Attendees: 

Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (22)

Participants:  Anne Aikman-Scalese, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Brenden Kuerbis, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Salaets, Malcolm Hutty, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Mike Chartier, Padmini Baruah, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rishabh Dara, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Suzanne Woolf, Thomas Schneider   (34)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei   (5)

Staff:  Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bart Boswinkel, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abhuhamad, Hillary Jett, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings, Trang Nguyen

Apologies:  Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Carlos Raul Gutiérrez, 

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


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call, SoI

2. WP status updates

    • WP1
    • WP2
    • WP3
    • WP4
    • ST-WP

3. Update on legal requests

4. Update on plan B discussions

5. Timelines 

6. Update on community leaders call

7. A.O.B

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.

WP status updates

A google doc link - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_kGo1EXNQs/edit?usp=sharing - was circulated prior to the call to provide an overview of "where we stand". All subteams are working on analysis of PCs. Most visible area of disagreement may be community mechanism. This scorecard will help track areas of progress in Dublin. We need to concentrate on work. 

ACTION ITEM: Concerns on scorecard to be sent by 12:00 UTC tomorrow

Feedback:

- How are we reflecting comments on our first report?

--> Rapporteurs of subteams should dig into history of documents

WP1

We incorporated more recent discussions in addition to PC. Two papers produced: 1 compiles areas of consensus/disagreements etc - 2 compiles the options for consideration. In particular we need to resolve: community mechanism and decision making, as well as enforceability. Comes into equation MEM and plan B. Budget power - teased out conclusions. We are waiting for overall architecture to be resolved prior to fleshing out powers. 

ST-WP

We are working on rationale for ST18. Our call is today at 19:00 UTC. ST 35 is area for refinement 

Feedback:

- ST 18 needs to be discussed within GAC to have clear position.  

WP2 

Issues involve refinement. We are delayed on circulating papers. Comparison chart of IRP and MEM is important.There are issues with respect to mission, commitments, core values - we need to get wording right. We have no clear consensus on retention of language regarding private sector leadership. 

Feedback:

- On private sector, no need to emphasize a particular group. ICANN is multistakeholder.

- Suggest that use multistakeholder instead of private sector.

--> We will need to discuss and determine whether consensus. 

- There has been no opportunity to arrive at WP2 common positions.

WP3

Documents have been added to reading list. 

WP4

Final version reflect different areas of consensus/divergence as well as different actions we took to provide language. 

Legal Requests 

Outline of overall legal costs was sent to list. We will be requesting meeting/travel costs.

ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. 

Summary of outstanding legal requests. They are tracked on wiki - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826

Feedback

- Requests for single document that concentrates all advice received from legal counsel

--> Unsure this would be best way to go. We will think of way to get quick reference doc.

- We need reply from Board on clarifications needed for MEM 

ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM

- Question 68 should not be closed. 

ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. 

Update on plan B Discussions

It looks at enforceability required for community powers. This would consider a post transition mechanism that would allow us to conduct a governance review. If Board blocks move to membership, we would have opportunity to recall Board. We have tasked legal counsel to populate grid.  

Feedback:

- Evaluate time it takes to enforce. There is a difference in terms of when community achieves results and time it takes. 

---> Legal enforcement is looking into degree of enforceability and practical difficulties.

- Should stress tests be applied to same chart (MEM and designators). Seeking guidance on whether should produce full chart and summary chart.

- We are adding "current state of affairs" column to chart. 

- Do we need a row to deal with IANA functions reviews?

--> This has been added. 

- When organizing agenda, provide opportunity to review our proposal against comments that come in. Our position should be baseline. We should have open opportunity for discussion. 

--> We will continue to analyze all comments received. Larry Strickling asked that we properly document options. We need to document that all options were considered. 

- Board to approve proposal - not just any stakeholder. 

We have to be very mindful of complexities we put into our work. 

Timelines

Review of proposed timelines. 

Feedback:

- Is there an in-between scenario? 

--> We will be updating timelines with NTIA information on process. Scenario #2 would still allow for transition to happen. 

- NTIA has renewed contract to next year and that process would take 5 months. It appears end of December would be new deadline for this to be finalized. Scenario 1 can work if no substantial deviation from second proposal. If there is, we need to go to third PC period. 

- NTIA never referred to accountability as key to transition

- Face-to-Face in February for approval?

No such plan for now. We will be able to flesh out plan by end of Dublin. It is imperative for community to understand what we are doing. 

Update on community Leaders Call

Two topics discussed on call: 1) potential to make more time for CCWG discussions; 2) Slide-deck Fadi produced. SO/AC Chairs were gathered to discuss three options put together per SO/AC Chairs request. Preference was given to option B. SO/AC Chairs want to be certain we are making good use of time. 

On Saturday, break out will be used to flesh out options. On Monday we should bring community up-to-speed on where we are after weekend sessions with a view to presenting preferred options identified by subteams. We need to make sure these sessions are not taken over by individuals who want to make broad statement about accountability. These sessions need to be structured debates/conversations. On Tuesday we will have SO/AC discussions. On Wednesday we will work further on refinement. On Thursday we will take stock of week and finalize the work plan/timeline. 

