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


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




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


WP2 Issues for Dublin Briefing (powerpoint presentation) -


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

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: 

  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. 


  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!

  • No labels