Members:    Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Jordan Carter, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (15)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Andrew Sullivan, Brett Schaefer, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Eric Brunner-Williams, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Mark Carvell, Megan Richards, Pedro da Silva, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Suzanne Woolf, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale   (19)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Steven Chiodini

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Bart Boswinkel, Laena Rahim, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Roelof Meijer, Martin Boyle, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani

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




_ Welcome, Roll Call, SoI
_ Opening remarks
_ Mission, Core Values & Commitments
_ Stress Test 18 Status Quo and Way Forward
_ Summary Document Review
_ AOB 



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


Opening remarks

There are two areas where consensus still needs to be reached. Remarks that we should publish an executive summary 
without addressing these. There was also public comment that we should extend public comment. We clarified that 
outstanding items would be moved out of the summary but that we would still proceed with the publication. We agreed 
that we would produce a shorter document that summarizes and explains recommendations in plain language. Document 
reflects plethora of comments and concerns from CCWG-ACCT and Advisors. We will not create impression that final 
summary of report. We will not discuss timeline today. We suggest continue our work to have closure on outstanding items.  

Mission, Core Values & Commitments

There has been consensus with respect to proposition that ICANN has limited mission. It was our goal to carefully clarify 
mission with respect to names, numbers, protocols and root server. With respect to name function specifically there has 
been agreement that ICANN has a specific mission and act within and consistent with that mission. ICANN should not 
seek to regulate areas that are outside of its mission. Consensus that ICANN should have ability to enter into negotiated 
agreements with contracted parties - these should be enforceable and ICANN should have ability to impose certain policies 
on contracted parties in limited circumstances as it always has. We agreed on a concept that ICANN should not regulate 
services. At high level there has been consensus with respect to that concept. There has also been a robust debate about 
the terms that are used, the potential for unintended consequences to reach shared vocabulary with respect to what we 
need. Shared vocabulary has been focused on what the term "regulates" mean and could that be interpreted. A question 
about what we mean about "services" in unique identifiers. A concern has been expressed that ICANN does enter into 
contract and ICANN should have ability to enter into these contracts and enforce them in furtherance of their mission. We 
have had continued debate on how that concept is articulated. Debate on wording has continued. Proposed language to help 
reach closure 

Focus on content, not wordsmithing. It is a concept more than language. 


- There seems to be divergence in what was meant by services. Two divergent threads: 1) class of businesses that 
offer services ; 2) technical process that is connected to the Internet and uses the DNS. A process that runs on a web server. 

Two threads/dimensions that are not reconcilable.

Is there a third component? Has the term not been accurately described? 

- ALAC expressed concern that explicit exclusion note needed that identifiers are not deemed to be content for the purpose of this mission

- ICANN has enumerated powers.

--> Correct. Definition of services is only item that we need to close on. 

- Difficult to define service as broad term. We should not define but describe 

- Every computer connected to the Internet


Comfort with general direction of Greg's proposed language (date 12 November). Tweaks might be needed to ensure it is 
technologically neutral. We are not referring to class of businesses but rather technical processes. We are looking for neutral 
language. We could have examples of technology to illustrate what we mean by the definition. 

Stress Test 18 Status Quo and Way Forward

There has been long history of debates on stress test 18. We need to acknowledge contributions from Work Party in trying 
to adjust various positions on this topic. Rationale is now clarified. Brazil has introduced a proposal. Discussions took place 
during IGF. We need to reach a decision on this topic. 

Way forward: Convene a subgroup to assess current options, areas of agreement/disagreement so the CCWG-ACCT can be provided with clear list of options for discussion. Set up small group to prepare clear, comprehensive document.


- GAC has expectations that his concerns are reflected in the third report. GAC consensus input to the CCWG via communiqué 
should be part of solution on ST18. Build on language proposed by Brazil. 

- Issues are more around drafting. Unsure a drafting subgroup will help much

- Brazil proposal has been made with intention to translate it into Bylaws language. Considerations have been based on 
consensus. All governments agreed to that language. It was found to be acceptable. GAC communique specifies that GAC 
members would continue to work within CCWG. 

