Sub-group Members:   Alan Greenberg, Asha Hemrajani, Athina Fragkouli, Avri Doria Carlos Raul, Cherine Chalaby, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Gonzalo Navarro, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Kavouss Arasteh, Mark Carvell, Mary Uduma, Mike Chartier, Olivier Muron, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (24)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Stephanie Petit

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad,

Apologies:  Robin Gross, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Matthew Shears, Rinalia Abdul Rahim

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




1. Review of Agenda

2. Second review of comments analysis:

a) Budget power

b) Affirmation of Commitments

c) Community Forum

d) Community Mechanism as Sole Member / The Model

e) Recall of ICANN Board

3. Approach to documenting our work for 12-Oct deadline

4. 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.


1. Review of Agenda

  • Last meeting before Dublin ICANN 54 meeting. 
  • Purpose is to review public comments and make sure that the summaries are honest and accurate for the CCWG-Accountability. 
  • We are not here to debate the substantive issues. 

2. Second review of comments analysis

Please send revised documents to and to ensure that the documents can be uploaded to AC room. 

Budget Power (Jonathan Zuck)

  • Description of document changes since last call (need a solution for #5 Revenue Shortfall)
  • Action (aim for 12 October): Jonathan and Cherine will be working on language for revenue shortfall to include in document for CCWG consideration in Dublin. 

Affirmation of Commitments (Steve DelBianco)

  • Document loaded directly to page 5, item #1 since the rest of the discussion has been addressed on previous calls
  • The Board wants the discretion to decide which of the recommendations would be implemented. The RySG indicated that they are supportive of this suggestion. 
  • Action: Steve to update the document based on the staff-provided information on AOC Review Team composition. Steve will also adjust 
    the language to address Alan's point on selection rather than request. 

Community Forum (Matthew Shears)

  • Same document as last time. 
  • Matthew Shears sent apologies and is not on the call. 
  • Discussion tabled. No comments. 

Community Mechanism as Sole Member/  The Model (Avri Doria)

Recall of ICANN Board (Greg Shatan)

  • Document available here: under Board Recall - look for version 3
  • Page 5 to start discussion on areas of concern. No comments. 
  • Page 6-7 to discuss options for consideration for full CCWG (new additions in purple underline text)
  • Standards for Board selection are in Bylaws. 
  • Action: Greg to add reference to Bylaws into the document as part of revision.

3. Approach to documenting our work for 12-Oct deadline

Suggestion to provide two documents to the CCWG

  • Doc 1 has a section for each topic we analysed, and presents the areas of agreement / concern / divergence and then the options, all together.
  • Doc 2 is just the options organised by each section, with some priority attached to the biggest ones to settle in Dublin. We could assess that priority 
    and encourage the CCWG to do so at its call next Tuesday.

4. Any Other Business

  • Presentation of document detailing compostion of past review teams (needed for AOC analysis).
  • document available at (under the section INCLUSION OF AOC)
  • SDB has included all of page 2 of this document into the AOC analysis document.
  • Discussion on number of participants of 21 vs up to 21.
  • Plan B notes available at: 

Call ends 30 min early!

Action Items

  • Action (aim for 12 October): Jonathan and Cherine will be working on language for revenue shortfall to include in 
    document for CCWG consideration in Dublin. 
  • Action: Steve to update the document based on the staff-provided information on AOC Review Team composition. Steve 
    will also adjust the language to address Alan's point on selection rather than request.
  • Action: Alan to confirm that the language in document refects the concern above. 
  • Action: Greg to add reference to Bylaws into the document as part of revision.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (10/9/2015 12:13) Hello and welcome to WP1 Meeting #28 on 9th October 2015 @17:30 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:14) Hi Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:14) How are you today with all these meetings , their prepartion and their proceedings

  Brenda Brewer: (12:16) Hi Kavouss!  Doing great!  How about you?

  holly j. Gregory: (12:17) hi Kavouss, Hi Brenda.  I'm only able to join for a few minutes while boarding plane and only on Adobe.

  Brenda Brewer: (12:19) Thanks for letting us know Holly!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:20) bRENDA

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:20) i AM OK AS LONG AS OTHERS ARE WELL AND OK

  Avri Doria: (12:20) thought i was late, see i am early

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:21) Holly, thank you very much for your insight last night in briefing Plan B

  holly j. Gregory: (12:22) you are most welcome aka ousts

  holly j. Gregory: (12:23) bad iPhone spell correction Kavouss. apologies

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:28) hi all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:28) we'll start in two minutes

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (12:28) hello everyone

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:28) Jordan,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:29) Your voice indicates that you are tired

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:29) Kavouss, please mute your line when you are not speaking. (We can hear your typing)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:29) Is that so?

  cherine chalaby: (12:29) Hi everyone

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:31) Hi all

  Gonzalo Navarro: (12:31) Hello

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:31) Exactly

  Avri Doria: (12:33) small edits on Model.  such as including the raw number as promised.

