Sub-group Members:   Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Elise Lindeberg, Gary Hunt, Jonathan Zuck, Julia Wolman, Nick Shorey, Olga Cavalli, Mark Carvell, Pedro da Silva, Rafael Perez Galindo, Steve DelBianco, Tom Dale   (13)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:  Pär Brumark, Jorge Cancio

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




Review of analysis of public comments on Second Draft

Areas of consensus - no commenters expresses overall concerns with STs.

Stress tests on capture or unintended consequences of changes are areas needing clarification. Is our analysis of 
ST 35 (unintended consequences of operationalizing advisory groups) complete?

No feedback. 

Requests for New stress tests: Conduct new stress test on deadlock over approving changes to fundamental 
bylaws and blocking changes to regular bylaws. Should this be taken on? 

The ST-WP could respond to comment and explain why it cannot be addressed. No conclusion.

Areas of convergence: 1) stress test 21 regarding revocation and reassignment. We stayed away from it per CWG-stewardship. ccNSO indicated that policy is underway.  We should retain ST21 analysis ant not recommend 
other actions. No feedback.

2) Stress tests 29 and 30 - submissions were concerned with content regulation. 7 objected to inclusion. Contract 
enforcement would not be affected by mission and core values. Suggest adding something that would carve out 
contract enforcement so that it would not be affected by IRP; 3) Stress test 18. 16 comments were in favor of Bylaws 
changes. 4 comments were opposed to Bylaws changes. Olga in LA commented that governments did not submit 
comment but are against stress test 18. Suggestion to remove freedom of expression example. No objection. How 
does one instruct ICANN Board? Board needs to understand level of support. Board action is subject to IRP if top 
down - outside bylaws - if went into content. We are awaiting text from GAC that would reframe ST18 - instructing 
Board on how it understands advice. Conclusion is we should clarify ICANN Bylaw. Request for rationale. 

Is the GAC working on text - should we wait for that or proceed with writing new rationale?


- The perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18 but it does consider 
differently how the GAC makes its decisions. It does not change our concern for this ST 18.

- If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only kicks in if the Board has rejected 
consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing by GAC individuals has not 
got to GAC-wide exchange yet. Need CCWG explication of rationale and purpose in tandem with this effort.

- Cannot understand why ST 18 is needed. 

- Fail to see what problem is. ST 18's purpose is to skip engagement step when GAC provides advice to Board. If no solution can be found, ICANN Board will state why advice was not followed. Board has ability to reject 
GAC advice. what is advantage to skip engagement steps? 

- It needs to be clear how this relates to transition requirement. 

ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (10/7/2015 05:26) Welcome all to Stress Tests Meeting #11 on 7 October 2015 @ 11:00 UTC!  
Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:48) hi Brenda in the van on our way home from airport now, flt landed early :-D

  Brenda Brewer: (05:53) Hi Cheryl.  Do you still want a dialout to your mobile #?  Or will you let me know when you're home.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:54) mobile number now then we will do the swap :-D

  Brenda Brewer: (05:54) thanks! 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:55) still 15-20 mins from home

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:56) hi Julia.... welcome

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (05:56) Hi Cheryl, thanks:-)

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:57) good day one and all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) hello seems like only hrs since we spoke

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:58) someone has an open mike

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:59) yes

  Brenda Brewer: (05:59) Very much better

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (05:59) Hello Tom

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:00) I'm here

  Brenda Brewer: (06:00) Steve just joined the Adobe

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:01) Brenda can you please load the draft I sent last night?

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:01) Hello Cheryl. Still in Melbourne.

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:02) Hello all

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:03) Hi all

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:04) Hello All.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:04) only a short call today but we need to start our formal analysis of the public comments

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:05) and yes I am an open source software girl... :-S

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:11) correct it is James.... Yes let's reach out to him on this and then bring back to the WP on list

  Cheryl langdon-Orr: (06:27) we also committed to rewrite the rationale for ST18

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:27) Very helpful to remove that exemplification.

  Elise Lindeberg: (06:28) Mark - agree

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:28) Agree as well

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:35) Steve the perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:35) I have no mic now apologies

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:37) but it does consider differently how the gac makes its decisions so for Argentina it
does not change our concern for this ST 18

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:37) If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only
kicks in if the Board has rejected consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing
by GAC individuals has not got to GAC-wide exchnage yet. Need CCWG explication of ragionale and purpose  in tandem with this effort.

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:38) Agree with Mark that the CCWG also need to start working on new wording

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:38) Sorry not on mic - am at meeting in Brussles without a phone.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (06:39) sorry issue with the mike :(

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:39) yes pedro

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:40) and apologia for ode typos

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:40) Brenda -- please bring up our 2nd draft, page 85

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:40) pedro you are very low

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:40)  Hi all back on the audio and ion the AC room again

  Alice Jansen: (06:40) Pedro  - we are having trouble hearing you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:40) very faint

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:41) Yes audio volume has decreased..

  Brenda Brewer: (06:41) Working on volume.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (06:42) My mike seems to be working now, I 'll try again after Pedro

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:42) Great Rafael

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:45) Rationale needs to explain why such change in deciosn-making creates a risk needign to be addressed.

  Elise Lindeberg: (06:46) again - agree Mark, - this is not clear today

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:46) yes we hear you

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:46) sorry, I want still to talk after Rafael

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:46) Perfecty  clear Rafael

  Elise Lindeberg: (06:49) What we want to secure is that all GAC advice is valuable for the board - also when is shows
that a large majority of the GAC is concerned

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:50) There is no intention to codefy any skipping of existing steps  but rather codefy
the current specual consideration  goven to GAC Advice under to days rules

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:50) Time check - 10 minutes left in the call

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:51) thanks Bernoe

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:51) I stand to be corrected but in 17 years Board has never rejected a negotiated
solution. Relevant fact of life is that Board know that if it were to reject a solution, govts would probably walk away from ICANN.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:51) typos  Bernie

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:54) I must leave the call to attend other meeting, I will follow up from notes and
records, regards and thanks.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:55) We will need to end at the top of the hour  for another call to begin

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:56) I will already be in a flight this time next week  but thast does not mean
the call should not proceed...

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:56) In any case the Board must always take GAC Advice (as well as advice
from other AC's) duly into account and the board must provide a rationale if it decides not to follow advice from the GAC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:57) but an hour or two earlier  might  work for me

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

  Elise Lindeberg: (06:57) thanks

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:57) bye

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:57) Bye

  • No labels