Volunteers: Steve DelBianco, Megan Richards, Brett Schaefer, Jorge Cancio, Greg Shatan

ACTION ITEM - Ask for volunteers on list - Staff to draft email.

Summary Document

We have tried to avoid duplication in first version. 

Comments needed by 17:00 UTC TODAY - No line edits will be taken into account. We are looking for content related 
comments (misrepresentation etc).

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Ask for volunteers on list - Staff to draft email.


Adobe Chat

 Brenda Brewer: (11/12/2015 23:33) Good day all and welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #67 on 13 November @ 06:00 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (23:41) Greetings all!

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (23:44) Hi Brenda

  Brenda Brewer: (23:45) Hello Kavouss!  Hello everyone!

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (23:45) Hi Kavouss

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (23:45) I am currently at World Radioccomunication Conference In ITU  ,RESPONSIBLE FOR SEVERAL HOT AND CONTENTIOUS  ISSUES.

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (23:45) I will participate the firsdt hour on Audion ONLY.


  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (23:46) I am sorry about that

  Brenda Brewer: (23:46) Noted.  Thank you Kavouss.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (23:56) Hello everyone!

  Ron da Silva: (23:57) good morning

  Megan Richards European Commission: (23:58) do we say good morning or good night at this hour :-)

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (23:58) Good day!

  Greg Shatan: (11/13/2015 00:00) Hello, all!

  Aarti Bhavana: (00:00) Hi All!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:00) Hello everyone, thank you for joining

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:01) Hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:01) hello from a break on holiday

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC AP-regional Member: (00:01) hi there I am just going to use AC where I can I am on the phone bridge as well though

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:01) Good afternoon all

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

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:03) Late night for you Greg!

  Alan Greenberg: (00:03) Happy Friday the 13th to all.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:04) hi all

  Greg Shatan: (00:04) Bruce, Only 1-3 am....

  Greg Shatan: (00:04) In Brazil, it's 3-5 am....

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:05) Ah - early morning then for you.   Breakfast at 3am I assume :-)

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (00:05) Hello everyone

  Greg Shatan: (00:05) Sleep at  3 am, if not before.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (00:06) Finally, have gotten back in the AC room.  Hello, eveyrone.

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:07) 5pm in Melbourne on Friday - beer o'clock.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:08) 7 AM at the office - coffee o'clock!

  Becky Burr: (00:09) hello from San Francisco, where it is 10 pm

  Greg Shatan: (00:09) 1 am in New York -- Diet Peach Snapple o'clock.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:10) Link to latest summary document?

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (00:11) What is the deadline for comments on the Summary Document?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:12) it sounds like someone is on a plane

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:12) there sounds to be an airplane taking off and we are in it

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:13) are we going on holiday? woohoo!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:15) Link to the document =

  Greg Shatan: (00:18) Andrew Sullivan has mentioned two alternatives to the parenthetical after services.  The first was (i.e., any software process that accepts connections from the Internet).

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:18) Perhaps repalce "regulate" with ICANN shall not impose contractual commitments that relate to  services ....

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:19) We tend to avoid using the word "regulate" as that is the role of Governments.

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:19) WE primarliy manage through contractual language and enforce those contracts.

  Greg Shatan: (00:19) Bruce, I think that's moving in the wrong direction.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:19) I thought Milton's suggestion of "Information Services" might be better

  Megan Richards European Commission: (00:19) we should also be "technology neutral" in the mission statement so I am rather reluctant to add terms like "email client" or "web browser" unless all the technical colleagues confirm that these are basics that will never change in future

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:20) Agreed @Megan,

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:20) But I'm not deeply read in on the regulatory literature, possibly to my relief

  Greg Shatan: (00:20) I guess it depends on what "information services" means, and if it is along the lline of the proposal I made and you tweaked.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:21) Third draft still mentions HR protocols and otehr comments remain unaddressed. Will our previous comments be incorporated or do we need to go through this new draft  and send in new comments? If sso by when?