Feedback

- Question usefulness of plenary sessions

--> We could use town hall to present findings of group, speak to changes after PC period. It would be a presentation of outcome of wkd. We should invite other community members to sit in with us. By Wednesday we hope to have visualizations of updated recommendations produced by CCWG. Supporting materials can be used for opening mics. 

- Plenary sessions could contain quotes that might later be used in hearings in a way that no one currently intends. We should make sure to educate them to make sure all understand. 

--> We need to consider whether we use morning session to report (educate) and Wednesday to give community opportunity to chime in on work result so that we have it further refined. 

- Seeking preference from community instead of new ideas would be preferrable. 

- Risk some may skip Monday morning session. There has to be educate at top of each open mic session

- Show more focus and restraint in email traffic. CoChairs should more actively interface.

Conclusion: We will plan for meetings to be working sessions except for Monday morning session and Wednesday session. They will be sessions with community. On Monday, we will educate and go through chapter per chapter. Wednesday: we will educate and provide feedback on further refinements.  

On item 3, we have promised to work with Fadi on revised presentation that is more accurate. 

A.O.B

- Board proposal and CCWG proposal - distinction in that CCWG asks beforehand who would participate. Opportunity to bring these two proposals closer. 

- It will be difficult for GAC to join Wednesday session. You should be collecting views on most controversial items and give floor to those who have not been able to speak through the CCWG. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. 

ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM

ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. 

Documents Presented

Scorecard for Dublin

Plan B.pdf

Project Management Timelines - scenarios

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (10/13/2015 06:40) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #59 on 13 October @ 12:00 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 

  Kaouss Arasteh: (06:47) Hi Brenda

  Kaouss Arasteh: (06:47) Hi to those joining afterwards

  Carlos Raul: (06:54) Good morning

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:57) hello all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:57) Hi all!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:57) Hi all

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:59) hello everyone

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:59) hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:59) here we go

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:59) hello all good morning from Buenos Aires

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:00) Hi all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:00) hello from London, UK

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:00) Co-Chairs,I have an additional item.

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:00) Hello all

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:00) Where we are

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:00) Good morning from San Francisco!

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:01) Pls consider my proposal

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:01) Good morning troopers.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:01) Good morning all!

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:01) Greetings!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:02) Leon - pleasepeak up

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:02) Hello all

  Ken Salaets: (07:02) Happy Tuesday from Maryland

  Greg Shatan: (07:03) Good morning from New York!

  Alice Jansen: (07:04) Gdoc link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_kGo1EXNQs/edit?usp=sharing

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:05) yeah Thomas and chairs.  thank you!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:06) yes - nice document of our progress - thanks!

  James Bladel: (07:07) Is there a version of this doc that can be shared with our respective groups?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:08) James - just use the google doc accessible above

  Mary Uduma: (07:08) Hello All

  James Bladel: (07:08) So long as folks are ok with that. 

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:09) you can download it as a pdf or excel sheet James.

  James Bladel: (07:10) Again, I wasn't asking "HOW" but rather if we were ready to do so. :)

  James Bladel: (07:10) But thanks all.

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:11) ok, sorry!

  James Bladel: (07:11) :)

  Rudi Daniel: (07:12) GM all :)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:12) James it seems that if there will be many participants in Dublin and to help them participaye intelligently, we must further disseminate this information.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:13) Jordan is muffled

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:13) Jordan: please speak a bit louder and slower

  Thomas Rickert: (07:13) @James, I suggest we give it another 24 hours for the group to respond and confirm whether the assessment in the documet is correct. But apart from that, please do distribute.

  Padmini: (07:13) The speaker is a little unclear, can you all hear him?

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:13) LOUDER please Jordan!

  Padmini: (07:14) much better thanks

  Eberhard  Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:14) I can hear Joordan very well :-)-O

  Ken Salaets: (07:16) So to be clear, all referenced documents will be included in the recommended reading list?  Thanks.

  Ken Salaets: (07:17) As in documents being referenced during this call.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:17) Ken, I do believe so

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:17) May I respectfully ask the distinguished speakers to talk more clearly and not .....

  Ken Salaets: (07:18) Thanks, Jordan.  It will be very handy to have them linked in one place.  Much appreciated.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:19) i believe our WP1 documents are on the Wiki reading list page, maybe staff could link to this?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:19) thank you to all the wonderful WP1 volunteers who have done such great work in a short time

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:20) Thank you Jordan for your hard works and effective leadership

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:20) thank you Kavouss :-)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:22) Dear Becky: when you speak of "we" it is a bit difficult to follow, because there has been such few documents circulated - hence it should be noted that these are not WP2 positions IMHO

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina 2: (07:22) Agree with Kavouss

  Becky Burr: (07:22) agreed Kavouss, we do not have consensus on this point

  Phil Buckingham: (07:22) sorry i am late

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:23) Agree with Kavouss

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:23) +1 Kavouss

  Eberhard  Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:23) We just need to keep out Government from having a special role

