Members:    Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Richert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (17)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Andrew Sullivan, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Cherine Chalaby, David McAuley, Eric Brunner-Williams, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, Harold Arcos, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Nan Chu, Olivier Muron, Rishabh Dara, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Staphen Deerhake, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina   (27)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Nancy McGlamery, Rosemary Fei 

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Laena Rahim, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen

Apologies:  Malcolm Hutty, Eberhard Lisse, Julie Hammer, Avri Doria, Martin Boyle

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




  1. Welcome, Roll-call, SoI
  2. Mission, Core Values, Commitments (incl. IAB request and transparency)
  3. Decision-Making
  4. Human Rights
  5. A.O.B


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute 
in any way the transcript.


Mission, Core Values & Commitments


IAB proposal raised concerns regarding provisions in the mission statement and suggested three edits. 

Concern is largely related to changing coordinating to supporting. 

For CCWG, issues of timing. Can we make an adjustment at this stage to address concern. Is there a word between coordinating and 
supporting that people would be comfortable with? It is a significant change. 

Is this required for the transition to happen? It could be undertaken under Work Stream 2. 


- Concerns with coordinate but bitter concerns with chapeau i.e. changing to "collaborates ... of Internet". It is a bigger focus. It should 
be accurate description.  

- IAB raised question in ICG. Sensitive issue. We need to import minimal changes to meet requirements. On 1) "coordinate and support 
where necessary" - remaining unchanged. On 2) Domain name including associated root zone - remaining unchanged. 3) coordinate and 
support where necessary" - remaining unchanged.

- Purpose of this revision is that on any part that needs more clarity it needs to be reflected accurately. Language suggested in IAB 
proposal would describe role of ICANN in a more accurate way. Like Becky's suggested language that refines and add clarity. 

- Fail to understsand why we are dealing with this. Community taking advantage of change and pressure of time. Stop conversation and 
move to Work Stream 2, if needed. 

- It is a serious problem for IAB. Second comment period highlighted that it is a critical issue. Proposal creates significant accountability 
measures that are founded on mission statement. Mission includes things ICANN does not do. It is IETF's legitimate purpose. We propose 
language that outlines ICANN's role as understand it to be. ICANN has a policy by virtue of contract but no role in rest of DNS. In addition 
it is going to be made fundamental Bylaw which is also a concern. Find a way to circumscribe ICANN's role. It is a serious problem for our 
real work on Internet. We need to make sure mission statement is limited to what ICANN really is. There are registries ICANN does not 
operate and there is some that it does.

- While current mission is accurate for names, it is too broad for numbers and protocole parameters. Why do we unified scope? 

CONCLUSION - Continue discussion offline. Use Becky's suggestion as reference model. Base discussions with requirements. 

ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion.  

Contracting issue

In Dublin, we came out with consensus that ICANN should have clear ability to enforce his contracts with recognition that ICANN could use 
last minute imposition to bypass consensus policy development. This is language to be given to lawyers. Notion would be that contracts are 
enforceable. Language intended to capture degree of consensus. 


- In accordance with? What is reasonably appropriate? 

- Proposed language does not capture discussion in Dublin. Delete exceeding ICANN's mission and add "in service of its mission"

ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss' refinement edits ("ICANN shall act in 
accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). 

Transparency proposal

In Dublin we discussed the need to ensure provisions related to transparency inherent to membership model would be addressed in designator 
model i..e right of inspection. Documentary disclosure has been on table as part of WS2. Update DIDP policies within two years. Transparency 
of interaction with gov. 


- There is an undue influence of governments on policy decisions. Purpose is last bullet point is to know whether there is governments' 
undue influence. It would also help address mission creep. 

- In Second Draft Proposal, we have AoC provision for document disclosure. It is already part of Work Stream 1. 

- Do we have bandwidth to deal with this now? Does that mean we don't trust WS2 to deal with significant issues? Major concern that any 
contract between government and ICANN could be larger than intended. 

- What is needed beyond what is currently report in quarterly financial report?

- There is a  recognition that DIDP policy as currently implemented 

ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333.

- Bullet point 3 would give assurance against government capture. It needs to be Work Stream 1. 

- Find a credible way to have WS2 happen. 

- Transparency as WS1 is slowing us down. We need to have in WS2. 

CONCLUSION: Bullets point 1 and 2 will be WS1. Bullet points 3 and 4 will be Work Stream 2. 


We need a clear way forward. We need a rationale for why making change in model. 

Call for objections on summary of recommendations 

Sebastien Bachollet objects to a). 


- When rough consensus is achieved but still objections, those who have consensus should look into whether objections are meaningful in a 
way that would require reconsideration. 

- Concerns with including GAC. We don't know if they are going to participate. You need to proceed with two scenarios (1 with 4 - 1 with 5)

--> Stick with 5 as recommended. All get to participate in adhoc system. 

- We may require support but not objection. 

CONCLUSION: We consider these recommendations and third table as basis for our third report. They will be used as basis for drafting going further. 

Human Rights

Proposed Bylaw text that suggest running by lawyers. Transitional Bylaw gives timeframe to develop framework of interpretation. 