  Keith Drazek: (00:21) I support clear, concise, unambiguous and technology neutral language in the mission statement.

  ebw: (00:22) the "commands received ..." language is unfortunate.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:22) good points, Megand and Keith

  Suzanne Woolf: (00:22) +1 Keith

  Greg Shatan: (00:22) Or if information services is a description of a type of business.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:22) @ebw: yes.  See my note to list

  Keith Drazek: (00:23) Thanks to Becky for the excellent summary.

  Greg Shatan: (00:23) The point of the parenthetical is that we are talking about a technical service (such as a web service running on a web server) or are we talking about a business such as a service busienss.

  ebw: (00:23) i saw it, you didn't restrict socket() to af_inet and af_inet6

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (00:23) +1 Megan and Keith

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:23) @ebw: true

  ebw: (00:23) and we're not "regulating" xns or ...

  ebw: (00:24) routed addresses, not bridged or ...

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:25) @BrettS  - where is HR Protocols mentionned?

  Becky Burr: (00:25) Please remember that this is NOT proposed as final bylaws language, rather it is language to guide the final legal drafters (and of course bylaws language will be submitted for further comment)

  Megan Richards European Commission: (00:26) the first part of the parenthetical is fine my only question is after ", to be viewed in..."

  Becky Burr: (00:26) the question is, does this articulate our agreement in a way that is helpful to craft the final language

  Megan Richards European Commission: (00:26) thanks Becky for the clarification. useful

  Brett Schaefer: (00:27) The people that we most frequently commenting on this issue over the past few days (aside from Greg and Becky) seem to not be present.  in the chat.  moing foward and assuming their support seems to be an invitation for angst tomorrow.

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:28) You came though clearly on the phone Greg.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:28) Sorry for the typos, my window is acting strangely.

  ebw: (00:29) if the packet flow is routed _and_ the prefixs for sources and sinks includes, even in part, is announced to the dfz, then we care. if the flow remains in 1918 space or is link-local, we don't concern ourselves.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:30) @ebw: I think those examples aren't regulated by ICANN too, right?

  Keith Drazek: (00:30) perhaps the bullet point should be split  into for technical services and the otherh for business services

  Keith Drazek: (00:30) i think we'd want BOTH restrictions, no?

  ebw: (00:30) 1918 no. link local, no.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:31) so it doesn't matter whether they're swept up in "service", because the point of the def is to include the things ICANN can't regulate

  Keith Drazek: (00:31) obviously not referring to domain name registrations services

  Becky Burr: (00:31) correct Andrew

  ebw: (00:31) the point is to keep from writing a "service" definition we won't want to see in the morning.

  Becky Burr: (00:32) for example, Milton Mueller proposed:  Information services which that use the Internet’s unique identifiers but are not registries or registrars

  ebw: (00:33) who knows what "information services" means?

  Greg Shatan: (00:33) Becky, that phrasing is one of "business services" given the "but are not" clause.

  Greg Shatan: (00:33) Keith, no I don't think we want both.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:33) Milton's claim was that it was already common in regulation

  Keith Drazek: (00:34) Why not Greg?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:34) (it == inf svc)

  ebw: (00:35) yeah, not a useful choice of words, could mean anything, and we're responsible for our language.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:37) There should be a broad statement song the lines of unless explicitly permitted to act, ICANN is not allowed. to act.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:38) @Megan: is there not a definition of information services within the European directives ?

  Brett Schaefer: (00:38) There is always teh option of amending the bylaws later if new authority is deemed necessary by the community.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:39) @Brett I think the broad statement is in there

  Greg Shatan: (00:39) Keith, that takes us down a whole second line of debate.  How does a business service "carry" "content"? That clearly shows where this was going with services.

  Becky Burr: (00:39) are we generally comfortable with the text circulated by Greg?  that's the question

  Greg Shatan: (00:39) I've been trying to describe rather than define....

