Members: Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Thomas Rickert (17)
Participants: Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Chris LaHatte, Christopher Wilkinson, David Maher, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg DiBiase, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Salaets, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Mike Chartier, Paul Rosenzweig, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Seun Ojedeji, Tapani Tarvainen, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw (31)
Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit,
Staff: Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings,
Apologies: Barrack Otieno, Suzanne Radell, Leon Sanchez
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2wmgtn0e6l/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-08sep15-en.mp3
- Welcome, Roll Call, SoI
- Board interaction & next steps
- Documenting our work
– Principles: detailed changes with comments provided by Becky
– IRP: details needed for process of selection + rules of procedure
– RfR: rules of procedure
– CMSM: documentation of rationale, community forum details
- Community forum
- September face-to-face meeting*
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Board interaction & next steps
We have worked based on requirements and have looked at implementation models to operationalize accountability requirements. The change
of reference model was to address comments from Board members (statutory rights etc). We have asked Board members to be constructive. We
should remind ourselves that we are working towards the same goal. We should take Board comment as intent of good faith to take it to the next level. At this stage, we don't
have enough details to assess Board comments. Our perception was that the Board had identified gaps. We can expect written input from the
Board highlighting areas of agreements and variations of proposals. We should remain open-minded to good faith criticism and not be prematurely defensive. We should wait for Board's written input and carefully analyze it. We need to
make clear to community that we are still in public comment period and do not want to discourage community members from providing comments.
All community input is welcome and will be treated with same diligence as 1st PC period. We need to emphasize this. We need to be responsive
and consider writing a note to the Board to help them navigate through this process as well.
- Any change to process creates discomfort. It is a human reaction. Some of concerns may be due to misunderstandings (e.g. budget). Creation
(CCWG & Board) may help.
- Open to learning from criticism. Welcome same level of education from ICANN Board and Jones Day. Sharing this input with us could be
done much sooner instead of waiting for them to flesh out their comments. We should be given chance to digest information.
- It is unhelpful for the Board to state that it is "changing the model". The work of this group sustains and strengthens the multistakeholder model. It would be appropriate for us to request that the Board not treat our proposal as
a proposal that changes the model.
- Has the CCWG's legal counsel spoken yet with ICANN legal and/or Jones Day?
--> The call has taken place. It primarily informed lawyers and JD of respective perspectives. This information will go into Board's deliberations.
- JD has indicated that they are not in disagreement with legal analysis we have provided. We are awaiting to hear from JD. We will
inquire whether these calls are recorded.
--> We did not want discussion to be a battle of experts, but rather a discussion to exchange views.
- Board focused a lot on enforceability. Disagreement is appropriate.
- If we can give Board guidance, it would be to prioritize issues with our proposal.
- We don't need a new proposal by Board. We must insist we are not waiting for an alternative proposal but waiting for comments on our proposal.
- CCWG disappointment and frustration. Answers are contradicting. Suggest making reference to comments that have been made on the list.
- We need further detail to take action and assess Board position. Board will be asked to prioritize concerns. The note will refer to comments
shared on list (e.g. Avri's note)
ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board.
Documenting our Work
We need to be aware of expectations placed upon on us regarding documentation. It is part of our Charter that when we submit our final report,
our group is expected to provide information on process, including PC consultations. We have received feedback in PC2 indicating that further
documentation might be needed. We should prepare for further documenting.
On principles - Becky has proposed synopsis of proposed changes.
On IRP: we need process details for selection of panelists and need to compose rules of procedure.
On RfR: Rules of procedure might be needed.
CMSM: We need to document rationale as well as initial feedback for detail on community forum.
In addition, there is a need for details on Bylaws. We have had a call with ICANN legal, counsel and CWG leadership to coordinate. ICANN
project management will provide a plan by the end of this week. This document will be shared with the CCWG.
We have received question of how GAC advice will be factored into new process.
It would be valuable for our group to flesh out how community forum would work. We could go as far as suggesting showcasing it so that we
answer any concerns about details of this process.