- NTIA has said that more you leave to future the less confidence we have is what we are approving is a package. 

- Succinct framework on p3-4 that will be fleshed out in WS2. It provides enough meat on bones to satisfy Strickling test. 

- Bylaw language should be run by lawyers

ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language.

CONCLUSION: We will have lawyers check Bylaw. This is our reference model moving forward.


Samantha Dickinson has joined writers Team. We should have materials to review next week. 

ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion.  

ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss' refinement edits ("ICANN shall act 
in accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). 

ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333.

ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language.

ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback. 


Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (11/2/2015 23:30) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #65 on 3 November 2015 at 06:00 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 


  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (23:44) Good morning

  Alice Jansen: (23:51) Good morning Kavouss!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (23:53) Hi all...

  Harold Arcos: (23:56) Hi Cheryl

  Harold Arcos: (23:56) Hi all. Good very early day :-) 1.30am VE

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (23:57) Hola Harrold

  Harold Arcos: (23:57) Nice to read us again

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (23:57) ata marie! haere mai! welcome!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (23:58) ... and, hello!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (23:59) hi all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (23:59) Jordan  did you in NZ  note the forst FEMALE jockey that one the Melbouirne Cup this afternoon  complete with Purple Green and White colours :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (23:59) I did!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (11/3/2015 00:00) :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:00) top of the hour

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (00:00) Hello, all, at a relatively civil hour here in California.  Hurray for female jockeys!  Or is it jockies?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:01) :-)   Rosemary 

  cherne chalaby: (00:01) Good morning

  Pär Brumark (GAC NIUE): (00:02) Good Morning!

  Sabine Meyer: (00:02) good morning / day / evening everyone

  Lousewies: (00:02) morning everyone!

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (00:02) Hello all

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:02) Jordan, do you ever sleep?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:03) Hello everyone !

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:03) very feint sound - anyone else

  Markus Kummer: (00:03) Hello all

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:03) 65!!!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:03) yay!!!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:03) hello all

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (00:04) Greetings!

  Greg Shatan: (00:04) Hello, all...

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:04) also apologies from AVri

  Greg Shatan: (00:04) David, I hear fine.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:05) ok thanks

  Greg Shatan: (00:05) Private chat is disabled....  Interesting.

  Alice Jansen: (00:07) Please mute your line if not speaking.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:07) please mute if not speaking

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:08) whoever is dragging furniture around, please mute.

  Greg Shatan: (00:08) I guess only my ability to chat privagtely is disabled....

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:10) @greg: some sort of control of chattering organisations? :P

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:10) Jorge : 10 points ! ;-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:10) Don't encourage him, Mathieu!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:11) :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:11) @Greg I just privately chatted you. Did you receive it?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:11) Mathieu

  Greg Shatan: (00:11) I can read chat, but can't respond.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:11) MWe have discussed at length before

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:12) @Greg so it works! :P

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (00:12) Greg, that presents some interesting opportunities . . .


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (00:12) @Brenda/Alice/Grace: I am driving, so my audio is through the phone bridge

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:12) I have a suggestion

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:13) @Kavouss happy to hear it

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:13) will go to you @Kavouss right after Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:13) we can all biombard Greg with input and he is  stuck in receive only mode?!! =>  interesting indeed ;-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:13) maybe he should just update Skype to see if that fixes the bug ;)

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:15) Roelof, do I read this correctly that you are driving and texting/typing?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:16) Sorry I was late.  I came into the meeting about 5 mins ago (I could hear)

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:17) Does anyone have the back story regarding the downgrading of IAB support of ICANN to "Support"?  Curious.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:17) what is the relation of these concerns with our "accountability work"? were these concerns tabled before?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:18) in todfay's ICANN bylaws we have "The mission of  ICANN is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers,... In particular, ICANN:1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet,   ... b.  IP addresses and autonomous system numbers; and Protocol port and parameter numbers.

  Becky Burr: (00:18) but IAB specifically objects to "coordination" in description

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:19) please excuse my current level of ignorance, but: why?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:19) Because it's false

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:19) (still drinking my first coffee of the day)

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:19) aSubine

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:20)  go ahead pls

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:20) Nice echo...

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:20) Izumi is down the well with me!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:20) +1 Leon... we should abstain from inclduing issues at the very last minute, which do not have a direct relation with our work. And apologies if these points were already tabled before

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:20) rescue us!

  Becky Burr: (00:21) this was an issue that the IAB raised in the initial comments.  We elected not to make the requested change at that point, but did not understand the specific concerns at that time

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:21) Yes, the IAB raised this from the very beginning.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:21) I would encourage that we push this discussion at the requirement level : instead of working straight on language, explaining issues / expectations on this topic would be useful for the whole group to follow

  Becky Burr: (00:21) the tension has always been that the IAB suggestion may not really reflect ICANN's role in names

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:21) thank you for that suggestion, Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:22) exactly Becky we need to sort that bit out

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:22) also: does this need dealing with before the transition or can it wait until after?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:22) well, from our first oppoetunity of public comment.  But I agree about language and will try to focus on the high-level point the IAB is trying to make

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:22) that would be most helpful Andrew

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:23) I worry the change from coordinate to support will attract some eyes in the world of governments who might ask "well, someone needs to coordinate it - if ICANN won't do it any more, who will?"

