Sub-group Members:   Aarti Bhavana, Athina Fragkouli, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, Erika Mann, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Olga Cavalli, Olivier Muron, Paul Rosenzweig, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell   (24)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Karen Mulberry

Apologies:  Avri Doria, Alan Greenberg

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




Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (10/30/2015 12:49) Welcome all to WP1 Meeting #29 at 18:00 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 



  Brenda Brewer: (12:55) Hi Kavouss!

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (13:01) Hello everyone

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (13:01) Hi all!

  Matthew Shears: (13:02) Hello

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:02) Hello all, good day/evening/night

  Chris Disspain: (13:03) is very quiet out there in adobe land

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (13:03) hello all

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:03) Yeah, do we have audio?



  Aarti Bhavana: (13:03) Hi all!

  Greg Shatan: (13:03) You should be hearing Jordan....


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:04) Thanks, Greg, I do now

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:05) hope you can hear me


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:05) Hello!

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:05) The good thing about a friday evening CCWG call, is that you can have a glass of wine with it, without feeling guilty. On your health, everyone!

  Chris Disspain: (13:06) I am joining you here in Ireland, Poelof

  Chris Disspain: (13:06) Roelof even

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:07) @Chris: you had too much already? Misspelling my name....

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:07) It relates to the last column which still talking about agreement and objections whereas we should refer to Consensus agreement in favour and consensus against

  Chris Disspain: (13:07) typing was never my strong point...

  Chris Disspain: (13:08) irrespective of wine consumption

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:08) Kavouss: I don't think anyone disagrees with your suggestion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:08) it is in keeping with what we are aiming here

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:08) Yes I agree that we need at least two against in order not to allow one community block the others

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:08) someone is typing and the speed of Steve´s English is challenging for my second language

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:09) The main impact of re-labeling this "consensus" rather than voting is to change the relative weights in the decision making process of the SO's and ACs (in the opposite direction of what public comment called for).

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:10) We should no longer talk about objection which means voting

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:12) @Jordan: I suggest we use the "I agree" and "I disagree" on these issues

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:12) Roelof: do you mean in respect of the questions I asked in the agenda?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:13) when you say "alters the weight" is that relative to our draft proposal, or relative to the board seats in ICANN today?

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:13) Consensus agreement and consensus disagreement

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:13) @Jordan: yes, but on any issue where you want to now if people support or object

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:13) ..know..

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:13) Roelof, makes sense, thanks

  Chris Disspain: (13:14) thanks Robin

  Chris Disspain: (13:14) clear now

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (13:15) +1 Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:17) Question for CW: Would you favor the existing model (not empowering or elevating any SO-AC relative to the others?  Or only a model that elevates the ACs in the model from today's structure?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:17) So I guess CW is supporting the Support/Objection model instead of majority voting?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:17) I think it has more to do with voting weights, Steve.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:18) oops, not voting "relative decisional weight"

  CW: (13:20) @Steve please explain Support/Objection model.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:21) Agree with Greg.

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:21) In order to enable the ACs to exercise their right in any one of the power, their views shall only be given in form of consensus in favopur or consensus against to also comply with the NTIA that the existing authority and powers of ACs , in partzicular GAC remain unchanged$

  CW: (13:21) @Robin: No majority in ANY decision making process for SOs.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:21) I can't hear anyone - is Chris speaking?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:21) @Greg: I would submit that the voice of experts joining the voice of stakeholders is a good thing.Would you agree?

  Greg Shatan: (13:21) We are disspainless.

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) Roelof:  No, not in a community consensus process.  They should advise the stakeholders, not join them.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:23) FYI -- the Saturday breakout group on these Support/Object threshholds assumed euqal weight among GNSO, ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, and ASO -- just as we had in our 2nd draft proposal.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:23) And we doubted that RSSAC and SSAC would either Support or Oppose, so we set the thresholds accordingly.

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:23) I disagree with the speaker saying ? consensus means agreement reached against? On the contrary cobnsensus could reached in favour or against an issue

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:24) Steve

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:24) That is why the minority views - diversity views should be counted in the overall decision, Chris.  I think that would address that concern.

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:25) Ok leave them to decide to participate or not but it has no impact on dwescription of "  consensus in favour and consensus against"

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:27) On what basis would we move away from a fractional weight?

  Greg Shatan: (13:27) The GNSO Council is a policy management body.  It is beyond its current remit to use it as a sole voice for the stakeholder entities within the GNSO.   That is the root of hte problem with the GNSO.

