Members, Participants, Guests:  Aarti Bhavana, Alan Greenberg, Alex Deacon, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Asha Hemrajani, Athina Gragkouli, Audrey Plonk, Avri Doria, Barbara Wanner, Becky Burr, Bill Drake, Brenden Kuerbis, Brett Schaefer, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Disspain, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Demi Getschko, Desiree Miloshevic, Diego Canabarro, Duncan Burns, Eberhard Lisse, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Filiz Yilmaz, Finn Petersen, Fiona Asonga, Gloria Katuuku, Gordan Chillcott, Greg Shatan, Greg Wood, Guru Acharya, Izumi Okutani, James Gannon, Jamie H, Jan Scholte, Jandyr Santos Jr, Jeff LaVee, Joe Catapano, John Curran, John Demco, John McCormac, Jonathan Zuck, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Kate Wallace, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kelvin Wong, Kevin Espinola, Konstantinos Komaitis, Leon Sanchez, Lito Ibarra, Luca Urech, Lyman Chapin, Lynn St.Amour, Maggie, Malcolm Hutty, Mamadou, Margie Milam, Mark Carvell, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, McTim, M Ermert, Milton Mueller, Niels ten Oever, Nurani Nimpuno, Ole Jacobsen, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Paul Szyndler, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Rafael Perez Galindo, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Rory Conaty, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Savine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Sorina Teleanu, Stephanie Perrin, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Rickert, Thomas Schneider, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tom Dale, Tomohiro Fujasaki, Tracy Hackshaw 

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Rosemary Fei, Steven Chiodini 

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Emily Pimentel, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Theresa Swinehart, 


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




1.  Welcome, Roll call, SOI  (08:00-08:05)

2.  Decision-Making (08:05-09:05)

3.  Work Plan (09:05-10:00)

4.  Affirmation of Commitments into Bylaws (10:00-10:15)

5.  Next Steps (10:15-10:25)

6.  A.O.B (10:25-10:30) 


Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Brenda

>  Brenda Brewer:Hi Kavouss!

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi those who are early joining as well as those who

>will hjoin later

>  Brenda Brewer:Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this

>chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants,

>ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room”

>participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out

>loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have

>one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>.

>When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic,

>once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start

>your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside

>these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read

>out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the

>session time will not be read aloud.All chat sessions are being

>archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:


>  Kavouss Arasteh:Giood Moirnng EIGHT WISE

>  Guru Acharya:@Grace: Hi. Have notes from yesterdays meeting been put

>online? I missed the second half and would like to review them if


>  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):Good morning CCWGers!

>  Bruce Tonkin:Good morning Holly

>  JTC:oh hey everyone, long time no see

>  Matthew Shears:morning

>  Seun Ojedeji:good morning

>  JTC:Slide deck should be in your inbox, team

>  JTC:oh I better fix the name

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur)::)

>  Seun Ojedeji:Anyone with the direct url to the scribe caption

>  alice jansen:@ Seun -


>  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Alice

>  Seun Ojedeji:Hmm..that seem to be audio stream, I meant the scribe

>  Brenda


>  alice


>  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks

>  Bruce Tonkin:My suggestion fo rhte decision making mechanism is to

>start with the 4 organizxations that appoint Board members directly -

>ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, and ALAC.   Require these 4 orgnaizations to reach

>consensus on exrcising the dutires of the single legal entity.

>  Seun Ojedeji:I think thats a fair response from Julie

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Thank you Julie for that very

>clear statement from SSAC.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Require that the single legal entity formally notifgy

>GAC, SSAC and RSSAC of plans to exercise their ppowers and ask if they have

>any advice.   If they do have advice then require the  ASO, GNSO, ccNSO

>and ALAC to meet with that AC to have a dialgoue, and then ASO, ccNSO,

>GNSO, ALAC then make a collective decision based on that advice.

>  Bruce Tonkin:This would be more consistent with hwo the Board

>operates today.

