Members:   Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (21)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Andrew Sullivan, Antonia Chu, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Milton Mueller, Pedro da Silva, Phil Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Seun Ojedeji, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Vidushi Marda   (32)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Nancy McGlamery, Rosemary Fei   (5)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Laena Rahim, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Harold Arcos

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




1)   Welcome, roll-call, SoI

2)   Finalizing Third Draft Proposal 
      -   WP1 update
      -   WP2 update
      -   Stress Test 18 update

3)  Timeline

4)  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.


Finalizing Third Draft Proposal 

We are not looking for line edits. 

WP1 update

Two calls dedicated to discussing feedback on report. Most of input was received on email. 

We talked about:

- 7 powers community IRP and IANA Functions reviews;

- Issues around transparency and document inspection; 

- Decision threshold table to be added to section on powers;

- Gaps on decision-making - proposal to treat Articles of Incorporation as Fundamental Bylaws;

- Scope of incorporation of activities. Language was proposed by lawyers;

- Extension of timetable for petitions 

- Decision threshold. Decision needed here

Decision threshold

Original numbers in threshold were set up when there were 7 SO/ACs participating but now there are 5. Problem is that threshold might be too high. See page 2 for suggestion on how to deal with this. Dublin 
compromise is that we have put several layers of compromise before decision phase. We have created 
recipe for powers being too high to use. Attempted effect does not work. We should move to slightly lower threshold. 


-  How do we define particpating? Move to a compromise decision: 3 in favor and 4th one does not object. 

-->  Participating is supporting or objecting. This proposal would allow single SO/AC to block power. 

- Concerned that half of the communitiy does not want to participate. What if down to three and four opted out?

--> Situation where 1 of 5 SO/ACs not able to come to decision within timeframe, lowering threshold 
to 3. Risk that we have made it too hard to use. 

- With 3 SO/ACs already in support is strong. 

- We are talking about participating about 5 listed in diagram - now participating is casting vote/decision. Need to 
use different terminology. 

WP2 Update

New language on mission. We intend to clarify but not change ICANN's mission. 


- Items in picket fence that was developped prior to consensus policy. There are things in contracts that are not 
specified but deal with content. 

--> We are not talking about invalidating language currently available in RAA or registry remit. ICANN has ability to 
develop consensus policies and enforce those as long as within remit of issues. There are provisions with respect 
to gTLDs that are wthin applicant guidebook. 

- There should be language edit that we are not touching existing arrangements.

--> Not changing any rights under existing contracts. Directing drafting attorneys to embrace picket fence that is 
currently incorporated into agreements.

- Idea that we can write language that any future picks will be accepted is precisely what mission is trying to prevent. 

- Ending in right direction

- Grandfathering will be added to this language 


A group was convened to assess options and provide a summary to the group. 

See slide-deck.


- This puts Board in a difficult position. It holds up policy process. It has to have full consensus. Proposal 
make things worse. None of these are viable for US Congress. 

--> What is consensus position or not is not embedded into particular figures. 

- Ambiguous language in both proposals (towards rough consensus) is ambiguous. EU GAC members' 
proposal would be a compromise. Alternative would be to allow 2/3 only in case whether there is no objection from GAC. 

--> 2/3 only in case whether there is no objection from GAC raised significant concerns. 

- Use significant instead of formal

--> Formal is existing language from operating principle 47.

- In favor of replacing with significant. It is important that we maintain GAC influence on Board advice 
and not make changes to existing practice. Support giving more clarity to existing practice. Compromise 
proposal would be closer to what we can support. 

- We are forgetting what ST18 is about. ST18 us about problem that GAC can change operating rules 
and not require full consensus. Keith's amendment seems to be status quo. We are not going to achieve agreement. 

CONCLUSION - On compromise language: 18 agree 7 disagree 

ACTION ITEM - Co--Chairs to discuss and get back to group


We need to get recommendations approved by mid-January. According to current timeline we are slightly past that. 


- Board will likely submit comment mid December that will raise issues. How will we incorporate issues into report. 

- Public comment period should close on Jan 8. 

CONCLUSION: We will maintain our current timeline and aiming for public comment to close on December 21


We will keep Thursday call on agenda:

- Finalization Third Draft Proposal 

- ST 18 report 

- If comments show further assessment of issues needed, we will discuss, as needed. 

No circulation of fourth draft to list with exception of ST 18 and mission. 

Comment from lawyers will be circulated to the list.  

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Co--Chairs to discuss and get back to group  (under ST18)


Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (11/23/2015 23:22) Good day and welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #69 on 24 November at 06:00 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (23:54) kia ora

  Milton Mueller: (23:55) howdy Jordan

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (23:55) hi all

  Keith Drazek: (23:56) Good early morning from Georgia, USA

  Milton Mueller: (23:56) I don't call this "morning," Keith :-(

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (23:56) 7pm

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (23:56) Hi all

  Brett Schaefer: (23:56) Likewise hello from early morning in Florida

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (23:57) Hi all!

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (23:57) 7pm Tuesday evening from a sunny warm Wellington, for a change

  Brett Schaefer: (23:57) I trust we will be discussing the Board feedback at this meeting?

  Aarti Bhavana: (23:58) Hi All!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (23:58) Hello everyone !

  Jonathan Zuck: (23:58) Greetings!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (23:59) hi all

  Philip Corwin: (11/24/2015 00:01) Greetings from the graveyard shift

  Greg Shatan: (00:01) It's 1 am and 0 celsius here in NYC....

  Greg Shatan: (00:01) More like the one foot in the grave shift....