  Keith Drazek: (00:39) Yes, I am generally comfortable with the  direction.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:40) that sounds like a good approach from Kavouss from the world of diplomacy

  Becky Burr: (00:40) @Brett, "ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission."

  Brett Schaefer: (00:40) Andrew, I read it that way, but there seems quite a bit of disent about what this means.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (00:40) yes

  Becky Burr: (00:40) I am likewise comfortable

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:40) @Mathieu: I can only think of electronic communication services...

  Greg Shatan: (00:40) Andrew, your sound is excellent.  Very NPR-like.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:40) but that doesnt mean "information services" aren't defined somehwere as well

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:40) could be  start to look for a clearer definition.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:41) it's from the realm of telecomms regulation, so..I'm not 100% sure.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:42) I'd be surprised BTW if there was not an RFC on that somewhere as well ?

  ebw: (00:42) dfz

  Greg Shatan: (00:42) electronic communications services is a definition of a similar type but not of the same "service"

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:42) Would ICANN's work on IDN registration and resolution be deemed regulation of a service?

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:43) apparently you can have send-audio or -receive on this network, and now that I spoke I can't receive!

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:44) there is not, AFAICT, an RFC that defines "service" in the abstract.  In IETF land, the end to end network applies.  They're all possible services

  ebw: (00:44) agree. there's no magic rfc to point at.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:44) I am going to drop and rejoin to try to get audio back

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:44) @Andrew, that's going to be our next step then, a CCWG-based RFC...

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:44) ;-)

  Megan Richards European Commission: (00:44) @Mathieu. sorry was listening rather than reading. Sabine is right re electronic communication services but suspect that in some other legislative texts there may be some definitions of information services. will ask colleagues to check

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:44) Thanks Megan

  ebw: (00:45) well, there's the first rfc i worked on, 1122 and 1123, there's a set of "services" defined

  Alan Greenberg: (00:45) @Steve, yes, IDN could be a problem. All the more reason to carve out the DNS identifier (ie domain names) themselves need to be carved out.

  Greg Shatan: (00:45) @Megan, it should not be a defintion of an industry, it should be a definition of a process.

  ebw: (00:46) +1 @greg

  Greg Shatan: (00:46) How is IDN registration a technical process?

  Greg Shatan: (00:47) That's a good statement of the dichotomy Becky

  Greg Shatan: (00:47) Service, not "service provider"

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:47) With the Shatan wording on the slide - perhaps replace the word "regulations" with "policies".

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:48) Absolutely

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:48) (was for Greg)

  andrew sullivan: (00:48) IDN registration and any other registration is done via a registration protocol

  andrew sullivan: (00:48) (often EPP)

  Greg Shatan: (00:48) @Bruce, I don't think that works.  I hope ICANN does not "impose" policies at all.

  andrew sullivan: (00:48) so it's a service in the technical sense we've been discussing

  Brett Schaefer: (00:48) Becky, I confess to not graping the intricacies of this argument, but the new text seems more complicatd and less clear than the 2nd draft report.

  Becky Burr: (00:48) what's the problem with regulation, Bruce

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:49) @Greg IDN registration is indeed a process that is subject to technical automation and results in a record in a domain name registry and DNS records.  So I would say it is a technical process.

  Bruce Tonkin: (00:49) @Becky - just that the legal team at ICANN has preferred to resere the term "regulator" and regulation for the role of Govbernments in the USA at least.   IN Austrlaia we woulds use the term "industry self-regulation".   We woulnd't call ICANN a regulator.

  Keith Drazek: (00:50) We also need to hear from Robin, Malcolm and Milton, none of whom are in AC at the moment. But I'm comfortable with the direction and suggest we draw a line under this for this call. The language is heading in the right direction for the purpose of guidance for drafting.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:50) Paul also expressed strong views, I'm not sure he would support this.