  Greg Shatan: (07:23) Private sector is being used in the broader sense here -- not only business and industry.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:23) Please staff note my point that there has been no opportunity to arrive at WP2 common positions

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:24) Yes to Dr,

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:24) Here is the reading list so far: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+-+Dublin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:24) private sector does include private individuals

  Padmini: (07:24) +1 on what Tijani said

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:25) I agree withyou that no group including Government shall not have a special place nor private sector or any community,It is a multistakeholder process

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:28) +1 to Kavouss

  Becky Burr: (07:28) Robin, are you saying it does not currently or should not include end users? (the private sector)

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:28) We have more important and vital issue to adress other than duisputing on the issue or  privatesector rooted. we need to put it in a balance and neutral language

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:30) Becky, I meant that the term "private sector" is inclusive of private individuals in its meaning.  So it does include end users in my view.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:30) ON the Chart that is displayed, Items 4 e and f, is there supposed to be a reference to the CWG - Stewardship in the last column?

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:30) Secretaraiat, Pls also include my comment that ICANN IS AND CONTINUED TO BE A MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS WITHOUT FOCZUSSING ON A PARTICUéAR COMMUNITY RATHER TREAT THEN NEUITRALLY AND IN A BALANCED MANNER

  Greg Shatan: (07:31) Changing the Core Values is a significant step.  Any change is a change to meaning.  Are you suggesting that ICANN needs to change from its current private sector rooted system?  That would be very significant.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:31) m

  Christopher Wilkinson: (07:32) Hello. Just logged on to register apologies. Will follow up with you on Friday in Dublin. CW

  James Bladel: (07:32) Private Sector, in this context, means non-government.  I see this as an accurate characterization of ICANN now and for the future.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:32) I honestly don't understand the energy this attracts. The private sector language was useul in the 1990s because it distinguished from government control. Nowadays we call that multistakeholderism. They all mean the same thing, don't they?

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:33) te Sector Rooted was 20 years ago now is a multistakeholder without singlling out a particular group or treating them in an imbalanced manner

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:33) the point is that ICANN isn't an IGO, either case

  Philip Corwin: (07:33) Private sector leadership has always been a fundamental aspect of ICANN.  That is why GAC is Advisory.

  James Bladel: (07:33) +1 Phil.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:34) Please speak up, dear Cheryl

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:34) I guess some want multi-stakeholderism to be more government-led, so re-inforcing private sector language is not universally shared.

  Guru Acharya: (07:34) @james: so all academia is private sector? govt funded academia is private or not?

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:34) Not at all

  Greg Shatan: (07:34) Jordan -- "private sector" doesn't include governments., but it includes everyone else (not just commercial stakeholders).  Multistakeholder includes governments.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:34) No one wants that multistakeholder be more governmental

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:35) Then pls kindly do not singleout private sector as beeing the root of the ICAN

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:36) @Steve - Very good point!

  Becky Burr: (07:37) @Robin, ok we are on the same page

  Eberhard  Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:37) I have lost audio completely

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:37) thanks Thomas!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (07:37) thank you all indeed

  Phil Buckingham: (07:37) + 11111

  Eberhard  Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:37) and it's back

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:37) Thanks all for the great work

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:38) Athina + 1

  Rudi Daniel: (07:38) yes thank you all :)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:38) Re Stress Tests - does this mean that the stress tests are a way we can analyze enforceability of the various models and suggested compromises?

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:38) Letter is here: https://community.icann.org/x/xKtYAw

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:38) I was referring to ST 18 only

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:39) And second letter with documents is here: https://community.icann.org/x/0qtYAw

  Alice Jansen: (07:39) Legal requests wiki page - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:41) Thank you for addressing my question

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:41) Could a consolidated document be prepared, if not yet done, together with the answers provided therto for the benefit of everybody

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:41) very important those requests (the two on fiduciary duty and 68 on default judgements)

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:43) There was a question recently made regarding all costs for the entire process till now. This question is very important to examine the scope of the responsibilty of any of us

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:43) Are 81 and 83 duplicates?

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:44) Yes!

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:44) I'll fix that

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:44) @rosemary - it appears you are right

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:44) sorry Rosemary!

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:45) Give me a heart attack!  :)

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:45) Yes in whatever way that makes an update for thoser who needd that

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:45) Could replies be geared toward the CCWG Scorecard Items - ie advice relevant to which point on the scorecard?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (07:47) replies from counsel  that is - categorized and referenced to the scorecard that was displayed at the beginning of this call - with links inserted into the scorecard

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:48) Grace, could you send us a link to the chart re outstanding items?  WE believe that some may have been completed.  Thanks.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:49) Here you go Holly: https://community.icann.org/x/OiQnAw

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:50) I believe we provided the list of references for question 69

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:50) Thanks Grace!