>  Brett Schaefer:+1 Bruce

>  James Gannon:FUll agreement with Bruce

>  Matthew Shears:this was the view of those suporting what I believe

>was the third minority option in the proposal

>  Seun Ojedeji:+1 Bruce. That said, overall efficiency in these

>processes is important. I doubt these won't be running into many months

>  Seun Ojedeji:<question> If 2 months is for instance set for community

>forum to determine the consensus view on an issue and then after 2

>months, there is no clear direction, what happens? <question>

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Seun, none of our processes give

>the Forum two months to do anything, and in any case, none of our

>powers determine consensus in the Forum. So I am a little confused by

>your question

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:need to note also that in Pc 2 responses the

>ALAC on the 5:2  proposed to indicate preference for an equal ratioed

>system in the Pc stated as 5 across the system,  but the primary intent

>was preference to equity

>  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan i just gave 2 months as an example and i did not

>say community forum decides. My question is generally asking what

>happens when a particular escalation step does not come with an outcome

>within the set time range. For instance IRP is set for 6months, what

>happens if there is no outcome after 6month?

>  Julie Hammer (SSAC):Bruce, as I see it, SSAC would wish the Community

>to ensure that SSAC was able to be fully informed right from the

>beginning of any accountability process so that it could provide fully

>informed, independant and TIMELY advice into the process.

>  Matthew Shears:this demonstrates the absolute need for clarity in how

>we describe the mechanism

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:exactly Jordan

>  James Gannon:+1 Julie

>  Julie Hammer (SSAC):PS I should have specified that advice on

>security and stability issues, should any exist.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:and discussion yes I have found the SSAC

>intervention as very useful to our thinking and

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Seun, for the community powers:

>if the timelines aren't kept, the power falls over.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I don't know about IRP.

>  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan can you kindly explain what you mean by "falls


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):oh sorry - it just stops

>  alice jansen:The slide-deck can be found on the wiki -






>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):e.g. if within the timeframe for

>decision, there's no decision made, nothing happens

>  Matthew Shears:Hi Julie, if the community were to decide to change

>the IFO for performance failures would the SSAC decide to participate

>in the consensus call?

>  Seun Ojedeji:Okay stops in the sense of not to be taken up again will

>be a good thing, otherwise it would not be helpful

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):there can't be a ban on making

>another attempt to exercise the power

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:We lose granularity of views - minority

>views by moving to a single vote for each SOAC in the counting (however

>you call it).  We need to ensure we can include the minority views in

>the voting / consensus - decision making - what ever it is called.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):except in the case of no decision

>in removing an individual board member

>  Julie Hammer (SSAC):Matthew, the SSAC would not participate in the

>consensus call, but in that situation I am sure that it would provide

>very specific advice regarding any security and stability aspects, and

>I would expect that advice to be suficiently powerful to enable the

>Community to make the best decision in the consensus call.

>  Matthew Shears:@ Julie - thanks!

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I think part of this is about how

>much uncertainty in decisional paths people want to wear

>  Malcolm Hutty:We still need to achieve clarity as to whether GAC

>advice to the contrary would qualify as an "objection", or (like the


>advice) should simply be taken into account by others in deciding

>whether to object but would not count as an independent objection.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:GAC will have its vote in the

>decisionmaking process PLUS its ADVICE.  This was something we got a

>lot of opposition to in public comments.  How do we propose dealing

>with the giving GAC the decision PLUS the ADVICE - the double-dipping problem we heard about.

>  John Curran:Interesting.   I somehow expected that use of the community

>powers would occur with  clear consensus after ample community

>discussion (including minority views), while the actual decision (that

>consensus exists for their use) would be very clear and unambiguous.

>  Malcolm Hutty:The previous request from the GAC (for 5 votes)

>indicates to me that they want their advice to be capable of counting

>as an objection; today's communique saying that the curent role of the

>GAC must be preseved points to following the same route as the SSAC

>  Andrew Sullivan:It does seem that an awful lot of people are

>imagining that discussion and so on will go on in locked rooms where

>nobody can hear it

>  Andrew Sullivan:I'd like to imagine that instead such discussions

>could happen in public, so that it would be easy to evaluate the

>strength of consensus.

>  Matthew Shears:the discussions oin the community forum would take

>place in public

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:well said Thomas S

>  Farzaneh Badii:GAC represents national governments not people .

