Sub-group Members: Aarti Bhavana, Alan Greenberg, Asha Hemrajani, Avri Doria, Cherine Chalaby, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Disspain, George Sadowsky, Gonzalo Navarro, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Konstantinos Komaitis, Markus Kummer, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Robin Gross, Tijani Ben Jemaa (23)
Legal Counsel: Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei (4)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Laena Rahim
Apologies: James Gannon
**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/p4vio3dxq2e/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-08oct15-en.mp3
1. Agenda Review.
2. New Public Comment analyses:
a) Community Forum (Matthew)
b) CMSM (Avri and Robin)
3. Review of previous discussions where required:
a) Fundamental and Regular Bylaws
b) Individual Director removal
4. Any Other Work required to meet 12 October deadline - identification and allocation of people
5. Decision whether further meeting required on 9 Oct (1730-1930 UTC)
6. Any Other Business
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
LA and mailing-list discussions were incorporated. Areas of consensus: There is substantial support for function and purpose of forum including petition, discussion, decision process. Comment that we need to highlight multistakeholder nature. General support for broader participation beyond ICANN.
Areas needing refinement: how would forum be triggered? Comment that it should be standing called on necessity. Comment about need for adhoc meeting, virtual meetings, questions about timing etc. Comments about complexity of issues. On composition/representation, the following was raised: would individuals be selected from slate of candidates, would there be form of NomCom, whether it should be modeled on CCWG, whether participation by SO/ACs should be mandatory. Should the form have standing in terms of output and should it be a mandatory part of community powers process. There was concern about contradictory input - how would it be processed and what would implications be. Suggestion that forum would need to be moderated by neutral person (moderation). Concerns about timescales: would some of them take greater time to resolve? Some queried whether forum needs funding. In what way would findings contribute to decision-making. Questions regarding relationship with accountability forum proposed by W. Currie. Would it be separate.
Areas of divergence: Biggest area was what the role the forum should have in decision-making outcomes and what role should it play.
Options for consideration: Based on LA discussion: community forum could be used as a tool for reaching consensus. With regards to standing/ad hoc - we will have to recognize that might be standing committee called upon. We might be faced with situation where multiple ongoing processes. Composition/representation: it might make sense to model forum with representation but we may want to give it consideration (appointment, terms, charter?). Standing/outcome: outcomes of forum could have specific weight in deliberations of SO/ACs. Moderation/outcomes: consensus and discussion model may be needed. Timescales may depend on issue/challenge in question.
- Concerns we may be complicating this. It is not meant to create institutionalized, representationalized place. Original design was to have an open forum before decision-making. It is valuable for number of reasons. Process as part of dialogue.
- Agree with previous comment as long as keep decision-making process of second draft. Forum needs to be convened through telephonic methodology. If we change to consensus-driven approach - forum has particular purpose we need to preserve.
- Agree with comments from Jordan. Forum is mandatory for exchange of views. It will be a preparation to come to closure. It is not a decision-making body. We want it simple but it does not mean we don't want it organized. Discussion/forum is mandatory. We have to stress it is mandatory.
- We are not giving specifics on who should go there and what happens if does not go there.
- If discussion is not mandatory, it will have implications - e.g. individual Board member removal.
Conclusion: dialogue comes first. It will not be made decision-making. For Dublin: whether we stick with that model or suggest something else. Suggest answering questions.
51 comments submitted. Areas of consensus: support and appreciation for enforceability of community powers, agreement it is improvement compared to first draft, consensus we should be as restrained as possible in organizational restructure to create powers, consensus to organize mechanisms along same lines as community as well as importance of community deliberation.
Needing clarification: Need for more information to confirm support for model, call for simplicity, must be minimum number of SO/ACs.
Areas of concerns/divergence: whether community should take decisions through formal voting or through establishing consensus, voting allocation, composition of community within modal and duality of GAC, changes requires in ICANN to create model, proposal for narrowed powers could be provided for binding arbitration to enforce fundamental bylaws instead of model.
Options for consideration: continue to evolve model while maintaining membership, explore how maximum legal enforcement can be achieved, decide which powers can be enforced in a MEM based model if sufficient to meet community powers and other requirements including specific assertions, move away from voting and towards consensus, voting allocations more in line with balance appointments to ICANN board, reconsider role of ACs in model's community forum, consider a fixed understanding or who will vote or make decisions in community forum before decisions are made by CCWG.