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:50) This page will need to be updated following the call. There are requests that have come in since the page was last updated. The Chairs will review and confirm withe staff.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (07:51) Thanks Leon

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (07:51) You are very welcome Kavouss :-)

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:54) @Grace Here is the memo that I believe was intended as the answer to Q68; once you confirm my understanding please link in the table  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151012/0f2ed0ca/CCWG_MemoreDefaultJudgmentandArbitrationFinal-0001.docx

  mike chartier: (07:54) Its self contradictory- if enforceability can be ensured without membership, then a move to membership (from some other model) cant be enforced.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:55) @Mike -- if the board rejects move to Membership, we will have enforceable power to spill the board and elect a new one to approve the move

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:55) I hear Thomas

  Brenda Brewer: (07:55) Holly has disconnected...waiting for her to redial

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (07:56) Designators or Members have unquestionable rights to remove directors.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:57) We're still working on how to make it as bullet-proof as we can, without a member.

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:57) The notion that Steve's idea is "sufficient" is not purely a legal question

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:57) im back

  Edward Morris: (07:58) The possibility that we could switch governance models shortly after this accountability effort is itself destabilizing. Looking at this from the outside we're saying: we'll try this nonmembership model first but since we're not sure it will work we have the option to change it completely in the future. Would you turn over n and n to an organisation with such an uncertain plan?.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:58) Agree, Malcolm -- the community and CCWG need to determine the minimum level of enforcement we are willing to settle for before Transition.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:58) that may be Designator, or may be Member.  THat's what this chart is supposed to help us make that call

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:00) I am back and would like to respond

  Eberhard  Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (08:00) As previously posted to the list, I have a hard stop now

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:02) To be honest, I find it disrespectful to the multistakeholder process that we are considering the MEM on a par with the Second Draft Report, without the Board having specified clearly comprehensible negative outcomes from the model in the Second Draft Report

  Ken Salaets: (08:02) +1 Malcolm

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:03) Agree, Malcolm.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:03) I agree Malcolm.

  Keith Drazek: (08:04) I've done that too!

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:05) Oh that has NEVER happened to any of us, Holly.  Just kidding

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:05) Holly + 1

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:05) Good addition, Holly.  What's the delivery estimate for the completed doc?

  Mary Uduma: (08:05) But CCGW is Board's creation, is it?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:05) @Malcolm: possibly true, but it won't help us go forward and reach our goals

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:06) summary and lumpy -- both would be helpful

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:06) Disagree Roelof -- the Board is not part of the multi-stakeholder group, vel non, and the viability of the MSM is the entire ground of the transition in the first place

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:07) @Roelof, well, this approach means we avoid drawing out any specific problems that the Board may identify. It also guides us to a radical rewrite, which would need a Third Public Consultation. So not sure this approach gets us closer or faster

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:07) at staff: as ever, please prepare a complete doc package for our delight and enjoyment before Dublin ;-)

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:07) Steve, as to delivery we are hoping that the chart is ready today or tomorrow. Hoping similar time frame on the description of Plan B

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:07)  lumpy is good - think dumplings!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:08) especially need column on time to result in each enforcement mode

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:08) fine with me

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:09) @Anne  -- time and complexity are part of the text in each cell.  It isn't a precise measure of time and isn't a separate column

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:09) Anne,  timing is as much a matter of how this community works as to how legal system works so very difficult to address timing

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:09) @Greg -- the enforcement part is to see that the IRP decision is followed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:10) Holly: there is an important timing question in termsof steps of processes

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:10) agree with Greg that enforcement is not effective if it takes two years to get it

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:10) enforcement delayed is enforcement denied ... ;-)

  Brenda Brewer: (08:10) Kavouss' line is open

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:10) e.g. the IANA separation process the CWG has taken could take half a decade, that's a big problematic example to avoid at all costs (not least precisely BECAUSE the CWG's process is so convoluted)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:11) so if one of these models has the "very many steps" problem, that's material

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:11) Agreed Jordan but not clear that we can provide anything close to definitive answer

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:11) and is one of my concerns with the MEM stuff as an example.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:11) @Holly - arbitration takes time.  That needs to be compared to how the CA stattute works with respect to membershi powers.  Is exercise of community powers immediate or not?

  Greg Shatan: (08:11) A purely "enforcement" step should not take two years.  If it does, there is almost certainly an element in there that goes beyond ensuring that an exercise of a power takes effect.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:11) membership approach is immediate

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:12) agree with Malcolm

  Edward Morris: (08:12) +1 Malcolm

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:12) No dispute resolution or judicial enforcement is immediate -- with rare exception of when irreparable harm is sufficient enough to get preliminary injunction

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:12) Malcolm is right that we are giving too much priority to the board proposal.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:12) I would agree completely Malcolm.  More to the point, I think the right course is for the CCWG to not negotiate against itself -- we should not spend any time as a group on Plan B -- that is allowing the Board to dictate our process.  We should put in our proposal, as modified by the comments we received, and then see what happens.  If the Board then chooeses to  prevent the transition because of its concerns, that failure will be on them, not on us.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:12) @Malcolm -- the left to right format is arranged to show degrees of enforceability.  From low to high

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:13) MEM is first because it is lowest in enforceability

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:13) we can only define the "least touch" model that can deliver our requirements.