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:23) i heard it w/out cuts

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:23) she has cut out completely fopr me

  Becky Burr: (00:24) not hearing anything?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:24) I am not hearing Roelof

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:24) Roelof we cannot hear you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:24) yes

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:24) and that's an important point to keep in mind

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:25) the wording proposals are certainly unclear and would require a long process to come up with a precise text

  Becky Burr: (00:25) Andrew, would be helpful if you could describe why you feel that the current structure does not allow you to deal with the concern at least on an interim basis

  Becky Burr: (00:26) current structure would allow collaboration language to modify and explicate what "coordination" means in this context

  Greg Shatan: (00:26) I would like to be a nice guy and help the IAB, but this is going to be a significant time suck.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:27) +1 @Becky

  Greg Shatan: (00:30) Does ICANN really have the ability to start promulgating RFCs and protocols just because of this mission statement?  I am skeptical, to say the least.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:30) Andrew, WS2 is still an active part of the proposal, can you comment on Roelof's point about whether this can fit in there?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:31) small agile ST  to work on draft text with Becky's WP then  (obviously including Andrew and any other IAB reaps able to contribute)  with a next week deadline???

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:31) should read IAB Reps  not reaps :-(

  Becky Burr: (00:32) What about skipping chapeau and going right to "ICANN coordinates" names and "collaborates with other bodies"?

  Keith Drazek: (00:32) @Greg: there is an existing risk that ICANN uses RFCs to effectively bypass PDPs and create new obligations on contracted  parties.

  Greg Shatan: (00:33) I would support a more surgical approach as Becky indicates.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:33) "ICANN's mission is to do as follows: to *****, to *****, etc etc

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (00:33) I'm open to consider Beckys suggestion

  Becky Burr: (00:33) the problem is that the chapeau uses one word to describe ICANN's role in several different contexts (names, numbers, protocol, root servers)

  Suzanne Woolf: (00:33) @Becky that's exactly it-- ICANN's roles are different with respect to thos registries

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:34) so the chapeau is just cutesy and "summary" lingo - easy to ditch imho

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:34) Yup Becky that is certainly the case as I undersatand it...

  Suzanne Woolf: (00:34) so using the same word is at best ambiguous

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:35) ICANN's role is different for each of the three.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (00:35) +1 jordan while I'd like to revive the text after the removal.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:35) god way forward Athina...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:35) If the generalities of the Chapeau harm that, do as Becky suggests and ditch it

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:35) I am certainly open to lots of different approaches

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:35) good  not god (darn auto correct)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:35) Agree with Becky's solution: drop the chapeau

  Greg Shatan: (00:35) Jordan, I would not say that -- the chapeau is the wellspring from which all other statements flow.  But we could draft without a chapeau.

  Becky Burr: (00:35) sorry i didn't think about this solution before, but it may work.  perhaps i can circulate to the list for further discussion

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:35) takes me back to a small ST  to draft text then *with* IAB

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:36) There would probably be need for a legal analysis of the implications of any bylaw change at that general level

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:36) I _thought_ we'd documented this already, both in the IAB comments and in various mails, but I am happy to try again

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:37) +1 Jorge

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:37) ndrew: it may just be a pointer to those sources.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:37) I beg your pardon - Andrew!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:37) Andrew, we'd like a summary, that we could include in our report.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:37) Ok, I'll send another mail to the list.  It might take some time -- this is an insanely busy week for me because of IETF

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:37) but I'll try to get it together ASAP

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:38) I'd say if you can send within 7 days, it's probably ok. Becky is the lead contact point

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:38) I know it's not the perfect timing for you :-(

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:40) For that reason, alas, I need to drop :)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:40) @Becky: what does "reasonable checks and balances" mean exactly?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:40) I will put that together ASAP.  Thanks for the collaboration.  I'm sure we can make this go

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:40) Thanks for joining !

  Keith Drazek: (00:40) Thanks Andrew.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:40) Thanks Andrew!

  Greg Shatan: (00:41) in accordance with ... its Mission.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:42) I agree clear to me  WITH its MISSION

  Becky Burr: (00:43) Jorge - clearly, public comment is one mechanism, but also an ability to identify an provision that exceeds ICANN's mission, to signal its intent to challeng, but to enter into a contract without waiving its rights to object

  Becky Burr: (00:43) this is not bylaw language


  Becky Burr: (00:44) I am ok with losing "in service of its mission" and adding "notwithstanding the foregoing"


  Greg Shatan: (00:45) The English language is unique in its ability to imply unstated words.  WHich messes non-monolingual types up....

  Keith Drazek: (00:45) Agree I can support Greg's suggested edit.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:45) yup



  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:45) Greg, as the text is not just aimed at monolingual types this might imply a need for change

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:45) considering it does not mean adopting it Kavous

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:46) I fear we are adding quite vague text to a very operational part of the Bylaws...


