Attendees:
Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (21)
Participants: Andrew Harris, Antonia Chu, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Mike Chartier, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Phil Corwin, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw, Vrikson Acosta (30)
Legal Counsel: Cameron Kerry, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei (5)
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Kimberly Carlson, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Izumi Okutani, James Gannon
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
- Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting #45 - 28 July 2015.doc
- Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting #45 - 28 July 2015.pdf
Recording
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p83fgq2ojla/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-28jul15-en.mp3
Proposed Agenda
- Opening Remarks (roll call, SOI)
- Plan for the week
- 28 July: Documents Freeze
- 31 July: Publication of 2nd draft proposal
- Clarification of process for 2nd Public Comment
- Review 2nd draft proposal for Public Comment (section by section, to be continued on Thursday at 12:00 UTC if needed)
- AOB
- Closing Remarks
Documents
Notes
1. Opening Remarks (roll call, SOI)
Greg on audio
2. Plan for the week
Two big dates this week that will guide the work
· 28 July: Documents Freeze
· 31 July: Publication of 2nd draft proposal
Plan is to send the remaining documents for lawyers review by COB today.
3. Clarification of process for 2nd Public Comment
· Aim to have set of implemetable recommendations for the community
· May need a call on Thursday 12:00 UTC to finish going through report
·CoChairs sense there is a lot of support for the "overall package" of the report, but that there are concerns about specific parts of the proposal. Important for the community to see the support in the group as they review the draft for Public Comment
·Minority statements are reserved for those who disagree with the "overall package" as opposed to specific sections/parts.
· Last resort will be formal consensus call and/or vote by members
4.Review 2nd draft proposal for Public Comment (section by section, to be continued on Thursday at 12:00 UTC if needed)
Documents for today's call are listed on Meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/NIpCAw
We will list edits/action items and consensus level for each section.
Section 3A: Mission, Commitments, & Core Values
Action (Becky/WP2): provide rationale for Core Value 7 to the CCWG. If the text with rationale is not acceptable, put the text in brackets.
·Suggestion 1: use WSIS wording: "... based on the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities." Any objections to using WSIS wording? Yes, Sebastien Bachollet: the other organizations function differently from ICANN so their language is not appropriate. --> Decision not to move forward with suggestion 1
·Suggestion 2: rewrite Core Value 7 to reflect the following: "... responsibile for public policy and duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments ad public authorities." Any objections? Yes, Robin Gross --> Decision not to move forward with suggestion 2
· Suggestion 3: Agree with deleting "within their respective jurisdictions"? Yes: majortity; No: 3 --> Decision to move forward with suggestion 3
Recap: look into legal advice and, depending on what comes back, may turn this into WS2 item.
Section 3B: Fundamental Bylaws
Outstanding question on what would be required to change ICANN's headquarters.
Current language in Articles of Incorporation:
9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.
Action (Sidley/Adler): Review question and confirm: whether 2/3 of the Board and member is legal. Answer will likely be yes.
Any objections to what is written in this section 3B? No.
Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member"
Section 4.1: IRP
·Note: Becky will walk the group through issues and resolutions. The text is not available yet, so agreement here is agreement to the decisions made, not to the accuracy of the text in implementing those decisions. CCWG needs an oppoirtunity to check the text correctly reflects the report provided by Becky.
·Period of consideration of IRP issues? normal time would be 6 months. If loonger, the panel would need to issue a report with estimated schedule for completion.
·To what extent are decisions binding? if in violation of bylaws, the multistakeholder model would have influence in how to address.
·Any objections to the IRP section? No, but Tijani Ben Jemaa and Alice Munyua have concerns about the 6-month period of consultation (issue with gaming the system).
· To clarify, there is no IRP on GAC advice (only IRP is for ICANN implementation).
Action (Becky/WP2): Review text to address Tijani's concern and recirculate to CCWG
Section 4.2: Reconsideration
·Ombudsman's role and independence is being evaluated as part of WS2 to ensure propoer independece
· Any objections to this section? No
Section 5A: Community Mechanism
Action (Malcolm): write an email to Jordan/WP1 nd Leon about legal question regarding model and associated models.
Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate)
·Any objections to this document? Robin Gross: concern about how the votes are distributed across the communities.
To be continued on call Thursday:
Section 5B: Community Powers (intro)
Section 5B.1: Budget
Section 5B.2: Standard Bylaws
Section 5B.3: Removal of Board Members (individuals)
Section 5B.4: Recalling Board Members (entire Board)
Section 5C: Diversity, Staff Accountability, and SO/AC Accountability
Section 6: Incorporation of AoC
Executive Summary
Fulfillment of Requirements
Section 1: Background
Section 2: Accountability Mechanisms
Section 7/8: Stress Tests
Section 9: WS2
Section 10: Implementation
5. AOB
none
6. Closing Remarks
Need to schedule Thursday call
Cannot do formal full document freeze at this stage, but will kep latest versions uploaded on Wiki
Action Items
Action (Becky/WP2): provide rationale for Core Value 7 to the CCWG. If the text with rationale is not acceptable, put the text in brackets.