  Greg Shatan: (00:50) There are others besides those 3 who have been regularly involved in this discussion....

  andrew sullivan: (00:51) I don't think I have anything to contribute to the other discussions, so i hope you all won't mind that I go back to bed

  Keith Drazek: (00:52) Don't go Andrew!!

  andrew sullivan: (00:52) since I have an 08:00 meeting & would like a _little_ sleep :)

  Greg Shatan: (00:52) @Andrew thank you for interrupting your dreams for this nightmare.

  andrew sullivan: (00:52) I was having the nightmare there anyway ;-)

  Becky Burr: (00:53) goodnight andrew, many thanks!

  ebw: (00:54) i'm leaving also.

  Becky Burr: (00:54) @Bruce, the legal team at ICANN needs to accept reality

  Megan Richards European Commission: (00:55) GAC members at IGF will meet informally today at 13:00 Joao Pessoa time too. just so you know

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:55) tbh: as someone who is seconded from the German telecomms (and other sectors) regulator, I would also lean towards the understanding of the term "regulator" proposed by Bruce

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:55) I just injected that to demonstrate that there might be some language / concept issues around the term

  Becky Burr: (00:56) @Sabine ;)

  Becky Burr: (00:57) but "regulation" is not exclusively the province of governments - if it was, we would not have spent the last month fighting about the meaning of the term

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:57) yes, yes, as if the mailing list and the past hour hadnt served to demonstrate those. sorry!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (00:57) (as you were saying)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:59) ICANN also used to maintain the things it did had no relevance to public policy

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:59) in fact, teh organisation both makes policy and regulates markets

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:59) whether it wants to say so or not

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (00:59) that, of course, is why the accountability question is so important in a world without the contractual link to a state :-)

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:00) Thomas, you are very hard to undertand

  Alan Greenberg: (01:00) Any time we have different communities (who are part of our ecosystem) who define terms very differently, it is better to avoid the use of those terms, at least without careful definition or delineation)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:00) sound is bad

  Keith Drazek: (01:01) Please interrupt Thomas. Very hard to understand.

  tijani BEN JEMAA: (01:01) I don't understand what he is saying

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (01:01) i can't understand Thomas either

  Keith Drazek: (01:01) This is too important.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:01) Agreed - quite hard to understand

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:01) please moderator

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:02) inadequate line

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (01:03) Better

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:03) bit better

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (01:03) that is better

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (01:03) better

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:03) Yes - better when you are speaking slowly Thomas

  Keith Drazek: (01:03) Thank you, Mathieu. Yes that's a bit better.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:03) please: slow and clear

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:04) yes

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:05) somebody else in the hotel seems to have switched off their devices :)

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:07) sorry

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:07) problems with mic

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:07) i will come back

  Brett Schaefer: (01:08) It is not an alternative to ST 18, it is directly contradictory to it. 

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:08) I'm ready to engage in a sub group on this.

  Alan Greenberg: (01:08) I found that unmuting mic in Adobe connect does not automatically unmute the physical mic on the computer (such as Skype does). Need to physically unmute at computer level.

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:08) also happy to participate in small drafting group

  Becky Burr: (01:09) agree Greg

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:09) will wait for a dial-out

  Brett Schaefer: (01:10) I volunteer for the sub-group.

  Keith Drazek: (01:10) Local Brazil number: 0800-761-0651

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:10) Not yet

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (01:11) How much time would the small group have before the third report issues? Happy to volunteer.

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:11) drafting group would have access to keyboard that includes [ ] I believe

  Greg Shatan: (01:11) There are 86 emails in the thread on this discussion that's quite a broad set of viewpoints.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:11) Agree Greg

  Keith Drazek: (01:11) You probably meant 8600

  Greg Shatan: (01:12) I volunteer for this small group as well.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:12) I would also like to participate in the subgroup

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:12) Pedro could you put your comments in writing ?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (01:12) The two thirds threshold was a Board/GAC agreement thta was not implemented. What is the concern about this exacty?