  Greg Shatan: (00:02) @Jonathan, newlyweds always sound so cheery!

  Brenda Brewer: (00:03) Barrack Otieno on phone line only

  Becky Burr 2: (00:03) good morning from DC

  Mary Uduma: (00:04) Hello All, goodmorning

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (00:04) hello all

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:04) hey Athina :-)

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (00:04) good morning!!!

  Jeff Neuman: (00:06) hello from the Greenwich CT Supercharger

  Asha Hemrajani: (00:08) Hello all

  Keith Drazek: (00:10) mute phones and computers please

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:10) * Granting the right of inspection to the sole designator in as outlined in California Corporations Code §§ 6310-3 and 6330-8. * Provide for independent appeal of DIDP decisions either to the IRP or to an independent review panel as outlined in p. 75 in Draft 2 provided that these options are available to individuals and businesses in addition to the sole designator or SOs/ACs.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:11)


  Thomas Rickert: (00:13) Rosemary has joined the call on the audio line only. Please add her to the list of attendees!

  Brett Schaefer: (00:14) Do the Board comments circulted by Bruce impact WP 1 summary, Jordan?

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:14) I don't know - I haven't paid much attention to them TBH Brett

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:15) (yet)

  Brett Schaefer: (00:17) Also, I think Rosemay said that right of insection was only Section 6333, but I note it only for you to check back with them

  Brett Schaefer: (00:17) *Rosemary

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:19) If we lower the thresholds we will paving the way for capture by fractions of the community

  Chris Disspain: (00:19) would you define 'particpating'?

  Brenda Brewer: (00:19) Decision Threshold document on CCWG Wiki page:   Scroll down to Documents circulated by members

  Milton Mueller: (00:20) This is an important point, Jordan

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:20) I cannot agree with Jordan - we would just empower small fractions of the community, not the community at large

  Milton Mueller: (00:21) "small fractions?" 3 of 4 SOs?

  Milton Mueller: (00:21) SOs/ACs

  Keith Drazek: (00:21) Definitely support a high threshold to exercise the powers, but not allow any single SO/AC to block or veto the use.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:21) +1 Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (00:21) Agree with Jordan here.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:21) Dear Milton: if we lower the agreed thresholds, I was saying

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:21) Jorge, I cannot agree that three rather than four is suddently a small fraction.

  Milton Mueller: (00:22) Well, lower the decision point or lower the initiation of the mechanism? they are two distinct things I think

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:22) it is an "exception" to the Dublin outcome, I'd describe it as.

  Keith Drazek: (00:22) Co-Chairs....please ask/remind everyone to mute phone lines when not speaking.

  Chris Disspain: (00:22) ok

  Chris Disspain: (00:22) I

  Chris Disspain: (00:22) ll thpe

  Chris Disspain: (00:22) I'Ll type

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:22) someone has some nice music playing in the background

  Philip Corwin: (00:22) What is all that background noise???

  Chris Disspain: (00:22) 2 things

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:22) it's really cool music but we really don't need it

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:23) That's my music, sorry for background

  Chris Disspain: (00:23) 1. how do we define particpating to get to 4 or 5 'particpatng?

  Arun Sukumar 2: (00:23) mathieu listening to the soul designators on the side

  Greg Shatan: (00:23) Mathieu now comes with a  soundtrack....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:23) it was nice music though Mathieu

  Chris Disspain: (00:23) 2. there is a half way house...where there are 4, 3 agree and the other does not formally object

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:24) hear yes, but not understand, big "hall" effect and very lound

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:25) oh I see

  Milton Mueller: (00:25) I don't see the difference, Chris. Either way it is 3/4

  Greg Shatan: (00:25) But what if the fourth objects?

  Keith Drazek: (00:26) +1 Jordan on the principles.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:26) If the fourth objects then it's a no

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:26) oh, sorry, it's not a no

  Greg Shatan: (00:26) Then that doesn't work....

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:26) Jordan is right about the principles we used in Dublin to set these decision thresholds.   (Saturday morning)

  Milton Mueller: (00:27) Not participating = a No

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:27) Not according to our method, Milton.  

  Aarti Bhavana: (00:28) In the WP1 call yesterday, it was stated that if there are only 3 participating SO/ACs, the power cannot be exercised.

  Philip Corwin: (00:28) Abstaining should not be presumed to equal yes or no. It is a decision to sidestep a decision.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:28) precisely.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (00:28) Yes Phillip  that is important

  Malcolm Hutty: (00:29) +1 to Jordan. Our position that no one body should be able to veto is more firm and more longstanding than any proposal for any particular set of numbers

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:29) It is a not well thought-over proposal - it lacks the consideration with f2f discussions and repeated wp1 discussions the agreed thresholds have

  Brett Schaefer: (00:29) Abstaining counts against support, but not for opposition?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:29) Our decision rule is 3 (or 4) AC/SOs support, and no more than one objecting

  Milton Mueller: (00:30) @Steve: the decision rule should be based entirely on the number of affirmative votes, imho

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:30) jorge: it's a fix for an unlikely but plausible situation. I do not agree it has been poorly thought through, though I do agree that it hasn't had the scrutiny the other models have.

