Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, 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   (23) 

Participants:  Anne Aikman-Scalese, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Carlos Raul, Christopher Wilkinson, David Cake, David Maher, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Fiona Alexander, Greg DiBiase, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kieren McCarthy, Konstantinos Komaitis, Marilia Maciel, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Nigel Roberts, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Qusai AlShatty, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Stephen Deerhake, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Young-Eum Lee   (45)

Board Members:  Asha Hemrajani, Bruce Tonkin, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Fadi Chehadi, George Sadowski, Gonzalo Navarro, Jonne Soininen, Kuo Wu, Markus Kummer, Mike Silber, Ray Plzak, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter  (15)

Advisors:  Jan Scholte, Ira Magaziner

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit  (7)

Guests:  Adiel Akplogan, Alexandra Kulikova, Anne-Rachel Inne, Ben Fuller, Bret Fausett, Carl H., Claudio, Daniel Fink, David Conrad, David King, David Olive, David R Johnson, Dexter Gerig, Duncan Burns, Eduardo Diaz, Gordon Chillcott, Graham Schreiber, Jamie Hedlund, Jari Arkko, Jennifer Chung, Jimm Phillips, Joe Catapano, John Demco, John Jeffrey, John Poole, Karine Perset, Kate Wallace, Kevin Espinola, Kevin Murphy, Louise, Manal Ismail, Mary Uduma, M Ermert, Michael Niebel, Michele Neylon, Michelle Bright, Mongi Marzoug, Nigel Hickson, Ole Jacobsen, Patricio Poblete, Paul Wilson, Rafik Dammak, Ron Da Silva, Rubens Kuhl, Russ Mundy, S. Terry, Shawn W. Susan Payne, Tapani Tarvainen, Tarek Kamel, Teresa Elias, Theo Geurts   (45)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Laina Rahim, Nancy Lupiano, Sally Costerton, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen

Apologies:  Paul Rosenzweig, Julie Hammer, Ken Salaets

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



Proposed Agenda

12:15-13:15 – Lunch break

13:15-16:15 – Break outs includes coffee break

16:15-16:45 – Stress Tests

16:45-17:45 – Taking Stock

17:45-18:15 – Define work plan to Dublin

18:15-18:25 – Review meeting statement

18:25-18:30 – A.O.B.


Action Items

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (12:28) Lunch Break until 1:15 PM/PT.  Enjoy!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:27) Hi Brenda any idea when session will reconvene ?

  ebw: (13:30) mathieu, the room is filling ... somewhat

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:31) thanks Eric.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:32) Very late for you Mathieu, must seem awfully slow

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:32) Wake me up when it's on ;-)

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:33) Will do - did,t we have a rooster in the room a while ago, several weeks

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:33) would be excellent. Am watching the rugby world cup, meanwhile.

  ebw: (13:33) better use of time, imho

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:35) starting soon

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:35) 2 min warning

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:41) tHOMAS

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (13:42) No chance we can move the breakout sessions to the end of the day so that those of us in Europe can participate in the stress tests and work planning sessions?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:42) The " Dispute Resolution " expressed by Chris was  General Term and not necessirily the existing Dispute Resolution as it could be pursued by Arbitration  and ...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:43) Pls kindly be careful not limit its application to the Dispute Resolution as being implemented today

  KMc: (13:55) No really sure what is Steve is trying to say...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:55) So I am not sure precisely what that was, in the end, but it sounded like the Board saying that it will stand by its views in its submissions and make difficult decisions if it has to

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:56) "this isn't a threat, but...."

  KMc: (13:57) Sounds a little to me like he wanted to say "you can stick your accountability measures" but couldn't bring himself to do it

  Steve: (13:57) Robin, I said this isn't a threat, it's a plea.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:57) audio has gone away

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:57) Steve, did you mean: "The Board won't accept the SIngle Member Model"?

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:57) better thanks

  Brett Schaefer: (13:57) I agree, Jordan,, thats haw I heard it.

  Greg Shatan: (13:58) Perhap we share a common misunderstanding.

  Keith Drazek: (13:58) I don't think anyone wants to get to a point of brinksmanship between community and Board. We're not there now and we should try to avoid it. That probably means the CCWG needs to assess all the public comments, including the Boards', and try to identify a compromise solution that doesn't compromise our stated goals. Some legitimate concerns have been raised by the Board and others, and we need to address them. Doing so should result in a compromise everyone can live with....consensus.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) ...a plea that if SMM goes forward, board is put in a position to fight it.

  Steve: (13:59) The Board does not support the single member model.  We are unified in wanting to work with the community to find practical solutions to achieve the additional levels of accountability sought by the community including the ability to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:59) Keith, yes, that's the mode of operation the CCWG was charged with.

  KMc: (14:01) Well then would it not make sense to stop beating around the bush and have people talking about the two competing models after 15 hours of not talking about it?

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:01) Seems a bit odd to me that the Board would actually vote when there is some disagreement from the community.   I would think the process would be (1) Propose Bylaws change, (2) open pubklic comemnnt (3) TPost a notice on whether based on the public comment that the Board intended to proceed with a bylaws change - then tehre is a time period where the communiyt could push back and formally ask the Baord not to proceed.