  Greg Shatan: (08:13) @Anne -- Anything that involves an arbitration is not enforcement..

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:13) And I add tho that that this communit6y doesn't reach decisions quickly -- so additional time required

  Edward Morris: (08:13) Well pit Paul

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:13) we did agree simplicity as a guidance, after all.

  Greg Shatan: (08:13) We can flip the columns....

  mike chartier: (08:13) There is also a big difference between being able to enforce a specifc action, vs. spilling the entire Board in the hope that a newly elected Board woyld be more compliant.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:14) @Holly - that is the question.  what is timing AFTER the point where the community reaches a decision to enforce - in each model

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:14) +1 Mike

  Greg Shatan: (08:15) @Anne, there would have to be a decision to exercise a power, and an attempt to exercise it, before the issue of "enforcing" it arises.

  Keith Drazek: (08:15) +1 Thomas. We must follow our process. The public comments will show us the way forward.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:15) We do indeed - +1 Thomas

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:16) +1 Thomas

  Keith Drazek: (08:16) I also agree that we need to document our work, as noted by NTIA.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:16) Greg -- and as we have said throughout the process, the clearer the likely outcome of any enforcement, the less likely anyone is to do things that require it to be deployed.

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:16) well put, Thomas

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:17) On t hat basis, I can agree to considering their comments -- but we should only consider  a Plan B after the process is complete.  Not now, since the consideration is pre-determined by the effort.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:17) Thoma

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:17) I asked the floor or raised hand before Malcolm but my line was interrupted

  Thomas Rickert: (08:17) Kavouss, you seem to be back on the audio. I will get back to you!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:17) So there is the time it takes to reach consensus and the time its takes after the Community decision to enforce is taken - we need to know the difference in timing under each model

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:17) That row is number 7

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:18) apologies for missing that before, Steve

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:18) @steve, sorry I did not catch that, what was row #7

  mike chartier: (08:18) from our CHarter "the CCWG-Accountability will include a liaison from the ICANN Board, who would be an active member of the CCWG-Accountability, bringing the voice of the Board and Board experience to activities and deliberations......Should there be a need for any consensus call(s), neither the Board liaison nor the Staff representative would participate in such a consensus call."

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:18) The enforceability of the outcome of a Special IANA Functions Review, Asha

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:18) Row 7: . Reconsider / Reject Board Decisions Relating to Reviews of the IANA Functions, Including Ability to Trigger a Separation of PTI (or, IANA Separation Enforceability)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:18) good reminder, Mike.

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:19) @steve thank you

  Mary Uduma: (08:19) +1 Tijani

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:19) I disagree that the board is "special" vis a vis the rest of the community.

  Seun: (08:20) thanks for calling for team work @Jonathan

  Ken Salaets: (08:20) a role to play but not THE role to play.  There is a distinction.

  Edward Morris: (08:20) The Board comes late to the table. Will we give the same consideration to others who show up at the minute?

  Edward Morris: (08:21) last minute

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:21) ed, if we do, we will never finish

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:22) plus there is the board's inherent conflict of interest - it doesn't want to lose power. 

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:22) to be perfectly honest, there is - on the face of it - a conflict of interest between the proposed membership restructuring and the interests of the Board - this has to be recognized alongg with the recognition that the Boarrd members were chosen forr their knowledge and wisdom

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:22) Anne: I would welcome the Board as a group acknowledging and dealing openly with that mismatch of interests

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:22) Losing audio

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:22) maybe it is something we should ask the co-chairs to raise with the Board leadership? as a discussion item?

  Edward Morris: (08:22) I agree Jordan. We all can see what the Board's last minute intervention has done to our effort.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:23) agree Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:23) teh point with such conflicts is to deal with them openly and clearly

  Seun: (08:24) Robin - One could say individual members of the community has conflict of interest one way or the other for wanting to take power from board (we have people from different organisations that would like to be IFO) so we should not forget that other side as well.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:24) The issue is not whetehr individual dierectors are able to be objective - there is simply a conflict on the face of the matters being considered

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:24) Seun: that is utter nonsense. The conflict is between teh Board as a decision maker, and the board as a Stakeholder. The only other stakeholder in the ICANN community with such a set of interests is the NTIA. No other participant does.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:25) Seun, it is not a conflict - it is the reason this group was established - to check the board's unlimited power.

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:25) @Edward speaking on my own behalf, the board made the conscious decision not to intervene too early as we had to give the group room to work out the proposal.  As I recall the the CMSM model only came out fairly recently.  As Alan Greenberg had pointed out in an earlier meeting, this has been a moving target.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:25) Asha: I guess two months is fairly recent.. :-)

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:26) Nevertheless, board members are involved in the WPs and are working in good faith

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:26) Grace, On the follow up request #59 related to drafting AoC Bylaws, please note that we were awaiting the requested redline from ICANN Legal , and yesterday the Adler team went ahead and provided to Leon so that work could go forward.  This will now await post-Dublin.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:26) @Asha -- CCWG was debating Member vs Designator as early as March. 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:27) Hopefully there is a scenario 3 - that allows us to have a life (outside of CCWG)?