>  Desiree Miloshevic:congrats Thomas

>  Andrew Sullivan:In the IETF, where we use humming, the silence does

>so count

>  John Curran:One wonders whether there should be some form of written

>positions (or advice) from each SO/AC going into a forum... I am unsure

>how to otherwise carry the perspectives of the other SO/AC's back to the

>number community.   It's unclear that everyone will participate/watch a

>community forum.

>  Andrew Sullivan:The fact that you get almost no hum on either side of

>a clear qustion, for instance, would be an important indication of

>strength of consensus

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):John, the notion is that there'd

>be a write up of the dialogue

>  Matthew Shears:@ John - we have outlined the escalation path in more

>detail and it does include information sharing, etc. as you suggest


>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):the last Communique can be found here:


>  Andrew Sullivan: might be

>useful for people to have a look at on how the IETF handles these

>"consensus" questions (the IETF uses rough conensus, of course)

>  Andrew Sullivan:(note also that document isn't normative.  It's just

>a description of things)

>  John Curran:question for cllarity purposes (not for the WG, but

>anyone on chat who might know) - Is the community forum a meeting of

>liaisons who are carrying their SO/AC positions, or empowered

>repressentatives who (in the room) must be able to express/withhold support after discussion?

>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):and the GAC consensus input on the

>second draft:




>  Bruce Tonkin:I assume RSSAC would likely have a similar approach to


>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@John, the forum precedes the call for consensus

>among the SOs and ACs

>  John Curran:i.e. would the attendes from each SO/AC be required to be

>able to express a position post-discussion, or would they carry the

>views expressed back to their SO/AC for each SO/AC to determine its

>final view based on its own consensus process?

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):the latter, John.

>  James Gannon:The latter

>  John Curran:so, the latter.  There's a forum for sharing of views,

>and then (later) each SO/AC would formally decide its final view and

>supply to the community mechanism?

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):yes

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Yes.

>  Matthew Shears:yes

>  James Gannon:Correct under my understanding

>  Seun Ojedeji:Thats right John

>  Andrew Sullivan:I thought the existing role was advice to the Board.

>Aren't we talking about the scenario where there's a dispute between

>the community and the board?

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):the forum's purpose is to bring

>transparency to the deliberation and to ensure SOs and ACs make their

>decisions in the knowledge of cross-community views.

>  John Curran:Thanks - apologies for excessive questions.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):hey, at least the answers are


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur)::)

>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):This was the GAC consensus input on

>the specific issue of voting as proposed in the second draft report:

>"However, the possibility that the GAC may, in the future and upon its

>sole decision, fullyparticipate in the "Community Mechanism" as an

>entity entitled to 5 votes (on equalterms with the Supporting

>Organizations – SOs – and the At Large Advisory Committee– ALAC) should

>be included in the Final report of the CCWG in line with what

>iscontained in Section 6.2 of the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal."

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:GAC's current role is to advise the ICANN

>Board.  There's no question that would be preserved.   Question is, would

>GAC also like to advise the Community Mechanism we are designing.    2nd

>question:  would GAC's advice to the CM sometimes be clarified as

>either Support or Objection?

>  avri:I am not sure i see any reasn why the thresholds need to change

>based on having 5 instead of 7.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@avri, you might have a point

>  avri:also, the SSAC method may give them more power in some sense as

>there is an expectation that their advice will count in each of the

>ACSO decsion proceedures as opposed to just being 1 countable unit.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):because you are demanding

>unanimity for the exercise of community powers

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Avri -- I think you are right about the

>threshholds.  They may work to measure strong support in absence of

>strong objections.  Even with only 5 expressing preference.

>  FIONA ASONGA (ASO):@Avri I agree with you we need a decision making

>process that is clear regardless of 5 or 7 ACSO

>  Matthew Shears:agree

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:thanks Kavous Infinite that two typesets

>advice helpful to understand

>  Brett Schaefer:Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a decision made

>based on level of support?

>  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark:+1 Izumi

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:agreed

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Agree with Izumi. The most important thing is

>to hear each other's opinions and engage and the proposed framework

>allows for that

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Participzation on decision making has two aspects

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I think we need a sub-team of WP1

>to try and crunch this to a conclusion, and fast

>  Matthew Shears:agree Jordan

>  James Gannon:+1 Jordan

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):we clearly aint going to solve it

>in the next three minutes

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:yes we do

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Participating in providing input to the process and

>participatiobn providing input to be taken into account and acounted to

>fulfill the threshold required in the last column

>  John Curran:If an SO does not provide _any_ response  "in favor" or

>"in objection" to use of community power, how does that get counted? 

