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

Participants:   Aarti Bhavana, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzeneh Badii, Feng Fuo, Finn Petersen, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jon Nevett, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Megan Richards, Milton Mueller, Paul Rosenzweig, Paul Szyndler, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Ram Mohan, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw   (43)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bart Bostwinkel, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies:  Eberhard Lisse

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




  1. Welcome, Roll-Call, SoI
  2. Confirmation of Mission language
  3. Confirmation of decision threshold
  4. Stress test 18
  5. Response to Board comments
  6. Survey and outreach 
  7. 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. 

Confirmation of Mission language  

No discussion.  

"Agreed on mission text as presented By Becky Burr, with the clarification of  the use of the 'in service of text' in place of 'in furtherance of' 

Confirmation of decision threshold 


- Disatisfaction - there are other ways to get around the problem. We should be addressing Fundamental Bylaw in easier way.  

--> This threshold and this fix apply to the Budget power, Fundamental bylaws power and Board recall power 

CONCLUSION: Keep this proposal as part of third report.  


Determination of process was made before NTIA statement.  

No alternative proposal to text that was in Second Draft Proposal 


- What is the position with respect to definition of consensus 

--> We would use Second Draft language in Third Report 

- Proposed way forward is not acceptable. No consensus was achieved with respect to Second Draft language. Many 
governements have expressed objection to that language. It cannot be ignored. There was clear support for Co-Chairs proposal on Tuesday. 

- We cannot support current proposal.  

- There is no consensus on right way forward. There are two divergent views on what GAC role should be. Chartering 
Organizations' test might be needed. Imperative to determine where balance is. Second Report language does not satisfy 
anyone as no clear definition of consensus. Vague language in Bylaws is a risk. 

- GAC efforts to reach compromise are being ignored 

- This proposal should be made readable.  

- We cannot have ambiguous issue. It is not a viable solution. Advice needs to be consensus. language has to be 
fixed. GAC need to accept it has to be full consensus advice. 

- We deliberately backed off of a specific definition to address GAC concerns.  

- Statements would need to be clarified in this proposed draft. They are not factually correct. On call 69 - 17 agreed to 
facilitation proposal and 8 opposed - consider diversity and representation of this temperature call

- We need to move forward with defining consensus as current practice. We need to acknowledge that the GAC still has ability to refine its operating procedures and to be creative when defining consenus. We cannot have a path 
forward without defining consensus. Consider replacing significant with "formal".

- It will be misunderstood if we try to regulate what governments can do. We have a balanced relationship between 
governments and stakehodlers. It is clear from NTIA statement that this matter should be negotiated in GAC and not CCWG. 

 - Considering a supplemental proposal would be very unfortunate. Reconsider language proposed by Finn. 

- Notion of 2/3 instead of simple majority.  

- Need clarity on what flexibility means. 

- The proposal that was put forward by Steve is worth considering under the condition that there is flexibility for GAC
 to define what formal objection means. 

Is flexibility as laid out in Keith Drazek's email something we can consider?  

- Support clear acknowledgement that GAC operating principles are its own business and that flexibility is warranted. GNSO 
is uncomfortable with 2/3 but in interest of compromise, we need to consider it seriously. There is an opportunity to reach a 
proposal for COs to consider report. 

- We have a process for changing fundamental bylaw.  

- Formal objection is plain language. 

- Suggestoin to agree on conceptual level and wait for reacton in third public comment perod. Include a note that it is a 
concept and that Bylaw language will be refined 

- Words "absence of formal objection" would be in Bylaws.  

- 2/3 vs. full consenus 

Review of Finn's proposed text and Keith's note 

It needs to be spelled out very clearly if we want to reach level of consensus we have not reached so far.  


- we will review ST18 recommendaton against Finn and Keith's lines, send it out in writing asap noting that during this 
call that was no formal objection was lodged against it. We will 
move forward with this for third report. 

Board Comments 

Intention is to respond to comments summarizing input from our group and to explain why these comments are taken
into account or not in a factual manner. 

