Sub-group Members:   Avri Doria, Christopher Wilkinson, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Pär Brumark, Paul Szyndler, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (17)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad


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





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

Link to Google doc for today's discussion:

Discussion about nature of improvements that are needed and discuss specific suggestions/comments. 


Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (9/14/2015 13:41) Welcome all to the WP1 Meeting on 14 September @ 19:00 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:53) Hi and Good Evening everyone!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:55) Hi there!

  Keith Drazek: (13:55) Be back shortly....

  kavouss Arasteh: (13:57) hI EVERY BODY

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:00) Greetings to all from a damp and cold London!

  James Gannon: (14:01) Same here Mark in Dublin, oh to live somewher with nice weather =)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:01) hi all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:01) we'll kick off in one minute

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (14:06) please unmute me

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:07) @ s

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:08) Maybe it is not a structure, but there should be some process to ensure that mutual information, deliberation and well-informed conclusions are made possible

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:08) @Steve It looks like an additional structure to me. Glad to be convinced otherwise. CW

  Greg Shatan: (14:08) Tijani is cutting out

  Keith Drazek: (14:10) Jordan, I'm going to have to drop halfway through the call due to a conflict. I want to volunteer for any drafting or public comment assessment work needed in WP1. Consider me standing by to contribute...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:11) I haven't heard people saying this isn't important

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:11) Thanks Keith, that's excellent

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:12) Kavouss, I think you are speaking on the wrong topic...?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:12) +1 Jordan

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:12) Espeicially for ACs such as the GAC which may not be participating in voting, it is a key part of the CEM process - and the timelines need adjusting accordingly to allow them fully to contribute to the Forum. GAC has membership of 141 governments.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:12) let's stick to tjhe point please

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:14) I dont think that this is the topics for the call no?

  Avri Doria: (14:15) are we figuring out how to repsond to the Board wrench int he works, or are we talking about how to refine our work?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:16) Avri: the latter, I hope

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:16) +1 the latter.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:18) I think Malcom makes a good point.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:20) Kavouss, Malcolm, it would be great if you could take your hands down having spoken :-)

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:21) I have noted that GAC intends to send or already sent a message to CCWG emphasizing among other things that they wish to contribute to the process of decision making through providing   recommendation to the Forum on issues relting to public policy  issues  which demonstrate that GAC recognizing the crucial role and usefulness of the Forum

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:22) +1 Greg. CF is channel for governmetn policy experts can engage with all other stakholder communities on critical issues that are the subject of a petition.

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:25) We need to emphasize that CCWG attaches the vital role of the Forum as a cnsutative enviroment facilitating fre and opene exchfeof 

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:25) @Jorge, what do you htink about my suggestion to supplement yours: Add that ICA can avail itself of legal advice, like we did in CCWG and ICG.

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:26) exchange of views between all concerned and interested parties before moving forward to the dicision making steps in voting steps

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) Jordan,

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) You may wish raise the following question to the working party

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:28) Wait -- wouldn't the board's proposal for MEM also require a Forum for discussion and decision???

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:28) @steve: would not mind about that - fundamental is to listen to each others advice and recommendations, to really listen and try to understand each others perspective - hence, to take into account each others advice and recommendations, always with the goal of striving for consensus

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:28) Is any participant believes that we may consider to drop the concept of ICANN Community Forum 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:29) My personal view is that the Forum is very important regardless of MEM/CMSM

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:29) Kavouss: I dont belive so.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:29) Kavouss, good question

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:30) Steve: No the MEM has a MEM Issues Panel, what that is Im not sure

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:30) But we DO have a decision to make.  In CMSM its to vote on exercising a power.  In MEM the decsion is whether to request Arbitration.

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:30) Jordan + 1  but pls explictly reflects the views of CCWG on  the necessity and usefulness of the forum and give the reasons among those expressed and exchanged betwen us

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:30) Essential to have a "forum" stage of community-wide discussions especially in time of crisis but for all kinds of petitions.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:31) Agreed Mark

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:32) I think that the outcome could be a 'position'

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:33) outcome is to inform how participants in the Single Member cast their vote

  Greg Shatan: (14:34) Malcolm, I generally agree, but how that position is arrived at and the weight of that position in informing the CMSM is far from clear.  And it needs to be clear.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:35) it should be more than an event, Steve, it should be more a process of dialogue

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:35) @ Steve DelB, absolutely, well explained