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:02) I guess the 30days mentioned by Steve's group is no longer clear and that was what i was trying to get during his presentation. I assumed the 30days (minimum)  was replacing the public comment. However it seem its not?

  Avri Doria: (14:02) i thought the group i was in had no vote in it it.  if there was no oconsensus it was over.

  Jonne Soininen: (14:03) Avri, yep, that was my understanding as well.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:11) I guess the part of the multistakeholder model that says "the ICANN board makes the final decision about what a crucial element of the output of the process shall be" was one I missed.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:12) learn something new every day :-)

  RussMundy: (14:13) @Cheryl:  This will be hard for the "remote group" to find another one  :-)

  Steve: (14:14) Jordan, that is not an accurate statement of the situation.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:16) Russ another remote group? or topic??

  RussMundy: (14:16) @Cheryl: another remote group

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:17) :-)

  Becky Burr: (14:17) apologies, i TOTALLY do not understand the question - what kind of disagreements, in what contexts?  As far as I know there is no proposal on the table that says the Board must do what the community wants.  It has to follow the bylaws, and with respect to certain specified issues, the community's view can prevail, but reconciliation in general seems odd. 

  RussMundy: (14:17) @Cheryl: just trying to keep things light and moving forward  :-)

  Becky Burr: (14:18) Isn't that what notice and comment, etc. is for??

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:18) I can't dial in for this one. And yes I agree with Becky, what community power is this? Or what part of our propsal are we referencing?

  Louise: (14:18) No sound - what happened?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:18) sound will be back shortly

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:19) seriously  if this was less 'off the cuff'  we would have been able to prep for better emote break out participation,  but we are working with what we have...  That said your contributions  from the earlier sessions were great  ... So give it a good try  *hug*

  Mike Brennan: (14:19) Hi Becky, Steve is getting dialed in to the bridge now, we will be ready to go in just a minute

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:20) Yup

  Louise: (14:21) Did the topic of, "Sole Member model," ever come up?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:21) Formal differences can be addressed by community powers.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:21) Its a banned word for the day

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:21) Informal differences may not be reconciled - the board is the board for a reason.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:22) Willie Currie's Mutual Accountability Roundtable is another way to tak through some of these informal differences

  Becky Burr: (14:22) so are we talking about specifically reconciling the difference between single member and the Board's rejection of that approach?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:23) if that is the difference then forget what I said -

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:23) what Becky said - are we discussing this latest difference of opinion

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:23) yes steve

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:23) Becky, I think we're talking about the community saying no to a Bylaw change approved by the Board. How do we resolve ?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:23) I am not dialed in to call

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:24) Thanks Becky - I misunderstood as well

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:24) At a basic level we have a fundamental disagreement, we (The community) belive that accountability can only be achieved through a corporate govenance structure change. The board does not. We need to assess what powers we will lose by not having a member structure. And then assess the impact of that on our powers, our CWG dependendencies and the support that we have gained for membership in its various forms over our oublic comment periouds.

  Steve: (14:26) James, et al.  It is definitely not apparent that the (entire) community believes accountability can only be achieved through a corporate governance change.  What is apparently is that *some* of the community believe this, many in the community either do not believe this or remain to be convinced.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:27) and then we would need to run another public comment process. Once we had stress-tested the revised model.

  Becky Burr: (14:27) No one ever proposed that power

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:27) All in the context of a shortage of volunteers or effort/energy to do it

  Rubens Kuhl: (14:27) Not being the entire community would only mean it's not unanimous. But rough consensus was achieved.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:27) Steve, that has not been reflected in our process and our public comment feedback. With respect I dont see it. And if we are scrapping membership, then we need to go back to the drawing board.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:28) Sorry SteveDelB Ill stop =)

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:36) Sorry - I had to reboot, was away

  Becky Burr: (14:49) ok, isn't this just the same as the more elaborated version of the bylaws rejection process? 

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (14:50) Steve, where are all these people “…in the community [who] either do not believe this [that accountability can only be achieved through a corporate governance change] or remain to be convinced.”?

  Becky Burr: (14:50) versions - the ones that required calls leading to community forum.  just add some board interaction bells and whistles

Louise: (14:55) I get it. The discussion capture isn't working. so the live discussion appears in the chat window?

  Louise: (14:55) No, there it is.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:02) Indeed not.

  Becky Burr: (15:03) we only asked to have a resolution where the action violates the bylaws and/or involves one of 5 very specific powers. 

  Greg Shatan: (15:03) Our assignment only related to a change to a bylaw.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:04) I think there was a lot of misunderstand over the assignment

  Keith Drazek: (15:04) @Becky: I think this is more of a start-from-scratch brainstorming exercise. I don't think it's supposed to be a reflection of specific proposals. I might be wrong....