Survey & Outreach 

Survey put together to facilitate process of offering comments on our Third report. Three levels of response: Yes/No/In spirit 
of compromise I will support this. Box will be included for each question. 

Two webinars organized on 2 December. Report appendices available on wiki. 


- Caution against using mid-level response in survey. It won't bring valuable input.  

- "Is this a solution that is acceptable to you"  

- Important to draw out difference between those who are happy with proposal and those who aren't.  


2 webinars to be held on 2 Dec.  



Action Items




Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (11/26/2015 07:37) Welcome all to the CCWG Accountability Meeting #70 on 26 November 2015 @ 14:00 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Philip Corwin: (07:53) Happy Thanksgiving! Let us all give thanks that this is the final CCWG call/meeting prior to 3rd Report publication ;-)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:55) Hello all and Happy Thanksgiving!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:56) Hello all

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:57) Hello and happy Thursday/Friday to all!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:57) Reminder: Please mute your microphone if not speaking

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:58) Bless you

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:58) and please mute your mke

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:58) Morning all

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:59) Happy thanksgiving to our US friends.

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:59) Happy Thanksgiving from London!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (07:59) Hello everyone

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:59) Hello all

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:59) Hi all

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (07:59) Happy thanksgiving to those who celebrate the date

  Markus Kummer: (07:59) Hi all and Happy Thanksgiving

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:59) Good morning all, and happy thanksgiving

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:00) And also wow meeting 70!

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:00) Turkey is stuffed with oyster dressing and in the oven.  Happy Thanksgiving!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:00) OPen mics

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:00) hello all :)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:00) lovely sound effects!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:00) On the phone bridge I think

  Aarti Bhavana: (08:01) Hi All! Happy Thanksgiving!

  Keith Drazek: (08:01) @Holly: What time should we come over? ;-)

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:01) Happy Thankgiving, even if you are not American!

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (08:01) Greetings Bernard.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:01) Oyster dressing sounds mighty fancy :)

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:01) Greetings all

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:01) i am hère but chairing another meeting at same time. will participate fully ASAP

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:01) Keith, we have plenty.  Everyone is welcome at 2 pm eastern!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:02) Holly dont tempt me =)

  Becky Burr: (08:02) Good morning to all - Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating!

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:02) Thank you Leon

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:02) Happy Thanksgiving all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:03) hi all - I'm in an airport - limited ability to intervene...

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) Hello, all!

  Milton Mueller: (08:03) Greeting

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) Holly, I'll be there.... :-)

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (08:03) Hello everyone

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:03) I'm never sure whether I'm a friend or a "friend" :-)

  Ron da Silva: (08:04) morning.. and happy thanksgiving..

  Arun Sukumar: (08:04) sup everyone

  Alice Jansen: (08:04) You all have scroll control

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:04) Can you please mute yuor mics if you are not intervening?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:05) Support this.

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:05) I really appreciate all Becky's careful work on this.  Thanks!

  Becky Burr: (08:05) Andrew you have now achieved friend status, thank you for very constructive participation in this discussion

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:05) Yes huge work from Becky thank you so much

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:05) Congrats on the concensus on this!

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (08:05) Thank you Becky.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:05) Support this language

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:05) Yes, thank you Becky, long slog

  Maura Gambassi - IT: (08:05) hello from a rainy Rome!

  Milton Mueller: (08:06) Can we put the mission statement stuff back up  please?

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:06) Congratulations Becky on successful closure of this difficult area!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:06) And yes Andrew is definintely in the friends club after this one =)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:06) thank you Becky and all

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:06) Ciao, Maura! ;-)

  Becky Burr: (08:06) circulated yesterday also Milton

  Becky Burr: (08:06) i did put

  Milton Mueller: (08:06) its

  Alice Jansen: (08:06) Jordan has just joined

  Milton Mueller: (08:06)  it's not up now

  Becky Burr: (08:06) use "in furtherance of

  Becky Burr: (08:06) if that's the question

  Milton Mueller: (08:06) that was not supported

  Becky Burr: (08:07) that's what you TOLD me to do yesterday!