>Is that what the GAC is effectively doing when it prvoides a brief

>which doesn't express formally support or objection?

>  Julie Hammer (SSAC):Steve, the SSAC Charter is not only to advise the

>ICANN Board, but also the ICANN Community.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:yes that's clear from your intervention this

>morning Julie but important to get the record clear

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Julie -- and the GNSO pays keen attention

>to GAC advice.   But there's nothing in the GNSO Operating procedures to

>explicity consider or respond to SSAC.   As far as I know

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Julie -- and the GNSO pays keen attention

>to SSAC advice.   But there's nothing in the GNSO Operating procedures to

>explicity consider or respond to SSAC.   As far as I know

>  Julie Hammer (SSAC):No agree...I was only clarifying who the SSAC is

>chartered to provide advice to.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:how are the granuality of views taken into

>account in this proposal for each SO-AC counts as a single unit in the

>decision making process?  We would lose the inclusion of minority views.

>  Kavouss Arasteh:In my view GAC may provide advice to help others how

>GAC thibnks on that issue, then the next step is whether that consensus

>advice is counted in processing the requirements of the last column

>  Matthew Shears:I don't think we can exclude SOs and ACs from

>participting based on the power in question

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Matthew, yeah there's always an exception case

>where they ARE interested

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:yes

>  Kavouss Arasteh:The same input  advice which may not be counted in

>the last column outcome could be given by SSAC AND ... ( NON COUNTED


>  John Curran:Understood... the GAC advice may often being much like

>the SSAC advice.  However, if the GAC doesn't take a formal

>"support"/"object" position, is that any different (in terms of

>consensus to use the power) than when an SO fails to formally take

>"support" or "object" position?  (effectively, abstain or unable to

>reach internal cosensus in the allowed time)

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:This proposal does make GAC decision makers

>- that is not alligned with the existing model.  It is a change in the

>corporate governance structure, which we've heard is a non-starter.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Some of the "commuikyt powers" need to be thought about in

>the context of the particular change being requested.   For example with

>respect to "Black changes to regular bylaws" -= I think at a minimum

>you will need the support of teh SO or AC that may be directly affected

>by a bylaw change - e.g changing the bylaws for SSAC for example.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Also if a bylaws change is an outcome of a policy

>deveopment process - e.g a change to the PDP process for the GNSO -

>again I thin that may require a different threshold for other SOs or

>ACs to change.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Bruce, has the Board changed its previous

>stated view about not allowing a change in the corporate structure?

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Bruce , that would those cases that GAC advice to be

>counted because the change of Bylaws could impact the operation of GAC

>  Bruce Tonkin:The key I think is that there is a communit ofurm where

>all the advice from advisory committees can be properly consdiered -

>and then set a minimum level of support required from the SOs and ALAC. 

>Ie eitehr 3 of them or all four of them.

>  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]:+1 Jorge

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Yes, Bruce.  That sounds reasonable.

>  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:Well said Jorge

>  Bruce Tonkin:While the GNSO may not reach a unanimous decision ona

>topic - then certainly in the resolution fo the GNSO a miniotory view

>of those on the GNSO that disagee with a deicsion shoudl be duly noted.

>  Bruce Tonkin:@Robin - at the mment I am making personal contributions

>to help move the discussion forward.   We have not yet had a meeting to

>discuss any of these ideas.   I am making stuff up in other words.

>  Matthew Shears:@ Bruce - that is the purpose of the community forum -

>after which the existing theshold or a higher one is then set per the

>chart.  are you sugesting that the post community form threshold will

>be determined at the fourm?