  Becky Burr: (15:06) @Greg - this exercise was limited to bylaws changes???  our group certainly did not know that

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (15:07) it wasn't Becky

  Jordan Carter: (15:07) the bylaw one was this morning

  Becky Burr: (15:09) that's what i though

  Becky Burr: (15:09) thought

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:12) That sounds helpful - suggestion from Alan and indeed good to have pre-engagement with the Board before going to the community forum

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:13) As mentioned in the group discussions I would like to confirm that the number resources related will be out of scope of this process as we have our own seperate process (This would make it consistent with IRP proposed in the current CCWG proposal)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:13) +1 Izumi

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:14) With the barrier to entry of 2 ACSOs

  RussMundy: (15:17) it's probably worth pointing out that the process being described here might or might not be used (or acceptable) to the numbers & protocol parameter communities

  Greg Shatan: (15:18) Izumi, are you referring to board decisions relating to number resources?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:19) Yes Greg

  Greg Shatan: (15:19) Russ, we are talking about a process for challenging board decisions specifically.  I'm not sure how that relates to your statement.

  RussMundy: (15:20) this process itself is one of accountability and the numbers and protocol parameter communities have consistently said that they have their own accountability processes

  Greg Shatan: (15:22) Would the ASO participate in this process as one of the 7 SO/AC's, when it relates to board decisions (other than number resource decisions)?

  Avri Doria: (15:23) (self censored)

  Mike Silber: (15:24) Russ - maybe my distinction between goernance, policy vetting and "shared" decisons could be further enhanced to refkect community bottom up policy. So ccNSO and ASO policy cannot be reviewed by others outside without ccNSO / ASO agreement

  ebw: (15:24) there may be some confustion for those "not here". there are processes for gac, for gnso, for aso, ... and in the vgrs contract. we've been talking about a synthesis off of some (or all) of these, in the f2f group i was in.

  Greg Shatan: (15:25) Mike, would you say the same for GNSO policy?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:25) This could also be a standalone process. Without the IRP followon

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:25) To engage with the board on issues of disagreement

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:26) @Greg, I need to double check with others but so far I see no reason not to (i.e. ASO to participate in the process related to other board decisions)

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:27) Thank you Steve

  Becky Burr: (15:33) ARRGGGGHHH global public interest identified by the bottom up multistakeholder process please

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:33) exactly, Becky.

  Becky Burr: (15:35) what? 

  Becky Burr: (15:36) I am now off audio so unable to defend myself ...

  Jordan Carter: (15:36) oh no! why?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:36) Becky, shall we ask them to dial out to you?

  RussMundy: (15:36) @Mike & Greg: lost connection but am now back

  Becky Burr: (15:37) no, getting ready for the next part of my day

  Brett Schaefer: (15:38) I know that the assumption is that going through these processes to the Community Forum stage is going to be rare, but should we consider the possibility that they are not? One of the things discussed in our group was that – if things got to that stage – to schedule the Community Forum to coincide with the next tri-annual ICANN meeting so that people wanting to participate don’t face the additional travel costs of attending.

  Arun Sukumar 2: (15:39) much like ccwg F2Fs brett :)

  Jordan Carter: (15:41) with issues that come up between times, I think probably there has to be the capacity for online discussion and debate

  Jordan Carter: (15:41) e.g. as per Bruce's suggestion yesterday

  Brett Schaefer: (15:44) Jordan, I agree if that can be done. As I've heard, most of the pre Community Forum discussion would be online or on call. BUt if a F2F is required, it makes sense to lessen the time and financial burden if possible.

  Jordan Carter: (15:44) it depends what it is for

  Jordan Carter: (15:45) we would have to make the timelines very flexible for a bunch of stuff if there might be a 3-4 month delay

  Brett Schaefer: (15:46) The processes as laid out would likely take 2-3 months as far as I can tell anyway.

  Graham Schreiber: (15:47) #SCOTUS is the best "IRP" to make ICANN Contractual Compliance enforce RAA  on #ACPA Violations and the Racketeering activities evolved.

  Graham Schreiber: (15:52)   <><><>     SCOUTUS ~ Conference of September 28, 2015.   ICANN Et Al.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:54) time to stretch

  Graham Schreiber: (16:03) Once SCOTUS begins enforcing the United States Laws on ICANN much will change; and "Accountability" will happen.

  Graham Schreiber: (16:04) From an early RAA:

  Graham Schreiber: (16:04) Read:  5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

  Graham Schreiber: (16:04) 5.3.2 Registrar:

  Graham Schreiber: (16:05) is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense related to financial activities, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses; or

  Graham Schreiber: (16:05) is disciplined by the government of its domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:05) Please stop spamming the char Graham

  Graham Schreiber: (16:05) 5.3.3 Any officer or director of Registrar is convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN deems as the substantive equivalent of any of these; provided, such officer or director is not removed in such circumstances.

  Graham Schreiber: (16:09) Hi James:   As a "Civil Society" participant of ICANN, I'm just reminding them of their own Rules.   Rules which apply to them; and their R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar Stakeholders and also Domain Name Registrant ... CentralNIc.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:10) We all know your background and issues Graham, but we have more important issues to focus on right now. We will all follow your SCOTUS crusade with grat attention Im sure =)

  Graham Schreiber: (16:13) Thanks James, I have no doubt at all, that ICANN will now be paying attention to my complaint..

  Graham Schreiber: (16:15) Once the FTC has a Mandamus from SCOTUS, my prospective clients; and their American / Global dotCOM Consumers will be protected from harmful fakes & scams..