- Confusion about percentages.
--> They come from tool.
- Areas of consensus/divergence match what saw in public comment. Present simple cases.
- We have to replace percentages with numbers for comments in each direction.
- Need to identify issues that can be resolved by WP and which need to be resolved by CCWG in Dublin.
- Three ACs may not participate in voting - this generates threshold issues. Voting means you have advisory that does not have decision–making power. Work with consensus.
--> There are two reasons why you would need voting: 1) different levels of influence; 2) allow each decision-maker to split decision. If we don't need either of those, we can move to consensus – I.E. each SO/AC uses own processes to make decision and says what it is. If everyone is in line with decision, powers gets exercised.
- We can add absolute numbers. It is important to make a decision of what path we want to go down. Support suggestion to replace consensus with voting. We will need to understand which path we are going down: fixing model or moving to model(s) and exploring those.
- No problem with SO/AC making decision with own process. How do we meld conclusions from community. We don't have established mechanism.
- Not all SO/ACs would sign up to vote in model - they would be left out and letting views know in community forum is not sufficient. Seeking methodology where no one is left out is what we should go for. Do we require unanimity/abstentions?
---> Are there other key items that need to be determined?
- Include in doc --> For membership or Designator models the following points need clarification: • SO and AC participation in the decision-making mechanism;• Voting or consensus basis;• Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;• Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making mechanism;• Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as public interest) into the decision-making design;• Ensuring accountability of the new structure to the broader community and the global public interest.
- In favor of consensus instead voting. For some powers we need full consensus - for others we need objectives. We have to discuss abstention.
Conclusion: send any additional points on list.
Fundamental and Regular Bylaws
Individual Director Removal
First discussion highlighted strong divergence of opinion: SO/AC appointed Directors make decision to remove director; removal for cause/standards of behavior; multiple removals.
Options: explore combination of standard vs number of decision-makers, limit the number and stagger time periods for individual Board removal to mitigate "batching"
- Collegiality is important. What are difficulties?
Discussion moved to Oct 9.
Any Other Work required to meet 12 October deadline
Tease out key conclusions for Tuesday call.
Doc 1: areas of agreement/concern/divergence/options. Doc 2 options by each section with priority
Decision whether further meeting required on 9 Oct
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5Bjsk/edit?usp=sharing (google doc for Community Forum)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dzqIffVu9z--0UYvEji6KdIa-U3wHcrXS0E9lr0L_Y/edit# (google doc for CMSM)
Brenda Brewer: (10/7/2015 23:36) Welcome all to WP1 Meeting #27 on 8th October 2015 @ 05:00 UTC! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:43) Hi Brenda, Good evening your time
Brenda Brewer: (23:43) Good day Kavouss!
Kavouss Arasteh: (23:43) You must feel to be tired .we having 2-3 calls perday
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (23:56) Good morning (Europe)!
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (23:57) Good evening here.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:57) hello everyone!
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:57) we'll start in 3-4 minutes
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:58) welcome along Avri
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:58) please remind you all to keep your lines muted when not speaking
Greg Shatan: (23:59) Good night.....
Gonzalo Navarro: (23:59) Good Morning
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:59) someone has failed to mute
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (23:59) we can hear you typing
Mathieu Weill: (23:59) Hello
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10/8/2015 00:00) hello all
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:00) hi Bernie! We heard your audio check, all good :)
George Sadowsky: (00:00) I'm only on adobe connect - are our lines empoered for speaking also, or do I need to dial in also?
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (00:00) good evening from Chicago
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:00) they are, George
George Sadowsky: (00:01) thx
cherine chalaby: (00:01) Hi everyone
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:01) you can choose to dial in but it is not required
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (00:01) hello WP1
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:01) if you havew a good connection and a headset it works fairly well
Matthew Shears: (00:01) Hi all - sent through the pdf of the COmmunity Forum hope you will be able to show it
Markus Kummer: (00:01) Hi all
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:01) I will start the call with an agenda note - J Zuck and S DelBianco have not had the chance to prep the updated discussions on AOC or on Budget, so those two matters are going to have to be deferred until what will now be definitely a call on Friday 9 October, 1730-1930 UTC
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:02) Cherine= Sweet in Persian
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (00:02) :)
Chris Disspain: (00:02) Sweet in Persian and sometimes also in Person
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:03) Yovol selbverstendlich Chris
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (00:06) yes
Greg Shatan: (00:07) I won't ask what Shatan means in Persian....
