it does not bode well for the future...
Seun Ojedeji: (07:08) there is a fundamental question that needs to be answered by the CWG and that is; what does the CWG want?
Seun Ojedeji: (07:08) its not RIR or IETF that will tell us that
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:08) That I agree with.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:08) I will drop now. Thanks all
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:09) thanks sharon
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:09) and Jim
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:09) Thanks, Sharon!
Avri Doria: (07:09) ultimately we also need to consider that forming a specifc new trsut, while perhaps the most complicated will be the only solution that fits the needs of all.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:09) Happy 5:09 am.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:09) Avri, lets not do that until we confirm CRISP cannot move on their position with regards to keeping the marks in ICANN
Andrew Sullivan: (07:10) It does seem that forming a new trust would be consistent with the CRISP proposal. There's more workload, however, and that itself might be a problem
Seun Ojedeji: (07:10) Ha Avri, new trust it is....and i thought that was looked into in the past (including for the CWG proposal) and i think there were reasons why that was thought to be complicated
Avri Doria: (07:10) James, just channeling thorugh all the possiblites and wanted to make sure we did not already preclude one possible alternative. I will stop for now. It is a excellent excersice in thinking issue through from multiple perspectives.
Donna Austin, RySG: (07:11) When will this be done done?
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:11) Brenda, I was unable to download the documents shared today, please would you send me a link where I can download them from? Thanks!
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:11) Oh agreed I just think we might be overcompliacting it, to reference a Gregism we dont know if CRISP with "die in a ditch" over the IPR issue
Grace Abuhamad: (07:11) Hi Gary -- I will forward them to you
Andrew Sullivan: (07:12) It's no longer CRISP or anyone else dying in a ditch. It's a unified proposal, so if it fails we all die in the same ditch
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:12) All credit to Bart Boswinkel for the "die in a ditch" test.
Seun Ojedeji: (07:12) okay have to leave now
Seun Ojedeji: (07:12) thanks
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:12) Andrew if the operational communities agree an alternative thr ICG must reflect that
Andrew Sullivan: (07:12) absolutely!
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:13) Smells bottom up to me.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:13) that'd be the communities filling the ditch together, to beat that metaphor to death
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:13) In a good way.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:13) Andrew love it
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:14) Hopefully, there's nothing (and no one) in the ditch, as it's being filled.
Alan Greenberg: (07:14) Is "beating a metaphor to death" a metaphor?
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:14) Thanks Grace!
Avri Doria: (07:15) beating a metaphor about dying to death. death at two levels.
Avri Doria: (07:15) wich of course opne the issue of at howm levels can one die?
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:15) I never metaphor I didn't like.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:15) +1 Chuck
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:15) @Chuvk +1 again (making a habit of this for this call)
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:16) Chuck for CEO =)
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:16) what did the poor guy do to deserve that?
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:16) Hehe
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:18) Yes for clarity that was my peoposal using the PC as a summplementary mechaism to the directi comms between the chairs and te ICG
Seun Ojedeji: (07:18) Just before i go, it is my hope that the chairs will let the CWG know the group selection criteria and also clearly define to the group that its not a deciding group. Perhaps after that, we will come back again to realise that the decision still needs to be made by CWG
Seun Ojedeji: (07:18) bye again
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:18) Wow spelling graveyard
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:18) you mean spelling ditch?
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:19) Are we 100% happy that they are meting our requirements, i still have conncerns over the budget
Andrew Sullivan: (07:20) "100% happy" is a high bar!
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:20) @James: why? I thought we had a good outcome
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:20) I have high standards :p
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:20) +1 Lise.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:20) And I don't!
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:20) @Lise +1
Andrew Sullivan: (07:20) It's clear the CWG must somehow say something about whether the CCWG proposal meets CWG reqs
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:20) Martin I think there are operational risks with the ICANN veto procedure effecting the IANA budget stability personally
Andrew Sullivan: (07:21) I don't have an opinion on how it happens
Avri Doria: (07:21) will we get to review it beofre you submit it?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:21) agree with Andrew on both counts
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:21) I've put my conerns into my CCWG comments https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdfy6WGvu4vOO.pdf
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:24) @James: I thought that those had been sorted
Avri Doria: (07:24) thanks, appreciate that willing ness for us to review. it does not need to be a very long review.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:26) Martin: No I dont belive that freezing the IANA budget at the level of the last fiscal year iin the case of logjam on the vetos is operationally stable
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:27) If there is a required budget expansion to meet operational needs in that fiscal year we run the risk of the IANA being underfunded
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:28) @James: the budget vetoes are de-coupled
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:28) Aren't they?
Grace Abuhamad: (07:28) Draft is uploaded to AC room
Matthew Shears: (07:28) I thought the IANA budget was firewalled so to speak
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:29) The responses to SSAC look good to me.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:29) They but the budget freeze procedure in the case of the IANA budget being vetoed is the same. So if the IANA budget is vetoed and cannot be solved before the start of the fiscal year a caretaker budget is put into place at the funding level of the previous fiscal year.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:29) Note that Andrew had one comment re. the SSAC responses.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:32) @James: I guess there might be some sort of malicious attack, but the PTI budget should be agreed with the community and so the only question would be if icann refused to apply the budget
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:33) If the community had voiced concern over the payrises or licence fees to ICANN, there might also be a reason for the communit to challenge
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:34) My Risk Scenario is that PTI asks for 50 million additional for the next fiscal year. 10 million for operational 40 million for a project. Community disagreed with project and vetos the IANA budget, we cannot veto the line item or project. We cant come to agreeement over the funding of the 40 million. SO the budget is in logjam and stays at the previous fiscal years funding, and IANA is 10 million underfunded for its operational budget
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:35) Numbers are just illustrative for the example.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:36) yes, but that is part of the budget process in PTI. If there is strong opposition, it could get escalated at the ICANN level
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:36) And yes, I think you can veto that single budget line
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:36) Yes I note that without having any detailed knowledge of what PTIs budget process will be its hard.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:37) And nope we definintl cannot veto line item
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:37) Its a big hammer or no hammer
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:37) You can then also bring in other mechanisms
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:37) "Looking forward to our answer on IPR" might be the upbeat way of putting it.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:37) Martin drop me mail and we can continue this
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:38) Thanks everyone.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:38) +3.14159265359 to Jonathan on that.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:38) Para 379?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:38) bye all
Lise Fuhr: (07:39) Thank you all for a very constructive call
Andrew Sullivan: (07:39) bye
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (07:39) Adios
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) Akkerhuis (SSAC): (07:39) bye
Paul Kane: (07:39) bye