  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:46) @Greg could you please type the suggestion in the chatbox?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:46) Mathieu, Thomas and Leon

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:46) Pls listen to the people

  Greg Shatan: (00:46) we could insert "its Miision" after "accordance with"

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:46) I made a formal suggestion

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:46) Pls consider that

  Greg Shatan: (00:46) Making explicit the implied words.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:46) @Kavouss your suggestion has been taken into account. The reason for it not to be reflected is that the apparent confussion you have is not really a confussion for the rest of the group

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:47) @Kavouss: I suggest we have this wording checked by lawyers to refine this wording. Agree with you it's not immediately clear

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:47) It is a confusion

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (00:47) +1 Mathieu

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:47) Do you mean that I do not understand the legal terms

  Greg Shatan: (00:47) This language is, and shall remain unclear.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:47) Pls put my proposal back to the discussion

  Greg Shatan: (00:48) It's an issue of syntax.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:48) Your sentence is vague incorrect and WRONG

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:48) @Becky: thanks for your explanation, but it seems to me that the added text on enforcement of contracts is still way too vague. It opens too many points of interpretation, without a clear method to avoid repeated disputes before the IRP. Nothing good for legal certainty...


  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:48) @Kavouss I don't mean that, I mean that your suggestion doesn't seem to have the group's support but as Mathieu has suggested, we will check the wording with the lawyers


  Keith Drazek: (00:49) The language may be less than explicit, but that doeesn't make it wrong. Greg's suggestion should help.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:49) OK   klet ME be clear I do *not* support yopur proposed twext  Kavous... CLEAR enough



  Pär Brumark (GAC NIUE): (00:49) +1 Becky

  Greg Shatan: (00:50) @Jorge depending on how you define "regulating services that use the Internet's unique identifiers", most of ICANN's mission and operations could violate this statement....

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:50) co -Chair

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:50) I am not convinced that the first slide is correct

  Greg Shatan: (00:51) And there's that silly phrase "Internet's unique identifiers" again!

  Becky Burr: (00:51) Kavouss, with respect, I disagree with your point.  the first sentence is clear and not unusual construction

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:52) exactly Becky  thus it has my understanding and support

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:52) @Greg: I agree with the intent of safeguarding enforcement of contracts, for sure. What I see is a lot of legal uncertainty being created by the specific wording proposed to adress that

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:52) It means that Leon only listen cretain people and not others

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:53) @Kavous that is not true

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:53) THere is some sort of differentiating between views of the people

  Becky Burr: (00:53) Actually, Jorge, the language has received very significant support in the comments

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:53) Some are more favoured and some toothers less favoured

  Suzanne Woolf: (00:53) Part of the problem with references to "unique identifiers" is that it's actually a technical term

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:53) Is that so pls

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:53) @Becky: you mean the new added wording?

  Becky Burr: (00:53) not my bullet Steve - this is cut and paste ffrom Brett's compromsise suggestion

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:53) Becky

  Suzanne Woolf: (00:53) and as Andrew explains, it means a lot of things besides DNS names.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:54) yes Suzanne  the erm keep prewsenting issues ...

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:54) The first senetence in the mission is vague

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:54) term not erm

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (00:55) Not to be cynical, but the odds of WS2 ever happening are akin to the odds of winning the lottery...

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:55) Becky

  Becky Burr: (00:55) we are going to confuse ourselves by talking about both things (IAB proposal and contracting issue)

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:55) The first sentence in the Mission is WRONG



  Rick Lane: (00:56) Agree with making sure that it is not too broad and only have it focus on policy

  George Sadowsky: (00:56) Sorry, had to re-enter Adobe and re-raise hand

  George Sadowsky: (00:57) probems... more than mute

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:57) Dear Leon

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:57) bad feedback

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:57) please put mute on!

  Greg Shatan: (00:57) George needs to go on mute

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:57) good lord

  George Sadowsky: (00:57) problem may be solved

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:57) everyone else should mute

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:58) Pls kindly listen to me

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:58) It is not right the my view be ignored

  Greg Shatan: (00:58) That's one way to get rid of the guy in front of you in the queue!  :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:58) @Kavouss there is an action item already to review the language

  Becky Burr: (00:58) Kavouss, we are listening and we have heard the comment you are making. 

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:58) What else do you want Kavouss?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:59) I want that the first sentence saying that Icann shall have no power then .... be changed to

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:59) @Kavouss it will be reviewed

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:59) and you do not seem to have support for that Kavous

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:59) ICANN shall act in accordance with Bylaws and artuicle of incorporation to acheive its mission

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:59) if you did then it would be diufferent,

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:00) The reference in the first bullet should be to Section 6333 only.

  George Sadowsky: (01:00) Leon: followu to Becky - on point 1, what is the granularity of the requests that would be permittd?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:00) Becky , Leion

  George Sadowsky: (01:00) point 1 is 6310-3 and 6 330-8

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:00) So that is an advice to text edit then Rosemary...