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:08) CF is independent of any Model as it could function with any method
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:08) It depends how you pronounce it
Chris Disspain: (00:09) LOL
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:09) Here comes the doc. Agreed, Kavouss - discussion is needed whatever happens
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:10) thanks all for being here, too, by the way. It's a punishing schedule of meetings this week.
Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (00:10) Would it be possible to post a link to this document?
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:11) No decision making does not give CF any ststus of informality
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:12) Ingrid, I have sent the papers to the Sidely and Adler group accounts
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:12) all have the same subject line which is the agenda email for this meeting
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:13) Please add the following comment: composition/representation issues are less relevant if the forum is understood as a process of mutual information , deliberation and conversation between SO/AC and interested individuas
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:14) As for the periodicity, in LA WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF VIRTUAL MEETING OF CFc
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:14) Kavouss is right...
Chris Disspain: (00:14) not happenikng
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:15) jORGE +1
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:15) cf IS A FORUM .nO FORUM MAKES ANY DECISION AT ALL
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:16) Jorge, I have added that as a comment in the Google doc for you.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:16) Dear Jordan/Mathew/staff: I have no audio posibility now. But I repeat that in light of the necessary timescales and the need for successive conversations we need to look at the CF as a process, not as an event or a group
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:16) Anyone can accesss the google doc and add comments here - for Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5Bjsk/edit
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:17) Many thanks Jordan. Please also kindly add is as a reaction to the presentation made by Mathew, into the notes of this meeting
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:18) CF is useful to facilitate better understanding of the issue
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:19) Yes. And if it goes beyond that, it becomes a monster.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:19) (yes to Kavouss's comment.)
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:20) Jordan, we had one full session on the CF before LA, MAY WE SHORTEN THE DISCUSSION AS WE HAVE OTHER COMPLEX ISSUE TO DISCUSS
Chris Disspain: (00:20) the forum has always been characterised as a discussion forum only
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:20) cHRIS+1
Gonzalo Navarro: (00:20) or process
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:22) Please to be added as a comment to Mathew Shears presentation: I feel the conversation after the public comment period and in LA showed that the CF is not seen by many as an event or as a group, but as a process of mutual information, deliberation and strive for consensus among the SO/AC and open to interested individuals
Chris Disspain: (00:23) Jordan + 1
Matthew Shears: (00:24) I agree Jordan
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:24) On a personal note I would have wished to be able to see Mathew Shears draft for today. As a volunteer for this topic I prepared a first draft of the PC2 inputs and circulated it last Friday...
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:24) JORGE, CF is a tribune of exchange of information and discussion on agiven topic
Alan Greenberg: (00:24) Has Greg fallen asleep?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:24) no sound
Matthew Shears: (00:25) Yes, Jorge, apologies not getting it to you earlier
Chris Disspain: (00:25) sounds painful
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (00:25) :-) Chris
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:25) Jorge: I didn't know that that had happened, my apologies to you for that, and I am sure Matthew would say the same. We should put both documents in the pack for Dublin.
Chris Disspain: (00:26) discussion in forum, consensus in ACs and SOs
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:26) if we move to a consensus buildng process for decisionmaking, it still isn't my view that that will have a Parliament of SOs and ACs doing that - I agree with Chris
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (00:26) +1
Gonzalo Navarro: (00:26) Chris +1
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:27) Jordan, How much time you have assigned for CF PLS ?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:27) Matthew: I don't think people necessarily thought that "consensus as a model" would be happening here in the Community Forum. So it's good to have teased that out.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:27) @Jordan: I feel Mathew's document is much more developed than my first draft, but a discussion amongst us (as I was in LA) would perhaps have permitted a common understanding of this process vs event/group approaches
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:28) Kavouss, about an hour.