  Milton Mueller: (08:07) We toldf you to do in service of

  Milton Mueller: (08:07) not me, about 5 other people as well

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:07) Yes in service of was the supported of the 3 choices I thought

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:07) so did I.

  Becky Burr: (08:07) that's fine - i think everyone was ok with that, my original suggestion

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:07) Fine with "in service of"

  Keith Drazek: (08:08) +1

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:08) I do not care whether it says "service" or "furtherance", but I recall 2 meetings ago a worry about the word "service" showing up more than once or being confused with "service" in the sense of something online

  Becky Burr: (08:08) i was confused by the David Post post.  so "in service of" it is

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:08) Yup I think in service of was definintely the supported one. Great thanks Becky.

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:08) Since that bit has been removed, that problem's no longer there

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:09) agree with Alan

  Sébastien (ALAC): (08:09) I support not to use the same word for 2 different concept

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:09) @Alan None of the powers should be unusable Alan, not just the power of consent to Fundamental Bylaws changes

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (08:09) +1 Alan

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:10) GAC will need to discuss this - has not started to do so yet.

  Phil Buckingham: (08:11) sorry I am late

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:11) this threshold and this fix apply to the Budget power, Fundamental bylaws power and Board recall power

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:11) sorry I was late

  Jon Nevett: (08:12) We have raised an issue about the community powers being used on the budget without GNSO support.  The ICANN budget sets gTLD fees and it would be problematic  for the community powers to be used to oppose an ICANN budget without GNSO support.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:12) I think we should go ahead with this, and see what feedback we get

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:13) At this point in time that's probably best, Jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (08:13) The decision to BLOCK something could reasonably be a decision to BLOCK.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:13) Agree Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:13) given the three seconds to midnight-ness

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:13) I feel we should go with the general thresholds, not with this lowering

  Greg Shatan: (08:14) I agree with Alan.  A formal objection should be required to say no. No "blocks abstention."

  Greg Shatan: (08:14) "blocks by abstention"

  Alan Greenberg: (08:14) For the record, I did introduce something new, but in response to something else that was also new.

  Matthew Shears: (08:14) gieven the importance of the issues being decied upon that not an unreasonable approach Greg

  Greg Shatan: (08:15) But tht is only a "concern" that I express personally.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:15) @Alan: I confirm that it's well understood

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:17) I am officially blaming Outlook !

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:17) Let's note that the NTIA's latest statement matches with the ICANN Board's latest statement on ST18 and GAC advice

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:17) Thomas -- I'm sorry but you cut out -- could you repeat that please.  Did I hear  you say that you plan to revert to the report #2 language

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:17) I always have an issue when an abstention 'counts' as either for or against an issue it should be "vote" neutral though can effect quorum obviously


  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:17) @Paul: yes


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:17) Correct Paul


  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:18) Thank you ....


  Greg Shatan: (08:18) Yes, I noticed that puzzling reference to the meeting being 18 hours away, when the email was received around 6 hours ago.


  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (08:18) +1 Cheryl


  Andrew Sullivan: (08:18) To be fair, the "blocks by abstention" is not a "negative vote", but instead reflects a different theory of decision-making: to make a positive decision, you need to get adequate support


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:18) i can hear a jet


  Andrew Sullivan: (08:18) (Note that I have no feeling about how this ought to work.)


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:18) but not a pedro


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:18) i cannot hear pedro


  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:18) Paul, that is correct.


  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:18) problem with mic


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:18) No audio from Pedro


  Greg Shatan: (08:18) Can't trust the internet.


  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:18) next please


  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:19) will try to call in


  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:20) @Pedro, would you like a dial out ?