Action (Sidley/Adler): Review question and confirm: whether 2/3 of the Board and member is legal. Answer will likely be yes.
Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member
Action (Becky/WP2): Review text to address Tijani's concern and recirculate to CCWG
Action (Malcolm): write an email to Jordan/WP1 nd Leon about legal question regarding model and associated models.
Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate)
Chat transcript
Kimberly Carlson: (7/28/2015 05:03) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #45 on 28 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
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:30) Greetings folks!
jorge cancio (GAC): (05:47) Good afternoon...
arasteh: (05:47) Hi everybody
Maura Gambassi - IT: (05:48) hi all!
arasteh: (05:48) Hi Everybody
Kimberly Carlson: (05:48) Hello everyone!
arasteh: (05:50) I have noted that one Government appoarched many other top level personailiy in its friendly circle and informed that in the CCWG Process it is not desittrable that Governments have any decision making role????!!!!
arasteh: (05:50) It is strange and untransparent
jorge cancio (GAC): (05:50) I'm beginning to parse through the docs - and stumbled again on the "within their jurisdiction" insertion in the document on Mission, Core Values... please note that as no meaningful rationale has been provided this insertion is contentious
arasteh: (05:51) I am surprised that some GAC Mmember attending the meeting but take very low profile wheneverthe interests of GAC is at risk
arasteh: (05:52) I am totally against the idea that some Giovernments attemps to break the rules of consensus because of some particular issues that have not been resoilved in the way that they wished
arasteh: (05:53) It is a dangerous process that the UN built-in WSIS process of consensus is being broken
arasteh: (05:54) Dear Co-Chair
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (05:55) Dear Mr Arasteh, could you share more information with us, in particular which Government has done that?
arasteh: (05:56) If the issue of preserving the very right of every SO abd Ac is not met irrespective of whether or not they wish to exercise their right to vote .hey must preserve their right for any particular circumstances that they reaquire to votee
arasteh: (05:56) We should not exclude them from voting.
arasteh: (05:56) They must not deprived of their verey fundamental right
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (05:57) What rights?
arasteh: (05:57) By the way GAC has not decided whether they wish to particpate in voting or not
Becky Burr: (05:57) good day all
arasteh: (05:57) Moreover, GAC has not yet had the opportunity to examine the new community empowerment mechanism
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:57) Hi all!
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (05:57) Their decision making process is separate from the question of whether Advisory Committies are to be treated like Supportin Organizations
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:57) God Day all!
arasteh: (05:58) Right to participate in bvpting on siuynbject s that toucjhes theoir fundamental right
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:58) hello Good morning here!
Konstantinos Komaitis: (05:58) hello all
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:58) Hello everyone !
Phil Buckingham: (05:58) Good morning from a rainy UK
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (05:58) hey team
arasteh: (05:59) Spr
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (05:59) Good morning, etc., all!
Michael Clark (Sidley): (05:59) Good day all
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:01) Good Day to all
David McAuley (RySG): (06:01) Good morning
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (06:01) Hello all
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:01) Party!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:01) Hi team
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:02) Good morning from a sunny and warm Brasília.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:02) 18 hours into Tuesday, finishing with an ICANN meeting as it started :-)
Brenda Brewer: (06:02) the recordings are started
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (06:02) Yup some dayzzz are ike that lately Jordan :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (06:03) I'm in AC nw Leon thanls :-)
arasteh: (06:04) Mathieu
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:05) When can we expect the remaining docs for lawyer review? Hopefully this morning?
arasteh: (06:05) We have drastically modified several areas
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:05) Terrific! Standing by.
arasteh: (06:05) It is a big risk that we had no time to ck.
Grace Abuhamad: (06:06) https://community.icann.org/x/NIpCAw
arasteh: (06:06) Pls compare what is now available and what was available two wedks ago
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:06) Two weeks ago we didn't have a model at all
arasteh: (06:07) Yes we had
arasteh: (06:07) Voting has nothing to do with model
arasteh: (06:08) JWhat you are saying aJordan is that CCWG has totally modified every thing////???
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:09) it's modified a huge amount, for sure. The latest modification is to propose that all the SOs and ACs have their votes included in the bylaws, with equal representation each.
arasteh: (06:09) Thomas
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:09) sorry for being late. It's totally Avri's fault :)
arasteh: (06:09) What you are saying means that we should not make any comment
arasteh: (06:10) It is therefore neither open, democratic nor incluyssive
arasteh: (06:10) You prevent the participants to talk
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (06:11) My sense is that the reason to include all of the SOs and ACs in the CM with equal weight is that The CM is designed for the extraordinary exercise of powers that have to do with holding ICANN accountable to its commitments under the bylaws, not the performance of the roles and functions of ICANN's individual constituencies.
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (06:12) So it isn't about voting on ordinary issues.
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (06:12) It's about collectively insisting that ICANN fulfill its responsibilities under the bylaws.
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (06:13) Every community constituent has an interest in that.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:13) @Lyman ;-- it's the IRP that we use to hold ICANN to the Bylaws. The voting mechanism is about different powers.
arasteh: (06:13) I raised my concerns and Jordan said it will be adequately responded
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:13) I disagree with this procedure
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:13) This is not acceptable
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:13) I'm not entirely sure if the process is right - the diverging opinion might sometimes be that of the pen-holder...