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:indeed Jorge thank you for your clarity of

>position Which understand and agree with

>  Kavouss Arasteh:There is an important element to be serioiusly

>considered and that is the composition and defintion of column 4 which

>requires 4 support and 1 against , If SSAC and RSSAC do not participate

>or have non counted advice then remains 5 which include 3 SOs and 2 ACs

>which results that GAC consensus advice shall be counted

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I do not support any decisional

>system that concetrates voice and decision in the way that says "each

>SO or AC participating only can say support or object." It is a far

>worse system than what we proposed in our Second Draft Proposal.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Completely agree, Jordan.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Jordan - we need to find a way to revisit their

>impressions of the proposed model now that they know the implications

>  Jandyr Santos Jr:Very good comments, Jorge

>  John Curran:one cannot compel an SO/AC to say either "support" or

>"object" as their final view...  at a minimum, "no view"/"abstain" must

>be possible, since it is possible that an SO/AC internal timing process

>for consensus may not converge in time.

>  avri:i think we have to remember that the issue of the CM is consensus.

> the pwoer exists only when the community, however many countable SOAC

>are particiting, is mostly in agreement.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):yes that too John - it's not what

>they are going to say that is my concern so much as the fact that each

>of those aggregations only has one "say". That's a big shift from what

>we had earlier proposed. We need somehow to combine that voice with the

>drive to consensus decision-making. That's the challenge.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:I don't think we can send the report to

>chartering orgs at the same time as public comment.

>  Matthew Shears:are we asking the community to comment on both or to

>hold comments until the detailed report is issued?

>  Chris Disspain:The Board would like to thank you for Christmas 2015

>being a Board workshop! :-)

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Chris: well, sorry about it. :)

>  Chris Disspain:and a happy new year to you all!!

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I might go on strikes for two


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):hide in a beach

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):don't get me started on Board Christmas


>  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:+1 to Avri´s comment about "professional


>  Matthew Shears:for the community outside ICANN what are we asking

>them to comment on - the summary or the detailed report?

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):both

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):but they just get the first bit


>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Avri, one thing to remember is that the ultimate

>audience are NOT experts in this so we need to go through the painful

>translation processd

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:The 6 Chartering Orgs determine whether

>to advance the CCWG proposal to the board/NTIA.  So public commenters should

>work to influence the Chartering Org they are participating in.   If an

>"outsider" wants to comment, we invite them to provide a comment , too.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Great point, James, we are doing this

>backwards if we don't know the facts before filling a timeline.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Steve...because the role of such an "outsider"

>would be advisory?...;)

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):the internet community outside

>ICANN are outsiders now, are they?

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@James -- agree about asking chartering

>orgs about timeline.   You and I are in GNSO, and it is tough to know

>dates we could meet, even knowing the GNSO has scheduled call in

>mid-December, etc.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@James, we need dates to which we aspire or we

>will all spend too much time thinking aboutd getting going. we've done

>pretty well thus far meeting our aspirational goals

>  Chris Disspain:I suggest that the Chairs of CCWG formally write ot

>Chairs of each SO and AC asking if the peoposed time line is workable

>and whether that SO or AC is likley to require a face to face meeting

>  Keith Drazek:How many people in this room are attending IGF....the

>week before the report is due to be delivered to the chartering organizations?

>  Bruce Tonkin:I think it is fine to cosndier some scenarios from a time

>frame point of view.    AS others have noted it will evolve as facts

>become available.   THis is j.ust one rather ambitious scenario

>  Seun Ojedeji:@James its good to have a timeline and then ask the

>SO/AC what they think about it. Its also important to ask staff/board

>as well especially if there will be intersessional

>  Bruce Tonkin:At least it highlights some of the dependencies

>  avri doria:Jonathan, perhaps you are right, but then we need to

>figure far more ime into the writing.  though maybe a journalist would

>do. they write quickly and are versatile at understnading.

>  Becky Burr:ouch Keith, good point

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Not me, Keith.

>  James Gannon:Johnathan, I think we will ahe to agree to disagree on

>our meeting our previous aspirational dates =)

>  James Gannon:@Keith I know I will be and many many others

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):oh god, the IGF

>  Chris Disspain:I'll be there

>  avri doria:any schedule is aspirational - there is the hope that

>people will work to try and meet it.

>  Keith Drazek:Perhaps a show of hands of IGF attendees? Just being


>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):I'll be there, participating and drafting ;)

>  James Gannon:Yeah would be a good point of fact Keith, can the

>cochairs do a call in the room for hands

>  Keith Drazek:Sounds like we should request a meeting room with

>support at the IGF meeting.