Matthew Shears: (00:29) Jorge - agree - I think ths is a a good discussion as it shows the support for the original intent. again, the sumary tries to captrue the various comments in the PC tool
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:30) Is is open to everybody SOs ,ACs individuasls, observers as all these enrich the discussion
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:30) No obligation in the sense that it's not a body where decisions will be made. Not meaning to suggest it is not important, or vital, Tijani. +1 to your intervention from me
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:32) It is not a body, or at least my take of discussions is that it should not - it should be a process
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:32) it's a gathering of people at which an issue is discussed.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:33) we do not have to complicate this
Tijani BEN JEMAA: (00:33) Brenda unmute me plz
Tijani BEN JEMAA: (00:33) I can't do
Asha Hemrajani: (00:33) This may not be the right time to ask...How do we encourage participation from newcomers or those not formally part of SO/ACs
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:34) Asha: that's right, not the right time.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:34) this is a session to make sure we have registred the public comments
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:34) Mathiew, we mixing up several issues here
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:34) A process is needed for adequate timescales, for transparency, inclusivity and ensuring that everybody may have a say. A group or an event do not comply with that requirements
Matthew Shears: (00:35) agree -Jorge
Alan Greenberg: (00:35) Scheduling a teleconference can be mandatory. But Ensuring wide participation is another issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (00:36) indeed Alan
Matthew Shears: (00:36) suggest that we edit the v2 prposal text
Avri Doria: (00:37) Robin is
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (00:38) yes
Asha Hemrajani: (00:39) cannot hear
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (00:39) Robin, you used my suggestion for a name!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (00:39) Very faint volume Robin
Brenda Brewer: (00:39) Robin, you need to speak louder please
Alice Jansen: (00:40) We can't hear you Robin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (00:40) and back ground noise makes it impossible
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:40) there is gain control for the microphone on the Adobe page under the phone icon at the top of the page
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:40) that's fine now
Brenda Brewer: (00:41) That would be very helpful to call on phone line Robin
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:41) Robin, do you want us to get the staff to call you?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:44) All - I suggest we pause after this section and have a queue about whether the areas are fairly set out (have we identified, from the comments, the right areas of agreement, concern, clarification
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:44) then we can go into the options briefing, and then the options discussion
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:44) Robin,
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:45) There is no duality in the process. This was said during the discussion before public comments started
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:46) I thought the summary was clear and fairly accurate.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:46) I also got a bit confused by the numbers - "submissions are for reading not for counting"? We could pop them down at the end of the doc?
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:47) Alan, the percentage provided is of indicative nature
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:47) the 66% relates to the 19% above it, that's why it is inset
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:48) the explanation was correct
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:48) go ahead Robin :)
Chris Disspain: (00:50) it is not possible under any model to enter into binding arbitration without personhood as far as I'm aware
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:50) Some of those "Ascertain" bullet points under 3. have to be ascertained for any/all models.
Chris Disspain: (00:51) agree Jordan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:51) I think that "Sub-Issues" is probably best defined as "Options on Other Matters"
Chris Disspain: (00:51) And I wouldlike to suggest we also explore moving away from the concpet of 'maximum legal enforcement'
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:51) Dear Robin: the "duality" criticism does not hold water. It was widely criticized in LA. And if at all the "duality" applies to all SO/AC which have their present roles and would have added roles within the "empowered community" framework
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:52) or "Other Matters for CCWG to Resolve"
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:53) There are so many unanswered questions
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (00:53) In Sub-issues section #4, should "Community Forum" be something else, since there are no decisions in the CF?
Chris Disspain: (00:53) ther are more questions than answers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (00:53) YUP
Chris Disspain: (00:53) but such is life
Brenda Brewer: (00:55) Kavouss, your line is open
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (00:56) Chris D, I think when the outline refers to "maximum legal enforcement" it is asking for a determination of what that maximum is, rather than advocating for the greatest possible enforceability.