  Mike Brennan: (16:23) Hi Graham, I'd like to remind you to please stay on topic and follow the ICANN expected standards of behavior. Failure to do so will result in your removal from the room. Thank you.

  Graham Schreiber: (16:24) Thanks Mike:   The topic is Stress Test's and Contract Enforcement, by ICANN. 

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:24) No the topic is stress test 18 just fyi

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:25) I want to respond to Steves point about ccTLD appeals

  Carlos Raul: (16:26) Great Work STeve. Dont worry

  Fadi: (16:26) thanks Steve and Thomas for your courage and sincere apology

  Greg Shatan: (16:27) I want to respond to Steve's point regarding Stress Tests 29 & 30.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:32) lost scribe?

  Mike Brennan: (16:33) We are working to get the scribes reconnected

  Mike Brennan: (16:33) Our apologies

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:33) back now ty

  Fadi: (16:35) stress 18 does not in anyway impose on the GAC how to make its decisions either now or in the future. It only institutionalizes a current existing practice in relation to board and GAC engagement.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:35) +1 Fadi

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:35) All it does is stop unilateral changes to possible influence in future

  Greg Shatan: (16:36) Hmm, lost the scribe just before my comment.   I will try to assume that was a mere coincidence.

  ebw: (16:38) steve, did you just suggest that rssac advice be subject to some "supermajority" test?

  Greg Shatan: (16:39) GAC Advice is a special case.  I'm sure ALAC would like its advice to be given the same deference as GAC Advice.

  Alan Greenberg: (16:39) I will comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:40) This isn't about how the GAC makes decisions, this is about what the board does with GAC advice.

  Greg Shatan: (16:40) GAC can make decisions any way they want.  GAC just can't expect the same deference in Board decision making when it receives "advice" resulting from a lower decision-making threshold.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:41) I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

  Seun Ojedeji: (16:42) @Robin, i agree its about what the board does, so why should we be then concerned since whatever the board does can still be challenged by the community? I mean GAC advice remains an advice until acted upon and it even after being acted upon it is only an issue when the action of the board does not meet the expectation of the broader community beyond GAC.

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:42) Just a follow up to the comment From Steve DelBianco that the GNSO has Super-Majorioty provisions that apply to the ccNSO and how the Board treats recommendations.   I note that there are similar uses of the Super-majority term for the ccNSO as well.

  ebw: (16:43) yes, but not for advice from ssac or rssac

  Seun Ojedeji: (16:43) Edit: @Robin, I agree its about what the board does, so why should we be concerned since whatever the board does can still be challenged by the community? I mean GAC advice remains an advice until acted upon and even after being acted upon it is only becomes an issue when the action of the board does not meet the expectation of the broader community beyond GAC.

  ebw: (16:44) which is where i thought i heard steve extend this idea.

  Jordan Carter: (16:44) no NTIA transition condition that says increased technical or security community influence is an obstruction to transition ;-)

  Ray Plzak: (16:44) FWIW Any policy proposal from the ASO to the Board requires unanimous consent from all of the RIRs to include grammar and punctuation

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (16:45) I suggest we close the queue after Jorge.

  Jordan Carter: (16:46) has NTIA suggested an answer to this question of Pedro's? The "why" of it?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:46) This is about checks and balances.  We don't want to let any group become too powerful.  There are existing checks in bylaws about advice from GNSO, CCNSO, etc.  We need those checks on GAC advice also.

  Rubens Kuhl: (16:49) It's also of notice that a consultation process with an organization that only gets organized in the physical meetings is time-consuming, so if a time-sensitive matter gets GAC-adviced, it's in effect a blockage of that subject.

  Carlos Raul: (16:50) .africa.......

  James Bladel: (16:50) Pretty much every Communique since Beijing....

  Greg Shatan: (16:51) Why does the GAC expect the Board to give the same amount of deference for its advice regardless of the level of support for that advice within the GAC.?  I have not heard a reason for that yet.  That seems to be the central question.

  Seun Ojedeji: (16:53) @Greg can there be a coup within GAC to send an official advice to board? If no, does it then not mean some level of consensus would have been achieved before the advice is sent. I really don't get the arguement here

  Seun Ojedeji: (16:53) but again I am not a politician ;-)

  Jordan Carter: (16:56) the point of the comment was to trigger such a question

  Jordan Carter: (16:56) (to the ccNSO)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:56) that's the right question, Greg.

  Greg Shatan: (16:58) Seun, GAC consensus requires that all members agree and no one objects.  That's quite a coup you are presuming.  I hope I don't have to clean up the room afterward.

  Rubens Kuhl: (16:59) If a GAC meeting happens with only one government, that meeting can generate a consensus advice...

  Greg Shatan: (17:01) And the likelihood of that happening is zero.  I'll have to review GAC procedure to see if that premise is correct, but in any case it is an extremely improbable hypothetical.

  Rubens Kuhl: (17:03) Other conspiration theories include precluding a GAC member that would object from joining the meeting, so a consensus advice gets passed.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:09) GAC Support. We may have governmental support.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (17:13) this is not about language but on rationales and there is no clarity at all on what the rationale is for this bylaw change

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:14) Very kind suggestion to the co chairs Jorge. I am immensely grateful.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (17:15) we need a facilitator between the parts of the gnso supporting this and the governments and other stakeholders critical with it...