- Rationale for changes in princples, core values, commitments is needed.
ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented.
- WP1 started initial work on community forum. It would be viable to get more work done on this. Note to be sent out to WP1 list.
- WP2 had produced draft set of Bylaws on IRP.
--> Recommend discussing with lawyers
ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine workload (prior to certification of request)
- ST 18 appears in two places.
--> We need to update number of stress tests. 14 and 18 appear twice to illustrate why we need Bylaws changes.
ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section
September Face-to-Face Meeting
Pros and cons were exchanged on list.
- It should not be deemed a negotiation. If substantive input, the meeting would be useful. If not, it is a good opportunity to address all comments.
Whether Board is active or not, meeting would be useful.
- We should decide on our work flow. If meeting is to discuss with Board, opposed to it.
- Agenda needed
- We need to understand if Board is to talk about issues or if there to enhance their proposal. Their approach needs adjustments. Funding will be an issue. Cost benefit analysis is needed.
- Meeting should not be held unless it is clear what expected outcomes are. Do not understand how this meeting fits in overall public comment
period. Are the Board's views to be given more weight? Let's be cautious - how will this meeting fit in evaluation of comments
- We have a lot of work to do ourselves. For that reason, meeting would be helpful to hammer out details. We can take Board's concerns with all
other comments and evaluate them. Agenda needs to be set as CCWG and we need to focus on our work flow.
- It will be useful for our work but we cannot tell Board we do not want to talk with them. It is an opportunity to have all Board members with us. It is important.
- Unclear whether in person/remote.
- If we go to LA, we should leave antagonism behind and need to work together.
- If meeting goes ahead - it must be a full discussion.
- Disagree that we need more funding. It is already a large group. This meeting must be a balanced meeting. We need to ensure that meeting is webcast.
- Many valid comments came from participants. We should not be limiting participants' attendance.
The group is in agreement that a face-to-face meeting if conducted must be well-prepared and fit in the CCWG workflow. It must be as inclusive as possible, including additional travel funding. We need to have a good
documentation of Board's thoughts. There should not be any suggestions that this is a negotiation between Board and CCWG. Meeting
should be kept more open to community input as such. At same time, we have heard comments that we should embrace opportunity to
work with Board. We are lacking information to make a decision of whether this fits work flow.
We will let Board know that we are continuing to make a decision about this and will share with them discussion that took place today. We
will be able to make a decision once all comments received.
- How will we deal with comments
--> Staff summarizing comments and we will need to analyze and potentially adjust our report.
- Confusion about which comments should be addressed
--> Let's keep comments on existing proposal.
ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board.
ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented.
ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal
counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine workload (prior to certification of request)
ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section
Brenda Brewer: (9/8/2015 13:17) Welcome all to CCWG Accountability Meeting #52 on 08 September 2015! 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 J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:44) Greetings all!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:54) Hello ealry attendants !
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:55) hi brenda could the operator do adial out to me +54 11 48197979
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:56) bonjour Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:56) We have been informed that Kavouss would be on audio only
Keith Drazek: (13:56) Hello all
Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (13:56) FWIW, I will have to transfer to a phone line shortly ... but wanted to join just to record my interest
Farzaneh Badii: (13:57) hi
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:58) hello all
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:58) Hello everyone
Greg Shatan: (13:58) Hello, all.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:59) Please remember to mute your microphones if not speaking - thank you
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (13:59) Hello, all.
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (13:59) Hi all
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:59) hola jorge
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:59) Hello everyone!
Konstantinos Komaitis: (14:00) hello everyone
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:00) nice ringtone
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:00) Hi all
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:00) is there sound yet?