  Sivasubramanian M: (00:30) With other comments about community decision making reserved, here is a comment. There are various ways of treating abstention. For example, abstention in ICANN Board is counted as a "No" at least in the legal framework ( ??? Not sure ) And in some environments abstention is counted as an abstention, and a proportional weight is 'reduced' from the required strength. It would be more desirable to think of how to treat abstention, than to fundamentally reduce the required strength.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:31) +1 Milton, counting oppoition made sense with 7 SOACs, but less so with 5 and especially 4

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:32) This whole paper talks about Decisional Participants

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (00:32) @Alan +1

  Brett Schaefer: (00:32) *opposition

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:32) it doesn't label them as such

  Philip Corwin: (00:32) Abstention could occur for many reasons. A group could be split, or could believe it lacked the expertise to decide, or that it was indifferent on the issue, etc.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:32) didn't come up with that term until the call today

  Milton Mueller: (00:33) I think we are bumping directly into the absurdity of this "option to participate" approach.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:33) Milton: all of our thresholds are about affirmative expressions of support

  Brett Schaefer: (00:34) Jordan, but all say something about no more than 1 opposing or similar

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:34) oh sorry, yes, I see

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:34) that was the nature of the "Dublin Compromise"

  Matthew Shears: (00:34) Jordan's scenario may be a more likely occurance than we assume  so we have to have complete clarity

  Milton Mueller: (00:34) right, if it's about number of affirmative votes you don't need to ask whether they "abstained," "couldn't make up their mind" or "decided they are not part of the CM today"

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:34) if we manage my proposal, we can make it harder later

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:35) but if we make it too hard, we can't make it easier later

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:35) I am very concerned with the risk of paralysis

  Milton Mueller: (00:35) so am I

  Keith Drazek: (00:35) Agree Jordan

  Matthew Shears: (00:35) + 1 Jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (00:35) Jordan, what will happen with all of the other issues I have raised (they were sent only to WP1). In some cases, I thought they would need decisions from the CCWG (such as the 15 day limit for holding a community forum or the 120 days limit for the interim board.

  Milton Mueller: (00:35) we have already achieved paralysis in the names IANA separation process

  Brett Schaefer: (00:35) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:35) As I've been pretty clear about, I haven't supported this "Dublin Compromise" and don't today. But am doing my best to make it workable.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:36) hi Alan - all of the written comments will be taken into account for the next draft.

  Brett Schaefer: (00:36) Appreciate that Jordan, tough position to be in

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:36) In terms of your two you mention here - I discussed the petition thing with staff and was thinking we'd talk it through now

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:37) @Alan: please raise on list if you think Jordan's proposal for handling this is creating concern

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:37) But it's well noted

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:37) the idea by me is that where a petition is raised by an SO/AC, the total period is extended from 15 to 21 days, to give more time for another to come on board

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:37) so that goes half way but ends up total 21 days rather than 28

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:37) Agree, Jordan

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:37) I also have a fix, for the 120 days thing

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:38) it is that they (the SOs and ACs that vote to Recall the Board) will develop processes that "are designed to ensure the Interim Board will be replaced within 120 days"

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:38) Jordan: your proposal just is laying the way for a 4 SO/AC community purporting to represent the community at large

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:38) so it softens the language.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:38) That is just not workable

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:39) Jorge: no, it doesnt. And I remind you that under our current proposals that can already happen.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:39) designed to ensure is fine.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:39) Not as a general rule

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:39) four SOs can support the use of a power and that is what happens.

  Milton Mueller: (00:39) @jorge - the 4 required could vary from issue to issue

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:39) yes, as an absolute rule.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:39) Good point Becky

  Milton Mueller: (00:39) Hmmm, Jorge are you suggesting that the community mechanism require "full consensus"? ;-) ;-)

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:40) what we cannot risk is an SO or AC that continuously cannot come to a conclusion about a  question making the accountability framewokr unworkable.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:40) We designed a model that basically worked with 5 or more SO/AC participating. Not with 4 as a rule

  Keith Drazek: (00:40) The rule is not 4. But that possibility has to be addressed.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:40) And we cannot risk that we lay the ground for 4 SO/AC permanently assuming the name of the "community"

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:41) We all know that there is a move to exclude one of the 5

  Keith Drazek: (00:41) What?

  Keith Drazek: (00:41) There is no move to exclude anyone.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:41) not from you perhaps

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:41) and besides which, they aren't claiming to "represent the community" - we are only talking about the right to exercise three of the seven accountability powers, in a limited situation.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:42) which is exercising "community" powers

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:42) as for excluding someone - I've been a staunch supporter of the five SOs and ACs currently named as full participants, and I wrote up and designed this proposed fix. So you should probably withdraw the insinuation.

  Greg Shatan: (00:42) Not from anyone I've heard of (or from).

  Keith Drazek: (00:42) We're struggling to deal with the uncertainty that the GAC has yet to determine it's ability or willingness to participate in a decisional way. That uncertainty is what we're attempting to address here.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:43) Keith, I don't quite agree - we're trying to prevent gridlock where any SO or AC can't decide

  Becky Burr: (00:43) actually that is not true Alan

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:43) that's why I deliberately chose an example in the paper that was *not* about GAC not deciding.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:43) I'm not meaning you Jordan, you know and it is on the record, that there asre such persistent voices

  Leon Sanchez: (00:43) hello everyone! Sorry for coming in late!

  Thomas Rickert: (00:43) Problem no1 we can fix by adding language preserve existing policies.

  Jonathan Zuck: (00:43) and that's alway been our intention to prevent gridlock

  Leon Sanchez: (00:43) So this is how a call in Pacific Time is!

  Thomas Rickert: (00:43) Problem no 2 we can fix the same way, Alan

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:44) Jorge: thanks

  Keith Drazek: (00:44) Jordan, I agree at a general level that it's a broader concern.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:45) I'm very worried at how bureaucratised, slow, complicated and confusing the escalation process has become. It looks to many like it's designed to make the new community powers be submerged in ICANN lobbying and manipulation so that they are ineffective.

