Sub-group Members:   Andrew Harris, Anne-Rachel Inne, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David Martinon, Finn Peterson, Fiona Alexander, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Konstantinos Komaitis, Leon Sanchez, Lousewies van der Laan, Markus Kummer, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Rafael Perez Galindo, Roelof Meijer, Steve DelBianco, Terek Kamel, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale   (26)

Apologies:  Olga Cavalli, Greg Shatan

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer

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




1. Welcome, Roll call (5')

2. Scope of the subgroup : (10')

Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as :

- Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement

- Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options

- Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal

3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10')

Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the
options for documentation. 

4. Requirements (20')

Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal
to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 

5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') 

Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide
comments after the call. 

6. Conclusion and next steps (5')


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

Deliverable: provide language to CCWG-ACCT by next week

Scope: 1) assessment of existing options and areas of agreement/disagreement; 2) Provide CCWG-ACCT with short summary of options.; 3) Report to CCWG so that consenus can be assessed

We need to final global consensus. 

Urgency to find way forward.

Outline of proposals 

--> Suggestion to Julia's proposal as substitution 

-> Suggestion to find common ground text and insert options in brackets

Do we want to treat all ACs equally in the bylaws as a requirement?  Should notation of support be added as an additional requirement?

Suggestion to give advice from two different processes (full unanimous advice - consensus advice) to be given same treatment

Should there be any qualifications to the definition of the term “consensus”? 

Should this be less about GAC and more about ‘all’ ACs? 

Jorge proposal: 1st) we are now in a different situation, where we are considering the whole picture. 
2) GAC is committing to consensus, which was something required by stakeholders during the 2014 discussion 
3) other safeguards are being established, as the narrow Mission statement


Update document by substituting Denmark proposal to column on right. Recirculate it with comparison table. All 
to comment and suggest amendments in next 24 hours. 

Discussion on requirements show that: 1) GAC should not be singled out; 2) There should be degree of flexibility 
to avoid delegation have de facto right - have not been taken into account yet. 

On basis of recent proposals from Denmark and adjusting it, prepare any feedback for next call

Encourage enhancement options. 

ST18 group to reconvene in approximately 48 hours. 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (11/16/2015 09:43) Welcome all to ST-18 Meeting #1 on 16 November 2015!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (09:56) hello ladies :-)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:59) Hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (09:59) hello

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:59) hi all

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (10:00) Hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:00) top of the hour

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (10:00) Hi all

  Lousewies: (10:00) hi all. how come no dial in code for Slovenia?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:01) here we are

  Thomas Rickert: (10:01) Hi all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:02) hi

  matthew shears: (10:03) hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:03) get quite bit done in that time I trust...

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:03) 1 hour should be more than enough to close the topic

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:03) :P

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_SPAIN): (10:03) :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:04) now Jorge ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:07) and surely we must not let Transition of Stewardship be risked by this single point...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:08) happy with the scope quite clear thanks Mathieu

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:10) I would suggest we consider Julia's text instead of working thru the 4th column in the table

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:11) If only because the 4th column is a jumble of things that were talked about in Brazil and on list, so it doesn't fit together very well

  matthew shears: (10:11) agree Steve

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_SPAIN): (10:11) +1 steve

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:11) I feel we should strive to arrive at one common text, with at most some options within that single text (in brackets). Julia's text would certainly be a useful basis for this

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:12) yes. Julia has sent the revised text based on the initial Brazil proposal which I understand Brazil may also support?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:12) agree Jorge

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:12) note that MORE THAN 2/3 was not in the Dublin Communique

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:12) True Steve

  Leon Sanchez: (10:12) @Jorge, how was Julia's text received within the GAC?

  Brett Schaefer: (10:13) What about this compromise? “The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC Advice approved by a GAC consensus in the absence of any formal objection may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus with objection may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:13) @Steve: "more than 2/3"... is the wording presently used for refering for a vote by the Board to reject GNSO and CCNSO proposals... It is just a question of  being consistent with the wordings

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:14) @Jorge -- the Dubling Communique said 2/3, not MORE THAN 2/3

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:14) let's use this doc as our basis fervour discussion then, as proposed her in chat...

