Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert   (16)

Participants:  Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brendan Kuerbis, David Maher, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Sabine Meyer, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw   (19)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Nancy McGlamery, Steven Chiodini   (3)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Theresa Swinehart, Tom Dale

Apologies:  Izumi Okutani, Eberhard Lisse, Mathieu Weill, Suzanne Radell, Rudi Daniel

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


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Update on Public Comment Review

3. Human Rights Work Party (Leon/Nigel)

     a. Update

     b. Schedule and Work Plan

4. Resilience Analysis of the Community Mechanism

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

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

Update on PC tool

Feedback on PC1 is due today - 23:59 UTC. We are missing one section from respective parties. 

Resilience Analysis & Community Mechanism 

Objective: look at the mechanism and determine whether unintended consequences. This is in line with blog spot from Larry Strickling. This is different from Stress Tests. It has done great work in thinking through scenarios. There has been a lot of thinking when analyzing PC1 report. 

---

Feedback:

- We should not overemphasize issues. We should avoid  marginalizing governments. 

--> It would be worth engaging in assessment that not destabilizing ICANN

- Notes: comments to remove stress-test 18 were not taken into consideration.

--> We have discussed this question in length on numerous occasions. There has been a wish to have it removed but it did not get sufficient traction. ST 18 has been tagged as a requirement. Our charter specifies that we need to follow NTIA requirements. Suggest minority statement or submitting a public comment. 

- Stress Test WP has done a good job analyzing ICANN's performance without NTIA contract but we have not tested our solutions. This resilience exercise will be important. We will need to document that we have tested our model. 

- ICANN's Board and legal department prepared impact analysis questions. It underlines suspicion that solution will have an impact that will need to be mitigated. 

---

Comments were made that not seen new system up and running and no one would have way to see how it functions. We should be forward-thinking and go through day-to-day scenarios. 

This project fits under work area 4. Members of ST party are by default members of resilience group. 

ACTION ITEM: Interested CCWG individuals to reach out to Cheryl and to send in proposed scenarios

------

Human Rights Work Party

On last call agreed that Nigel Roberts would lead drafting effort - i.e. high level wording on human rights. We are continuing discussions on the list. 

Proposed timeline and action plan can be adjusted as needed 

W Aug 17 - finalize initial wording to begin discussing high level wording. 

W Aug 24 - first call to discuss initial wording.

W Aug 31 - Continue discussion.

W Sept 7 - Finalize wording for CCWG consideration and approval on W Sept 14

Two calls per week might be needed.

 ---

Feedback:

- Are you referring to Bylaws amendments? Its agenda sets out half the task. 

--> It will include the rationale and analysis by subgroup.

- Explanatory note is going into details. We should not go down that road.It should remain high level.

- Explanatory note would be as a product of document. It is not meant to be incorporated into Bylaws

- We do not need an elaborate research of what it means since there already is broad understanding 

- We need to discuss common grounds. Understanding is important.

ACTION ITEM: Leon to adjust action/timeline

A.O.B

There are inaccuracies in the CWG matrix that will need to be addressed. These will be relayed to the CWG. The CCWG will have it own matrix when time comes. 

-  There are inconsistencies in the report (e.g. approval incorrect in Fundamental Bylaws context)

ACTION ITEM: Send any inconsistencies you notice to CoChairs. 

Closing Remarks

The PC1 tool will be published in 24 hours. More will be shared on Human Rights work party's work. We will begin work on resilience analysis

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Interested CCWG individuals to reach out to Cheryl and to send in proposed scenarios

ACTION ITEM: Leon to adjust action/timeline

ACTION ITEM: Send any inconsistencies you notice to CoChairs.

Documents Presented

HRAgenda.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (8/18/2015 12:58) Welcome all to CCWG ACCT Meeting #49 on 18 August at 19:00 UTC.  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 

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:27) Hi Brenda, can you dial out to me?

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:27) Once the time comes: +54 11 48197979

  Brenda Brewer: (13:37) Yes Olga!  Thank you.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:39) thanks to you

  arasteh: (13:56) Hi everybody

  Alice Munyua: (13:56) Hello everyone

  arasteh: (13:56) Hi faithful ICANN sTAFF

  arasteh: (13:56) Staff

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member: (13:56) Hi all.

  Sabine Meyer: (13:57) hello everyone!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:57) hi all

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:57) Hi all!

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (13:59) Hello all!

  jorge cancio (GAC): (13:59) hi all

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:00) Good evening from London!

  Brenda Brewer: (14:01) Barracl Otieno on phone line only

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:01) Good afternoon all from Virginia

  Becky Burr: (14:02) hello from San Francisco

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:02) hi all, been a while!

  Becky Burr: (14:03) only 1 Thomas

  Sabine Meyer: (14:03) it's so confusing, right? ;)

  Sabine Meyer: (14:04) sorry, I thought you referred to the (usually higher) number of people named Thomas.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:10) Hello everyone!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:10) My apologies for joining late

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:12) my hand is up to talk about what Thomas has introduced, by the way

  Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:14) EACTLY. Thomas.   caps intended

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:15) Coud Thomas elaborate a bit more on who is arguing that the SMM is destabilizing ICANN? and in what terms?

  Alan Greenberg: (14:17) Difficult to hear Jordan

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:17) Impact Analysis Questions from ICANN Legal Dept and Board is at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf

  Brenda Brewer: (14:17) Holly Gregory on phone line only.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:18) Sorry Alan - if I speak again I'll hold the mic closer!