  Milton Mueller: (00:45) Are PICs in the current RA?

  Brett Schaefer: (00:45) I think Jorge is talking about me and soe others who have suggested that GAC be purely advisory, although I wouldn't characterize that as exclusion.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:45) it is as bad as the unbelievable IANA Functions escalation process, or risks becoming so.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:45) They are, Milton.  

  Matthew Shears: (00:45) + 1 Jordan - these powers have to be exercisable

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:46) Would the "clarify but not change" grandfather caluse list these items Becky, or would it be a statement of principle

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:46) so we have to ensure that in the end, at the final point, the decision process *AS WELL* is not undermined in that way. ANd that is what I hope the decisional fix can help with.

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:46) clause, that is

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:46) anyhow we've moved on to this new debate so I shall stop

  Milton Mueller: (00:46) please do, Jordan, the mission stuff is important

  Milton Mueller: (00:47) @Steve - are PICs in all RAs or only in those of a few registries who went along with them?

  Keith Drazek: (00:48) Any existing PIC specs that are included in existing RA's should be enforceable and enforced.

  Greg Shatan: (00:49) What happens in the next round, then?

  Becky Burr: (00:49) agree Keith

  Alan Greenberg: (00:49)  PICs are not within the picket fence according to spec 1 of the registry agreement, and we need to ensure that PICs are valid for new contracts signed in this and future rounds.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:49) Keith, And what about the contract signed after the new Bylaws are adopted?

  Keith Drazek: (00:50) The next round should consider carefully whether PICs are within ICANN's mission. That's not something we can deal with today. A WS2 issue, or a Next Round gTLD PDP issue.

  Thomas Rickert: (00:50) Alan, the clarification can extend to all 1st round TLDs

  Alan Greenberg: (00:51) But there is much in the agreements that is within ICANN's mission but outside of the picket fence.

  Milton Mueller: (00:51) :-) beginning of time

  Becky Burr: (00:51) beginning of ICANN time

  Becky Burr: (00:52) but Alan no one is saying that ICANn can not enter into commercial agreements with registries and registrars in furtherance of its missions

  Alan Greenberg: (00:53) I am not worried about future pics IMPOSED by ICANN. I am talking about the current mandatory ones and ALL voluntary ones

  Becky Burr: (00:54) the problem with PICs has to do with the manner in which they were imposed ( e.g., not bottom up)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:54) As I raised on list a few hours ago, a registry may voluntarily place Use Restrictions in its registry agreement.  Would ICANN be able to require the registry to honor its agreement?

  Keith Drazek: (00:54) Agree with Milton that PICs were a terrible decision and precedent, but they are now real and need to be respected. Grandfathering is ok. Extending PICs to future rounds needs to be considered separately.

  Becky Burr: (00:54) some pics may well be within the picket fence

  Alan Greenberg: (00:54) Becky, if you can find the words in Spec 1 that include pics, I would be delighted to see them.

  Milton Mueller: (00:54) yes

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (00:55) as a matter of principle, ICANN shold be able to enforce contracts, but it shouldn't be able to agree to contracts that conflict with the mission?

  Matthew Shears: (00:55) Agree with Milton - gradnfathering is necessary but going forward PICs shold be subject to mission test

  Milton Mueller: (00:55) round one?

  Milton Mueller: (00:55) ah, you mean new TLD round one

  Becky Burr: (00:56) PICs committed to should be grandfatherd, whether or not the contracts have been signed

  Sivasubramanian M: (00:56) PICs of the current round of new gTLDs must also be taken seriously

  Becky Burr: (00:56) but new gTLD rounds are a different matter

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:56) PICs are in Specification 11 in the Base Registry Agreement, pages 90-91.  see 

  Greg Shatan: (00:56) Got kicked out twice.  Back now....

  Keith Drazek: (00:57) +1 Thomas. Any PICs (voluntary or mandatory) in the current nTLD round should be enforced. The next round of nTLDs is a separate matter.

  Milton Mueller: (00:57) "get thee behind me, Shatan"

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:57) PICs should stay and also be possible for the future

  Malcolm Hutty 2: (00:57) @Alan there's no such thing as voluntary when dealing with a monopolist

  Becky Burr: (00:57) agree Keith

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:57) I thought what Milton was just arguing was that, if such conditions don't turn out to conform, you  _couldn't_ renew?

  Becky Burr: (00:57) Jorge - PICs are possible in the future, so long as they are developed as part of the applicable policy

  Keith Drazek: (00:57) @Malcolm: I respect that view, but there are actually voluntary choices between contracted parties.

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:57) (Milton, did I misunderstand you?)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:58) @Becky: I hope that will be that way

  Malcolm Hutty: (00:58) my connection is bouncing repeatedly

  Milton Mueller: (00:59) Andrew, that was actually not what I said, but I would favor that (non-renewal of out of mission PICs if the registry didn't want them any more)

  Keith Drazek: (00:59) The problem with the current PICs is that they were introduced at the 11th hour and not part of the New gTLD PDP process. That needs to be fixed for future  rounds.

  Greg Shatan: (00:59) I disappeared in a puff of smoke, leaving only a sulferous smell.

  Milton Mueller: (00:59) @Andrew I was referring to grandfathering existing PICs

  Milton Mueller: (00:59) Thomas raised the issue of what "existing" means

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:00) Milton, what is "grandfathering"?

