Attendees:
Sub-group Members: Alan Greenberg, Asha Hemrajani, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Chris Disspain, David Maher, David McAuley, Gary Hunt, Gonzalo Navarro, Kavouss Arasteh, Par Brumark, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Suzanne Woolf (17)
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1keztk4t37/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-07oct15-en.mp3
Notes
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
WP2 Issues for Dublin Briefing (powerpoint presentation) -
Principles:
2nd Draft Report Paragraph 187: Enumerated powers and prohibition on regulation to be clarified to ensure that ICANN has authority and responsibility to enforce (i) voluntary commitments contained in TLD applications (e.g., PIC Specifications) and (ii) Consensus Policy. Note also misc. wording suggestions. Authors: Greg Shatan and David McAuley
2nd Draft Report Paragraph Paragraphs 218-219: language regarding “consumer trust and choice” and discuss AoC language regarding new gTLDS now contained in AoC review text at Paragraph 566. Becky
2nd Draft Report Paragraphs 205-206, 224-225 regarding private sector leadership. ALAC comment regarding inclusion of end users in description of private sector and push back from certain governments regarding retention of current bylaws language. Authors: David McAuley and Kavouss Arasteh.
2nd Draft Report Mission, Commitments & Core Values references to and formulation of “global public interest.” Alan Greenberg and Kavouss Arasteh.
2nd Draft Report Paragraph 225: removal of limitation on consultation with GAC to Advice that is consistent with Commitments and Core Values. Becky Burr.
IRP and RFR:
Funding, costs, accessibility, independence
Bruce Tonkin: @Becky - the Board was not specifically against the cost model proposed by the CCWG. Our point was that for community disputes we would go beyond funding the cost of the panel - but also help with the costs of any external counsel that the community might need., We were a 1B on this topic not a 2.
Scope – Reconciliation of expert panel conclusions; “fundamentally irrational” decision; Community/single member accountability
Standard – abuse of discretion vs. de novo
Standing: Individual SOs/ACs/constituencies without community support; “community” IRPs where minority does not support and “Permissive” approach vs. abuse prevention
Abuse: Require participation in PDP for standing (also arises in RFR context); fee shifting for frivolous actions; other abuse mitigation? Prompt action to establish CCWG sub-group to work on details.
BB - The next step for IRP is for the community to roll up its sleeves to work out the details for implementation.
GS - Unclear if this is meant to replace the current IRP or be in parallel?
BB- Reform/replace current process.
BB - MEM and IRP - this is an area for discussion if two separate processes are necessary.
CD - Board thought that a community IRP was different because the expertise required might be different and that ICANN would fund it completely vs the commercial IRP.
AG - Is MEM for standard bylaws also.
BB - This was not considered in the ICANN proposal. It is clear to the CCWG that this should be included (standard Bylaws).
CD - There are 3 processes - standard commercial IRP, standard Bylaws issues and Fundamental Bylaws..And the Board would fund community actions.
CD, BTonkin and BB to work on this issue collaboratively.
GS - We need to consider all input including the Board's.
BB - agreed.
Becky Burr: i will seek input from the board on whether, and if so why, they think separate panels are necessary.
B. Tonkin - The Board separated these thinking that commercial complaints should be handled differently from community complaints (rules, costs etc.).
BB - should not differentiate based on complainant but rather on type of complaints. Regardless from an efficiency point of view a single panel would seen best for all complaints.
Asha Hemrajani: One thing to remember though that the MEM panel is NOT an "advisory IRP" but very much binding
Becky Burr: confused Asha, are you saying that the Board is not agreeing to make IRPs binding??
Asha Hemrajani: @Becky no, both are binding
Staff - Schedule for Dublin still fluid trying to adapt to CCWg needs - as such we should wait for Monday before taking any time commitments.
Documents Presented
- PC2 - Section 4 -Fundamental Bylaws_.pdf (sample template)
- WP2 Dublin Analysis Topics.pptx
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (10/7/2015 14:34) Welcome all to WP2 Meeting #14 on 7th October 2015 @ 20:00 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 2: (14:49) Hi Brenda
Brenda Brewer: (14:49) Hi Kavouss!
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (14:50) Hi everybody ,including those permanent participantas to all meetings of CCWG and its 4 working parties$s
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:57) hello all
Brenda Brewer: (14:57) Carlos Raul Gutierrez on audio only
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:59) Hi all!
David McAuley: (15:01) Hi Pär , hi everyone
Becky Burr: (15:01) hello all, just getting onto the bridge
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:02) Hi beckie
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:02) Hoping its not a bridge too far?
Bruce Tonkin: (15:02) Good mornng all
Chris Disspain: (15:02) Greetings
Brenda Brewer: (15:03) We started Becky!
Gonzalo Navarro: (15:04) Good afternoon
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:05) Beckie
David McAuley: (15:05) Sounds like a plan Becky
David McAuley: (15:14) if that is still ok with you Kavouss
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (15:17) Sorry for joing late!