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (06:13) @Steve that's what I mean - it's a way to require the Board to abide by IRP decisions
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:14) Kavouss: you have not responded to my suggestion that your concerns have been addressed
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:14) can you tell me whether the updated document deals with your concerns, or if it does not?
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:14) especially with last minute changes where no rationale has been provided even if such rationale has been expressly asked for
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:14) +1 to Jorge´s concerns
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:15) @Jorge: you can also convey through Chairs. that's never wrong !
Christopher Wilkinson: (06:15) There is no sound. Could I please have a dialout to +34965793693
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:15) usually the onus is on the proposer...
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:16) I really do no tthink that the Co-Chairs can be permitted to manipulate the process like this.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:16) Minority Opinions are Minority Opinions.
Becky Burr: (06:16) Jorge, et al - I think our most recent approach addresses the GAC concern about Core Value 11. I will explain in detail when we get to Mission Statement discussion
arasteh: (06:16) Have you addressed the concerned that I rAISED PLS
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:17) Kavouss: I think so
arasteh: (06:17) Thomas
arasteh: (06:17) We have worked one year in good mood
arasteh: (06:17) I do not understand your strong tone n tonight
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:17) @becky: I refer to the insertion "with their jurisdiction"
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:18) on core value 11 (and the new wording) I guess that GAC members will need more time to look at the latest text
arasteh: (06:18) Mathieu
arasteh: (06:18) At least your are more flexible than other
arasteh: (06:18) Pls intervence
arasteh: (06:18) ne
arasteh: (06:19) Leon
arasteh: (06:19) Mathieyu anD ...
arasteh: (06:20) pLS ENSURE that the rights of all SC and AC are prreserved
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:20) @Kavouss: I think there is a misunderstanding, I think the document has been amended to accomodate your request
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:21) @CoChairs and Staff --> Please add this for the record: regarding the "within their jurisdiction" insertion in the document on Mission, Core Values... please note that as no meaningful rationale has been provided this insertion is contentious
arasteh: (06:21) Thomas wants that we h always admire him
arasteh: (06:21) We did at various instances
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:21) Kavouss - we do continue to work in good spirits together. I am not sure where you got the sense of a strong tone from.
arasteh: (06:21) But whenever, we have a point a hard position is taken
arasteh: (06:21) It is unacceptable
Greg Shatan: (06:22) Jorge, what is your objection to the rationales that have been given? Why do you contend that they were not "meaningful"?
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:23) can the text be shown in the screen?
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:23) Yes Olga
Grace Abuhamad: (06:23) uploaded the text Becky asked for
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:23) Kavouss, not sure I understand your criticism. Happy to discuss with you offline.
Carlos Raul: (06:23) all papers under https://community.icann.org/x/NIpCAw
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:24) @Greg: there was an email exchange and I explained why IMHO the insertion of "within their jurisdictions" is not warranted as Govts together issue international public policy - in this case public policy advice. "Within their jurisdiction" seems to limit govts role to national policy.
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:24) On the other hand, this text is new and no clear rationale for its necessity has been provided
Cameron Kerry: (06:24) Switching to audio connection
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:25) so it sounds like it's gone?
arasteh: (06:25) Jordan
arasteh: (06:25) PLS SHOW ME what has been gone
arasteh: (06:26) Did you cover my points
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:26) I share Jorge´s concern
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:26) Kavouss: I think so, if we are talking about the voting. If you are talking about something else, I don't know.
Becky Burr: (06:28) redline pleas
Carlos Raul: (06:28) yes
Carlos Raul: (06:28) we can hear you
arasteh: (06:28) I am talking about voting oif some ACs
Malcolm Hutty: (06:29) @Becky, do we have the latest document text? I see numerous issues that we discussed and I believed closed in our call yesterday that are still showing as multiple options in the paper listed for this meeting.
Becky Burr: (06:30) i'm updating
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:31) it is difficult to see the redline doc in schreen
Megan Richards: (06:31) the screen says "nothing is being shared"
Becky Burr: (06:31) where did the redline go?
Grace Abuhamad: (06:31) Back up
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:31) which is the text for core value 11-7 ? i am not able to realize the new text
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:31) in the screen
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:31) I share same jorge´s concerns
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:32) dear Kavouss: if you can look at this document, please look and see what you think: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft-trackchanges.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1438079109926&api=v2
arasteh: (06:32) I dio not believe that the Government need any advise from CCWG
arasteh: (06:32) No government is subordinated by this tittle group
arasteh: (06:32) Governments are soverign
arasteh: (06:33) Thedy do not need nor receive any instruction apart from what is in their Constitution
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:33) @Kavouss no one is even trying to subordinate no government to anyone
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:33) Core value 11 proposal that all ACs "should provide rationale" seems fine to me: providing rationale is always an important element of communication of policy positions. However, a perception that there is a lack of full rationale should not diminish the substance or treatment of that advice in any way.
arasteh: (06:34) Jorg, Olga, Mrak +
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:34) Olga, it's on page 8, btw.
arasteh: (06:34) Beckie
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:34) thnks
arasteh: (06:34) Pls tell me from where this language coming from
arasteh: (06:34) From GOD?