Alice Jansen: (14:01) hi Robin - the call has not started yet
David McAuley (RySG): (14:01) Hello
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:01) thanks, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing the audio
Carlos Raul: (14:02) hello
Alice Jansen: (14:02) Please mute your lines if not speaking
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:10) Thomas remarks seem quite sensible - let's wait for the factual, objective Board suggestions, study them on their merits when they arrive and discuss them with the Board and the rest of the community with appropriate time
Greg Shatan: (14:11) I agree generally with Thomas, except that I don't think we should give their position "due deference." What "deference" would be "due"?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:12) @Greg, I believe they, in effect, have a veto with NTIA
Keith Drazek: (14:12) +1 Thomas and Jorge. Careful analysis of the detailed Board description and the legal analysis will be needed before passsing judgment.
Keith Drazek: (14:13) Question: Have the CCWG's legal counsel spoken yet with ICANN legal and/or Jones Day? I recall there was agreement on the last call to initiate that conversation.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:13) True, @Keith but it's not necessary to pass judgement on how they handled that call! ;)
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:14) Yes Keith. We had a call with JOnes Day and ICANN legal last week after the Board/CCWG call
Greg Shatan: (14:15) @Jonathan, I recognize that, but will the NTIA want a proposal that was adopted only under threat of veto? This essentially provides proof of the problem we were trying to solve.
matthew shears: (14:15) lets hope that won't be the case Greg
Greg Shatan: (14:16) Holly, did Jones Day unveil the "unicorn" -- the entity without legal personality that can maintain a lawsuit?
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:16) I support Thomas's very considered perspective on the Board's views and await more precise definitions from them.
matthew shears: (14:16) + 1 Steve - the Board has to very specific and their concerns need to be fully substantiated
Alan Greenberg: (14:18) @Greg, may I remind you that we (the CCWG and its legal counsel) have identified a numver of ways to have a legal personal capable of court action, without Membership. Recall Empowered SO/ACs, the Sole Meechanism Model for two exacmples (The lattere was USED to be a Member, but could be used for other things as well)>
Greg Shatan: (14:19) @Alan, reminder not necessary; I recall these. ICANN's proposal seemed to be something quite different.
Alan Greenberg: (14:19) @Anne, we have used the term "model" to refer to the empowerment model, and we have come up with a handful of different "models"
Malcolm Hutty: (14:20) @Alan, no, I don't think so: we have been told that only a member has the right to bring court action for a "derivative action", i.e. to require ICANN to abide by its governing documents
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:20) can we have a transcript / recording of this call between the lawyers?
Alan Greenberg: (14:20) @Greg, yes, but several people have implied that without the CMSM model, we cannot have a legal persona. And that is not correct.
Phil Buckingham: (14:20) + 1 Robin .
Greg Shatan: (14:20) That was not my implication.
Greg Shatan: (14:21) The Board claimed we could go to court without a legal entity.
Alan Greenberg: (14:22) @Greg, your message implied that we could not have a legal persona. I answered that there were a host of ways that would be compatible with pretty much anything proposed.
Sébastien (ALAC): (14:22) Sound very bad
Greg Shatan: (14:22) And that it would be good enough to have an agreement or bylaw that the Board would not challenge standing.
Malcolm Hutty: (14:22) @Alan, legal persona is not all you need to bring a court action. you also need a cause of action. only a member will have this
Greg Shatan: (14:22) Magic bullet = gun is empty.
Alan Greenberg: (14:23) @Malcom, we were told by legal counsel that the designator model would be sufficient for all powers except budget and plan.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (14:24) @ Alan - so what is it that you call the current "model" that the Board says the CCWG is changing?
Malcolm Hutty: (14:24) Those powers are not all that is needed: we also need right to enforce for that ICANN has to make the IRP available
Greg Shatan: (14:24) @Alan, my message implied that the Board's proposal indicated we could go to court without a legal person. I would not state that we could not have a legal person.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:24) Has the Board or Jones Day reacted in any way to the memos prepared by Sidley and Adler?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:24) It would help us to understand where there are disagreements on the issues we have been working on. I don't think there is a danger in transparency here.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:24) So would request transcripts of the legal discussions. Thanks.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:24) @Steve: Not to my knwoledge
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:25) I am loosing audio, will change ISP connection
Malcolm Hutty: (14:25) @Alan, Besides, I don't see how the designator model is any easier, clearer, or less disruptive. only much harder to understand for those not familiar with California's own statutory peculiarities
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:26) As Holly said, the Jones Day lawyers indicated that they found no fault in the Sidley/Adler legal analyses to date, and in fact indicated that they were in part basing their views on our analysis.