  Ken Salaets: (08:27) @Robin lol

  Thomas Rickert: (08:27) Robin - chances for that are low :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:27) :-)

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:28) @Robin super LOL

  Becky Burr: (08:28) good question tho Robin

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:28) A what, Robin?

  Avri Doria: (08:29) this is life

  Alissa Cooper: (08:29) was wondering the same thing as Alan - there's no option for finalizing end of october, short public comment in november, analysis in early december and sending to chartering orgs end of december?

  Avri Doria: (08:29) why does anyone expect more?

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:29) Yes Seun -- constantly raising the idea that the community itself has a conflict of interest is utterly destructive.  The Board will burn down the house to get its version complete, it seems.  But if the community is not capable of making this decision it is capable of no decision at all -- and that means that the transition should not happen -- which is the wrong result.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:30) @Leon, that is not the time-line in DC that I recall. The proposal had to be received by early January at the VERY latest.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:31) @Alan as I said we will be updating this information and you might be right but I need to go back and double check the details

  Alan Greenberg: (08:31) Thanks

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:31) @Steve understand that debate was well underway in March, what I meant was it was only in July that the SM model was developed to a state where we could make meaningful comments on it.

  Becky Burr: (08:32) we are where we are, not sure why it is helpful to rethink who could have/should have commented when

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:32) Alan: how can five months require a January submission?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:32) The issues raised by the Board must be resooved taking adequate time to do so and are likely to trigger a further comment period.  That cannot be changed based on the issues the Board has raised.  It has to be done right.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:32) Don't agree, Asha.   The board's concern about Membership applies whether it is Single Member or multi-member.   Same with Designator.    The board should have revealed their pathological resistance to Member/Designator much sooner

  mike chartier: (08:33) +1 Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:33) Steve: or mentioned it in the Congressional testimony in July.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:33) Agree, Steve.

  Edward Morris: (08:33) +1 Steve

  Thomas Rickert: (08:33) Kavouss, our charter is broader thann what you described.

  Becky Burr: (08:33) I agree with all of you but what's done is done

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:33) Agree with Steve and also with Becky.  we are where we are .  Agree with Jordan we annot rush the issues the Board has raised.

  Seun: (08:34) As i have asked on the list, is there an intention to hold a face 2 face is feburary to get the co-chairs to approve?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:34) our job is to do our job as quickly and as effectively as we can -- we don't have to get it perfect, we have to get it right. But we cannot have external parties trying to "spook" the group into constant changes of its schedule or timetable.

  Seun: (08:34) Co-Chairs = COs

  Seun: (08:35) Okay thanks for the feedback Jonathan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:35) and this group isn't responsible in any case for the time pressure - ICANN is. It delayed our start until November last year, when we could have started in March.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:35) I can't see any scenario where we don't need another comment period.

  Avri Doria: (08:35) isn't it a binary choice? if we make a substantive change we must have a comment period.

  Jonathan Robinson: (08:36) There is an overall programme management scenario / timetable that ICANN's project management staff have worked on. Is that visible to this group? It's an important document to see since it looks forward and with an overall perspective.

  Seun: (08:36) I think you are right about that @Robin; it seem comment period is inevitable

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:36) We have too much to do that should be put out for the first time.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:37) [I raise that point about the history because it is important that the right groups are held responsibile for the consequences of the decisions that they make.]

  mike chartier: (08:38) The public record is very important for the US process. It was published in the Federal Register, and will be a key basis for the USG to determine if any eventual proposal is responsive to the community.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:40) Thomas, What is option B ? Do you mean Plan B?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:40) I hope we have "working" sessions in Dublin (rather than performances from the likes of politicians)

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:40) Option B is the hours shown on the screen shot now

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:40) Robin + 1

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:40) Not the same as Plan B

  Alan Greenberg: (08:41) It is the 2nd of 3 options for extending CCWG hours in Dublin.

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:41) I have to leave a bit early, safe travels all, on to Dublin

  Keith Drazek: (08:41) If staff is speaking, we can't hear.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:41) it was Mathieu asttach

  Greg Shatan: (08:41) This is Option B

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:41) Rosemary did you repliy to me`?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:42) agree with Mike and we should assume there are Congressional staffers who are watching the current interaction between Board and Community. - in terms of whether this process is sufficiently stable.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:42) Option B of what?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:42) Yes, Kavouss.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:42) Are we talking about work schedule`?

  Greg Shatan: (08:42) There were originally 3 options.  The others were called Option A and Option C.

  Avri Doria: (08:43) Anne, seems to become less stable by the day

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:43) Kavouss, options for increasing time available for CCWG work in Dublin

  Avri Doria: (08:44) but fortuneltey, in comparision with the congress, we seem a rock of stabilty and  coherence.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:44) Certainly teh approach of the co-chairs lends stability.  Thank you Co-Chairs.