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:13) yes

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:13) go on

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:13) I would volunteer too, although I feel this is a symptom of near-insanity :P

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:13) sorry

  Greg Shatan: (01:14) Jorge, I think that the clinical level for that was reached some time ago.... :-)

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (01:14) Please include me in the ST18 group.

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:14) so this is mass hysteria or mass insanity :-)?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:14) +10000 Greg

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (01:14) bRENDA

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:14) the latter, Megan

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (01:14) i AM DISCONNECTED.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:15) well, i think this is as insane as any inclusive bottom up process - i invite you to follow how swiss direct democracy discussions work :-)

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:15) I thnk the key is to understand the audience.   I assume at this stage the audience woul dbe the chartering organisations.   They wil mainly want to knwo what has changed since previous drafts.

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:15) Once the ICNAN communiyt signs off on the proposal - we will likely then need an exec summary for a US GOvernment audience.

  Greg Shatan: (01:15) Bruce, i think that's a different document.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (01:16) Sometimes line edits are the most efficient way of expressing the problem that needs fixing.

  Greg Shatan: (01:16) This is supposed to be a plain English statement of our proposal as it stands.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:16) @Thomas I can only imagine:-)

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:18) to clarify, the GAC consensus as formulated in the Dublin communique contains element that - in the view of the GAC should be part of an acceptable framing and formulating on stress test 18.

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:19) yes!!

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:19) This is the language that I think Kavouus was referring:

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:19) Inviewoftheabove,havingconsideredconcernsexpressedbyvariousparties,theGACagreedtofurtherworkontheissueofStressTest18,andtosubmitanyfurtherinputtotheCCWGtakingintoaccountthetimelinesoftheCCWG.GACMemberswillcontinuetoworkwithintheCCWGtofinalisetheproposalforenhancingICANNaccountability.

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:19) Sorry for the lack of spaces.  It was a cut and paste from the GAC PDF.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:21) Dear Kavouss, as Bruce copied that text it, it says that GAC members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalize the proposal... this is exactly what has been started by Brasil and followed up by others

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:21) the text proposed by Brazil reflects well the GAC discussion and communique and provides a good base for refinements let's start from there

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:22) and of course, the GAC will also continue to work with a view to give further input into the CCWG process, in particular as partof the public comment period that will come up once the 3rd report will be available.

  Becky Burr: (01:22) With all due respect, the GAC communique lists a set of issues that the GAC "considered" in assessing the different rationales for stress test 18.  don't understand how that articulates a view of the GAC with respect to ST 18

  Greg Shatan: (01:23) @Bruce, I think that is a single word in German.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:23) @Greg I'msureitis

  Alice Jansen: (01:24)

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:24) This time with spaces:

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:24) In view of the above, having considered concerns express by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG.   GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalize the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:24) Previous comments were not incorporated into the draft, will they be?

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:25) well, Becky, i think that you actually are experienced enough in diplomatic language to know how that paragraph is intended to be read. if not, ask your delegation to share with you the transcript of the  gac  efforts to agree on the input regarding stress test 18. in theese discussion, it becomes very clear that this has been agreed on as a consensus package ie e a compromise between all gac members present

  Brett Schaefer: (01:25) The HR language mentions protocols, for instance

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:25) @Becky: these were clear and negotiated statements by the GAC so should be viewed as a GAC position to the matter of ST18

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:26) I just scrolled through that passage, Brett, and couldnt find it

  Greg Shatan: (01:26) Brett can you go back to the email and make sure you are opening the current document.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:26) I clicked on the link provided earlier? Is that not the latest?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:27) I got mine from an email I got at 23:04 UTC yesterday

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (01:27) (if my time math checks out)

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:27) Good bye

  Megan Richards European Commission: (01:27) just in time for sunrise in Joao Pessoa

  Bruce Tonkin: (01:28) Goodbye all

  Brett Schaefer: (01:28) Sorry, must be wrong version

  Greg Shatan: (01:28) Brett, I word searched that version = no mention of HR protocols


  • No labels