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:00) On bullet 4: why do we single out Governments? and not mention interest group representatives generally?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:00) Pls kindly and seriously condifder my propoal for the mission

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:01)  pls

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:01) I woud need to understabd why then Rosemary

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:01) + 1 Jorge

  Rick Lane: (01:01) The last bullet point would be provide on the ICANN website quarterly so the entire ICANN community would have access.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:01) Good point Jorge

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (01:01) @Kavouss it WILL be considered

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:01) Tks

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:02) Yes, please change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:02) It is the fourth time that I raised

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:02) I am familiar to the legal text

  Greg Shatan: (01:02) Jorge, this is about lobbying and government relations disclosure, not about government contacts generally.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:02) The dangers of capture and/or undue influence by specific interest groups is at least as relevant as any attempt of undue governmental influence

  Keith Drazek: (01:02) I think that was an old hand.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:03) @Kavouss: your comment is captured in the action items

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:03) +1 Jorge

  Brett Schaefer: (01:03) Section 6333 states "The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member"

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:03) Jorge, that was also echoed in the German govt comments to the 1st draft proposal.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:03) 6333 give members the right to inspect accounting books and records, minutes of board and committee meetings (as well as member meeting minutes, not relevant here).

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:03) @Greg: the last bullet is directed at governments.... not at lobbying in general. At least that is what the wording says

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:04) 6333 contains some qualifications as to what members may inspect, which can be translated into the sole designator context

  Greg Shatan: (01:04) Jorge, I agree that the language is overly broad, and I made a similar comment in that regard earlier -- this needs to be focused properly.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:04) Ahhh  now I fiollow  Rosemary

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:05) Greg: mentioning lobbying activites neutrally, be it from governmental or non-governmental sources, would be more fair

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:05) So that provide some level of scope. Thanks for mentioning that @Rosemary

  Greg Shatan: (01:06) Brett got knocked off due to technical difficulties.....

  Brett Schaefer: (01:06) No

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (01:06) For those who are curious, 6310 of the Corporations Code requires records to be in writing; 6330 concerns members' right to get information to allow the member to contact other members -- like membership lists.  Not relevant in this context.

  Rick Lane: (01:06) We should have bullet 4 in WS1

  Greg Shatan: (01:06) This is ICANN doing the lobbying, not vice versa.

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:06) Jorge with regard to your question about bullet point 4:  I think it's because what we want to know is what ICANN is up to with regards to their interaction with all Governments.  Its a question of what they are wheeling and dealing about with governments.  Whether this ought to be extended to ICANN interaction with industry actors is another question.  I'm not adverse to that discussion.  The focus here is in ICANN-Government interaction.  We've already seen how this can turn out badly...

  Brett Schaefer: (01:07) I think bullets 1,2, and 4 are WS1, 3 is WS2.

  Greg Shatan: (01:07) At least, that is the intent.  The drafting is ough.

  Greg Shatan: (01:07) rough.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:08) good point Cherine

  Brett Schaefer: (01:08) Apologies to all for the communications difficulties, working from home.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:08) @Stephen: the concern is legitimate. But the concern should also extend to private lobbying, which may exert the same degree of undue influence, which is sought to be prevented by such transparency rules

  Brett Schaefer: (01:08) Not used to doing this here.

  Becky Burr: (01:08) agree that there is growing concern that WS2 will provie illusive

  Greg Shatan: (01:09) Is ICANN lobbying private interests, Jorge?

  Brett Schaefer: (01:09) Leon, 1,2 and 4 are WS1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:09) we should treat transparency efforts vs. undue influence from govts and private sources neutrally and equally

  Rick Lane: (01:09) It will not slow down the transition. It will be an important point to highlight to the US Congress and their concern about undue government influence

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:10) @Rick assuming the lobying(if valid) has been entirely happening outside US govt

  Rick Lane: (01:10) I am concerned that if we do not have bullet in WS1 then Congress will then want to wait until WS2 is completed.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:11) I think point 4 could fairly easily be modified from current US law in this area

  Keith Drazek: (01:11) Where did the uncertainty about WS2 come from?

  Greg Shatan: (01:12) If WS2 proves elusive and illusory, we have serious problems.  And not just with issues discussed so far today.  It means we don't trust the work we've done in WS1 to "set up" WS2.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:12) Don't know, Keith.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:12) At least we should allow Rick to send draft language to see if it meets muster

  Greg Shatan: (01:12) @Keith, I would say it was the Board's comments, which essentially proposed dismantling WS2.

  Becky Burr: (01:12) don't know either.  I suspect we are all dealing with volunteer exhaustion and projecting from that

  Keith Drazek: (01:12) I seem to recall a commenter suggesting WS2 could/should be addressed by existing processes and not by the CCWG.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:13) @Greg: ICANN is more on the receiving end I assume when we talk about private interests' lobbying

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:13) @Keith : that is not the group's view at least

  Keith Drazek: (01:13) Agree Mathieu

  Greg Shatan: (01:13) @Jorge, depending on how you define "lobbying" you might as well report every ICANN meeting in its entirety.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:13) Keith, the Board suggested dooing away with WS2 an addressing those issues in ATRT and other standard procedures

  Thomas Rickert: (01:13) Keith, we confirmed with the group in Dublin that we will have a WS2.