Christopher Wilkinson: (06:35) Becky, Jorge: "within their jurisdiction" does not work in the EU. Please delete. CW
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:35) whatever the source of "within their jurisdictions" I do not think that any meaningful rationale has been provided by Becky to support this text
Chris Disspain: (06:35) So, Mark, who judges the fullness of the rationale and who prevents govts, or anyone, saying 'we have no rationale but we dont have to justify why there is no rsationale'?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:36) nobody - but doesn't everyone judge arguments on their merits in the ICANN framework?
Becky Burr: (06:36) Robin - do you want to address this?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:37) Well the .africa IRP panel found that the board did not judge arguments on merits (nor even require arguments).
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:40) I think concerns are not enough, but a rationale has to be provided - and it is still missing
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:40) +1 Jorge!
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:41) So long a rationale is not provided the text should be dropped
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:41) how about sharing the rationale with the whole CCWG?
Greg Shatan: (06:41) There is a certain irony in requesting a rationale on the one hand (and rejecting a position for a perceived lack thereof) and requesting the right to give Advice without a rationale (and not allowing objection to the lack of rationale) on the other hand.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:41) I think it is importan to retain the phrase "within their respective jurisdictions".
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:41) the text should be deleeted
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:42) deleted
arasteh: (06:42) Olga+1
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:42) (I was referring to Leon's suggestion)
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:42) @Robin: why?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:42) I don't know what the phrase means
Malcolm Hutty: (06:42) We need to see the final text before CCWG can declare it frozen for publication. If that's not yet ready, let's defer closing this item until Thurs, and try to distribute the text as soon as possible
Keith Drazek: (06:42) Perhaps the text could be retained but placed in brackets for consideration during the public comment period?
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (06:43) Concur with proposals for brackets
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:43) Like Olga writes: Delete.
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:43) if there is no agreement and no rationale, why should the text be kept?
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:43) @Jordan - it implies that Governments are responsible for "National Policy" only
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:44) +1 Tracy
Becky Burr: (06:44) within their respective roles seems helpful
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:44) Tracy: I understand that critique and think it is reasonable, so I want to hear the counter point
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:44) +1 Tracy!
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:44) seems that UN language could bridge the gap ;-)
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:45) yes jorge it could
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:46) thanks Christopher W
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (06:46) As a non-lawyer, I may not fully understand how individual govts implement or otherwise support what has been agreed internationally; do we not do this via national law and/or policy?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:46) "within their respective role" seems much clearer
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:47) since States clearly have roles in national policymaking and in international policy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (06:47) agree with you Jordan
Matthew Shears: (06:48) I agree with Sebastian on the WSIS wording - I am not comfortable with that
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:48) i don't understad the logic of the jurisdictions lingo since it does seem to force states back to national boundaries
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:48) WSIS - "... based on the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities."
Becky Burr: (06:49) thanks Tracy, helpful
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:50) Several more references to "respective roles"
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:50) @ Chris: if we say we should aim to provide rationale that is the most we can commit to. You can imagine situations when negotiations result in delicate compromise outcomes. On curretn discussion, I can support "respective roles and responsibilities" solution.
Grace Abuhamad: (06:50) Thanks @Tracy., noted
Becky Burr: (06:51) I think "within their respective roles and responsibilities" seems a very good solution
Megan Richards: (06:51) "respective roles and responsibilities" covers all the necessary and appropriate circumstances
Malcolm Hutty: (06:51) @Sebastian, if we were to include a reference to WSIS I would share your concerns, but merely using the phrase "in their respective roles", that happens to have been used in WSIS, should be considered on its merits. I see no problem
Chris Disspain: (06:51) understood Mark....I'm fine with wriggle room....I'm not fine with language that allows a cop out and may encourage IRP panels to 'overturn' GAC advice...
Avri Doria: (06:52) apologies got lost in academia and forgot.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:52) Agree with the addition of "in their respective roles and responsibilities"
Avri Doria: (06:52) sorry i missed that one because i deplote that additon.
Avri Doria: (06:53) deplore
Chris Disspain: (06:53) why, Avri?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:53) Avri: none of us could quite understand the "within their respective jurisdictions" language, it seemed to limit to only national policy?
Becky Burr: (06:53) "deplote" is a lovely term
Avri Doria: (06:53) becasue it is a government definitons of r&r that takes no real account of the real R&R of others.
Matthew Shears: (06:53) because it is associated with very limited roles and responsbilities in the Tunis Agenda
Chris Disspain: (06:54) agreeme, Becky :-)
Avri Doria: (06:54) it is a set of R&R that were defined unilaterally by governments.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:54) the reason I wanted "within their respective jurisdictions" is because some govts see ICANN as an opportunity to impose their own national law on the world via ICANN. So I want it clear that ICANN is not a means to circumvent legitimate global policymaking.
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:55) @Avri - it is being suggested as a compromise to " ... within their respective jurisdictions" which several Gov'ts have raised an issue with
Avri Doria: (06:55) but R&R give them sole repsosinbilty for anything they consider public policy. are you ready to do that?