Carlos Raul: (14:26) :)
Carlos Raul: (14:26) @Greg +1
Alan Greenberg: (14:26) @Malcom, I was not proposing a designator model, just demonstrating the membership was not the ONLY legally enforceable methodology.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:27) hi all, on Adobe now
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:27) "implementation detail"
Carlos Raul: (14:27) it rains a lot in the tropics....
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:27) and am back
Malcolm Hutty: (14:28) @Alan, well, you haven't demonstrated it I'm afraid. The lawyers have been quite clear that only a member can bring a so-called derivative action. Without it the IRP is ultimately voluntary
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (14:29) Regarding arbitration as an enforcement mechanism, as many on this call know well, there is often a huge delay in resolving disputes while Arbitrators are picked and then another delay based on their availability - or actually more oftent - their lack of availability.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) @Malcolm -- you r analysis was outstanding, and I hop e that Jones Day has it in their queue of documents
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:30) Agree with Steve on Malcolm's analysis.
matthew shears: (14:30) given the JD analysis of the proposal and the Sidley Adler review of the JD work I see no reason for us to continue to guess at the Board's concerns/intent and just wait on their detailed input - just like any other stakeholder and before the consultation deadline
Malcolm Hutty: (14:31) Agree with Jonathan: hearing Board's detailed criticism of our plan is much more urgent than developing more detail on their alternative proposal
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:31) +1 Jonathan. We need specifics so that we can 1) show why their concern is unwarranted, or 2) see if we can address by adjusting our proposal.
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (14:31) Yes, there is a resemblance...
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:34) @Thpmas -- I think Jonathan said we want board to proritize like this 1) give us specific criticism of our porposal, then 2) give us YOUR proposal
matthew shears: (14:34) + 1 Steve
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:34) The burden is clearly on the board to make its case - and provide the evidence that supports the claims it made last week.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:34) Steve, understood and sorry Jonathan, for not giving you credit for these ideas
Jim Baskin: (14:35) The Board should also include specific proposals to address the problems they identify.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:35) The issue of legal enforceability of the two models was the focus of discussion for some time - a couple months ago - Jones Day should have spoken up then if it had a magic solution.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (14:36) Agree with Jim Baskin - it is still very unclear what the Board's objections are to the Sole Member structure.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:36) It doesn't, Robin.
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:36) I would abstain from emotional connotations and try to stick to neutral and objective language
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:37) (have a solution that solves enforceability.)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:38) Jordan, right, I would have welcomed it THEN. But now is too late.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:38) The key message I took was that they propose a different, simpler implementation of the empowerment proposals which they support. Let's hear more about that implementation from the Board.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:39) The key message I took, Mark, was the same - but the key substance I analysed was a reversal of the proposition that decisional authority should rest outside the Board. The Board's proposed approach would see it remain with the Board. That's the key point of disagreement as far as I can see.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:39) (on the narrow accountability powers we are talking about.)