>  avri doria:one good thing about working over the holidays is that

>most other work is halted.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Keith, THAT is a an excellent idea!

>  Bruce Tonkin:The IGF will hold its 10th annual meeting in João Pessoa,

>Brazil, on 10 to 13 November 2015.   I don't know whther that helps - I

>guess there are some proportio nof the CCWG that will attend that

>meeting.   WOn't be me though :-)

>  James Gannon:Yes if can get a room that we can work in and out of

>over the IGF ad-hoc

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:When Roelof said "input from the

>community" I think he means from community Chartering Orgs and also

>from those who aren't part of any chartering org

>  Keith Drazek:A blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while! ;-)

>  Erika Mann:We should spend Christmans and NY all together ...

>  James Gannon:Pedro might be able to help us with that =)

>  James Gannon:Erika I like that idea =)

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):James, you're just trying to divert

>attention from the fact that we're still to hold an F2F at your house...

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:I hate the idea, but it made me grin


>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):@Erika LOL! +1

>  James Gannon:hahaha

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):Good points, Athena -- I do think

>we need to ge tthis done

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you Jordan

>  Jandyr Santos Jr:Getting a meeting room with support at the IGF  is

>not a problem. Can easily be done. Let us know if this is the case

>  James Gannon:Ok brilliant we should discuss this under AOB

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):@Jandyr I think we need one

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:ensure there is good remote participation

>options then...

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):+1 Cheryl

>  Alan Greenberg:We may want to extract from the report proper the

>history and evolution and put that in an annex.

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):(Guess who's not going to IGF...)

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):+1 Sebastien!

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:I had not planned to but could if needs be...

>  Kavouss Arasteh:For certains ACs and possibly certains OS the need to

>have intersessional sedxsion is fundamental thus we need to have a

>tentative time for that in order that every body could prepare its

>agenda for the first two weeks of Januarya

>  Malcolm Hutty:What have we got to unwrap on Christmas morning....ooh,

>a new staff summary to read. Just what I always wanted.

>  FIONA ASONGA (ASO):@Mathew Weill, we may need to consider developing

>an editorial work party to ensure the writers don't misrepresent for

>any reason

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:If we have an intercessional, let's please

>consider doing the intensive Adobe Connect sessions

>  Alan Greenberg:I tend to agree that a F2F would be good, but the

>timeline does point to Dec 22 as the right date.

>  Kavouss Arasteh:GAC will meet immediately after CCWG meeting and may

>be goiod to decide on that need provisionally

>  Malcolm Hutty:Dec 22 is a crazy date for a F2F.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):can we keep "intersessional" for

>an ICANN wide thing, and if we have a meeting of this group, call it an F2F?

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):+1 Jordan

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):+1 Jordan

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):and let's stay right away from


>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Yes, 22 Dec. would be very exclusive for a


>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:where did you extract that date for F2f

>Malcolm. I see Jan

>  James Gannon:Before we talk of intersessionals we need to reach out

>to the GAC and ask for their position on making the call on the CCWG

>report intersessionally,

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 Rapporteur):I know that nobody has a veto,

>but it would be beyond madness to do anything 22-27 December

>  Malcolm Hutty:Jan 4th would work much better though.

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):+ 1 Alissa

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):No, Malcolm! That's my birthday :)

>  Malcolm Hutty:@Cheryl was replying to Alan

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):Agree Jordan. Complete madness in those


>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:ahhh thx Malcolm

>  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]:As Jandyr said, happy to help to get us

>a room in João Pessoa :-) Let's agree first exactly what we need

>  Malcolm Hutty:@Pedro: that would be hugely helpful

>  Alan Greenberg:@CLO, that was a CCWG F@F to hammer out responses to

>comments and finalize proposal.

>  Alan Greenberg:F2F

>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks, Pedro!

>  Andrew Sullivan:If you've got text that has never received any

>comments or hasn't been changed in response to people's comments, then

>that text is finished.  I don't think that should be controversial.

>  Thomas Schneider (GAC):@steve: absolutely.

>  Alissa Cooper:yes Andrew, that is what I meant.

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Good suggestion from Chris about the SO-ACs

>running the webinar

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:agree 👍

>  Phil Buckingham:+ 1  Chris re webinars

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):How do you add emojis to the chat Cheryl?