  Becky Burr: (08:45) we need time to work

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:45) Agree with Thomas - such statements could be quite damaging  to the transition generally 0 if there is "open mike on sterioids"

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:45) +1 Becky

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:46) - Friday : finalize public comment assessment based on WP outcomes, list areas of consensus and refinements, identify a candidate way forward on outstanding issues- Saturday : break out sessions facilitated by XPlane to flesh out candidate way forward- Monday : Review and refine outcome of break out sessions, initial assessment of timeline for finalization of report- Tuesday : SO/AC engagement (not a CCWG session as such)- Wednesday : Taking stock of SO/AC engagement, further refinements- Thursday : Taking stock ; finalizing work plan beyond Dublin including timeline.

  Alice Jansen: (08:46) Mathieu's email--> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006660.html

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:47) Holly -- Is there anyhting in law under the designator model that prevents the Board from subsequently changing the powers of the Delegates?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:47) @Paul, do you mean "designators" rather than "delegates"?

  Greg Shatan: (08:47) @Paul -- designators and delegates are different concepts.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:47) Yes --- sorry

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:48) not as currently written in the Bylaws; ICANN Bylaws can be amended by Board currently to remove AC/SO/NomCom ability to select directors

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:48) Third parties (persons) could be given the right to consent to any amendments to the Bylaws.

  Avri Doria: (08:49) I think we need to acknoweldge that plan B is just a feel good plan, it is fairly certain that by postponing the decsion on membership we cancel the possiblity of membership.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:49) Break-up sessions were quite useful in LA - break-outs in Dublin on the basis of the WPs could perhaps work?

  Avri Doria: (08:49) if we can accept that, we can accept plan b.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:49) Avri: we should only do membership if we need it, and we can only do plan b if it does have the ability to force a shift later if required

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:49) @Avri -- if Plan B is not enforceable thru board spill, then I would not support it either

  Greg Shatan: (08:49) @Jorge, that is planned for Saturday.

  Avri Doria: (08:50) i do not accept the practicality of board spill as a decsion mechansim.  it won't happen.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:50) So, there is no profvision of California law that prevents the rights of designators from being infringed.  That needs to be embedded in the fundamental bylaw and the designators must have a veto, right?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:50) @Greg: sounds good - thanks! but during the rest of the week we could use that underlying structure for resolving issues

  Alissa Cooper: (08:50) if the agenda of each session is closely focused on the specific substantive topics, then it seems input from anyone could be incorporated but chairs would need to shut down people who go off-topic

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:50) Paul, just to clarify, currently there is no protection in the Bylaws to protect the current designator rights from being removed.  Bylaws could be written to require that disgnator rights cannot be restricted or removed without their approval -- as Rosemary has indicated

  Alan Greenberg: (08:51) @Alissa, Yes, if that is indeed possible (shutting down people).

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:51) Avri: I have deep skepticism about it as a remedy too. And a concern that without a membership in place (our best model so far, based on a total analysis), a number of the other powers will be inoperative.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:51) Paul, I refer you to the memo we recently submitted on the designator structure of ICANN, where this is all laid out.

  Kaouss Arasteh: (08:51) Holly+1

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:51) Agree completely Avri --the chance of a post-transition change is zero

  mike chartier: (08:52) +1 Holly, that's the attraction of Membership

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:52) Didnt' we already have an open plenary session in the agenda for this ICANN meeting?

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:52) +1 Holly

  Becky Burr: (08:52) this is an extremely important point being made

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:52) +1 Alice.   But it is very uncomfortable when we "shut-down" someone who's speaking at ICANN meetings.  

  Greg Shatan: (08:52) We have an engagement session already on the schedule for Monday morning.

  Becky Burr: (08:52) i think educating the community first is critical

  Alan Greenberg: (08:52) We have been told that many orgs with designators have bylaws requiring their agreement to alter such rights of the designators. Presumbably we would do the same.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:53) I have an AOB item.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:53) +1 Becky

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:54) Alan, yes, that's typical, i.e., to protect the designators' power.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:54) +1 Alan

  mike chartier: (08:54) Agree with Avri. Spilling the board is a nuclear option (similar to a Constitution Amendment), spilling it with the intent to make a fundamental change like from non, to Membership, would be like a COnstitutional COnvention, with the same likelyhood of happening.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:55) that's why the system we implement in WS1 has to be self-contained and durable

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:55) @Paul, correct re need for fundamental bylaw if you wish to protect designator rights

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:55) we cannot rely on a post-facto review to "fix known inadequacy" - that's just not workable

  Avri Doria: (08:55) whatever we decide on has to be good enough to live with.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:55) let's not waste our time in Dublin with FUD also. 

  Ken Salaets: (08:55) Per Avri: "it is fairly certain that by postponing the decsion on membership we cancel the possiblity of membership."  This is the crux of the entire matter.

  Jonathan Robinson: (08:56) Becky's point on early communication / education is key. This group is very familiar with a great deal of history / detail

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (08:56) there are some who will skip the education and just want to vent.  so you must educate at the top of every plenary session.