  KAVOUSS.ARASTEH: (13:28) We would be faced with severe and extreme difficulties if we directly or indirectly refer to objection which has a clear sign of voting

  Brett Schaefer: (13:29) Sorry, just got here. Where in the agenda are we?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) Brett, we are discussing my questions a-c in the agenda as a bit of a block

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:29) Greg, agree, we are mixing apples with oranges by trying to treat every group like it is identical to the others.  We need to take into account the roles of the ACs, and consider it could be mission creep for them to have to start monitoring the budget, board positions, etc.  There is a danger in changing the roles of the ACs and we need to consdier that

  Brett Schaefer: (13:31) I thought we had agreed in Dublin that each SO and AC would be free to decide for themselves how they reached their position and if they wanted to divide their "vote".

  Chris Disspain: (13:32) No we did not Brett

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:32) Brett, that is what is in our 2nd draft reprot.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:32) report

  Brett Schaefer: (13:32) My mistake.

  Chris Disspain: (13:32) what is the question..?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:33) so I don't know why we would move away from that.  it was in our first and second draft.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:33) Jordan, it depends on what it is.

  Erika Mann: (13:33) Can't find my name

  Greg Shatan: (13:33) I thought I knew what the question was, and then I didn't.

  Matthew Shears: (13:34) so this is with respect to question a

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:34) it is changing the relative decisional weight - whatever you call it (voting or consensus)

  CW: (13:34) Jordan: I have to say that I was most surprised by this conference call. The agenda appears to be trying to organise overturning the Dublin consensus. Why are you doing this? CW

  Matthew Shears: (13:34) will you ask the same of points b and c?

  Greg Shatan: (13:35) Doublespeak wins.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:35) I love how we can define words at whim.  another highlight of multi-stakeholderism

  Greg Shatan: (13:35) Why don't we just give it an acronym, so we don't have to drink the Kool-Aid and call this "consensus".

  Erika Mann: (13:36) I joined the call but can't see my name on the list.

  Greg Shatan: (13:36) Erika, you are between CW and Finn

  Greg Shatan: (13:36) Double plus good consensus!

  George Sadowsky: (13:36) Erika, you are there under 'E'

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:37) i'll ask shortly for agreement on the "single point of view" question

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:37) agreement or disagreement

  Sébastien: (13:37) @Erika it may depend on the view of the participants you are using

  Erika Mann: (13:37) Greg, George, seems to be that something is missing on my end. Might leave and come back. Will check. Thanks!

  Sébastien: (13:38) If it is all the participants or by statuts

  Greg Shatan: (13:38) Why don't you call counting ticks and crosses, "consensus"?

  Greg Shatan: (13:38) My head is definitely on the table.

  CW: (13:39) aka straw polls ...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:39) yep, or temp of the room

  Erika Mann: (13:39) A consensus plus

  Chris Disspain: (13:40) But do you square that view with the fact that the gnso has to reach consensus to make policy...surely the same standard should apply

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:41) @Robin -- we could give each AC/SO multiple "votes" to retain the granular nature of our first and second draft proposals.   That could fit with the consensus model by adjusting the threshholds of Support and Object.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:41) Agree, Steve.

  Chris Disspain: (13:41) @ Greg...I wouldn't describe that as anything other than consensus

  Matthew Shears: (13:41) good thought Steve

  Chris Disspain: (13:42) I wasn't suggesting one should use the gnso the same way as one wouldnt use the ccNSO council

  Chris Disspain: (13:42) one would use the membership

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:45) There could be 44% support for something in GNSO, CCNSO, ALAC and 66% against.  That would result in 3 against and 0 for in the final counting, unless we allow for fractional voting

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:46) sorry, 56% ;-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:47) so a community wide strong minority view would not be counted.  that doesn't seem like a good strategy

  Chris Disspain: (13:47) Steve - how would you count the 2 to block or the 3 in favour if you allow split voting?

  Greg Shatan: (13:48) The GNSO as a whole shouldn't be forced to have a single point of view.  It's difficult enough to find a way for the commercial and noncommerical stakeholders to have a common point of view -- except that Robin and I do agree on this point.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:48) right.  And jazz music.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:48) I have no strong opinion, Just to understand both position, I'd like to undertand why it is extremely disruptive to split the votes. 

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:49) Also, are we hearing any concerns from the GAC about splitting the votes?