  Rick Lane: (01:13) Governments have far more leverage than any private interest.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:13) I (DK) certainly assume that WS 2 will happen

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:14) @Brett: that was dismissed

  Keith Drazek: (01:14) Thanks all. Helpful.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:14) I saw that, just telling Keith where doubts came from

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:14) @Greg: am I lobbying right now?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:14) @Brett: thought it was worth clarifying

  Brett Schaefer: (01:15) No problem

  Thomas Rickert: (01:15) I would not worry about WS2 recommendations not being honored. WS2 is not backburner, but part of the overall plan to get our recommendations (WS1+2) done. WS1 gives the comunity the leverage to get recommendations done in WS2.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:15) The issue is to avoid undue influence from specific interests, be it governmental or not. And as a kind of regulator, ICANN is subject to undue influence attempts from both sources if not more from private interests

  matthew shears: (01:16) + 1 Mathieu - we need to ensure it happens and WS1 is supposed to set up WS2

  Rick Lane: (01:17) This is not just about government influence over ICANN, but ICANN influencing government policies. It is a two way street.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:17) +1 @Jorge govt interest can be surprisingly lets significant compared to the possible frequencies of private interests. Unfortunately private interests are not easily detected as all eyes is focused on govt

  Brett Schaefer: (01:18) +1 Rick

  Rick Lane: (01:19) Just think FIFA

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:20) Because FIFA is not influenced by private corporations??

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:20) It looks like voting is still included in this report and I am wondering why...does the outcome of Dublin mater at all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:20) the last column should be taken out, I guess....

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:21) Indeed this was Jordan comment right now

  Thomas Rickert: (01:21) Seun, Dublin does matter. The Dublin approach is a consensus approach with certain qualifications necessary to make it easier to assess support and objection levels.

  Rick Lane: (01:21) If there is a proposal on the private sector happy to discuss. But that should not preclude the inclusion of bullet 4 in WS1.

  Keith Drazek: (01:22) Suggest striking-through the text in the right hand column. Will still show the evolution, but make clear voting has been discarded.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:22) @Rick: just use a neutral wording and treat contacts with private/governmental sources neutrally, and you will have a fair wording

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:22) Please, people - the table is just a working document. The right hand column simply will not exist.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:22) Consider the right column deleted, please.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:23) Thanks

  Brett Schaefer: (01:23) There were significant dosagreement earlier on a

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:23) Meanwhile on split, the statement says each SO/AC should decide by its processes yet it seem to tell them how they should do it?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) Seun: how does it do that?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) The point is that whatever its process is, each SO and AC can only lodge one view, in support or opposed to exercising a community power.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:24) @Jordan by not allowing them split internally?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) there's nothing to split

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) there are no "votes" to share around.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:25) that's what teh Dublin approach is.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:25) I am specifically refering to the last part of the statment, unless i mis-understand that

  Brett Schaefer: (01:25) Where are we point B?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:25) the attendee tatus view is usually what experienced  AC meeting leaders and our co-Chaors  usually use Seb  so all ' status'  is clearly shown as top of view...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:25) I think you do.

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:25) whoever is making breakfast, please mute.

  Keith Drazek: (01:25) Please mute phones/computers if not speaking.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:25) Brett, we are now on c)

  Thomas Rickert: (01:25) Outcome of SO/AC discussions is "support", "objection" or "do nothing". CCWG is not prescriptive as to how this decision is made inside an SOAC.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:25) For instance ALAC at some point will vote on issues does it mean we can't do that based on what  the last part of item a is saying?

  Brett Schaefer: (01:25) I think that the default should be advisory unless a group specificlly states that it wants to participate

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (01:26) we can also hear some cutlery going on the background

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:26) Seun: this isn't about "issues". It's about exerising community powers.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:26) And however your AC makes decisions, in the end it can either say "we support exercising this power" or "we object to exercising this community power". That's all the statement means. :-)

  Keith Drazek: (01:27) +1 Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:27) yup Jorda  I thought that was clear

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:27) Cheryl: so did I

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:27) ohh well we can but try

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:27) @Jordan its an issue that comes up that will determine whether to excercise a power or not. My point is that each SO/AC have their ways of arriving of that consensus level and I don't think we should change that

  Aarti Bhavana: (01:27) Which paper did George just mention? about consensus

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:27) Seun: we haven't said we want to.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:28) That has always been bothe preserved and protected i our work Seun

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:28) IN our work

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:28) We have said that however it's done, and that is up to the SO or AC, the answer has to be in support or objection

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:28) exactly Jordan

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:28) Aarti, he mentioned an RFC by Pete Resnick on rough consensus

  matthew shears: (01:29) in many ways the COmmunity Forum is for airing the diversity of views

  Aarti Bhavana: (01:29) Thanks, David

  Brett Schaefer: (01:29) trying to call in, can't gt a coordinator to pick up

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:29) at least that is what I thouyght i heard

  Greg Shatan: (01:29) George, I share these concerns.  Pragmatically,  I think this needs to be solved by "empowering" the Community Forum in some way.

  Keith Drazek: (01:29) Any SO/AC can present a minority statement or acknowledgmeent of diverse views, but that the SO/AC will need to establish consensus, or not, with regard to exercising the commmunity powers.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:29) @Cheryl if that is the case then maybe I was miss-understanding what "....and that "split" decisions or delegating decisions to sub-units will not be available" meant

  cherne chalaby: (01:29) Consensus is not just a number game i.e 3 vs 1.  It must take into account the substance of the objection

  Aarti Bhavana: (01:30) In case anyone else is interested:

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:30) I am not going to tutor you now ( or I suspect ever) Seun despite  my offer to do so...   