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:56) I am disconnected
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:56) Brenda
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:56) As to the options on decision-making I would add: a system of resolutions/advice (without voting) has also been proposed
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:56) I am disconnected
Chris Disspain: (00:56) that is excellent Rosemary if it is true
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:57) Jpordan I was speaking but disconnected
Brenda Brewer: (00:57) Operator will call you back immediately Kavouss
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:57) There isn't even agreement in the CCWG as to whether enforceability is on a spectrum or is binary
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:57) That is correct, Rosemary (RE: "max" legal enforcement")
Chris Disspain: (00:57) I can hear typing
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (00:57) Chris D, that's just how I read it
Brenda Brewer: (00:57) Robin has an audio connection now.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:58) thanks Brenda
Chris Disspain: (00:58) Robin confirms...thanks Robin
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:58) Jordan
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (00:58) Yes Rosemary and Robin, that is how I understand it
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (00:58) Robin, I am happy to chair, or happy for you to Chair this - up to you
Matthew Shears: (00:58) have any of the ascertains already been answred by counsel
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:58) go ahead, Jordan, it is late here ;-)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (00:58) thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (00:59) I was about to express my concerns that the line was disconnected
cherine chalaby: (00:59) For membership or Designator models the following points need clarification: • SO and AC participation in the decision-making mechanism;• Voting or consensus basis;• Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;• Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making mechanism;• Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as public interest) into the decision-making design;• Ensuring accountability of the new structure to the broader community and the global public interest.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:59) Another concern expressed in discussions (at least very clearly in LA) is that any decision-making process has to be absolutely capture-proof and require that any exercise of community powers is backed by a consensus or near consensus of the whole community
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:00) I would also like you not to interrupt me, Kavouss. :-)
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:01) No idea what "consensus" means in a real decisoin making context
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:02) Jonathan
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:02) Please mute your lines if you are not speaking
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:03) We are working with several type of consensus today
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:03) It works
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:03) Jonathan: doesn't it mean each SO or AC decides as it decides today?
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:03) Consensus is a process which currently practiced today
Mary Uduma: (01:03) +1 Kavouss
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:04) Well then it comes down to a definition of "voting"
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:04) +1 Kavouss
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:05) I think Avri's suggestion about voting versus consensus may be reversed in the notes?
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:05) We would like to discuss the Plan B ZAD
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:06) OK all, seriously - the question on the floor is whether there are other key decisions we need to make
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:06) nO WE NEED AGAIN CONSENSUS
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:07) Alan we also need consensus
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:07) Alan: that issue is raised here - it's the bullet point under 1) in the "Options for sub-issues within the Model"
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:07) Jordan: Degree of enforceability of community powers that is acceptable?
Avri Doria: (01:07) we do have methods we use in Cross Community WG with the charter groups. - not all that new
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:08) Rosemary: I just see it as a series of binaries and choices - enforceable or not, directly or not, in what forum
Mary Uduma: (01:08) In voting minority voices are swallowed by the percentages of majority in the proposed weighting model.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:08) Alan ,thanks I knew that SoS ARE NOT DECISION MAKING
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:08) in Consensus models, minority voices disappear - if we define consensus as each SO or AC coming to a position.
Alan Greenberg: (01:08) Avri, in CCWGs, we strive for unanimity, but accept general agreement with not too many people screaming. That works with large numbers like 20-30 members. It will not work as well with only 3 or 4.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:09) Jordan, I'm not sure "binary" captures all the complexities of enforceability.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:09) the reference model of "votes" in the Second Draft Proposal, determinedby each SO, is far more respectful of minority opinions than a proposal that has each SO or AC coming to a consensus.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:09) gREG
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:09) (because those "votes" are allocated *by* consensus or whatever decision process the SO / AC has)
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:09) tHEY VORTE ON THE PROEDURE ONLY
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:10) Jordan, add to your list "who can enforce"?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:10) Rosemary: yep
Matthew Shears: (01:10) Have counsel been certified to address the questions that are preceded by "ascertain"
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:10) I wonder if it would help to build a table with the various aspects of enforcement, tested against the three models
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:10) that sounds good, Jordan.
Matthew Shears: (01:11) + 1 Jordan
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:11) Matthew, we should have those issues certified to the lawyers.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:11) gREG
Avri Doria: (01:11) There are well know notions of consensu that do not involve voting.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:11) Please see memo from Sidley/Adler about half an hour ago.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:11) Well worth it Jordan IMO
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:12) Memo just sent includes a table comparing enforceability under various models.
Greg Shatan: (01:12) Hard to see past the elephant.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:12) Thx Rosemary have not caught up with that yet...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:12) will do though ;-)
Matthew Shears: (01:13) thanks Rosemary
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (01:13) start again tijani
Alan Greenberg: (01:14) We still have to address how we decide "consensus" if we only have 3 non-abstaining inputs.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:15) Memo is hot off the presses; went out after call started. Sorry we couldn't get it out sooner -- we're working as fast as we can on all the questions certified at the last CCWG call.
Avri Doria: (01:15) ther might be good reasons to use full unimity on a model similar to the one the GAC uses.