>  James Gannon:+1 chris

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:see I too have some secrets skills. Léon

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:😂

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):Jedi powers Cheryl

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:"these are not the druids.... ....  "

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:argh auto correct droid not Druid's

>  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin):I liked "druids", CLO

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:as indeed I doctor...

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:doctor 😷 was typed do. to.  *SIGH*

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):♥

>  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin):Stop showing off, Jonathan and CLO

>  James Gannon:=)

>  Chris



>  James Gannon:The people 'who run the internet' ladies and gentlemen,

>emoji addicts all =)

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:yep guilty as charged  👍

>  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin):Lawyers allowed to use emojis?  :)

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:+1 on Chris's suggestion.   If, say, the

>GNSO hosts a webinar, we might skip the whole slide show thing, and let

>GNSO ask us what they want

>  James Gannon:Is that a additional billing item Rosemary?

>  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin):Happy faces are free.

>  James Gannon:I like that idea Steve

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):I can quit any time....®

>  Samantha Eisner:@Steve, are we still suggesting the option B while

>coordinating with me on language on developing an operational standards

>document for reviews?

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):One might also deem the "painful process"

>itself to be the superglue

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Sam -- whether A or B, I woul invite

>you to give us a paragraph describing management's commitment to

>publish operational standards that lead to workable reviews

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:point @Sabine

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Leon, What happened to my request sent to Lawyers to

>provide text for inclusion in Bylaws to remove defficiencies currently

>exist in separation of PTI. I have to report to ICG this morning at

>1030 pls

>  avri doria:the AOC wre not imported as fundmental

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):And those words were a quote...I would

>of course do it all again in a heartbeat ;)

>  Alan Greenberg:What does an affirmative 2/3 majority mean in our new

>consensus model??????????

>  Samantha Eisner:@Steve, thanks.

>  Greg Shatan:Other than the reviews, I believe every other ICANN

>committment came in from the AoC as fundamental bylaws.

>  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin):While there is currently no requirement

>for any community approval to change the Articles of Incorporation, we

>would expect to add one in.

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Alice

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Pls kindly see my mail

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Rosemary, good catch - we better fix that.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:yep

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):+1 Rosemary

>  Greg Shatan:+1 Rosemary and Robin.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):I support the status quo of our

>report basically, for the reasons the report sets out

>  Bruce Tonkin:Regarding review team sizes - I don;t think we need to

>lock in a number of participants in the bylaws.   The AOC for example is

>not prescriptive.   We may want to start developing a working practices

>document for each type of review and could include standard numbers of

>members through terms of reference etc.

>  Jandyr Santos Jr:Well said, Fiona

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Sometimes I feel like our group

>likes re-considering things just because it can

>  Bruce Tonkin:e.g the Baord has various committees.   We set the nujber

>of members of each committee inthe committee charters and not in the


>  Bruce Tonkin:I think we are trying to put too much into the bylaws.

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Leon

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):Wouldn't a move to Oz suggest criminal activity?


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Bruce: I feel like that

>specifically about the budget item

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Did you kindly read my request reklating PTI


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):the Budget process, I mean

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:In the Articles of Incorporation today:  

>9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least

>two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation

>has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3)

>majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.

>  Alan Greenberg:I strongly support Bruce. In the early reviews, we

>pre-announced the number of members per each AC/SO. Recent reviews we

>are silent and selectors decide. GOOD MODEL TO FOLLOW>

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):do we need a new form of

>"Community Agreed Organisational Policy" to do things like that?

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:that says "Members" and we could change

>that to Designators, right?

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:I support Fiona's statement.

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):+1 Jordan. Not sure budget process needs to be in

>the bylaws

>  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, what would a 2/3 majority of the community

>mean in light of our current model?

>  Brett Schaefer:@Steve, it says "members" would that also apply to


>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Brett -- if we go with Designator, we

>could change that article to Designator

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):@Kavouss Yes. I believe we went through

>it yesterday but I am not suer if you were present or you were already

>at the GAC sessions room

>  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark:+1 Rafael

>  Kavouss Arasteh:No I was not present . Pls what wass the results

>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):what about legal fees as a factor? -

>just joking :P

>  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, again I ask, what does 2/3 of the designator

>mean? ANd is it JUST controlled by those that select Board Members

>(which is all Designator means)?