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:31) Seun: yes, you are mis-understanding it.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:31) indeed he is *sigh*

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:31) that's OK - I wrote it in a hurry - I could have chosen more clear language

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:31) understood  Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:32) This is a good example of why it's a great thing we get professional writers helping make this stuff clear

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:33) "me write clearly one day" :)

  Greg Shatan: (01:35) I do agree that this process needs to "scale" to the various realistic combinations.

  Keith Drazek: (01:35) It's also possble the GAC will engage on some issues and not others. GAC participation is not necessarily binary.

  matthew shears: (01:35) Yes, we had that discussion in WP1 and similar concerns remain - there is an uncertainty w/r/t decison making when some |SOs and ACs do not participate or opt not to participate

  Brett Schaefer: (01:35) +1 Keith

  Greg Shatan: (01:36) BUt what if the GAC doesn't in fact participate?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:36) Keith, that is not how I see the model

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:36) for powers where we need 4 AC/SOs to support, the proponents will need to convince other AC/SOs to support

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:36) dear Keith: that scenario is applicable to all SO/AC, isn't it? some petitions might be important only for one or two SO/AC and irrelevant to the rest....

  Greg Shatan: (01:37) How can the choice not to particiapte "not affect the thresholds"?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:37) that's the whole point, isnt it?

  Greg Shatan: (01:37) How does the table work with 4?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:37) that some SO/ACs decide to carry a petition, implying that others dont.

  matthew shears: (01:37) + 1 Greg

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:37) Or don't have to

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:37) when our breakout group came up with the decison threshholds, we knew that 7 AC/SOs were possible, but we assumed only 5 would participate most of the time

  Greg Shatan: (01:37) But what about 4?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:39) why this insistence to treat the GAC differently? There will be a chance for the GAC to come with a final answer during the public comment period

  Greg Shatan: (01:39) So if 1 doesn't partiicipate, we require unanimity on certain points.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:39) Jorge - we need to finalize our recommendations for the PC though.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:39) I beleive so Greg

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:39) greg, yes

  Thomas Rickert: (01:40) We should not have options in our recommendations. Work on 4 should be done if and when there is a definitive feedback from the GAC by way of adjusting as we would adjust if we had an other change in the landscape.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:40) @Thomas: there is a consensus input from GAC on the second draft proposal where the GAC already said it wanted the possibility of participating fully

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:40) in an advisory capacity

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:40) if I am not mistaken

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:41) there is no advisory capaicty in this part of the discussion, so we need to be clear about that

  Keith Drazek: (01:41) @Jorge: That "possbility" is what I was referring to earlier. Not intending to single  any SO or AC out from others.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:41) Which is why we should not have an alternative on 4 in the report.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:41) thomas, so we wait to present our draft on a definative GAC position?

  Thomas Rickert: (01:41) Brett, no. IMHO we should finalize the report with 5.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:42) If you proceed with 5, you are assuming GAC participation

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:42) And, when the escalation approach settles, we will be able to discuss it and state whether we want to participate from the start or not. I

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:42) As Keith mentioned on WP1 call, a board should not stay seated if only a single AC/SO wanted them to stay

  matthew shears: (01:42) I don't see why you would not put examples of how the decision-making works in the PC?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:43) if we proceed with 4, we need to reduce the number of affirmative decision SO/ACs to three for the most "hard to use" power and to 2 for the rest

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:43) I was also my understanding that there is a possibility for the GAC or other AC to participate with advice, i.e. in the community forum, 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:43) Julia: we aren't talking about that phase

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:43) everyhone can advise at all times --- that's not connected to this discussion about decisions

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:43) Have other SO/AC already expressed final opinions on something which is still work in progress? Why do some require this from the GAC?

  George Sadowsky: (01:43) If there are only four ACs and SOs, then uanimity (for Board spill) is not a bad thing, but may not be appropriate for other posers, not clear to me wthout more analysis.

  matthew shears: (01:44) it seems to me that those looking at the 3rd version should understand what happens if diufferent numbers of SOs and ACs participate

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:44) we cannot let the report stand with a unanimity requirement for *any* of the powers.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:45) Thank you Leon

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:45) my personal view is that the "dublin consensus model" breaks if you get down to 4, and you'd need to go back to fractionalised voting. but that's just my informal view.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:45) Jorge, the three SOs and ALAC have said that they would participate I believe

  Greg Shatan: (01:46) @Jordan, I tend to agree.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:46) +1 Jordan

  matthew shears: (01:46) I am similarly concerned Jordan

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:47) @Brett: as far as I recall the GNSO did not give an input to the second draft report or later

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:48) One question Leon, as the wording has changed a bit since this morning. Why not make reference to related parties I last sentence as well

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:49) in last sentence of bylaw, that is

  Aarti Bhavana: (01:49) +1

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:49) The "in particular" sentence

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:49) That's right Jorge.  But constituencies and SGs in GNSO were very active in submitting comments, and I can guarantee that GNSO will want to participate in community mechanism

  Brett Schaefer: (01:50) Jorge, you are correct, sorry. It is my opinion based on my observations of the GNSO sub-groups.