  Greg Shatan: (08:56) These cannot be run as open-mic sessions.  The rules of the meeting have to be oriented toward getting our work.

  Greg Shatan: (08:57) @Alan -- you hit the nail on the head.

  Avri Doria: (08:57) i am not predetermining what solution satisfices, but whatever we settle on, that will be it other than perhaps tweaks around the edges.  i am just trying to be realistic about it.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:57) I think that's very important to keep in mind, Avri.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:57) @Greg, every once in a while, I say something relevant.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:58) +1 Anne.  But how to cut-off speakers who stray off-topic or add new items?

  Greg Shatan: (08:58) These new "plenary" sessions are being held in the Auditorium, which apparently will only have 4 standing (or perhaps roving) mics.  No table mics.

  Ken Salaets: (08:58) Perhaps if a 'plan B' is considered, the board should be spilled prior to the transition in order to at least increase the odds of progress thereafter...

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:58) We are hitting the top of the hour so please try to keep your interventinos concise

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:58) That would really help the U.S. agree with the transition.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:59) +10 Roelf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:59) many emails? I don't get it, you are joking, right?

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (08:59) :-) Ken.   I would have more confidence in the Board's transition proposal if the Board were to agree to live as constiuents under that proposal instead of as board members. :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (08:59) @Greg, we could also use roving mikes to address the adobe speaker queue.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:59) Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you receive

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:59) yes - not every email needs to be replied to.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:00) @Robin, not according to a few of the participants!

  Jonathan Robinson: (09:00) Question? Is Tuesday too late for first serious community egagement. Does the group run the risk of engaging the broader community too late in the meeting?

  Avri Doria: (09:00) plan B is a palliative - we should focus on plan a, whatever that may end up being.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (09:01) +1 Avri

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:01) I  would appreciate it if all the e-mails about who is insulting whom should be taken off list -  this is clutter.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:01) got to go

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:02) It is totally ridiculous to use mail in the way that´s being made!!!! Very disruptive!!!!

  Greg Shatan: (09:02) Participating in both CWG and CCWG has been quite challenging....

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:02) and staffing them ! :)

  Ken Salaets: (09:03) Anne +1

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:03) Agree with Avri. We need to work through the membership question, not postpone the decision.

  Greg Shatan: (09:03) 10,000 emails across the two sounds about right....

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (09:04) Anne -- I just use filters -- there are some people who I no longer read ...

  Avri Doria: (09:04) but we only have to deal with them one at a time, and many of the insulting ones can be skipped after reading the first line.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:04) Good plan Thomas!

  Avri Doria: (09:04) i still look at them all, but some don't read beyond the first line or two.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:05) Wow - Paul that is radical - worth considering.

  Keith Drazek: (09:06) Kavouss, it's AOB now. You're up.

  Hillary Jett: (09:07) @Greg staff collects all that data, including emails. You can find it on the statistics page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823970

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:08) @ Alan - what change exactly>  Can you put this on the list?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:08) Alan -- I don't thnk the board gave any detail about quorum of AC/SO participation or threshhold to determine Consensus

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:08) Correct Steve.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:08) For Dublin plenary sessions, I suggest that we use a 3rd party facilitator to "cut off" speakers who stray from topic or exceed time limits.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:09) @Steve, they said any AC/So could raise an issue which I take to says that any of the (current) 7.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:09) Because it is very awkward for community members (co-chairs) to cut-off other community members

  Alan Greenberg: (09:09) They did not talk about how many AC/SO is considered consensus for weach power, which IS a major gap in thier doc.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:09) I think a facilitator may not have sufficient knowledge of what is relevant.  Prefer the chairs have this function and share it so no one chair becomes target.

  Greg Shatan: (09:10) Using the chairs for target practice is quite unfortunate indeed.  Even if they take turns.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:11) @Alan - the Board's document requires UNANIMOUS consensus - as I read it and it would be ALL SOs and ACs as I read it.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:12) they should come out with co-chair dart boards ;-)

  Alan Greenberg: (09:12) @Greg, T-shirts with dart-board targets on them?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:12) Our Chairs are strong.  They are the best equipped to handle and have done so objectively thus far.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:12) @Anne, I did not presume that consensus = unanimous.

  Avri Doria: (09:12) Steve, adding a sargeant at arms, aka facilitator, role for controlling our behavior might end up yet another point of friction.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:13) Agree, Avri.  Might be more trouble than it is worth.

  Seun: (09:13) Thanks and bye, so of us are here already ;-0

  Avri Doria: (09:13) it take a while for a community to accept such a role  and repsect it.

  James Bladel: (09:13) Safe travels, everyone. 

  Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC: (09:13) @Alan - If Board is saying less than unanimous in their proposal - they should clarify because I have asked that question many times

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:13) Thx all! See you in Dublin!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:13) safe travels!

  Avri Doria: (09:13) safe travels

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (09:13) Safe travels, all.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:13) bye all



  • No labels