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:41) With "principles" I guess that we are refering to the Mission, Commitments and Core Vaues, are we?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:41) I would like us to move ahead with bylaws ASAP
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:41) +1 Jordan. the problem is that the two conversations got blened on the call because we were blindsided by the new proposal. We spent WAY too much time talking about whether their plan would work rather than whether it was necessary and what the specifics were
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:42) ICANN legal and Jones Day are drafting the bylaws for CCWG and Sidley has the pen for CWG. That is the current plan as we understand it.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:42) I didn't realise this was the plan for bylaws
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:43) [9/8/15, 3:40:51 PM] Steve DelBianco: today's Board Blog suggests they will NOT give us specific critique as a quick deliverable. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-the-icg-and-ccwg-accountability[9/8/15, 3:41:46 PM] Steve DelBianco: And they promise to give us "suggested enhancements of elements of the draft report". Does that mean the board is backing away from its counterproposal? I doubt it.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:43) me either. I believe CCWG's attorneys need to do the drafting. It is what we hired for.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:43) We are unclear whether thais is the best way to divide up bylaw drafting at this time but defer to the wishes of CCWG
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:43) it is what we hired THEM for, rather.
Chris LaHatte: (14:44) we need to include the ombudsman bylaw in drafting changes too
Chris LaHatte: (14:44) i don't know if that is on the radar at present
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:44) To be clear, Sidley and Adler are happy to have the drafting pen if that is what CCWG wants but we have been told otherwise
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:45) It is of utmost importance to count with an objective and clear rationale for the Bylaws changes, especially those relating to the "constitutional" elements such as Mission, Commitments and Core Values
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:45) particularly given the conflict of interest inherent in ICANN's lawyers drafting the reforms, I think we need CCWG's attorneys to do it.
Alan Greenberg: (14:45) @Chris, the only part that I recall that is integral to our proosal is a role in reconsideration, and that would require a Bylaw change.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:46) So, how to split up this work?
Chris LaHatte: (14:46) that's what I meant Alan
matthew shears: (14:46) + 1 Robin - and we cannot afford delays
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:46) Happy to have WP1 pick up community forum
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:46) GAC exchanges taking place now on that last point. Stand by!
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:47) +1 Mark
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:47) [we had done more detail, but took it out of the proposal.]
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:47) @Mark and Jorge -- can we expect to see it this week??
Greg Shatan: (14:48) I like the idea of an experimental community forum -- it responds to an element of the Board's (vastly overstated) criticism of our proposal as "untested".
Greg Shatan: (14:48) +1.
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:48) Hopefully before the public comment period finishes - but probably more work will be needed to be done later on to flesh out the specifics
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (14:49) +1 Jorge
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:49) IRP details: Sidley and Adler could be helpful in starting to work on the IRP with Becky and team if given the mandate
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (14:49) Experimetal community forum to be included in proposed face to face meeting with Board in late September in L.A.?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:49) agree on both accounts. modalities for both CF and IRP would be good things to work on and have at hand
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:50) good idea @holly
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:50) Would be good to get started on IRP so if group agrees, should we reach out to Becky ?
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (14:50) We have refrained from commenting on any of the bylaws drafts that have been circulated in the Proposals to date, but look forward to work on them soon.
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:53) I feel it is good to contnue progressing, but public comment period is not closed and we should be aware that any further work on aspects not detailed in the CCWG draft report are subject to duly considering public comment feedback
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:54) we added extra ones after, he last PC Kavous
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:54) @Jorge: this is of course correct
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:54) Jorge, agree, but we can do work contigent on it being consistent with the comments, both those received already and the barrage set to come in the last 24hrs.
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (14:54) yes Steve I thought that obvious from the report text flow
Chris LaHatte: (14:56) I must aplogise and leave, another scheduled meeting
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:56) confirmation bias is something to deal with carefully :-)
Alice Jansen: (14:57) You all have scroll control
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:57) Many biases may be at play... always...
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:58) Have it stenographed live and in real time, audio and vido streamed and transcribed.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:59) That should take care of transparency
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:59) Then we'll read it twice on the Plenum
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:01) +1 Jordan
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:02) I think that in deciding on the meeting we need to take the Board's need to discuss this into account. For better or for worse, the process for resolving any difference between the Board and the community require such discussion.
jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (15:03) How would this extra meeting fit within our timeline up to Dublin?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:04) Face to Voice
Phil Buckingham: (15:04) Greg + 1
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:04) Avri, that's a reasonable point
Greg Shatan: (15:05) 3 hours of disconnect bad; 2 days of disconnect....