Greg Shatan: (06:55) I'm not sure it's a compromise.
Chris Disspain: (06:55) @ Avri....so the question is...do the non-govt mebers of CCWG agree with your definition and are happy to accept the consequences of that?
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:55) Not necessarily using the WSIS frame of reference
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:55) I understand the desire to avoid WSIS language - but also understand why the formulation there is difficult.
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:55) @Robin: that fear does not support the addition and it ignores that there is an international dimension for public policy, which is what we do at GAC (and any international fora)
Carlos Raul: (06:55) can´t hear
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:55) if the phrase had never been used in WSIS, it would be much easier to use
Greg Shatan: (06:55) How do we use WSIS language and avoid the WSIS frame of reference?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:55) I also do not support "within roles and responsibilities" as it looks to the past and does not realize multi-stakeholderism.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:55) verly low
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:56) True @Jordan
Chris Disspain: (06:56) still very hard to hear
Matthew Shears: (06:56) exactly Greg
Carlos Raul: (06:56) rise the vol pls
Greg Shatan: (06:56) I am concerned about the "respective roles and responsibilities" language as well.
Avri Doria: (06:56) withing roles defined in the ICAMM bylaws s ok, but not any phrase that smacks of the TA
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:56) the thing is, people are contesting "respective roles and responsibilities" all over the place - often because of this darn Internet thing. And now I will shut up because I don't have a sensible proposal to help.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:57) well, we could drop the added text.
Greg Shatan: (06:57) I suggest that neither insertion be made.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:57) okay, if Greg and I agree.... :)
Greg Shatan: (06:57) We could refer to the discussion in text.
jorge cancio (GAC): (06:57) normally if there is a proposal which is not supported it has to be dropped
Megan Richards: (06:57) indeed - an alternative is to just remove the added text
David McAuley (RySG): (06:57) cant hear
Carlos Raul: (06:58) avri
Carlos Raul: (06:58) unmute
arasteh: (06:58) Jorge +1
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (06:58) Or square bracket it ...
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (06:58) The key is that there are no significant changes in ICANN's obligations with respect to human rights that come into play when the NTIA contract is transitioned
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:58) removing the added text is also a possibility
arasteh: (06:58) Jorge +1\
Avri Doria: (06:58) i am not on mute. i guess i can't be heard
Chris Disspain: (06:58) we can hear you in spirit, Avri, but not in practice
Chris Disspain: (06:59) or practise even
Avri Doria: (06:59) sorry
Greg Shatan: (06:59) Perhaps you were trying to speak outside of your respective role and responsibility, Avri.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:59) I'd be very happy to listen to Avri but there just isn't any noise
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:59) oh, I'm having connectivity issues, Avri. Might just be Meissen...
Avri Doria: (06:59) i dont have a number
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (06:59) maybe your browser has blocked your mic?
Samantha Eisner: (06:59) Can the language that keith suggested be pointed to on the page or put into the notes section?
Greg Shatan: (07:00) This internet thing will catch on, as soon as they work out the bugs.
Avri Doria: (07:00) was he speaking of just government obligations under law or corproations
James Bladel: (07:00) Apologies, but I need to drop at the top of the hour.
Chris Disspain: (07:00) no chance Greg
Grace Abuhamad: (07:00) try reloading AC @Avri
Greg Shatan: (07:00) Chris, I'll write you a letter about that and take it to the post office.
Grace Abuhamad: (07:00) @Sam -- not sure what Keith's text is/was. Can someone assist?
arasteh: (07:00) Leon
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:00) I am ok with removing it
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:00) I think deleting it is a good idea.
arasteh: (07:01) WHERE YOU ARE NOW
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:01) saw some support for that earlier in the chat by Sabine and Megan
Samantha Eisner: (07:01) I'm not clear what we're agreeing on
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:01) Cam was addressing the first question posed regarding whether once NTIA contract is transitioned ICANN's obligations regarding human rights change in any significant way
Avri Doria: (07:01) what dod you all agree on?
Chris Disspain: (07:01) what was the middle bit again?
arasteh: (07:01) Leon
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:01) "within their respective jurisdictions"
Keith Drazek: (07:01) I just suggested placing text in brackets for consideration during the comment period. I didn't suggest language.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:01) delete it, don't replace it
arasteh: (07:01) Pls show the area that you are discussing
Becky Burr: (07:01) responsible for public policy within their respective roles
Grace Abuhamad: (07:02) Thanks Keith. For Core Value 7
Becky Burr: (07:02) no, keeping duly taking into account
Chris Disspain: (07:02) still have no idea which para we are redrafting
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:02) Core Value 7 on this tracked changes, page 8 of the document on the screen
Asha Hemrajani: (07:02) @chris p8, #7
Becky Burr: (07:03) ???
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:03) by olga
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:03) as well
Asha Hemrajani: (07:03) @chris line 5, 6
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:03) I do not support this change.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:03) and Greg!
Chris Disspain: (07:03) thanks @ Asha
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:04) I would rather delete those four words, than keep them, and I would rather delete those four words than replace them with the WSIS formulation
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:04) well Robin, to be frank: the insertion is the change which is not being supported
Chris Disspain: (07:04) could someone red line the red line in the adobe room?