Avri Doria: (01:15) ... unanimity ...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:15) any consensus needs the positive support of the whole community or at least the whole of it - otherwise it would not truly be a "community decision"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:15) Or no objection Avri?
Asha Hemrajani: (01:16) @Jordan I would like to add the question on whether or not the public comments addressed on how inputs from outside of the SO/ACs would be included
Avri Doria: (01:16) right the std of no strong objection experessed.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:16) "almost the whole of it"
Alan Greenberg: (01:16) Consensus within each group is up to their rules. The only thing we need to decide is consensus of the overall community (however that is composed).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:16) That I agree with Alan
Avri Doria: (01:17) yes Alan that is what i meant. as if each ASCO was a member state.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:17) the "formal objection" path might be helpful
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:17) aLAN, i AM CONFIDENT WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION FOR THE POINT YOU RAISED
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:17) I would think so Jorge
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (01:17) Who is speaking right now?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:18) if one SO/AC strongly objects amounting to a formal objection, probably the decision should not proceed
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:18) Mike Chartier, I think
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:18) Rinalia: this is Mike Chartier
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:18) yes it is
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (01:18) Thanks Rosemary and Jordan.
Alan Greenberg: (01:19) And that means, if we define "consensus" is reached as long as there is only one NO, then we accept that a formal power will be exercised with just 2 AC/SOs saying YES.
Avri Doria: (01:19) unanimity has no no
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:19) If one AC does not partzicopate at voting that AC will be captured by the decision of those who voted
Avri Doria: (01:20) isn't not parcipating a statement of no strong objection?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:21) On cause, I thought we had come to something of a consensus in Los Angeles: 1. A reason / explanation has to be given. 2. Public standards would be prepared in WS2 giving everyone shared expectations (but still no "check list" of Legal Causes) for where removal might be done.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (01:21) Staff, scroll control pls.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:22) Rinalia, you should have scroll control
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:22) I believe there was only a very small number of comments trying to narrow the community's rights to remove their appointed director. The over-whelming number of comments has been in favor of not requiring specific cause to recall.
Matthew Shears: (01:23) Robin - were the comments in favor of not requiring cause or just did not express a view
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:24) Robin: belief is one thing, what does the analysis say?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:25) does anyone have a link to the pc tool handy? I will dig them out.
Alice Jansen: (01:25) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+Summary+-+Second+Public+Comment
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:25) thanks!
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (01:28) Jordan, my apologies, but I have an ealy board meeting for another client and it is 1:30 am here. I can do a high level summary of what the memo is about -- but I'm fading in terms of general capacity.
Chris Disspain: (01:29) I suggest not going throjgh it Holly....bettter for folks to read
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:29) Dear All, Until the time that a valid argument against the legality of removal of an individual Board Member by the entire community is inot presented, I still believe that my point prevails legally and should be submitted to CCWG as an alternative approach
Chris Disspain: (01:29) time?
Chris Disspain: (01:30) 1730 on 9 Oct?
Chris Disspain: (01:30) I will be on a plane...
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:30) I hope that would be the last meeting of WP1 before Dublin
Alan Greenberg: (01:30) Great time for me!
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (01:30) Thanks Jordan. Your very tired independent counsel appreciates ....
Asha Hemrajani: (01:30) Jordan, did you say 17:30UTC on budget
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:30) Would you want the new memo presented on that call?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:31) Sounds good. Thanks
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:31) Rosemary, I'll answer that after I have read it
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:31) Perfect, thanks, Jordan.
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:31) Jordan, We have not decided neither on the Model nor on the removal of the individual Board today thus the two issue should be reported to CCWG
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (01:32) I will also be on a plane at the next WP1 meeting on Friday
Chris Disspain: (01:32) cheers all...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:32) Bye for now then talk again soon...
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (01:32) bye all
Kavouss Arasteh: (01:32) jORDAN, i DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AGAIN IN wp 1
Chris Disspain: (01:33) bye
Matthew Shears: (01:33) thanks all
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (01:33) Thanks folks
Greg Shatan: (01:33) Woo hoo.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (01:33) Bye
Markus Kummer: (01:33) Bye all
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:33) I just reviewed the public comment tool, the only comment there calling for "standards" to remove individual board members was the board itself. fwiw.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:33) bye all
Gonzalo Navarro: (01:33) thanks, bye
Mary Uduma: (01:33) Bye All
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (01:33) and Kavouss, understand!