  Carlos Raul: (17:18) Great Zuck!

  David McAuley (RySG): (17:18) A very magic moment, even on remote

  nigel hickson: (17:18) wow; music night!

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:18) ote I have posted the following note to the CCWG mailing list:

  Hillary Jett: (17:19) Sorry all for the delay in slides! :)

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:19) Just want to reinforce that there is good will from the Board. 

  James Bladel: (17:20) Put one year PTI budget in escrow.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:20) good suggestion, James

  David McAuley (RySG): (17:21) @Hillary, from perspective of this remote participant the Adobe support has been sterling

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (17:21) That was discussed in the CWG  and has been raised in our discussions as well... it would be an ideal implemenation  

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:21) Greg I guess my point is that I don't understand why CCWG is proposing adding a consensus requirement for GAC in the bylaw, especially as you seem to also be of the view that GAC advice cannot happen without some level of agreement(yeah no longer using consensus) in the room to send the advice to board.

  Jordan Carter: (17:23) folks, I have to head to the airport, so will be on voice but not on the room for the next half hour or so

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:24) Thanks Jordan for your work

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:25) Thanks Jordan, I hope you found the time rewarding.  Do have a safe flight back home. Regards

  Keith Drazek: (17:25) Thanks Jordan. Very glad you were here for this.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:26) Bye, Jordan!  Great to see you here.  Thank you for everything you do!

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (17:26) Thank you very much Jordan for all your work indeed

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (17:27) bye bye and thank u Jordan

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (17:27) What is on the slide as a general direction is consistent with my understanding of the discussions on this topic within the CCWG

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:27) Jordan - thank you for your commitment and thoughtful inputs all along ! Safe trip back

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:28) Im clocking out aswell guys 1:30am is my limit =)

  Keith Drazek: (17:28) Thanks James!

  David McAuley (RySG): (17:30) Good night @James, thank you for your insights

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:30) Thanks for hanging in, James, from Europe!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (17:30) Thaks James  rest well

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:31) Weldone James as much as we disagree once in a while, it was nice to have you here :-)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:32) James, thank for staying on so long !

  Louise: (17:32) @ James, thanx! I like what CHERINE CHALABY:said.

  Hillary Jett: (17:33) @David thank you!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:38) back on the adobe room

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:38) Welcome back Jordan

  Greg Shatan: (17:39) Seun,  No one is proposaing "a consensus requirement for GAC."  GAC can make decisions any way it wants.  That will not change as a result of the bylaws change.  The bylaws change is focused solely on the Board's requirement to deal with formal GAC advice in a particular manner, which gives that advice a great deal of deference.  This advice is given a great deal of deference because it is a result of GAC consensus, which reflects a very high degree of support.  The GAC can make decisions with lower levels of support, but the Board should not be required to give  non-consensus decisions that same level of deference.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:39) did think we could mix the Annual Operating Plan and Budget and keep them together, and the longer term op plan and strat plan together, for the purposes of that power

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:40) oh and thanks for your thankses before :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:41) good point, Greg.  we should replace "rationale" with "cause"

  RussMundy: (17:41) +1 to Greg's last statement

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:41) I mean, replace "cause" with "rationale" (backwards)

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (17:42) I think this generally reflects our discussions but about discussing it on the public forum I'd like to go back to ASO whether this works and come back to the group immediately

  Greg Shatan: (17:43) Robin, thanks for turning that around!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (17:44) indeed as Izumi said, we cannot confirm our support at this point. please allow us some time to further consult and we will come back to you shortly

  Rubens Kuhl: (17:47) Rough Consensus doesn't imply Full Consensus.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:48) disappointing

  Greg Shatan: (17:48) I don't think removal was called for  You are endangering your "Thomas the Brave" moniker.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:48) This group is good at deferring decisions innit? :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:48) I don't think removal was called for either.

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:48) Well you did not put it on the list of consensus items in the first place so removing it may be unnecessary

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:48) we will just go in circles and not make progress if we are requiring unanimity

  Rubens Kuhl: (17:49)

  Greg Shatan: (17:49) Thank you, Rubens.  My thought exactly.

  Keith Drazek: (17:49) Once we refer to the public comments, it will get added back in.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley) 3: (17:49) Which lawyers are tasked?  Sidley and Adler or ICANN Legail and Jopnes Day?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:50) Sidley and Adler is my view - is the question about human rights?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley) 3: (17:50) yes

  Louise: (17:51) I thought this was already addressed. Even James Bladel said, the voters are not accountable to those who they vote into office. This is too much.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:51) @Holly. yes, but pending clarified request / spec by WP4

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (17:52) @Holly yes, Sidley and Adler will be tasked as directed by WP4

  Holly Gregory (Sidley) 3: (17:53) Thank you @Mathieu and @ Leon -- we will await further instruction from WP4

  Greg Shatan: (17:54) Are we going to involve Sidley/Adler in the drafting of the rationale as well?  This could be helpful, but we should clarify that.  Drafting the bylaw itself, which may only be one sentence, is a fairly small task.