  Matthew Shears: (13:50) I think we should explore Steve's proposal - see how it plays out

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:50) so do I.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:50) @Chris -- did my explanation answer your question?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:51) If an AC/SO works by internal consensus, it's Yes or No would be counted x5 (or x7)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:51) for me, it would be an issue to empower the GNSO this way

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:51) or rather, disempower the GNSO

  CW: (13:52) Problem with all this arithmetic. Either the issue is minor and resolvable and should neer reach such decision making. OR, the issue is so great that the economic interests outside ICANN would be so impacted that politically, this bean counting would not be a credible contribution to the international decision. CW

  Chris Disspain: (13:52) the gnso council will vote as dorected right?

  Chris Disspain: (13:52) directed'

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:53) I think that's right, Chris

  Chris Disspain: (13:54) so in effect the GNSO council view is not's the constituency views that matter

  Chris Disspain: (13:54) super majority Greg?

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (13:55) I think one vote for GNSO is a concern, we should explore Steve'adaptation of the Dublin approach.

  CW: (13:55) Since this call was not publically scheduled until thismorning, I will have to leave the call now for family reasons. Good night. CW

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:55) GNSO voting procedures: "Unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws, to pass a motion or other action, greater than 50% of the eligible voters in each House must cast affirmative votes. "

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:56) One House is contract parties (Registries and Registrars).  The other House is non-Contract parties (Non-Commercial, BC, ISPs, IPC)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:56) CW: this call was notified a week ago

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:57) and diary notes were sent five plus days ago

  Greg Shatan: (14:00) @Chris , The GNSO Council does not vote as directed -- in most constituencies/SG's, the group comes to a decision and the councilors vote that way; in other groups, the group comes to a decision, but councilors who disagree can vote their own opinion.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:01) The reality is the SO-ACs are not silos - there are some shared objectives among the groups.

  Greg Shatan: (14:02) That's voting -- not consensus.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:02) There are some groups in ALAC and NCSG that agree on issues (when the rest in their groups do not.  why should that voice not count?

  Greg Shatan: (14:03) Also, it's simple majority.

  Chris Disspain: (14:03) I really do apologise that I have to leave...I can see there is much work to do on this and loo forward to helping to move it forward

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:03) We didn't get public comment to say it would be disruptive to have fractional votes.  The public comment said fractional votes were crucial.

  Greg Shatan: (14:04) Given the voting NomCom Appointee in each house, it could come down to whichever SG convinces the NCA of their positionj to get simple majority.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:04) I wonder why SO/AC are supposed to speak with one voice in other processes, but it should not be possible in the exercise of community powers

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:04) that one discussion does not trump all of public comment

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:04) I'm open to consider Steve's option

  Greg Shatan: (14:04) These small groups are quite troublesome because they can be skewed in their make-up.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:05) we promised we'd consider public comment.  We can't ignore it in favor of a single small group discussion.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:05) Here are the Terms of Reference our breakout group was given: ●       Based on objections from SOs and advice from AC ●          No single SO or AC should be able to capture decision-making through a veto right or through lack of broad support/participation ●  Flexibility for SOs or ACs to participate in any particular issue, or on all issues

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:06) Thanks Jordan for explainining - it still is not clear to me what disruptive effects will be caused if we allow splitting of the vote. Perhaps will ask Chris in another opportunity.

  Greg Shatan: (14:06) In the GNSO Council process, an entire stakeholder group can disagree with the remaining 3 stakeholder groups, and the 3 groups will "win," with little or no influence by the 4th group on the end result.  I can't call that a consensus result with a straight face.  And the GNSO Council doesn't call it consensus either.

  Erika Mann: (14:07) We need to play in through with few cases to see how it would work out

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:07) again: why is there a problem with every SO/AC having one voice in this decision-making, when this is what already happens in the existing relevant processes (like a PDP)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:07) propose relative decisional weight in accordance with board structure

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:08) minus the RSSAC and SSAC

  Matthew Shears: (14:08) some variation of the thi5rd minority option in the propoal perhaps

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:09) +1 Matthew

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:11) @staff/rapporteur: add me to the supporters of consensus vs voting on "question 15a"

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:12) Steve's approach is actually what we had in our proposal and did not receive opposition to.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:12) splitting the votes works again consensus building. It creates the wrong incentives. And it is not consistent to how SO and AC work in the existing processes, where they have to come up with one single position

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:12) so we shouldn't switch to this new proposal

  Greg Shatan: (14:12) @Jorge, ina GNSO PDP, there is first a Working Group,which operates by rough consensus, which prepares the PDP Report.  By the time the Report gets to the GNSO Council, the push-and-pull of consensus-building has occurred and is reflected in the report.  If the process works, and all of the SG/Cs are satisfied with the result, the GNSO COuncil vote is almost a formality.  Sometimes, it can get messy, but not most of the time.