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:06) I would hope that in such a Face to Face meeting, the CCWG would not keep hearing about how much the Board agrees wtih the "goal" of the Working Group proposals. This would be a huge waste of time.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:07) Anne, i have the impression that except perhaps for one or two of them, they have all figured this out. Certainly the feedback I have gotten.
Ken Salaets: (15:07) Not certain who is speaking re public perceptions of a board-CCWG meeting, +1.
David McAuley (RySG): (15:07) barely audible
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:07) Many thanks Avri - very refreshing to hear that! Anne
matthew shears: (15:09) agree Robin - why is the board being given greater weight than any other stakeholder in the public comment process? why is the board determining our agenda?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:10) yes, we take their concerns into account as we will everyone's
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:10) bbecasue they hold the final decsion on the presentation of our recommendation.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:10) to NTIA, that is.
matthew shears: (15:10) yes, the end game will likely be another negotiation
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:10) there is a process that was defined that looks like the GAC negotition , but with an infinte loop until success.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:11) Extract from Board resolution re : approval of our proposal : 2. If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board.3. The Board must provide detailed rationale to accompany the initiation of dialogue. The Board shall agree with the CCWG the method (e.g., by teleconference, email or otherwise) by which the dialogue will occur. The discussions shall be held in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:11) (<quoting our Charter)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:11) thanks, Mathieu, so what leverage does the board really have here?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:12) true, we can do it by teleconference and all be remote. good point Mathieu.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:12) Mathieu -- thanks for that excerpt. Could you please also post that to the CCWG email list, as a reminder about Process?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:12) seems like we have to talk until we find agreement.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:12) but it doesn't have to be face to face.
Greg Shatan: (15:13) Blaming us for our reaction is unhelpful.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:13) and by the rules of the CCWG, we have members (or which I am not one) who get to make decsions.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:13) if necessary.
Carlos Raul: (15:13) @avri +1. It is maybe better to do it formally instead of F2F
Carlos Raul: (15:13) +1 Christopher
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:14) available is not the same as capable.
Greg Shatan: (15:14) I'm available remotely, and I'm available in LA at ICANN's expense. :-)
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:14) and by the definion of our charter, we have representation in this group.
matthew shears: (15:15) likewise Greg
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:15) pushing for additional support for those who have done big share of the work may be reasonable and even necessary.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:16) agreed, Avri.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:16) +1 to Roelof's points just then
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:16) the workload has been enormous and needs to be shared
Carlos Raul: (15:16) @roelof: hard to be in LA and NOT meet wiht the board......
Greg Shatan: (15:17) "The community appoints the Board" is a misleading reduction of the processes by which the Board is constituted.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:17) It would be a little rude ;-)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:17) If the board has nothing to discuss, then it really has got nothing...
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:18) i have the feeling they have boat loads to discuss.
Greg Shatan: (15:18) The Board itself said (to a fault) that "enforceability" was at the core of our proposal. To take it off the table seems absurd in that light.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:18) We have discussed boat-loads.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:18) that's the assymetry here.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:19) they are coming at this late, and with all the natural responses to a group on the receiving end of a 'change' process
Greg Shatan: (15:19) Avri -- loads, yes. Whether they are "boat loads" and whether discussion is the mode of communication remains to be seen.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:19) yes, we are asking them to agree to something difficult for them to agree to. I have faith that they will find the wisdom to do so, but they may still need some help along the way.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:19) and we need to set the agenda to go over our proposal first to determine if we even need another one
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:20) The Board also indicated -- or the Board speakers -- that they had a solution to the enforceability issue.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:20) yes, Jonathan.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:20) Am I right in assuming that the meeting would be at a conference centre? or would it be at ICANN?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:20) Fadi "assured" us several times that they have a solution. FWIW.
Phil Buckingham: (15:20) well said Sebastien - we need to work WITH the board, openly , constructively , but they are not given any additional weighting ( of their proposals ).within the Community .