  Keith Drazek: (01:00) But they are real and cannot be undone during the term of the existing agreements. Thus, the grandfathering.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:00) Good work Becky and WS2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:00) WP2  (oops ;-0

  Milton Mueller: (01:00) grandfathering means accepting existing arrangements even if they do not conform with the rules we are making for the future

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:01) Dear all, for your information: if in the future, public policy issues may arise (e.g. new consumer protection issues or others) then governments will be expected by their citizens and businesses to demand for adequate protection of the rights of their citizens and businesses. Such kind of adequate rights protection would need to be applicable and enforceable, otherwise we would have a problem.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:01) "grandfathering" would prejudge then the issue, because we may not necessarily agree on whether PICs are or not within the Mission

  Alan Greenberg: (01:01) @Becky, what about the other substantive issues I sent to the WP2 list?

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:02) Thanks Milton, but in "grandfathering", is there any anticipation that those who do not fully confirm to the policies in making would eventually adopt to the eventual policies?

  megan richards european commission: (01:03) agree with Thomas Schneider. re Jorge's comment will other mechanisms to protect consumers etc be excluded too? if so problematic

  Milton Mueller: (01:03) That is what I would prefer. Renewal of contracts would provide an opportunity to ditch PICs or other grandfathered arrangements that exceed the mission and scope

  Milton Mueller: (01:04) @Schneider and megan: propose policies to protect consumers all you like as long as they are within ICANN's mission. Otherwise legislate or make treaties using normal intergovernmental processes

  megan richards european commission: (01:04) provisions should exist somewhere

  Becky Burr: (01:04) @Alan - i will respond via email.

  Keith Drazek: (01:05) +1 Milton

  Greg Shatan: (01:05) If new rights protectrion mechanisms are desired in the gTLDs, the best way to deal with that would be a GNSO PDP resulting in policy developed through a bottom up multistakeholder process.

  megan richards european commission: (01:05) now the first part of my last sentence disappeared! point was that AOC is to be integrated into ICANN bylaws therefore consumer protection aspects must continue there in principle

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:05) @ Milton, if in future the commitments could be ditched at the time of renewal, then "grandfathring" becomes a possible way of postponing commitments until such time as it becomes easier to avoid them altogther

  Milton Mueller: (01:06) Siva: No. doesn't work that way

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:06) Sorry Milton, if I haven't understood it fully

  Philip Corwin: (01:06) @Greg--RPMs and PICs often address very different issues. Some PICs are very specific to the purpose of a particular gTLD

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:07) Please correct me, if not now, by a short email. Would be helpful

  Philip Corwin: (01:07) can we quiet down that background talk?? very distracting

  Brett Schaefer: (01:07) Mathieu, the Board comments circulated by Bruce earlier support requiring GAC consensus using UN definition

  Keith Drazek: (01:08) @Phil: It's on Mathieu's line.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:08) Not just Paul and me (though it never was, there were others that supported it)

  Chris Disspain: (01:09) Mathieu - re the compromise proposal, what does 'broad support' mean and what does 'significant objection' mean please?

  Brett Schaefer: (01:09) Good question Chris

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:09) I have a hard stop, for the record.

  Milton Mueller: (01:10) I don't see either of these as a compromise

  Thomas Rickert: (01:10) Chris, there is a hesitation to put exact figures into the bylaws. Hence general language that allows the Board to determine the level of support / objection in the GAC.

  Milton Mueller: (01:11) seriously, Thomas?

  Thomas Rickert: (01:11) Yes, Milton.

  Chris Disspain: (01:11) so please see the Board comments today

  Milton Mueller: (01:11) so the board not only has to broker a decision among conflicting states but it has to determine how much support each side has?

  Milton Mueller: (01:11) that's absurd, I'm am sorry. it is not a serious option

  Alan Greenberg: (01:12) Are slides 5 and 7 identical or are there subtle differences I cannot see?

  Brett Schaefer: (01:12) Exactly Milton, inviting problems down the road

  Malcolm Hutty: (01:12) shouldn't "absence of significant objection" be "absence of sustained objection"?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:12) We need clarity in something of this signficance.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:12) That is a practice used in the legal world for centuries. Put abstract and general language into laws and apply this to concrete and individual circumstances.

  Chris Disspain: (01:12) speaking entirely personally and having spent the last 4 years working closely with the GAC to get cleaer on what is GAC advice, what it means and how it is interpeted by the Board, I do not like the 'compromise proposal'.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:12) It is also called kicking the can down the road

  Alan Greenberg: (01:12) Thank you.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:13) yes, kicking the can down the road...

  Keith Drazek: (01:13) I agree the language "significant objection" is problematic. I could probably support if it was amended to "formal objection" but it still gives the Board a lot of leeway in determining objection thresholds.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:13) +1 Keith

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:13) Can't draw that conclusion based on who's chatting here, Milton

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:13) @chris, could you explain further? are you suggesting the board would not want to be in that position to evaluate?

  Matthew Shears: (01:13) yes - formal would be better

  Greg Shatan: (01:13) More like kicking the can into the weeds.....

  Chris Disspain: (01:13) Arun, see the Bloard's comments sent by Bruce today

  Philip Corwin: (01:14) Agree with Keith. 2nd draft language not perfect, but preferable to the options before us

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:14) call for clarity from Board is well appreciated

  Brett Schaefer: (01:15) Board comment from earlier today -- "The Board will continue to monitor the discussions. We note that any solution should include a provision that, in the event of the rejection of GAC advice, the Board is only required to enter into a formal consultation process where the GAC advice is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Procedures (which relies on the UN definition of consensus). The Board values receipt of consensus advice as reflected in the current GAC Operating Procedures. Since the first ATRT, there has been a lot of effort made to clarify what "GAC Advice" means and does not mean within GAC Communiqués. Care should be taken not to introduce language into the Bylaws that reduces that clarity and returns the Board to a position of having to negotiate among various positions in its consultation processes."