>  David McAuley (RySG):Good point Jordan

>  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):+1 Jordan

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:As indicated in our published analysis

>of Public Comments, the BC and IPC prefer option B -- making Article

>XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):@Kavouss the result, if I am not

>mistaken, was that the Sole Designator model provided the means to

>comply with annex L of CWG proposal

>  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK 2:+1 Jordan

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:well said @avri

>  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark:With regard to participation in AOC

>reviews, I believe it is important to diversity and balance between groups.

>Moreover, Option A would be more in line with our principle of


>  Mary Uduma:+1 Avri

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Alan -- good question, but I think 2/3

>of a Single Designator would mean that the Single Designator would have

>to say Yes

>  James Gannon:That would be my understading steve

>  Kavouss Arasteh:No it does not as Annex L just talk about enforcing

>the process and not enforcing the decision thus the only way to remedy

>is the recall of the Board which is disruptive. Why not having an

>exception for pti separation by inclusion an intermediatory step for

>that before going to the duisruptive process of the entire Board recall.

>  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK 2:+ 1 Julia  :-)

>  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):Yes @ Steve D.  Correct that we would give

>designators same right to approve amendments to Articles of


>  James Gannon:Kavouss there doesnt appear to be any legal way to do

>that unforunately

>  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, Then it will have to be a new line in the

>chart of thresholds to say how we recognize YES.

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):There is no 2/3 of a designator


>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):it answers yes or no

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:encourage the generation of Standard

>Operating Procedures for the RT's

>  Kavouss Arasteh:then the process is weak

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):the question is the decision

>threshold to say that "yes"

>  James Gannon:I would tend to agree Kavouss

>  FIONA ASONGA (ASO):@ Thomas Rickert +1

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Separation process is the heart of the  post

>transition  .Ifthe board object to approve it , recourse toi the Board 

>is risky

>  Seun:thanks Chris That's healthy

>  Milton Mueller:+1 Kavouss

>  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not understand why it is not piossible to add a

>provision to Bylaws or ... to establish such intermediatry step between

>the two

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Then I advise ICG to indicate this weakness in the

>reoort which would have negative impact on the trasition process

>  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):is it the Spirit of Dublin? or of


>  James Gannon:I like that Jorge =)

>  alice jansen:scorecard -




>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):is the spirit of sleep deprivation a thing?

>  Alan Greenberg:@Sabine: Mandatory requirement

>  Kavouss Arasteh:I am sorry the case has not been seriously considred

>in the CCWG

>  Brett Schaefer:When was the human rights provision discussed? I

>thought it was still in WP4 under discussioon?

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Parties?   We're having parties?

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):@Brett we are working on it in WP4 and

>hopefully have a finalized proposal soon

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany):Who told Steve about our parties?

>  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany)::D

>  Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Alice

>  James Gannon:Damn the secret is out Sabine shut it all down!

>  Kavouss Arasteh:May you send the draft btime line as I did request in

>my e-mail by a separate e-mail pls

>  Samantha Eisner:@Holly/Rosemary, I understood the slide that was

>provided for yesterday's session confirmed paths of enforceability of

>Separation, on Kavouss' comment?

>  alice jansen:Hi Kavouss - I emailed it you a little while ago

>  Kavouss Arasteh:No nothing was provided than those already exists

>  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):@Sam, The separation process is fully

>directly enforceable and the discussion re amending the corporate

>purpose was intended to significantly narrow the gap re enforceability.

>  Kavouss Arasteh:tks

>  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):a small personal crusade of me is

>to see  more of this stuff in front of us in terms of text

>  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark:Thanks for the clarification Holly

>  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:yes, please, Jordan

>  David McAuley (RySG):+1 Tijani

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:I agree Available agree 👍

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):Strongly agree Tijani, + 1 Avri

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:ohh dear auto correct has just made @avri

>available....  sorry @avri embarrassed 😳

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:huge thanks and *hugs* all round... 

>  Farzaneh Badii:thank you .

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO:bye 👋

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):That's a wrap!

>  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):thanks everyone!


  • No labels