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:22) Thanks to Steve for that info - and thanks to Thomas. Is a possible "answer" to these unintended consequences being prepared? is there any draft available?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:24) @Jorge -- we added 2 stress tests taken from the Board/Legal letter.  Also added 4 stress tests requested by NTIA..  See pages  115 - 119 of our latest draft

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:32) I think we are waiting on Board/Legal to tell us which of their questions are still relevant, given our proposal for just a Sole Member.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:32) +1 Thomas on prioritizing and letting others know in case they wish to volunteer for discrete parts

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:35) this looks like a very reasonable schedule for the human rights work

  Matthew Shears: (14:36) schedule is OK but we don't have a sense of the high level wording yet in WP4

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:36) Sorry being late. Computer failure:-/

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:36) @Steve: it seems that those pending questions would need some clarification as soon as possible... Dublin is around the corner and these issues should be sorted out by then, right?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:36) hand down, Greg covering what I intended to say

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:37) +1, Jorge

  Greg Shatan: (14:39) Leon, thank you for the clarification.

  Greg Shatan: (14:39) I look forward to the second draft agenda.

  Greg Shatan: (14:40) I never suggested putting the notes into the bylaws.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:40) Agree w/Greg, and this should be more clear in next agenda

  Avri Doria: (14:40) I still worry about trying to boil the ocean as part of finding appropriate high level wording.

  Greg Shatan: (14:40) I don't think it's an ocean.

  Avri Doria: (14:41) i am not convinced, but standing aside to watch the conversation.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:41) +1 kavouss

  Avri Doria: (14:41) will contribute where I can, but I am concerned that the concerns are overblown.

  Greg Shatan: (14:41) This is not the time or place for "creative ambiguity."

  Avri Doria: (14:41) comittment to repsect human rights in not creative ambgiuity.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:42) losing audio

  Greg Shatan: (14:42) Breaking up.

  Avri Doria: (14:42) calling it that seems prejudicial to me.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:43) no audio again

  Joy Liddicoat: (14:43) agree avri: it is important to reflect the spirit as well as the letter of by relevant legal concepts

  Greg Shatan: (14:43) Any statement without a common understanding of its intent and effect is ambiguous.  No prejudice involved.

  Avri Doria: (14:43) in which case the entirelty of the CCWG is creative ambiguity. 

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (14:44) +1

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:44) Exactly @Leon

  Avri Doria: (14:44) Greg, you know that you and I alone could drive holes through every understanding in the draft 2 proposal.

  Greg Shatan: (14:44) I think we've done a lot to try and remove ambiguity, while remaining relatively high level.

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (14:44) Not sure where the ambiguity is though.

  Greg Shatan: (14:44) We can do the same here.

  Avri Doria: (14:45) someday we should try and define the different between high level understanding and ambiguity.

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:45) Hi Everyone, sorry for joining late..I was on another teleconference.

  Greg Shatan: (14:45) Avri, I'll meet you in the bar in Dublin for that one.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:45) I'd like to join those in the bar in Dublin for this discussion

  Joy Liddicoat: (14:45) the audio kept cutting in and out

  Avri Doria: (14:45) over Irish whiskey i suppose.

  Matthew Shears: (14:45) likewise David

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:46) Great idea @Avri

  Greg Shatan: (14:46) +1 to David and Avri.

  Matthew Shears: (14:47) We really do need to make progress on the HR language given the relatively ambituous timeline

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (14:47) +1

  Joy Liddicoat: (14:47) a congenial discussion is a good idea but let's not side bar human rights principles

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:47) Question: Can we have a webinar on the single membership model,discuss the scenarios on how the powers are implemented and also what powers do we want and what powers does the single member model gives us  that we don't wantI think we need more explanation on these things. Also there should be more focus on how California law plays a role , more reference to the laws and what they say is needed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:48) The important thing at this phase is language that can land in the bylaws.

  Avri Doria: (14:48) hopefully we will have decided on the HR Language by then.  this conversations was to try and figure out the diffeence between high level understanding and an ambiguous understanding.

  Greg Shatan: (14:48) Agree that the discussion needs to be front and center.  The (side)bar was for comparing and contrasing high level understanding  and ambiguity.

  Avri Doria: (14:48) See,  Greg and I agree.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:49) It is not an accident, Kavouss.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:49) The fundamental bylaws power IS an Approval power.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:49) Not a veto one.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:49) That's what i thought also @Jordan

  Greg Shatan: (14:51) Jordan, the important thing in this phase is both bylaws language and a crisp document explaining the rationale, framework and scope of the language.  One without the other is an incomplete project.

  Greg Shatan: (14:51) Matthew, I agree that we need to get cracking.

  Avri Doria: (14:52) on the table issue: perhaps 3 column original, 1st draft, proposed

  Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:54) nothing wrong with a good short call

  Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:55) thanks everyone talk again soon then... bye for now... :-) :-) :-)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:55) Thx!

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (14:55) bye all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:55) see you all

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:55) bye all

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:55) bye

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:55) thanks

  Alice Munyua: (14:55) bye

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:55) Bye!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:55) bye all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:55) bye - thanks

  Sabine Meyer: (14:55) bye!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (14:55) bye

  Greg Shatan: (14:55) Thank you all and goodbye!

  Greg Shatan: (14:55) More time to spend on Human Rights!

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (14:55) :)

  jorge cancio (GAC): (14:55) bye and good rest ;-)

  Niels ten Oever - Article19: (14:56) o/

  • No labels