Becky Burr: (07:04) ok, i understand Jordan
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:04) it's blue-lined, Chris.
Chris Disspain: (07:04) right Jordan...but hasn't the blue line been or is being red lined
Avri Doria: (07:04) ve rebooted. are all the decsions done and dusted now?ok i ha
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:04) "public policy"
Becky Burr: (07:05) no Avri, still discussing
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:05) not "policy" is what is being discussed
Avri Doria: (07:05) i accept within repsective jurisdiction but not in R&R
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:05) Chris I have no idea what that means - the blue line in the case of these words is a proposed addition, I think. The proposal is that we should delete it and not replace it.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:05) [the current proposal from Leon/Thomas]
Christopher Wilkinson: (07:06) Good afternoon: Thankyou everybdy, but the technical quality of the call here is not appropriate. I shall return to these matters after I have read the dossier, if necessary in Public Comment- CW
Chris Disspain: (07:06) ah...so we are proposing to delete the blue line?
Becky Burr: (07:06) Avri - better to just dorp?
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:06) cuurent bylaws: "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:06) correct, Chris
Chris Disspain: (07:06) cool
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:06) Public Policy is not equivalent to the Public Interest ...
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (07:07) We had this raised in the chat in the Paris F2F
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:07) greg, we are proposing to delete the language. Are you ok with that?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:07) I don't think those four words will help or hinder anyone in any respect ever, to be very crisp about it. So I think they should be deleted.
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:07) the proposal of adding "within their respective jurisdictions" is what alters the status quo. Without agreement it should not proceed any further
Samantha Eisner: (07:08) The Bylaws establishing the GAC state: "The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues." This process does not seem to be the place to try to redefine the role of the GAC.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:08) co-chairs, could we do a ticks and crosses to test the view of the room on "Should we just delete those four words"?
Asha Hemrajani: (07:08) @jordan, that is a good idea
Malcolm Hutty: (07:09) How about this "While remaining rooted in the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society the technical community and academia, and recognising the role and responsibilties for government and public authorities, and duly taking into account....etc" ?
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:09) good idea Jordan
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:09) Nobody has been able to present an argument that convinces me it should be kept, and I don't want to add WSIS language
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:09) these are my personal views
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:10) Tick to delete those four words, cross to keep them in?
Avri Doria: (07:10) which 4 words?
Megan Richards: (07:10) agree to remove
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:10) "within their respective jurisdictions"
Becky Burr: (07:10) within their respective jurisdictions
Becky Burr: (07:10) correct
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:10) correct, Malcolm
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:10) remove those four words and leave the text there. No additions.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:11) How many of these are members and participants?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:11) one hour per topic
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:11) so this call will finish in nineteen hours?
Greg Shatan: (07:11) Yes Avri
David McAuley (RySG): (07:11) yes, just heard you Avri
Becky Burr: (07:11) we can hear you Avri
Greg Shatan: (07:11) Jordan, lock the doors!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:12) it is a much broader issue. so let's not resolve it
Greg Shatan: (07:13) +1, Jordan, It can't be resolved with four words.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:13) "While remaining rooted in the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society the technical community and academia, and recognising the role and responsibilties for government and public authorities, and duly taking into account....etc"
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:13) Why does the Co-Chair cut off Malcolm Hutty, who had the floor?
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:13) No accpetable and objected against.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:14) @Eberhard, Because Matthew had moved to close the discussion before I had an opportunity to be heard
Malcolm Hutty: (07:15) The chair was in order, though I regret not having my alternative suggestion considered
Greg Shatan: (07:16) If there's a groundswell of approval in the chat for this suggestion, I'm sure we can re-open. That said, I am not in favor of this suggestion.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:17) I like Malcolm's suggestion.
Greg Shatan: (07:17) Please re-cap the Keith Drazek proposal.
Avri Doria: (07:17) thanks and apologies again for my lateness and technical difficulties. being cloistered in this academic environemtn have their advantages and disadvantages.
Samantha Eisner: (07:18) I do not agree with Keith's proposal. I do not understand how we we would divorce applicablity to new obligations to contracted parties, as it could be part of the policy development discussion
Keith Drazek: (07:19) I just resent my email from yesterday to the list.
Samantha Eisner: (07:19) I think it was a useful suggestion as a way forward, but I'm comcerned that it might have effects that we haven't considered
Avri Doria: (07:20) how does it becomae a WS2 issue? i beleive it is still a WS1 issue and have not heard anything that convinces me otherwise.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:20) Await legal advice non human rights; agree that this is key issue; seems right for full consideration by workstream 2.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:21) 9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:21) ..on human rights...
Greg Shatan: (07:21) Agree with my esteemed GAC colleague from the UK.
Avri Doria: (07:21) full consideration in ws2, perhaps, but there is a need for some dealing in ws1.
Grace Abuhamad: (07:21) Thanks @Steve. noted
Keith Drazek: (07:21) Thanks Sam. Perhpas the way to address your concern is to acknowledge that any new obligations on contracted parties would require a PDP, per the current procedures.