  Erika Mann: (14:13) Steve, can we test this model against few possible conflictual cases?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:13) @Greg: why can't this internal consensus building exercise be applied to the exercise of community powers?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:14) Jorge, that model will discount community-wide signficant minority views

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:14) splitting the votes from the start on is an incentive for factions

  Matthew Shears: (14:15) the thresholds are also going to have to scale up if there are now SOs and ACs in the future

  Brett Schaefer: (14:15) What if the GAC chooses no tto participate or only in very rare insances? That takes us down to 4.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:16) @Robin: every SO/AC is free to establish its internal method of decision-making and establish the right incentives not to exclude significant/relevant minorities

  Matthew Shears: (14:16) the uncertainty of participation is tricky when setting thresholds

  George Sadowsky: (14:16) We should NOT assume that the RSSAC and the SSAC wlll continue to stay our of  discussions.  They may choose to join on issues that affect them.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:16) @Brett: please leave the GAC to decide about the GAC participation

  George Sadowsky: (14:17) So any moadel that assumes that once out, always out, will not work.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:17) I'm not telling hte GAC what to do, I'm asking what that does to teh numbers for support or opposition.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:17) The proposal is to switch away from our existing proposal?

  Matthew Shears: (14:17) so thre thresholds wil have to move according to particpation?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:17) how is public comment measured in the ticks and crosses?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:18) I think we haven't had a thorough discussion of the pros/cons of splitting votes

  Greg Shatan: (14:18) Apologize for registering a late vote against.

  Greg Shatan: (14:19) My day job interceded.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:19) returning to split votes would be a big step backwards, regarding what was expressed in the CCWG at large in Dublin

  Brett Schaefer: (14:20) Steve, can we get a variation with only 4 participating SOs and ACs as well? Thx.

  Greg Shatan: (14:21) What if we allow each group to decide whether it will split votes?

  Greg Shatan: (14:21) Or is that already the plan?

  Brett Schaefer: (14:21) +1 Greg

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:21) Greg, that was the plan in second draft, and I believe in Steve's proposal

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:21) That has always been the plan, Greg.  But now a couple are calling to change that and require a single voice.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) @Greg -- if  an AC/SO did not want to split, then all 5 of its votes go one way or the other.   Simple

  Greg Shatan: (14:22) This goes against the "each group decides how to make its decision" concept.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:22) yes, Greg.  somehow we are debating this non-issue

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) We have several communities in the GNSO, these communities would like a direct voice in the community decision process.

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) GNSO is explicitly designed to have factions.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:25) GNSO is supposed to be diverse views

  Greg Shatan: (14:25) Robin, if we keep agreeing, people will question that concept!

  Greg Shatan: (14:25) But, the fact that we can agree that we disagree actually proves the point.

  Greg Shatan: (14:26) We are thrown together to make policy through a multistakeholder process.

  Greg Shatan: (14:26) Kind of a mini-ICANN.

  Greg Shatan: (14:27) So maybe we should just have one vote for all of ICANN, which then hides any objection or minority opinioin.

  Matthew Shears: (14:27) surely the choice of spliting votes or not should be up to the SO and AC to decide ?

  Greg Shatan: (14:29) In GNSO we are different in kind, not merely in opinion.  Even within an SG or C, we have a great deal of diversity as well.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:30) Matthew, you would think so. The GAC is very protective of its ability to decide its decision procedures, you would think that such deference shoudl apply to the other SOs and ACs as well.

  Greg Shatan: (14:31) Why should the IPC's view count only if we agree with a majority of registries and registrars?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:31) I don't see the logic of the opposition to franctional weights.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:31) fractional

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:33) yes to steve's approach

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:33) @Greg: the GNSO is meant to force factions within it to arrive at a consensus, at one voice

  Erika Mann: (14:33) Should be explored

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:34) @Jorge --  rules for how GAC advises the Board are completely different than how GAC expresses its view in the Community Mechanism

  Greg Shatan: (14:34) Jorge, actuatlly, that's quite incorrect.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:34) @Steve: why?

  Greg Shatan: (14:35) Each of the groups within it usually speak separately.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:35) @Greg: the whole structure of the GNSO is meant to get the different interests to work together and come up with one policy... what is incorrect in that?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:35) @Jorge -- just saying that GAC controls how it advises the community mechanism.  THis is not the same as GAC advice to the ICANN Board.  