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:50) @Jorge perhaps a ratio would have sufficed so that. so that way if 4 are participating the ratio will be based on that. That way, there won't be voting and consensus will still be upheld. Nevertheless, since the participation is opened i guess anyone that find an issue of interest would jump in to excercise their powers whenever applicable

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:50) oh no, Kavouss is speaking

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:53) +1 to George's comments.  Pay attention to Larry's comments.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:54) Sorry, but we have tried to strip down WS1 to the narrowest to make it workable. We have not tried to maximalise it in order to "get the full package" before the transition.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:55) @steve @brett: I would never ever attempt to guarantee anything for the GAC (150+ governments) :P    - but the consensus input on the second draft report is a useful proxy... and there full participation was considered a necessary option

  matthew shears: (01:55) can we have scroll control - thanks

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:56) Good work on the doc, Greg

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:56) Anyone will take place bets on whether WS2 ever actually happens?

  matthew shears: (01:56) + 1 Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:56) + 1 Greg, thanks for the clarification!

  Keith Drazek: (01:56) Agree with don't want to create a lot of loose ends, but the split between WS1 and WS2 was suggested by Larry and Fadi back in Los Angeles in 2014.  We have to be able to trust WS1 to ensure WS2 will deliver in an appropriate manner.

  George Sadowsky: (01:57) Greg, yes I understnad

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:57) Stephen: WS2 *has* to happen.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:57) I beleive it will Stephen

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:57) maybe lost audio

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:57) exactly, Jordan

  Guru Acharya: (01:57) Question about WS2 enforceability: In case while "implementing" WS2 recommendations, the board adds one extra restriction to DIDP exclusion criteria... in that case how will the community enforcement mechanism ensure that the new addition by the board is removed - do we expect the SD to take the drastic step of spilling the board for something so small?

  matthew shears: (01:57) + 1 Jordan

  Greg Shatan: (01:57) Thanks, all!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:57) Guru: is transparency small? :-)

  Greg Shatan: (01:58) Our lawyers will lovingly massage these words.

  Guru Acharya: (01:58) Im talking about the situation where the board accepts all WS2 recommendations and adds just one exclusion criteria to DIDP - would you still spill the board?

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:58) I agree it "has" to happen.  I'm not at all conviced that at the end of the day it "will" happen.  I may be cynical, but I'm also a realist when it comes to ICANN (well, more to the point, Jones Day).

  Greg Shatan: (01:59) We need to print up "Work Stream 2" t-shirts.

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (01:59) Great Idea!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (01:59) Indeed Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:59) @Greg, and pins

  Guru Acharya: (02:00) I support WS2. Im just asking how it can be properly enforced. Heck ill wear that tshirt and send you a snap.

  Greg Shatan: (02:00) @Tatiana, yes indeed.  But not tattoos; I'm not that committed...

  Brett Schaefer: (02:00) I survived WS1 and all I got was this WS2 t-shirt?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (02:00) let's not count our chicken before they're hatched...

  Tatiana Tropina: (02:00) @Greg temporary tatoos might be a good solution

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (02:00) (knocks on wood)

  Greg Shatan: (02:00) Brett, you haven't survived yet.... :-)

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (02:00) And you can trade that in 3 years hence for the WS3 T-shirt.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (02:01) also we will need to print "I survived WS1" T-Shirts

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:01) Stephen: nah, that's ATRT4

  Keith Drazek: (02:01) lol brett

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:01) not WS3

  Tatiana Tropina: (02:01) @Brett lol

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:01) Thanks everyone  good call... excellent progress IMO  talk again soon then... Bye for now :-) ohh and can we do coffee cups and water bottles as oppossed to t shirts and tatoos ;-)

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (02:01) Yes, you're right Jordan.  My apologies.

  Greg Shatan: (02:01) We have to make sure Work Stream 2 is not damned ... er, dammed.

  Pär Brumark (GAC NIUE): (02:01) Thank you all! Bye!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:01) quite

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (02:02) Bye

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (02:02) BYE TEAM

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:02) thanks all, good bye

  matthew shears: (02:02) thanks

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (02:02) Good night all!

  Markus Kummer: (02:02) Bye all!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:02) bye bye all

  Greg Shatan: (02:02) Thank you all -- off to bed, it's 3:02 am.

  Tatiana Tropina: (02:02) bye

  Seun Ojedeji: (02:02) bye

  Greg Shatan: (02:02) Bye all!

  Aarti Bhavana: (02:02) Bye

  George Sadowsky: (02:02) bye

  Michael Clark(Sidley): (02:02) Night

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (02:02) thanks and bye!

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (02:02) Bye all

  Becky Burr: (02:02) goodnight

  Brett Schaefer: (02:02) bye

  George Sadowsky: (02:02) bye

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (02:02) thanks eveyone

  Olivier Muron GNSO/ISPCP: (02:02) Bye!

  • No labels