Asha Hemrajani: (15:17) Good morning all, sorry to be late
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:22) Yes agree with Dave
Brenda Brewer: (15:22) all may scroll now
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:24) Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:25) Is there any participant or member from GAC AT THIS MEETING?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:25) Carlos
Bruce Tonkin: (15:26) @Becky - the Board was not specifically agains the cost model proposed by the CCWG. Our point was that for communiyt disputes we would go beyond funding teh cost of the panel - but also help with the costs of any external counsel that the communiyt might need.,
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:26) was on earlier
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:26) Becky
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:26) I have a question
Bruce Tonkin: (15:26) We were a 1B on this topic not a 2.
Brenda Brewer: (15:26) Carlos is on phone line only for this call.
Bruce Tonkin: (15:27) Haqving said that - you are right that we do need to make sure that we don't encourage frivolous disputes
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:27) What is the rational for the number of the panelist for various issues does it change with the subject i.e
Bruce Tonkin: (15:27) Read the comment a little earlier
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:28) For some major and important issues the minimum should not be less than X'
Bruce Tonkin: (15:28) Thant makes sense Becky. I think the Baord would support that direction.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:30) Becky
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:31) Do you have a question Kavous?
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:33) What about the accountability of the panelist?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:34) Reminder if you are not talking please mute
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:35) tks bwckie
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:36) Agrees Greg
David McAuley: (15:37) Agree with Greg also, we are proposing to reform IRP
Suzanne Woolf: (15:37) ccTLD del/redel and RIRs' directives to IANA are excluded from the RFR/IRP processes. yes? I'm not sure where else to ask about exclusions
Becky Burr: (15:38) yes, they are both excluded Suzanne
Suzanne Woolf: (15:38) Then I assume IETF directives to IANA will be also? Just checking.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:38) Agree with Becky
Becky Burr: (15:39) if they want them to be, yes
Suzanne Woolf: (15:39) The IAB requested it quite specifically in their public comments.
Becky Burr: (15:39) ok, will discuss. assume this is ok with CWG
David McAuley: (15:40) it is thank you Chris
Suzanne Woolf: (15:40) I'd be intrigued by the possibillity. Happy to pursue in email.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:40) This was discussed in ICG and duly reflected in the part o of the ICG Report
David McAuley: (15:40) I thought MEM was for FB and maybe community powers as well
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:42) I was concerned that MEM is not available for violations of standard bylaws (like Annex A-GNSO policy)
Asha Hemrajani: (15:44) @Robin the MEM is available to seek remedies on most important issues eg fundamental bylaws whereas the IRP is for all other things eg standard bylaws
Alan Greenberg: (15:44) Here for a bit.
Becky Burr: (15:44) welcome back Alan
Alan Greenberg: (15:45) In the Board docs, I think the summary said fund bylaws and the full doc said all. Or vice versa
Becky Burr: (15:45) Asha, we will discuss the permutations, but i really don't see why we would distinguish the MEM panel and the IRP
Becky Burr: (15:45) seems inefficient to me
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (15:46) Feedback loops!
Asha Hemrajani: (15:46) @Becky I think there is a problem with Chris' line
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:47) Becjky, It is crucial that you clarify the need or other wise of two panels ; one MEM Standing Panel and the other the IRP
Becky Burr: (15:48) i will seek input from the board on whether, and if so why, they think separate panels are necessary
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:50) bRUCE
Becky Burr: (15:50) usually the defining factor is the nature of the complaint, not the nature of the complainant.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: (15:51) bRUCE, IF THAT IS AS WHAT YOU SAID THEN WE NEED TO RESOLVE THE MATTER TO FIND OUT WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE bOARD OR NOT
David McAuley: (15:51) agree becky, like complaints in equity in some countries are treated differently than other complaints but by same judge or judges
Becky Burr: (15:52) so all bylaws violations claims should be handled by the same panel
Asha Hemrajani: (15:52) @becky yes it would be issue of different rules AND different skillsets of the panellists
Asha Hemrajani: (15:53) @becky I think one of the motivators to split into 2 is efficiency
David McAuley: (15:54) OK, sounds good Becky
Asha Hemrajani: (15:55) One thing to remember though that the MEM panel is NOT an "advisory IRP" but very much binding
Becky Burr: (15:56) confused Asha, are you saying that the Board is not agreeing to make IRPs binding??
Asha Hemrajani: (15:57) @Becky no, both are binding
Asha Hemrajani: (15:57) @Becky I was just referring to the misunderstanding I have come across sometimes - that the MEM is not binding
Becky Burr: (15:58) ok, thanks Asha
Alan Greenberg: (15:59) Sat will be very difficult for me to articipate.
David McAuley: (16:01) OK, thanks Bernie
Avri Doria: (16:01) sorry to join so late but was following by phone for a bit
Chris Disspain: (16:02) dropping off now...thanks all
David McAuley: (16:02) Thanks all, thanks Becky
Asha Hemrajani: (16:03) Thanks all
Avri Doria: (16:03) someoen that needs help can call on me.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:03) Thanks, Becky, and all -- Bye!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (16:03) bye all
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (16:03) Good night all!