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:36) So GAC could split its advice to the community -- if GAC wanted to do so.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:36) Jordan, there was agreat deal of discussion about advisoy commitees (except ALAC, which appoints a director) participating in the designator model.  Why are we  not discussing it?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:36) @Steve: I hope we stick to consensus in any of both sides

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:36) I hope so, too, Jorge

  Matthew Shears: (14:37) can an SO or AC say it is not participating and then change its position at the power exercising stage?

  Brett Schaefer: (14:37) Bruce Tonkin offered a speciifc proposal in Dublin to that point, which a number of people supported.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:37) I believe YES, Mathhew

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:37) so where are we on the issue of each SO AC weighted equally?  What about the proposal to explore the weights along board lines (minus RSSAC SSAC)?

  Greg Shatan: (14:38) We use working groups in a lengthy development and consensus process to develop a policy report.  That is not the same thing as giving the GNSO only one vote on a matter outside of gTLD policy development.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:38) I very much thing that SSAC, RSSAC, and GAC should by default be strictly advisory.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:39) Brett, could you take a call and explain your question?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:39) @Greg: it is not "one vote" - it is "one voice". And at the end of a PDP the GNSO has to come up with one opinion, not with 7

  Brett Schaefer: (14:39) I am not on the phone, I can call in if you need me to make my point outside the chat.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:40) 2 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO.  1 vote for ALAC (adjusted by 5 for diversity)

  Brett Schaefer: (14:42) My question is in relation to 2(d), should all SOs and ACs particiapte. I do not they should as "voting" parties. Only those SOs and ACs appointing voting members of the Board should fully participate in the designaotr. RSSAC, SSAC, and GAC should be advisory to the designator.

  George Sadowsky: (14:42) Object to Robin's intervention.  The ACs and SOs are all important, and should not be modeled on the existing corporate Board structure.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:42) returning to votes is a big mistake... and also to return to thoughts of "my SO AC is worth more than yours"... are we in a process os upsetting what was progressed in Dublin?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:42) @Robin - that weight would be a change from our 1st and second draft proposal.  Is there support for that change in CCWG?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:43) Steve, it was one of the main comments we heard in public comment.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:43) it was mentioned as a minotiry view in our second draft proposal

  George Sadowsky: (14:44) Sebastien +1.  We should rather give ALAC two Board seats.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:44) and the public comments on this didn't really point in a specific direction - there was a general view in favour of "less AC more SO" but it wasn't hugely strong in my view

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:45) @Robin -- I'll send you the updated chart so you can revise your version with different werghts, if that helps.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:45) Steve, that would be very helpful.  Thank you!

  Brett Schaefer: (14:47) What is the call in number, pls?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:47) 1-866-692-5726 in US

  Brett Schaefer: (14:48) need pass code, pls

  Brenda Brewer: (14:48) WP1

  Brenda Brewer: (14:48) is Passcode

  Brenda Brewer: (14:49) Brett is available by phone now.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:53) If the board wouldn't GAC as a "member", why would it accept GAC as a "designator"?

  Brett Schaefer: (14:54) Good point Robin

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:54) the board wouldn't GAC

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:54) GAC would not be a Designator.  The Sole Designator is the community.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:54) there's a new one :)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:54) +1 Sebastien

  Brett Schaefer: (14:55) Jordan, so we are only moving forward on majority views? It seems a bit arbitrary since there are a grand total of 22 participants in this call.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:55) But Board wouldn't accept GAC in the Community Member either.  It applies to both models.  Board said it wouldn't accept GAC as having a decision-making role, as that would change GAC's role.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:56) And change ICANN's corporate structure for GAC to have decisional weight

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:56) Dear Robin, why do you speak for the Board? I feel they are participating and can express their views on their own

  Brett Schaefer: (14:56) I would also say that restricting voting for adisory committees does not mean that their voices are not heard.

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (14:56) same time?

  Erika Mann: (14:56) Monday, yes

  Aarti Bhavana: (14:57) yes, 2nd

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) Thanks, Jordan!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) Bye, all!

  Matthew Shears: (14:57) thanks!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:57) see you all later

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:57) bye all

  Greg Shatan: (14:57) Goodbye, all!

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (14:57) Thanks and happy halloween

  Aarti Bhavana: (14:58) Bye all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:58) thanks Jordan, bye!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:58) bye all

  Olivier Muron ISPCP: (14:58) Bye

  • No labels