  Samantha Eisner: (01:15) The Board, the GAC and the rest of the community need to understand from the outset which of the GAC's advice is subject to special consideration; leaving the potential status as advice as an open issue raises many issues for all in the ICANN community

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:15) Gree with you Sam

  Malcolm Hutty: (01:16) +1 Sam

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (01:16) Don't agree with Milton's assessment of US Congress, BTW

  Matthew Shears: (01:16) v2 proposal language should be understood to be a option as well

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:17) right, Matt, that is the text unless there is a new agreement.

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:17) i am having some difficulty understand - this is how ICANN's model was organised! Among the board's many responsibilities is to do the difficult job of evaluating gac advice right? Did we not know governments were sovereign before the Board-GAC relationship was drafted into the bylaws?

  Brett Schaefer: (01:17) COmrpomise proposal replacing "of significant" with "formal" would resolve this to the satisfction of everyone but the GAC (or perhpas just a subset of the GAC)

  Brett Schaefer: (01:18) *Compromise

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:18) the language seems to say rough consensus which I can live with

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:18) not least because I want to close this out and get on with life

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:18) @Brett, take into account GAC Dublin communique if you want to talk about GAC's view

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:18) @Arun: I think the point is that the Board doesn't currently have to choose between different views in the GAC -- it gets the consensus from the GAC or it gets nothing

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:18) but also, because in the end we are still only ever talking about advice. Are we dancing on the head of a pin, again?

  Philip Corwin: (01:19) @Steve--I think EU's 2/3 Option likely DOA on Capitol Hill. Compromise might pass muster, but does place Board in position of determining "broad support" and "absence of significant objection" on case-by-case basis. 2nd draft more precise in that regard

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:19) @Müller: for your information: the current situation in the GAC is the following: the GAC voluntarily commits to working on a consensus (without formal objection) basis, UNDER THE CONDITION that it could always change this provision if this was abused by a single GAC member (or a very small group of GAC members) to block GAC consensus. So the current system is a voluntary committment with a civilizing element that so far helped to make all GAC members behave constructively. There are very strong views in the GAC not to give up this voluntary package that has worked very well in the past.

  Milton Mueller: (01:20) @Jordan: once you call it advice," you hold the entire policy process and give GAC the last word on every issue, which denigrates the PDP

  Keith Drazek: (01:20) Agree Brett. I think we'll need to stick with v2 language or replacing the ambiguity of "significant" with "formal" or a similar term in the suggested "consensus" proposal.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:20) I do *not* agree with you MM

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:21) I agree Keith, it helps to replace "signficant" with "formal".

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:21) I agree with Keith's suggestion: replacing "significant" with "formal"

  Greg Shatan: (01:21) I was in the subgroup, and I was one raising those concerns.  I am moving on that point.  Sorry it doesn't have any apparent effect.

  Greg Shatan: (01:21) I tried.

  Milton Mueller: (01:21) Thomas: it's the option to change from full consensus that matters.

  Milton Mueller: (01:22) you can offer no guarantees regarding how that might be changed or why it might be changed in the future

  Greg Shatan: (01:22) Replacing "significant" with 'formal" in the compromise proposal might be palatable.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:22) That is exactly what was offered as a compromise based on the last months' discussion

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:22) For whatever term people choose: I note someone earlier in the chat said "rough consensus", and I'd suggest avoiding that term in case anyone is tempted

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:22) @Milton: exactly. it is this option that so far helped GAC members to remain constructive and voluntarily work together on the current basis.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:22) Agree with moving to 'formal' over 'significant'

  Greg Shatan: (01:23) I thought there was a third proposal that we discussed in the group that was also going to be put up for discussion?

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:23) since it has a peculiar definition elsewhere in the community and it would almost certainly not make the GAC happy

  Thomas Rickert: (01:23) Milton, the GAC can change as it wishes. We are just looking at how the Board has to react.

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:23) in reality - does it make a difference, formal or signifcant? one would assume significant objections owuld be formally noted. its for gac members to evaluate

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:23) @Greg: palatable to the whom? that is not really a serious compromise proposal

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:23) (I don't see that cropping up, so I'll remain silent.)

  Greg Shatan: (01:23) @Andrew, I would like to avoid both the term and the concept of rough consensus.

  Milton Mueller: (01:23) Exactly Thomas. And my view on that is that board should not consider anything GAC does as advice unless it has full consensus

  Greg Shatan: (01:23) Jorge, you get your 2/3.  That's a significant compromise.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:23) Thanks for the Thanks Kieth ;-)  we are trying here

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:24) where are the 2/3?

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:24) It is not, Keith.

  Greg Shatan: (01:24) Jorge,  sorry I thoght you were talking about my verbal intervention.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:24) Milton, you are right this is the area of disagreement. What I put together is a good faith attempt to bridge the gap and in my view it is balanced.

  Thomas Rickert: (01:24) If the application of the Board's judgement is perceived inappropriate, the IRP can be used.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:25) It is not friendly, Keith, I confess.....

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:25) +1 Rafa

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:25) Formal = OP47 = might as well have our Second Draft Proposal language.