  Greg Shatan: (12:33) WIll do shortly and in PDF

  Avri Doria: (12:33) can send a pdf if desired

  Greg Shatan: (12:33) on Total Recall

  Carlos Raul: (12:33) please Joran

  Carlos Raul: (12:33) can you speak SLOWER

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:33) Thanks please send to

  Carlos Raul: (12:33) Danke

  Greg Shatan: (12:34) Seemed slow to me, but I'm a native New Yorker.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:36) Sorry to join late.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:37) How is it an open issue any different to today - the Board would set out the case, persuade the community to its case, and move on.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:37) hi Steve!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:37) but the comment was made, and so is properly analysed :-)

  Asha Hemrajani: (12:38) Good evening/good morning from Singapore

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:38) hi Asha, welcome along

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:42) i'm very impressed there are 24 ppl on this call

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:42) well done team

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:47) thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:48) heh

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Treating unfunded project or activities is an important issue and the Board should be given some flexibilty to find resource to fund that

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Jonathan and Cherine, thanks well done

  Gonzalo Navarro: (12:53) Kavouss +1

  holly j. Gregory: (12:55) Dear all, I wish I could stay on for entire call, but my plane is about to take off.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:55) safe flying, Holly!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:55) Take care holl

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:55) holly

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:56) Steve, to me it looks like a sensible way to present it to the CCWG

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:58) I have re-sent Grace's email around the WP1 list

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:59)

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:59) Here is the link

  Carlos Raul: (12:59) @Steve I agree with your proposal to present it to the CCWG

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:00) i am personally relaxed about this proposal (and in any case it's for CCWG debate) - because these review teams are intended to be thoughtful reviews to raise consensus recs - it seems OK to me if the "balance isn't perfect" per se

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:01) +1 Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:01) Tks Steve for explanations

  Asha Hemrajani: (13:02) Sorry, I will need to leave the call now.  Have a good rest of the call.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:02) "allocated to" rather than "requested by"

  Carlos Raul: (13:02) there are also people with multiple hats

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:02) Bye Asha, see you in Dublin

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:04) To add to Alan's point, when you look at the AOC RT composition, you will see that the selectors adjusted the composition per review.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) Gree with your suggestion Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:04) at the end of this presentation, we will loop around to ask for any comments on this paper as a whole. So those of you who might take a little longer to decide any questions will have the chance to raise them

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:05) Once again ,I support the suggestion

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:06) Steve thanks indeed it was wellcone as usual.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:07) well done

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:08) He did

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:08) appologize

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:10) Avri can you lower the volume on your microphone = microphone  icon at the top of the Adobe page

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:10) thanks

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:10) The quality of audio is poor

  Alan Greenberg: (13:11) The AoC review team composition was sent by Grace on 7 Oct at 17:29.  It contains substantive information and we should review it during this meeting.

  Greg Shatan: (13:12) I have circulated the Total Recall paper.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:13) Alan+1

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:14) Not only needs to be capture but it should be highlighted as it is an important issue

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:17) we've noted that point as the first bullet point in the "Areas of Concern/Divergence"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:17) bottom of page 4

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:18) Kavouss, this is noted here

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:18) it's recorded

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:19) (if you are talking about regulating how SOs and ACs make decisions, I don't think we should go there....)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:20) NO aLAN

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:20) mY UNDERSTANDING IS NOT AS YOURS

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:20) Binary decisions from each AC/SO.  I think that is an important point, Alan

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:20) i AM SORRY THE ISSUES IS NOT THAT

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:20) Very different from "split" decisions

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:21) I took from Board comments that they want 1) only an up or down from each SO or AC, 2) consensus among the SOs/ACs to exercise the power

  Alan Greenberg: (13:21) The GNSO, for instance, does not have any mechanism to reach "consensus".

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:21) I don't think anyone has started wanting to tell the SOs or ACs *how* to make decisions

  Alan Greenberg: (13:21) @Jordan, exactly!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:22) StEve+ 1

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:22) @Kavouss: does the upper case mean you're shouting? It tends to give that impression

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:22) Jordan,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:23) We need to fully understand what is mentioned in the Petition step

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) You are saying that there is no mention on how  so and AC decide,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) I do not share your understanding

  Alan Greenberg: (13:24) A comment by a Board member on what they meant would be useful at this point.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:24) Kavouss, the petitioning step to start a power is independent of the model

  Avri Doria: (13:24)

  Alan Greenberg: (13:25) There is a lot of confusion when talking about voting/consensus whether we are talking about WITHIN an AC/SO, or AMONG them.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:26) Yes there is a confusion

  Avri Doria: (13:28) will try to clarify that whee the confusin arise.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:28) Please kindly read the whole process

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:28) Greg, my advice would be, don't worry about a little bit of duplication

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) the change you make here looks nice and clear

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:29) There is some shortcoming and confusions

  Carlos Raul: (13:30) @Greg

  Carlos Raul: (13:31) define standards

  Carlos Raul: (13:31) requiered skills?