  Becky Burr: (08:20) the 2nd draft proposal language does not define consensus


  Brett Schaefer: (08:21) Could we get the 2nd report language highlighted on the screen?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:21) j. 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. With respect to Governmental Advisory Committee advice that is supported by consensus, 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.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (08:21) Without a definition, the document could be argued to support either that consensus means what it means today, or that consensus means anything that falls within the ordinary meaning of consensus

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:22) +1 Rosemary

  Greg Shatan: (08:22) +2 Rosemary

  Brett Schaefer: (08:22) +3 Rosemary, we need to define it as without objection

  Avri Doria: (08:23) apoloogies for being late, thought meeting was an hour later for soem dumb reason.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:24) To be clear, only several GAC reps filed written objections to 2nd draft report language.    There were far more written public comments in support of 2nd draft

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (08:24) Hi Avri!  Happy Thanksgiving!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:24) +1 to Pedro´s comments and question about support for second draft text

  Keith Drazek: (08:24) In light of NTIA's statement, we need to define consensus as current practice, but also acknowledge that the GAC retains the ability to determine its own operating principles related to consensus.

  Philip Corwin: (08:25) It effectively leaves it to the Board to determine whether what the GAC purports to be consensus is in fact consensus, at least to the extent that the Board is willing to find a mutually acceptable solution. In other words, if there were one or more formal objections to what the GAC purports to be consensus, the Board can take that into account in its response.

  Brett Schaefer: (08:25) Correct Keith

  Milton Mueller: (08:25) I don't think the board should be in a position to arbitrarily decide that it will accept some advice as "Advice" based on a fluctuating definition of consensus

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:26) thanks for joining on your holiday, Americans

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:26) we need a definiion for consensus

  Philip Corwin: (08:26) A definition such as Keith suggests would provice clarification.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:27) agreed

  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (08:27) +1 Keith

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:27) Yes

  Milton Mueller: (08:27) Advice must be full consensus otherwise we do not have an accountable board, it can pick and choose whatever advice it wants based on a varying standard

  Edward Morris: (08:27) +1 Milton

  Matthew Shears: (08:28) + 1 Keith

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:28) I think this is an issue that the CO's are going to ahve to weight in on at CO level during the PC period

  Milton Mueller: (08:29) Yes, agree with Keith - but also recognize that a GAC redefinition of is operating procediures cannot change what is considered "Advice" in the fundamental bylaws

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:29) Within the CCWG non-governmental members have indicated they are against ST18....and support for ST18 came primarily from one sector

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:30) some non-governmental mebers*

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:30) agree with Keith

  Milton Mueller: (08:30) +1 Paul. No "purposeful ambiguity" can be allowed here

  Keith Drazek: (08:30) Would inclusion of the word "formal" in the compromise proposal give us a path forward? I know it was not previously accepted as a friendly amendment, but is it worth reconsidering in light of NTIA's statement?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:30) "creative ambiguity"...

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:30) @Staff. Your notes simply say "No discussion" for the agenda item on Mission. Please record that Becky presented proposed final text and it was accepted without further discussion. The current note makes it appear that this item wasn't taken, when actually it was successfully concluded.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:31) +1 Malcom and also reflect the use of 'in service of' language

  Becky Burr: (08:31) Malcolm is correct.  and James

  Philip Corwin: (08:31) It appears that there is not full consensus within the GAC in favor of the 2nd draft's language.

  Milton Mueller: (08:31) @Malcolm note also the change to "in service of"

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:32) indeed, james, milton

  Brett Schaefer: (08:32) Not all of the GAc appears to be opposed to ST 18

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:32) I dont feel that anyone has been ignored in the ST18 issue.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:32) Disagreement is not ignoring

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:32) some GAC members are strongly supportive of it.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:33) +1 Jordan

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:33) @Alan -- so would you put out a range of options or pick one?

  Alan Greenberg: (08:34) @Paul, not necessarily pick one. Work needs to go on in parallel. We just need to make sure that we are publishing the current state of affairs, and not one that we KNOW is bad because we have not come to closure.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:35) I think that would blow up our timetable

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:35) @Alan -- fair enough. 