  Greg Shatan: (17:55) Never said "all the rationalizations."  Just a succinct framework to understand what we are achieving here.

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:55) +1 to Avri

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:55) I agree with Avri

  Greg Shatan: (17:56) I don't think anyone has ever proposed a 300 page report (or even something quite smaller than that).  That's a paper tiger.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (17:56) back off adobe for a while

  Seun Ojedeji: (17:56) If its about "why" then lawyers drafting the language seem to not be doing justice to "why"

  Louise: (17:57) What is happening in this telecast, is the board is attempting to place unfair burdens. on the community, making it MORE accountable than ICANN has been over the past years. There is language to trip up and entangle the community in red tape over any objection over which the boarf doesn't agree. I am going to go ahead and send this feedback in a snailmail missive to Larry Strickling, and to 60 Minutes.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:57) Yes I agree we don't want lawyers drafting the "why" on HR.  That is in our work basket.  They draft legal language, but don't make decisions about why we do things.

  Rubens Kuhl: (17:58) One idea: if SO/AC Accountability is part of WS2, that puts Board interest in WS2 and avoids WS2 being dead in the water, which is the current feeling I get from people.

  Greg Shatan: (17:58) I didn't think so either, which is why I asked for clarification.

  Greg Shatan: (17:59) Not to mention, that would add extra expense.  Better keep getting all that free work!

  Louise: (18:01) ICAANN needs to be exposed over rescinding accreditation to Registrars over murky violations and late fees, while if offers safe haven to eName and the Registrars which receive stolen domain names en masse without penalty. All you people on the board, be scared for your jobs.

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:03) Less the expense(as i hear the money is there to spend/waste), its just not realistic and practical for lawyers to give us rationale on HR. We are the ones to develop the "why" and when its drafted, we could ask legal to look at its workability

  Keith Drazek: (18:03) The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group supports the Board's position on future rounds of gTLDs, as noted by Jonathan Zuck.

  Edward Morris: (18:06) Thank you Thomas for these comments.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:07) probably half an hour before mtg ends is not a good time to introduce a new slide from the board on this.  why not yesterday morning?

  Edward Morris: (18:08) Well, Robin, at least it's not 88 questions the night before a major meeting.

  Rubens Kuhl: (18:08) Fadi said the slide was ready for a few days, so it could have been submitted to the co-chairs.

  Mike Silber: (18:08) it was

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:08) this is a CCWG mtg.

  Avri Doria: (18:08) is this becoming hostile?  words like steam rolled? 

  Edward Morris: (18:09) This is the type of technique that engenders mistrustb of staff and Board. Busgh league!

  Keith Drazek: (18:09) My hand is up for the "Work Plan to Dublin" part of our agenda.

  James Bladel: (18:09) +1 Keith

  Edward Morris: (18:10) Keith, that's why I'm awake at 3:10 am.

  Ole Jacobsen: (18:10) I think it may be time to pass out the drinks....

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:11) but there IS consensus for board removal.  we just don't have unanimity.  like every issue.

  Chris Disspain: (18:12) it's the 'for cause' point, I think, Robin

  Chris Disspain: (18:12) altough I'm not sure to be honest

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:12) Yes that is my understanding Chris / Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:12) Chris, I understand that is the concern for some, but a couple are against the entire concept, and that is holding us up.

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:12) I don't just understand the push-back from someone presenting a view, where is our sense of openness?

  Keith Drazek: (18:13) "In process" could be re-named "under discussion" because not everything on that list has been thrown out. Some of it may still receive consensus after further work and deliberation.

  Chris Disspain: (18:13) Agree Robin....I would put that in the consensus column

  Louise: (18:13), Godaddy, its owner's business and his reputation for over ten years, then his excellent account manager gets moved, then the domain is stolen and moved to eName? What is your life worth? What is the meaning of it? Just stealing from other people, and selling this country out to China, and cause a national security risk, for a little $$ - Godaddy, you should be ashamed!

  Keith Drazek: (18:14) Perhaps the slides could be presented by Fadi during our next CCWG call on Tuesday? I'd support that, as an opportunity to compare notes.

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:14) +1 to Sebastien on the need to hear from everyone

  David McAuley (RySG): (18:15) The slides would likely get a better hearing on Tuesday, good idea Keith

  Avri Doria: (18:15) if the Staff made a slide on an analysis of the comments we should see it.  And if we disagree with it, we should say so. it won't be our only gander at the  facts, and i ams sure it will not be the only evidence to convince us.

  James Bladel: (18:16) If Keith was making a subtle suggestion that we move on, then +1 Keith.

  Keith Drazek: (18:17) I made a poor guess as to when this section would be done. ;-)

  Edward Morris: (18:17) I'm singing Irish folk songs waiting for the magic moment James.

  Avri Doria: (18:18) maybe we can pput the staff slide under AOB

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:18) yes, James and Keith.

  Carlos Raul: (18:19) good idea Avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:19) If we every get that  far in the agenda

  Avri Doria: (18:19) are we spending more time refusing to see a slide than seeing it?