  Carlos Raul: (13:31) or behaviour as pro tempore members?

  Carlos Raul: (13:31) txs George

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:32) I always take an assumption that where we aren't saying something will change, then something stays the same. But that's just me.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:32) Having it clear in the paper is a good idea.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:33) Alan --- can you post the reference here

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:33) I missed it

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) Jordan, the problem is that every thing is merely on theory and difficult to put them in practice . Moreover, each steps has been studied independent of other steps whereas all three ststept

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) are interconnected

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:35) Kavouss, do you think some flow diagrams would help?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:35) I certainly think of the entire system we are presenting in our Second Proposal as an integrated system, but it isn't easy to see this all the time, I agree.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:36) Yes and with the was in which the two steps of Petion and Decions are implemented / taken

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:36) Tks for your kind understanding Joradn

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:37) This document can be found at

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:37) under Board Recall - lookk for version 3

  Alan Greenberg: (13:38) I'm not debating the timeframe, just saying that we need to be specific on implications

  Gonzalo Navarro: (13:38) Allan, Kavouss, just reviwwing your previous clarification on the chat. My personal understanding is that 2 things were proposed 1) that SOs/ACs should express their position on an item through resolution. and 2 those SO/AC based decisions then are calculated to demonstrate support/lack of support for that power

  Gonzalo Navarro: (13:38) sorry your previous request fo clarification

  Alan Greenberg: (13:39) It is unlikely tat the NomCom will have 8 names in reserve who can and will actually serve.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:39) Alan: Yep. But it will have to organise to have two at least to sit on the Interim Board, and the SOs and ACs should be able to elect people in that timeframe

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:40) you could simply say that at the 120 day limit, the replamcenet directors that have been elected get seated

  Gonzalo Navarro: (13:40) Nª 1 may be reached by using SO/ACs existing processes for decision making through their governing bodies (like the GNSO Council, for example), could express support/lack of support for the use of a power

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:41) but we just need to note this needs to be solved.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:42) it cna't

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:43) I agree with Greg. This is a non problem we have already solved.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:44) @Jordan, you cann be sure the NomCom will have 2 in their back pocket. It is possible that the people they have identified are no longer interested (either at all, or because of the ICANN turmoil). It is a best-efforts issue at best.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:44) cann=cannot

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:44) Please re-read p1-2 in the doc on screen

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:45) it's fairly represented there as an item to consider

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:46) 6) is again fairly represented as a matter for the CCWG to consider, it's clearer with these changes

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:47) The course of action and the associated procedure are not sufficiently solid and may result some destability in the process

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:47) Kavouss: we have to draft bylaws. That is when every detail will be spelled out.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:48) (my preference is that we have draft bylaws for *everything* in our Third Draft Proposal.)

  Alan Greenberg: (13:48) Will whoever is typing PLEASE MUTE

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48) Yes but we need to include a cautionary statement in the process.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:49) that is #1, Alan

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:49) Jordan, we are dealing with a very delicate and sensitive subject we should be sufficiently prudent

  cherine chalaby: (13:54) FYI, I just sent  to WP1 a new note on the Budget veto

  Gonzalo Navarro: (13:54) Thanks for this call. I have to leave

  Gonzalo Navarro: (13:55) Safe travels to all of you

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:57) Thanks Gonzalo, see you

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:57) Note to WP1: I pasted all of page 3 from Grace's document into v5 of the AoC review public comment analysis

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:57) all of page 2, I meant

  Alan Greenberg: (13:58) Past AoC reviews, excluding Board and experts, was 13, 12, 12 and 11. Certainly the one I sat on was already a bit unwieldy. Out current 21 is WAY too high.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:59) I reckon we should consider cutting it from 3 to 2 each.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:59) Grace, tks for the documents asd  tks for  clear and concisepresentation

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:02) People do 'take as much as they can get' in this environment at times :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:02) So if we say 21, someone is going to be sad if it isn't 21

  Alan Greenberg: (14:02) @Jordan, yup

  Avri Doria: (14:03) BTW I disagree about it being too many or unmanageable in a review group.

  Avri Doria: (14:03) but am also fine with 14 as a guideline, as that is not too few.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:03) @Avri, I am not convinced that going from 14 to 21 increases the number of active workers.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:03) and the last thing we want is to make anone sad :)

  Alan Greenberg: (14:04) If we end this meeting early, I will not be sad!

  Avri Doria: (14:04) Aln, neither am i, that is one reason i don't think it matters.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:06) It matters because it greatly increases costs and logistic difficulties. Even people who do not do any work often travel and insist that meetings be held at times that they can be present

  Carlos Raul: (14:06) thanks!!!!

  cherine chalaby: (14:07) See you all in Dublin.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:07) bye all

  Avri Doria: (14:07) good and safe travels everyone

  Greg Shatan: (14:07) Bye all!

  • No labels