Greg Shatan: (15:20) The Board set the agenda of the call. If we can set the agenda for the F2F, that might work.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:20) if the latter, the cost of quite a late confirmation / cancellation might be quite low
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:21) it does seem reasonable that the CCWG proposal as modified based on community comment is the refrence proposal that shuld continue to be the prime focus.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:21) I have been saying this quite repeatedly, we need to set the agenda, not the Board.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:21) yes, Greg, we must set that agenda or it isn't our mtg.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:21) I agree with Eberhard. (!)
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:21) +1 Avri.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:21) ANd we must chair it
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:21) dont we need to cooperate in setting the agenda even?
Malcolm Hutty: (15:22) I don't understand: is Sebastian proposing closing the F2F to participants?
Greg Shatan: (15:22) I agree with the distinguished Dr., twice in 90 seconds.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:22) there are levels of cooperation
matthew shears: (15:22) the board is but one stakeholder - the members of the CCWG are many
Greg Shatan: (15:22) Avri, this is our process.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:22) there are always layers, to most everything, i expect.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:23) level as well.
matthew shears: (15:23) agree with Kavouss
Greg Shatan: (15:23) I will re-introduce my suggestion that travel support should be based at least in part on participation (attendance, work, deliberation).
Keith Drazek: (15:23) I'd support scheduling a F2F for the CCWG similar to the Frankfurt meeting. If the Board proposal has been delivered to us, it can be considered as part of our assessment of public comments. In consideration of logistics and planning, perhaps we should agree to the F2F and set the agenda in the coming weeks. I'd see it as an important working session pre-Dublin.
Malcolm Hutty: (15:24) +1 Kavouss. Shocked at Sebastian's suggestion, thought I must have misunderstood it
Greg Shatan: (15:24) @Thomas, it was said with love.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:24) @Chairs - maybe fund voting members and all participants are welcome whether in person or remotely?
matthew shears: (15:24) agre Keith - we should set the meting, agenda and invite the board as one stakeholder
Greg Shatan: (15:24) Anne, that is the base implementation.
Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:24) by when will that be decided?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (15:25) Matt, but of course tell them to pay for it.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:25) It should be decided soon so we can organize agendas
Carlos Raul: (15:25) It´s the mic´s fault then...
Christopher Wilkinson: (15:25) Leaving the call now. Thankyou Co-Chairs. Good night. CW
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:25) so we can organise travels
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:26) so when will a decision be taken on the LA face-to-face?
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:26) Thanks Greg - did not know this was already budgeted for voting members since it is a special extra meeting that is proposed.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:28) Our comments will respond to the CCWG's proposal.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:29) The decision must be made within the next week, preferably earlier.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:29) NCSG's comments are on the CCWG report. If and when the board makes a proposal, we will comment on them too.
Keith Drazek: (15:29) The RySG's comments are focused on the CCWG reference model, not on the Board's comment/input. Comments on comments would be more appropriate for a reply period.
Greg Shatan: (15:30) Same with IPC.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:30) Does it seem as though the Board's point of view is ultimately going to require a third public comment period?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:30) @Keith -- good idea to have a Reply Period, if we have the time
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:30) thanks all for responding to my question
Carlos Raul: (15:30) Congratulations to the co-chairs
Alan Greenberg: (15:30) @Anne, almost surely.
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Member: (15:30) agree with respect to reply period
Cheryl LangdonOrr: (15:30) thanks all. bye for now... busy time ahead :-)
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:30) thanks!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:30) bye all
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:31) Thanks all!
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (15:31) Good bye, all.
matthew shears: (15:31) thanks
David McAuley (RySG): (15:31) Thanks all
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (15:31) thanks all, bye
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:31) thanks, all, bye!
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (15:31) bye bye
Phil Buckingham: (15:31) thanks Co Chairs
Greg Shatan: (15:31) Bye, all!
Michael Clark (Sidley): (15:31) bye all