  Rubens Kuhl: (18:20) Fully agree with Thomas on this.

  Mike Silber: (18:20) Avri +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:20) it would have clealy fitted IN as AOB ... meanwhile  we have spent more time discussing it than we probaly would do looking at "it"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:20)   SIGH

  Alan Greenberg: (18:21) Yup!

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (18:24) +1 Cheryl had we looke at the slide we would most likely be done

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (18:25) as a fellow negotiator once said, now we have to get through the pain needed to reach agreement :P

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:26) FUD

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:27) Its just not good enough that we did not take advantage of this face2face to get some level of consensus on the items that are of great importance. Remote participation does not always guarantee the number of participation we withnessed here at all. Hopefully we will stop avoiding the obvious need to solve the fundamental areas of disagrement sooner than later.

  Edward Morris: (18:29) I'm not particularly invested in ensuring credit goes to any particular administration, in Washington or at ICANN. To think that change in Washington impacts in a negative way support for the transition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of political reality.

  Bruce Tonkin: (18:29) I will send the slide to the CCWG list.   I am just getting a draft note reviewed by the Board first before I send., as it needs a little explanation.   It was intended for presentation where Fadi could expplain the columsn etc.

  mike chartier: (18:30) The slide would have been more useful at the beginning of the meeting, instead of at the end. I thinks that's the awkwardness.

  Greg Shatan: (18:30) Bruce, I hope we will have that explanation from Fadi on our next CCWG call.

  Bruce Tonkin: (18:31) It would have been better presented yesterday as it is not intedned as an assessment of the discussions in the past 2 days. 

  Bruce Tonkin: (18:31) Yes @Mike.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:31) Who would like to volunteer for doing intensive small group work now?

  Bruce Tonkin: (18:32) I know that Fadi did request the opportunity to present yesterday.

  Rafik: (18:32) @Bruce the slide seems ready for days why not informing before the F2F about the idea of presenting?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (18:32) good points, Keith

  Greg Shatan: (18:33) I think that re-plowing our chair's decision regarding the slide will not bring forth any harvest.

  RussMundy: (18:33) @Keith: Well said & I agree with your points

  Wolfgang: (18:33) @ Keith Thanks for this constructive approach on our way forward

  David McAuley (RySG): (18:35) Agree on the point about compromise. I believe it was in Singapore in Feb when Steve urged us all, board and community, to listen well to each other. It was very good advice then and remains so if compromise is to be achieved.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:36) Keith, any small groups need to be considered very very carefully.

  Carlos Raul: (18:36) @Keith please send your points around

  Chris Disspain: (18:36) why Jordan?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:37) Well said Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:37) Because with what has happened over the past couple of days, anything we do will be analysed by people outside the group as the Board trying to improperly have its views privileged. So we have to make sure anything we do does not risk creating such a perception.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:37) +143, Mathieu

  Chris Disspain: (18:37) eh?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:37) but no sympathy from me in the time your awake ;-)

  Chris Disspain: (18:37) don't get it JOrdan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:37) Good work co-chairs :-)

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (18:37) + 1 Cheryl and thanks to the CCWG Chairs in driving this

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:39) it is hard to do the small groups when one cares about several of them.

  Carlos Raul: (18:39) The idea of smaller teams worked in the Consititutional Convention.........

  Rubens Kuhl: (18:41) It could be established that a participation from at least one board member in each group is expected.

  Avri Doria: (18:41) straw dogs, we have been doing this all along;  why does Ira suggesting what we have already been doing seem like such a revalation.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:41) Done the right way, small groups will help our work. Done the wrong way, they won't. Banal but important. It's also entirely how we have been working already.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:41) You said it perfectly Avri  THANKS

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:41) yes.  I thought we've been working in small groups for months now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:42) Last time I checked YES  we were Robin

  Rafik: (18:42) small groups formed by CCWG members?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:42) but maybe so small they were not noticed ;-)

  Alan Greenberg: (18:43) The DTs in the CWG had a lot more time. And thew CRITICAL issue on the table was NOT addressed by DTs.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:43) if we have to introduce yet another wave of people to the detail of the work in order to close it out, we are certainly signing up for a much longer process. so we need to keep that in mind, too.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:43) but what do we know Alan we only served on HOW many DT's ???

  Greg Shatan: (18:44) The DTs did not draw in a whole new pile of people to the CWG, though a couple of people joined who could contribute on specific topics.

  Greg Shatan: (18:44) Cheryl, I guess you and Alan have DT's about the DT's....

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:44) Jordan, I share that concern.  We've seen it several times already.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:45) I take responsibility 100% ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:45) well possible  I love the tool and support its use but between now and Dublin in Addition to the other ongoing work we have to do   SURE  why not!!!

  Rafik: (18:45) @mathieu c'est toujours la faute des francais (:

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:45) The wrong kind of group or particular combinations of people will lead to a suspicion that "small group" actually means "smoke filled rooms to sort stuff out". That needs to be headed off at the pass.

  Greg Shatan: (18:46) I don't think the choice of one slightly colorful verb should be classified as losing one's temper.

  Keith Drazek: (18:46) I agree Jordan. Any small groups will need to be balanced and non-decisional.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:46) I'm not Lovely !!