  Leon Sanchez: (10:14) +1 @Cheryl

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:15) @Leon: we are now working within the ccwg, trying to come up with a text that considers the GAC Dublin communique. Hence we have not discussed the work-in-progress proposal by Julia... but are doing so here

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (10:15) agree with substitution

  Leon Sanchez: (10:15) LOL

  Brett Schaefer: (10:15) What if an AC decides to define consensus by unanimity or without objection? This FN would seemingly deny this option.  

  Leon Sanchez: (10:16) @Jorge Thanks. That is useful to know

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:16) @Steve: on 2/3 --> please check the Bylaws on this kind of wording -it is just a question of being consistent

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:16) yes it is...

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:17) agree with substitution and would go beyond: we should try to take Julia's text as a basis, without forgetting about the other two texts

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:17) can we not amend this doc to reflect Rollo's point then

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:17) 

  Brett Schaefer: (10:17) FN also seems to deny an AC the ability to reach a decision by voting.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:18) at least that is another step forward

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:21) I agree 👍

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:22) Agree with the approach

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:23) and thanks Julia for your 'improvements to our base text here

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:24) GAC Dublin Communique called this "considerations" for ST18.  The GAC did not say these are "Requirements"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:24) that is consistent with ATRT II discussions as well Thomas, they thought seriously about AC equity in treatment

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:27) that would be an unintended consequence then Thomas so needs to be sorted clearly if that is a risk

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:27) we should not define consensus positively, because that would be inflexible, but make sure that it does not mean majority while it does also not mean unanimity

  matthew shears: (10:28) agreee that footnotes are not appropriate

  matthew shears: (10:28) agree with Brett

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:31) the solution is to move the GAC specific aspect to the GAC section

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:32) yes Mean

  Lousewies: (10:32) makes sense.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:32) +1 Steve and Megan

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:32) sorry. I see Steve can speak faster than I can type :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:32) Sorrybmegan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:33) I agree with you Roelof re the 2/3

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:33) many people call me "Mean" Cheryl :-)

  matthew shears: (10:34) if it is good advice then the Board would hopefully consider it

  Brett Schaefer: (10:34) +1 Matthew

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:35) agree with Roelof - "consensus" should not be linked necessarily to unanimity (= no single formal objection)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:36) yup

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:36) I feel the GAC Dublin consensus intended the general clause to apply to all AC, so to not single out the GAC... and it would be an open door for ACs which in the future may obtain a similar "mutually agreed procedure" as the GAC has presently

  matthew shears: (10:37) what ar the implications for the ALAC of such proposed approach?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:37) Pedro is right... it was a commonly felt issue

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:38) I am supportive ofvthat way forward Pedro

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:38) Thanks Pedro

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:38) the ALAC would stay unaffected as long as it does not obtain a similar "mutually accepted solution procedure"

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (10:38) +1 jorge

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:41) @Mathieu: reached my destination, am in the Adobe room now

  matthew shears: (10:41) I am not getting a full understanding of what the implications are for the ACs

  matthew shears: (10:42) will the ALAC have an ability to ask for special consideration of theiur advice?

  Brett Schaefer: (10:43) I'm confused, is this being proposed: "Any consensus advice, defined as the absence of any formal objection, approved by SSAC, RSSAC, or GAC may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any SSAC, RSSAC, or GAC advice approved by a consensus with objection may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”

  matthew shears: (10:44) in other words will SSAC, RSSAC and ALAC be able to ask for the Board to try and find a mutually acceptable solution?

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:45) @matthew. this does not change other current AC rules

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:46) audio

  Brett Schaefer: (10:46) Since the GAC is the AC that is different, shouldn't we be pulling it into line with the others, not vice versa?