Samantha Eisner: (07:22) The articles already say that, Rosemary
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:22) agree with Mark, although perhaps some element may still be included under WS1, depending on the public comment period
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:22) 9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.
Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (07:22) From current Articles: These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the directors. When the Corporation has members, any such manemdent must be ratified by a two thirds majority of the members.
Greg Shatan: (07:23) As proposed, there will be only one Member.
Greg Shatan: (07:23) So, the concept of a 2/3 majority is irrelevant.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:23) That's right, Jordan. We just need to confirm Single Member works here
Greg Shatan: (07:24) The vote is always unanimous.
Greg Shatan: (07:24) Unless the Member abstains.
Greg Shatan: (07:24) Unanimous is more than 2/3. Just saying....
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:25) The statement isn't accurate as written
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:25) it isn't perfectly accurate but nor is it misleading.
Grace Abuhamad: (07:26) @Rosemary -- can you send me your clarified language suggestion?
Grace Abuhamad: (07:26) (for the notes)
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:26) "...and the vote of the community mechanism as sole member, which will have a threshold of 2/3 of the community mechanism's participants."
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:26) +1 Alan
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:26) "and the approval of the CMSM"
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:27) Rosemary's is better than mine.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:27) Go with that.
Grace Abuhamad: (07:27) ok noting @Jordan and @Rosemary, thanjs
David McAuley (RySG): (07:29) I must step away for a short while, hope to be back
arasteh: (07:29) Jordan
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:29) I woudl expect GAC would have to agree beforehand on an issue like this before CMSM could cast its vote.
Keith Drazek: (07:30) If the GAC was voting, correct? @mark
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:31) @ Keith - no: it woudl be consensus-based advice to the community.
Keith Drazek: (07:32) Ah ok
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:34) @ Tijani 6 months
Greg Shatan: (07:35) Mark, not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the CMSM cannot take any action that the GAC does not approve?
Greg Shatan: (07:35) (by GAC consensus advice)?
arasteh: (07:35) Grec+1
Malcolm Hutty: (07:36) This issue - time allowed for IRP to reach a decision - hasn't been changed at all, has it?
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:37) no has not changed . Time allowed for IRP to reach a decision set for 6 months
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:38) @becky: is core value 11 and its "transformation" into the IRP framework now to be discussed or will you adress this later on?
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:38) I think Tijani's concern if the panel extends beyound the six month time period. I have similar concerns
Grace Abuhamad: (07:39) @Alice -- do you note this as an objection to the section or a concern?
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:39) not objection, rather seeking clarification
Grace Abuhamad: (07:39) ok
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:40) There is no IRP on GAC advice
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:40) Ok - you are talking about it now... guess this will still need a look by GAC members with concerns on (ex-)core value 11
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:40) to clarify, the current proposal is that the obligation to try and find a mutually acceptable solution is only for GAC advice supported by consensus
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:40) yes core value 11 will still need GAC consideration
Avri Doria: (07:41) Steve bu tthat is not in the current langauge, is it?
jorge cancio (GAC): (07:41) @Steve: you refer to stress test 18? the new text is not on the reading list of today, right?
Avri Doria: (07:41) btw, it is the GAC that defines what its standards of consensus are.
Avri Doria: (07:42) so even if we were to define it as being consensus, the GAC determines what consensus is. just as GNSO consensus is defined by the GNSO.
Alice munyua (GAC): (07:42) Yes the GAC defines consensus principle 47
Malcolm Hutty: (07:43) @Staff: please will you add to notes that the text is not available yet, so agreement here is agreement to the decisions made, not to the accuracy of the text in implementing those decisions. We need an oppoirtunity to check the text correctly reflectts the report we have just heard
Grace Abuhamad: (07:44) I tried to capture that in 1st bullet point, but will use your language since it's more precise @malcolm
Malcolm Hutty: (07:44) @Grace Thank you!
Samantha Eisner: (07:46) Will there be clear lines of where the Ombudsman is required to hold items as confidential and where the Ombudsman's work should be make publicly available?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (07:46) Excellent point Alan
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:51) What is the purpose of 180 day notice to leave and alos the 3 month timing to join? Just curious
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:51) So this new proposal gives ACs the majority of possible votes. 20 votes for the 4 ACs and 15 votes to the 3 SOs. That is not an insignificant change at ICANN.
Greg Shatan: (07:52) If all "segments" vote, 2/3 vote = 5 segments in favor, 2 opposed; 3/4 vote = 6 in favor, 1 opposed.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:53) (Sorry no mic) Just wanted to note that there is a currently ongoing effort in the GAC to reach a position on the involvement of the GAC in the CEM. We hope to reach a consensus by the time of the public consultation period.
Greg Shatan: (07:53) So, on a matter of domain name policy, the GNSO and ccNSO could be outvoted.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:53) That's good to hear, Pedro
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:54) I have a hard stop in 5 minutes
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:54) Greg, how is the community voting on policy? they are voting on the community powers
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:54) Nobody can outvote ccNSO on ccNSO policy
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (07:55) Greg: none of these powers have an override on policy.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:56) so board appointees should have the same weight as the GNSO or the CCNSO?