  Greg Shatan: (01:25) I think the GAC wants the able to give "GAC advice" even where some unknown but small number of countries formally object to that advice.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:26) (which is what we were trying to move beyond.)

  Matthew Shears: (01:26) Jordan - that is not such a bad option

  Milton Mueller: (01:26) @Greg. I know. But it can't triigger bylaw consideration by the board unless it has full consensus

  Greg Shatan: (01:27) @Militon, as so often happens, I agree with you.

  Keith Drazek: (01:27) Agree with Izumi.

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:27) What the GAC has pointed out is that a litlle flexibiity is needed

  Keith Drazek: (01:28) @Julia: Unfortunately, no other group appears to agree.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:28) again: please not that the current existing practice is that the GAC is voluntarily working on a "no formal objections" basis - with the possibility to change this if this would be abused.

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:28) @Julia: Indeed, that flexibility is essential

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:29) agree with Julia

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (01:29) +1 to Julia´s comment about flexibility

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:29) And that's precisely where the conflict is.

  megan richards european commission: (01:29) we are working on basis of everyone equally unhappy not everyone happy = compromise

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:30) It is not the status quo - Milton: the status quo is not to change the Bylaws -

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:30) @Milton: please read what i tried to explain twice about current existing practice. Thank you.

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:30) Compromise solutions have been offered to limit this flexibility, but not having it simply crosses a redline for many of us

  Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (01:30) Exactly Mathieu!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (01:30) +1 to Jorge´s comments, status quo meansno change in bylaws

  Brett Schaefer: (01:31) What is the government sacrificing? It already has and abides by OP 47.

  Milton Mueller: (01:31) I understand Thomas, but ST18 was designed to describe that "flexibility" as a problem that should be fixed

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:31) status quo is second draft language for the CCWG

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:31) @MIlton: was it, really?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:31) Dear Brett: what you miss is that we voluntarily chose op47. It is our creation and decision

  Brett Schaefer: (01:31) +1 Milton

  Milton Mueller: (01:32) Yep

  Brett Schaefer: (01:32) Yes, and you still can. We are addressing ST 18 by defining the Board's treatment of GAC advice.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:32) @Milton: is this what is being discussed in the congress?

  Milton Mueller: (01:32) @Jorge: what you miss is that board consideration of your advice is based on ICANN bylaws, not your operating rules

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:33) And you miss that those Bylaws cannot be imposed by one SO on one AC, dear Milton

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:33) I can live, uncomfortably, with the compromise language

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:33) agree with you Mathieu, and I personally think its a litmus for whether governments and other stakeholders can work together in the spirit of agreement

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:33) what are we voting?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:33) I can live with either text EU  or Thomas  slight pref for EU though

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:35) it is interesting that some who ticked green yesterday in the ST18 call are now ticking red. (???)

  Malcolm Hutty: (01:35) Could accept Keith's alternative

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:35) hehehe

  Matthew Shears: (01:35) agree with Malcolm

  Brett Schaefer: (01:36) Would also support keith's amendment

  Chris Disspain: (01:36) I am not a member Mathieu

  Greg Shatan: (01:36) It's all a question of level of discomfort....

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:36) For clarity I support the direction based on the compromise proposal

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:36) will you use Keith's amendment?  I suspect it would get the most traction?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:36) It helps to have further clarification along the side of Keith's suggestion (in its spirit)

  Greg Shatan: (01:37) Would also support Keith's amendment.... :-)

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:37) agree with Alan: let's see the temperature for Mark's proposal

  Matthew Shears: (01:37) given this situation the v2 language should not be taken off the table

  Milton Mueller: (01:38) That's not true, Matthieu

  Keith Drazek: (01:38) It was unfortunately not accepted as friendly by the GAC (but no one else).

  Greg Shatan: (01:38) Agree with Matthew.

  Greg Shatan: (01:38) We don't need a "friendly" amendment to consider a different proposal.

  Chris Disspain: (01:38) Does this compromise pass ST 18?

  Keith Drazek: (01:38) Probably not.

  Brett Schaefer: (01:38) Chris, no not IMO

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:39) Apparently, we aren't finished until the GAC gets what wants...

  Greg Shatan: (01:39) ST 18 will need to be regraded to "fail."

  Milton Mueller: (01:39) right, Greg. And perhaps the transition, too

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:39) 18 to 7 is quite a majority...

  Chris Disspain: (01:39) And on that bombshell I need to leave the call!

  Chris Disspain: (01:39) :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:39) ST's are what they are the pass or fail  just gives us an indiction of risk and outcomes

  Milton Mueller: (01:39) Jorge don't make me laugh, almost all of your votes were from the GAC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:40) we don't need them to all PAS if they do not then that is data for cosideration

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:40) Unfriendly late hour amendments disguised as friendly are not a constructive way forward.

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:40) Keith's compromise language isn't a compromise, is I think the problem - changing to "formal" simply leaves us back with Second Draft Report which governments have said no to

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:40) these so-called "votes" have been so arbitrary and meaningless all along.

  Keith Drazek: (01:40) I should have offered an unfriendly amendment then.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:40) exactly Jordan

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:41) dear Milton: maybe we should see where from and what diversity the 7 objecting and impeding consensus had

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:41) well, I guess I have some as well, but I have a spirit of compromise

  Greg Shatan: (01:41) Forget about the "friendly" then.  Just consider the amenede proposal.  Proposals aren't owned by anyone once they're under consideration.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:41) just a room temp taking poll Robin

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:41) Any Vote would be Members onkly

  Mary Uduma: (01:42) My understanding @CLO

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:42) i remain optimistic that the vast spectrum of legalese between "formal" and "significant" can be worked on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:43) be nice Arun

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:43) :)

  Greg Shatan: (01:43) Arun, unfortunately, this is a substantive distinction and not one of legalese.