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (10:46) cant hear jorge

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:46) Jorge is off

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:46) where was I cut off?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:47) You were about to start a 2nd point I believe

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:47) the principle is to apply too to future or existing AC if that special provision were to apply to their advice

  Brenda Brewer: (10:47) Jorge, please see private message regarding dial out

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:48) as to 2/3 I wanted to say: 1st) we are now in a different situation, where we are considering the whole picture. 2) GAC is committing to consensus, which was something required by stakeholders during the 2014 discussion 3) other safeguards are being established, as the narrow Mission statement

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (10:49) which is why I supported what Roelof proposed as a modification to the shown text

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:49) I'm not very sure about the path you are suggesting Thomas

  matthew shears: (10:50) I am unclear as well

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:50) let's stick to Julia's text

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (10:50) me neither

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:50) me neither

  Brett Schaefer: (10:50) I'm against that Thomas, advice with objection should be rejected by a lower threshold.

  matthew shears: (10:52) I agree we need these options in writing

  Leon Sanchez: (10:53) @Brett I am not sure. And I am not defending any position, of course, but to me the only difference is that when you have consensus advice, that triggers the mechanism to find a mutually acceptable solution

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (10:53) Roelof +1

  Megan Richards European Commission: (10:53) the GAC operating principles allow for minority views even in consensus

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:53) +1 Roelof

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (10:55) +1 Jorge that was the intent

  matthew shears: (10:56) that flexibility exists in the current approach - the Board can take into account advice that is not consensus

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:56) and I think it is completely reasonable, what Jorge is phrasing: avoid capture by a single entity

  Brett Schaefer: (10:56) Agree that the GAC should reach its decisions in whatever way it wishes, but the Board should not have to treat all advice the same. Earlier, I proposed this as a compromise: Any GAC Advice approved by a GAC consensus in the absence of any formal objection may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus with objection may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”GAC could still provide advice with a lesser consensus, but the 2/3 threshold woul dnot apply.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_SPAIN): (10:56) +1 Jorge. Let us find a solution

  matthew shears: (10:56) the audio is cutting out

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:57) @Brett: the problem is the consensus=unanimity threshold... it creates the wrong incentives for single or very tiny groups, as they easily capture the process

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (10:58) one other suggestion on page 4:  Call them "Considerations" instead of requirements, since that is what the GAC Dublin Communique calls them

  matthew shears: (10:58) + Steve

  Brett Schaefer: (10:58) That treatment could also be extended to SSAC and RSSAC advice for purposes of equal treatment if desired.

  matthew shears: (10:59) will this document be circulated to the full CCWG?

  Brett Schaefer: (10:59) @Jorge, nothing would prevent the GAC from moving advice over those objections. The Board would just have a lower threshold for rejecting it ,however.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (11:00) agree Mathieu 48 rs

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:00) @Brett: is it justified to give such deference to a single delegate or a very tiny group for all future time to come?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:00) old hand

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:00) lost audio

  Brett Schaefer: (11:00) @Jorge, under OP 47, the GAC already does. As to Board treatment, I think good advice would be welcomed.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_SPAIN): (11:00) Never forget we should as well prevent capture of the GAC

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (11:01) the audio is cutting out

  Megan Richards European Commission: (11:01) sorry Steve I only proposed that the GAC consensus part be moved to GAC section

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (11:01) +1 Megan

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:01) @Brett: I feel consensus advice only opposed by a single member, should be possible in the future, as an option

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (11:02) that was what I understood Mean

  Brett Schaefer: (11:02) @Jorge, that's fine. But I think Board treatment should be higher for true consensus advice, versus lesser consensus advice.

  Leon Sanchez: (11:03) Thanks everyone!

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (11:03) Thanks for the constructive discussion

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (11:03) blamed auto correct MeGan same time Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - CLO: (11:03) or doodlebug for awed

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:03) Bye all

  Brett Schaefer: (11:03) @Jorge, that possible change is also why people are worried about the definition of consensus.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:03) @Brett: the difference, is that some consider "true consensus" to be also consensus with very few objections, at leats as a future option

  matthew shears: (11:03) thanks!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:03) bye and thanks

  Megan Richards European Commission: (11:03) bye

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (11:03) Bye

  Brett Schaefer: (11:03) Bye, thanks

  Markus Kummer: (11:04) bye

  • No labels