  Edward Morris: (18:46) @ Jordan. Good point. That happened with the Legal Sub-team in this group.

  Alan Greenberg: (18:46) Well actually, Ira did NOT say we should break up into a bunch of new groups (DTs or other names).

  Alan Greenberg: (18:47) I am tempted to start thinking about another definition of the DTs

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:47) Ira said a bunch of people should get together to "Sort Things Out And Do The Deal"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:47) he also stated that the small group approach he would recommend  working with the other community leadership leaders

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:48) @Avri perhaps the composition of the little group is what makes the difference

  Holly Gregory (Sidley) 3: (18:48) Ira's point wasnt just about a smaller group.  He had very specific ideas about who should be on a smaller group to help move this along

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:48) As Avri is now describing.

  Chris Disspain: (18:48) That is correct Holly

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:49) delegated authority  was what I heard

  Keith Drazek: (18:49) Yes. He suggested we delegate. And presumably include Board members, lawyers and staff in the work groups. Let's consider it and discuss on our next call. Anything is worth considering if it can accelerate our work and deliver a quality product.

  David McAuley (RySG): (18:49) Good move, Fadi

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:49) +1 to Keith: anything is worth considering.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:49) I strongly agree with Avri.  We can't move away from a bottom-up process.

  Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (18:50) That sound you don't hear is the remote participants opening their beers

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:50) +1 to Thomas.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:50) Well I am happy to go on record that I am happy to be 'delegated to' ;-)

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:50) We need groups similar to what we form today in other to move forward. There may be no need to even formalise them because their work should not exceed 1week (if we are to meet up with Dublin)

  Alan Greenberg: (18:50) I think we should be greatful to our graphic artists. This is the ONLY sight of the beach, sea, palms and sun We (or at least I) will see here in LA.

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (18:51) Agree, gorgeous banner.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:51) Well said Alan :-) 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:51) I'd like to see a cartoon from our artists of our mtg ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:52) it would be a tangled ball of wool. with some petrol on it.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (18:52) what rating Robin   with or wothout blood and gore ;-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:52) ;-)

  Alan Greenberg: (18:52) Steve DelBianco earlier used the phrase "in our next draft..."

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:53) Thomas i think the view from Jonathan needs to be faced as its the reality. The community will not implement this proposal

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (18:54) I have the same question about coming process: I note it may be premature about the need to see the need of another public comment but would be good to have idea about coming steps and timelines

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:54) Seun: I am surprised you think that it is the Board's choice, rather than the CCWG's.

  Edward Morris: (18:54) Seun, the Board is not the community.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:54) I think we can expect to reach clarity about timelines and what's next at our call next week

  Alan Greenberg: (18:55) Given that we have not done any substantive review of comments at this meeting, I have REAL concerns about the ability of this groups (or more pointedly MY) stamina to sustain the level of work that will be required over the next weeks.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (18:55) @Jordan yup noted

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (18:55) +1 Alan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:55) Alan: I think we all have to be strictly realistic about what effort is available.

  Avri Doria: (18:56) are we moving into ostritch  mode?  the Board said rdraft 2 was dead in the water.  lets accept that if we follwo their  requirements we will need another review cycle.

  Keith Drazek: (18:56) The Board could forward the CCWG proposal with a cover letter telling NTIA it does not agree with a community recommendation. I heard Steve say earlier today that the Board would prefer to avoid that. I think we all prefer to avoid  that. That's why we all need to be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, including the Board.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:56) I know my availability isn't going to be high for this work.

  Alan Greenberg: (18:56) There are a host of other demands over the next weeks. Certainly for me.

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:56) @Jordan its not about the board's choice its about the community have requirements/goals the board agrees with them but the board does not agree with the means but prefers another. We need to be flexible on model until we confirm that there is indeed no alternate means to achieve the community requirement other than member model.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:57) Seun: we need to be flexible but they don't? :-)

  Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (18:57) Speaking for SSAC we already know that we will not see a final report before Dublin

  Keith Drazek: (18:57) Everyone needs to be Gumby.

  Edward Morris: (18:57) Avri, the Board is but one stakeholder of many. If the community feels forced to change their model solely to please the Board this entire process would demonstrate to Congress the transition should not go forward.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:57) Good work Thomas, Leon and all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:57) and the staff etc ;-)

  David McAuley (RySG): (18:58) Thank you to our three co-chairs (one remote at late hour), rapporteurs, staff – safe travels all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:58) right -all need flexibility.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (18:58) Thanks Indeed to excellent support from ICANN staff

  Carlos Raul: (18:58) thank for the remote support

  David McAuley (RySG): (18:58) Thank you Thomas

  Carlos Raul: (18:58) Great Chairs!!!!!!

  Carlos Raul: (18:58) Thomas & Leon

  RussMundy: (18:59) Thanks to all that made this possible even for us "remoteees"

  Greg Shatan: (18:59) Thank you all!!!!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (18:59) Thanks all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (18:59) ciao tout le monde

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (18:59) thank you all

  Gordon Chillcott: (18:59) Thanks, all..  bye for now and safe travels.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (19:00) Well done everyone. Safe travels!

  • No labels