  Greg Shatan: (01:43) And I know legalese when I see it (or write it)....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:44) I bet you do Greg :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:44) polls of GAC members on the GAC proposal are not surprising, yet they seem to count f as definitive

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:44) the Board won't have a choice but to pass bylaws changes that implement the approved proposal.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (01:44) We are coordinating in parallel within ASO on the CCWG discussions, so we'll corodinate to have ASO be able to take actions (approve) within the suggested timelines

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:44) if they don't, it will simply halt the transition through leading to the contract being extended.

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:44) i think we know the substantive positions behind both terms, its only a question of how they can be reconciled. (and what effect it has on practice)

  Arun Sukumar 2: (01:45) and i agree with robin on the votes  - clearly split, its no longer a productive exercise

  Brett Schaefer: (01:46) Ah, but what if NTIA has a problem with non-consensus GAC advice? Or Congress? Don't you think that a major Board concern won't sway them?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:46) Dear Arun: we have gone a very long way to reach compromise. But compromise is impossible with people engaging in moving targets and rabbit-chasing... it's simply not possible

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:46) @Brett, and All, NTIA was part of the GAC Dublin communique

  Keith Drazek: (01:47) The Dublin communique said the GAC "considered" the issues. Let's not give the communique more weight than it actually had.

  Jonathan Zuck: (01:48) +1 Keith

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:48) @Brett: this is a bottom-up multistakeholder process and no single institution/stakeholder should have a final say about has to be a community decision....that is what we are striving for here....

  Brett Schaefer: (01:48) You keep citing Dublin as if it were perfectly clear and totally supportive of your position. That is far from clear. You all are quick to tell us not to speak for the GAC, but you are quick to speak for governments not in this chat.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:49) Dear Keith: just about a dozen countries, which are very attached to ICANN and the multistakeholder model, have consistently maintained the same interpretation of the Dublin consensus. But let's not give too much weight to that... not very sensible, I fear...

  Keith Drazek: (01:49) @Jorge: A dozen countries does not a consensus make.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (01:50) @Arun: yes there seems to be a split: between the GNSO and the GAC (while the other SO/ACs are more or less silent on ST18 with some support for the Governments effort to compromise). What will be difficult for me to explain to the members of the GAC is that - while many of them have moved significantly (from opposing to ST18 as a whole to where our "compromise" proposal is now, that some GNSO members do not seem to want to move.  So is this the spirit  of  the "multistakeholder approach" ?

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:50) @Brett. Please bear in mind you are dealing here with the most supportive countries of the MS model.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:50) a dozen which is the number which actively engages in this process.... you may downplay that... but I say that it's not sensible

  Malcolm Hutty: (01:51) Please re-confirm agenda for Thurs

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:51) It is sad you do not appreciate our continuous efforts to reachh an agreement

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley) 3: (01:51) Will another draft of the 3rd draft report circulate before release?

  Greg Shatan: (01:51) The efforts are appreciated, but the sticking points remain.

  Matthew Shears: (01:53) The 3rd report should note options where there are options or fundamental disagreements

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:53) if we have to fall back to Second Draft language on ST18, we can do that. It wouldn't be ideal, tho. So let's see what we can do.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:53) @Greg. Thank you. 

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:53) agree with Mathew

  Greg Shatan: (01:53) The hope was that the third draft would resemble a final draft, in the sense that it had no areas of disagreement.

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:54) Well said Mathieu

  Greg Shatan: (01:54) @Jordan, agree.

  Matthew Shears: (01:54) yes agree Jordan

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:54) I don't think we should present options in the third draft, because that requires a fourth draft

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:54) On ST18 the only fair thing to do, other than going with the compromise solution,  would to record the disagreement with a fair account of where the objections to the compromise came from

  Philip Corwin: (01:54) The 3rd Report published for comment on 11/30 can't have options -- it must propose a definitive approach on each matter within it

  Matthew Shears: (01:55) in that case we need to default to previously agreed language

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (01:55) Weel spoken, Mathieu, I am sure we all do our utmost. Compliments to our co-chairs. Have a good (remainder of the) day everyone

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (01:55) @Jorden: there were substantial disagreements expressed with regards v2 ST18 language. So we should strive for an alternative language.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley) 3: (01:55) Thanks for the clarity Mathieu!

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:55) Jorge: I think it's more likely the CCWG would fall back to second than to go with a compromise where 1/4 of those expressing a view disagreeing with the compromise.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): (01:55) Pls bear in mind the whole picture. And not only Washington but also NYC, as Finn said yesterday...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (01:55) Thanks everyone.. Talk again soon then... Bye for now...

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:55) default to previous language is a no go in the case of ST18, because it never was agreed

  Avri Doria: (01:55) bye

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (01:55) bye

  jorge cancio (GAC): (01:55) bye

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:55) Good bye

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (01:55) bye all

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:55) Pedro: I agree, but it doesn't look hopeful here

  Seun Ojedeji: (01:55) bye

  Jordan Carter (WP1 rapporteur, .nz for ccNSO): (01:56) ciao

  Sivasubramanian M: (01:56) bye

  Brett Schaefer: (01:56) bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (01:56) bye

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:56) Bye!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (01:56) bye

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (01:56) Thx all!

  Greg Shatan: (01:56) Bye!

  • No labels