  Greg Shatan: (14:36) The problem with that is how to take into account the SO/ACs that don't participate in the CMSM.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:36) Event =  participation rules, processes, and staff support

  Greg Shatan: (14:36) And how to aovid criticisms of the likelihood of an imbalanced CMSM.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:37) What is the consequence if it is apparent in the forum exchanges there is a fundamental split in the approaches taken by different constituencies?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:37) @Greg -- I don't think we should make this about the CMSM alone.   Even the MEM would require a forum to discuss and decide

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:37) For Informatio: the GAC consensus view on the Forum: "Irrespective of whether or not the GAC would participate in the voting structure (and thusexercise its legitimate empowerment rights) at some time in the future, the GAC intendsto fully participate in the ICANN Community Forum, outlined in Section 6.3 of theCCWG 2nd Draft Proposal. The GAC will work with other SOs and ACs to developagreed mechanisms for the full participation by and exchange of views among andbetween all SOs and ACs in the proposed Community Forum."

  Greg Shatan: (14:37) And what is the consequnce if the split is between CMSM participants and non-participants?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:38) @Greg -- under CMSM, only the voting AC's and SOs get to vote.

  Greg Shatan: (14:38) Understood, and that is a big part of the issue.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:39) Jordan's Annex 1 has helpful process and participation details we can import into the draft

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:40) There is a loud typist on the line.  Please mute.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:41) Annex 1 is an earlier version of the Second Draft Proposal

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:41) Annex 1 is an earlier version of the Second Draft Proposal's input

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:41) content, even

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) We need to emphasize that it would be inappropriate and couterproductive to drop an important step/ phase  ( CF) as a 

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:43) consultative instance providing opportunity for every body in cluding SOS AND acS AND ANY OTHER INTRESTED INDIVIDUAL IN  THE TOPIC to  provide its views ,thoughts, recommendation enabling the decision making at voting steps

  Avri Doria: (14:44) i do not understand what we mean by no decsion powers.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:44) A specific suggestion is allowing more time for the Forum to deliberate - 15 days is too short for example for GAC to marshal its input.

  Greg Shatan: (14:45) There needs to be an outcome or the CF is largely a waste of time.

  Avri Doria: (14:45) isn't it the one with the pwoer?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:45) +1 Mark... there needs to be opportunity for true deliberation, interaction

  Paul Szyndler: (14:45) +1 Jordan. I was using shorthand language from our submission

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:46) the call for an "outcome" from the CF reminds me of similar debates relating to the IGF

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:47) the key is deliberation and "decision shaping", not "decision making"

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:47) +1, Malcolm

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:47) the CF should shape the decisions, striving for consensus, but the decision on the vote is on the voting SO/AC

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:47) +1 Malcolm

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) There arae sufficient arguments like the one just expressed by Malcolm which justifies the need, necessity and usefulness of Forum

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) Malcolm + 1

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:51) I don't see any need for the Community Forum to arrive at a Recommendation, and if we did have that, then we would need a whole set of new rules about how to arrive at such a Recommendation. Unattractive if it's as unnecessary as I think it would be

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) Malcolm

  Avri Doria: (14:52) so the forum is just one information point before the activiation of the voting mechansim.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:53) a recommendation may lead to a negotiated process, unless the "outcome" is just a report on the information shared, the mutual recomenndations and advice delivered by SO/AC and participating individuals, and an objective report on the interactions

  kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) The Fforum will not produce recommendation notr and similar type of outcome but it may discuss views. opinions and receommendations submitted to it by any participant, in particular, SOs and ACs

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:53) As noted earlier, Jordan, you drafted some very useful text in Annex 1 that could be brought into the new text.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:55) +1 Kavouss

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:55) Certainly would need longer than 15 days to arrive at a community recommendation. I come back to govt reps needing to consult in capital and maybe regionally on a draft recommendation.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:55) @Jordan -- did Keith Drazek say he would help with drafting?

  Greg Shatan: (14:55) I am looking to "firm up" the CF as a way to deal with issues of imbalance in the CMSM or MEM.  If we don't use it that way, how do we solve that problem.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:55) THanks, all

  Greg Shatan: (14:56) I guess we will just have to rely on an implicit "sense of the room" as a non-outcome of the Community Forum.

  Greg Shatan: (14:57) Thank you, Kavouss!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:58) @Greg: an objective and neutral report might be of use

  Avri Doria: (14:58) bye

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:58) thanks and bye

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:58) thanks all

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:58) thanks all - bye

  • No labels