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:56) Thx for the added information - yes it need to be agreed by the full GAC
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:57) Glad to do so Jordan
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:57) Sorry - my chat to Mark
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:57) so the yearly budget can be decided by ACs?
arasteh: (07:58) Alan+
arasteh: (07:58) Alan +_1
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:58) Alan, we should be able to draft around that in the details of voting mechanism
Greg Shatan: (07:58) A 2/3 vote would require at least one SO, Robin.
Grace Abuhamad: (07:59) FYI all -- Tijani's hand cannot be lowered in AC.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:59) I as going to ask the same about the asterisks thanks Kavouss
Greg Shatan: (08:00) The powers will be exercised in response to (or in support of) Board decisions, which in turn may be rooted in policy decisions or policy considerations.
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (08:00) The SSAC is yet to decide as well.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:00) Agree with Kavouss
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (08:00) @Kavouss - SSAC has said that it has not yet decided
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (08:01) KAvouss is correct and the footnote should be properly annotated.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:01) GAC has not decided, asterisk for GAC should be deleted
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:01) we can do three short footnotes
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (08:01) SSAC has not said "we do not wish to participate"
Keith Drazek: (08:01) The key with regard to the asterisks is to note that SOs and ACs may elect to not participate, and we've acknowledged that possibility.
Keith Drazek: (08:02) Based on initial feedback during the last public comment period and during subsequent discussions.
Edward Morris: (08:02) @Robin. It's even worse than that. In thr RSSAC, for example, ICANN's direct represntation is 1/13th of the body.
Edward Morris: (08:02) Double dipping everywhere.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:02) we aren't reformulating ICANN's internal structure. This whole set of accountability powers is 1% of what ICANN does. 99% is the work as it is done now.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:03) Lyman, we have been advised that SSAC wants to be invited to the t table to discuss, but not to vote
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:03) and - this whole discusson is about a text for public comment
Matthew Shears: (08:03) + 1 Robin
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:03) so to be 100% nitpicky and not the least bit constructive: what exactly has RSSAC said and to whom?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:03) Jordan, the yearly budget is a power that will play a role every year. Same thing with Strat Plan.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:04) Co-chairs have met SSAC and RSAC in BA and we tried to implement what we heard there.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:04) yes, but that process alongside all the rest of what happens is not the bulk of what ICANN does. That's my point.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:05) thank you, Thomas. would there be minutes or transcripts one could refer to?
Sivasubramanian M: (08:05) +1 Alan
Edward Morris: (08:05) Thanks for the honesty Alan. A complete restructuring of ICANN, internally and externally, is beyond the remit of this group.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:05) I think it's helpful for the voting allocation to include the clear caveat that not all the listed votes may actually be available in any particular vote. It affects the drafting of how quorum and voting threshold are drafted.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:06) Please don't assume that there will be major changes made by WP1
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:06) quite the opposite
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:06) Rosemary: that's not quite right.
Keith Drazek: (08:06) I agree that the topic of voting weight/distribution is not yet resolved and requires futher input and consideration. I don't have strong feelings about the actual disribution, but it's clear from email traffic that we don't have consensus at this time. Let's pose it as a question for public comment feedback. We also need to remember the last proposal was based on a Full Member model. This one is based on a Single Member model. As such, the last public comment feedback is not directly connected to the new proposal.
Matthew Shears: (08:06) +1 Keith
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (08:06) @Thomas SSAC has not decided
Edward Morris: (08:06) +1 Keith.
David McAuley (RySG): (08:07) Good point Keith
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (08:07) Thomas, the proposal that had been on the table at the time of Buenos Aires was quite different to the current proposal. Also, SSAC has been encouraged to reconsider its engagement/participation, and it is so doing.
Matthew Shears: (08:07) @ Rosemary - could you elaborate?
Keith Drazek: (08:07) Also, my comments above apply in part to SSAC and RSSAC consideration. The feedback we previously received was related to the Full Member model, not the Single Member model. Considerations may change following review of our latest proposed structure.
Keith Drazek: (08:08) +1 Julie, my point exactly.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:08) Drafting with the assumption that there are 35 votes is different than drafting if there may be fewer than 35 votes.
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (08:09) +1 Keith
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:09) Rosemary: we have a way through that.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:09) Since there is a call on Thursday, has the freeze date been moved?
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:10) will we have the documents to review before the call on thursday?
Holly Gregory (Sidley): (08:10) Co-Chairs, please send us any additional documents that are ready for our review
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:11) should we send minority statements on the voting weight to be included in the report?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (08:11) Thanks everyone... good progress => were "getting there" talk again soon => Thur Bye for now...
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:11) Thank you all. ´bye!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rptr): (08:11) let's discus that bit on Wp1 Robin
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:11) thanks to all
Michael Clark (Sidley): (08:11) bye all
Matthew Shears: (08:11) thanks
Alice munyua (GAC): (08:11) thank you bye
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:11) bye all
jorge cancio (GAC): (08:11) bye and thanks!
Sivasubramanian M: (08:11) bye
Greg Shatan: (08:11) Bye all.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:11) bye.
Martin Boyle, Nominet 2: (08:11) bye & thanks