  Matthew Shears: (08:35) + 1 Alan - fair point

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:36) Stress test 18 (ST18) was introduced in the stress test identification exercise, with a proposal “to amend ICANN bylaws to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice, and add a definition of “consensus”. (Feb-2015).   ST18 was revised after the Istanbul meeting (24-Mar-2015) to omit proposing a definition for GAC consensus, allowing the GAC to determine its own definition.

  Keith Drazek: (08:37) @Milton: The GAC still has the ability to define its own operating procedures around how it arrives at consensus. See the email I sent to the list prior to this call.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:37) yup Steve correct...  no ambiguity from the ST18 was ever intended and we were flexible re the definition

  Becky Burr: (08:37) we tried to find a compromise, which was rejected by some

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:38) a number of efforts to find a compromise have happened here over a number of months

  Milton Mueller: (08:38) Exactly. Steve. Consensus has to have a fixed meaning.

  Philip Corwin: (08:38) On balance, the GAC post-transition will have more say within ICANN than it had pre-transition by being able to vote within the empowered community.

  Matthew Shears: (08:39) + 1 Phil

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:40) +1 Phil

  Becky Burr: (08:40) or some members of the GAC thought was inadequate.  I don't think we know what the GAC's collective view is

  Brett Schaefer: (08:40) Steve, that needs to be made specific.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:40) Some GAC members want more ....

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:41) Steve is right that the move post-Istanbul was a big concession ...

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:42) @ Philip: as I noted earlier, there is no GAC position yet on participation in deciosn-taking.

  Keith Drazek: (08:42) We may need to take a members poll in the near future to help move this to conclusion.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:42) Right, Paul.   And our ST work party took criticism from many quarters after making that concession

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:42) The question was "could you live with it" Jorge -- not what is your preferred answer.  If the opposite question ahd beeen asked Keith's alternative would have succeded

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:43) I am afraid so Keith

  Brett Schaefer: (08:43) +1 Paul

  Greg Shatan: (08:43) I recall the vast majority of those supporters being from the GAC, with one each from ALAC, ccNSO and GNSO.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:43) I dont know if headcounting is productive

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:43) yws a member's poll would help.  the other polls are too arbitrry

  Becky Burr: (08:44) I think Greg's recollection is factually correct.

  Greg Shatan: (08:44) A WP is not intended to be a decisional body for the CCWG.


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (08:44) @ Steve - appreciate the fair recount of interaction and responsiveness. GAC members have been aiming to avoid ambiguity while retaining flexibiliity and maximising transparency.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:44) so do I, Becky


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:44) +1 Mark

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:44) yes Greg that should be clear

  Milton Mueller: (08:45) =1 Keith Must define consensus as full

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:45) dear Keith: please do not insist on unfriendly proposals

  Becky Burr: (08:45) could we put the language Keith is suggesting in the chat?

  Greg Shatan: (08:46) Nor is affiliation of a single participant dispositive of the position of their "home" organization.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:46) +1 Keith -- "formal" is good

  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (08:46) I think Keith's suggestion is helpful

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (08:46) in the absence of formal objection

  Greg Shatan: (08:46) I would support "formal."

  Matthew Shears: (08:46) yes, sound suggestion

  Philip Corwin: (08:47) +1 Keith

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:47) agree with Keith's proposal

  Brett Schaefer: (08:47) Yes, formal, would work well

  Becky Burr: (08:47) Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries Christopher

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:47) Support Keits suggestion

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:47) As expressed at the last call, I support replacing with "fomal"

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:47) I support Keith's proposal

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:47) Keith your proposal includes also this right ? the GAC still has autonomy to refine its operating principles to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in the objection).

  Keith Drazek: (08:48) Yes Mathieu

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:48) @CW -- guess I wasn't clear enough.    We're instructing ICANN's Board on its obligations.  We are NOT telling the GAC how to conduct its affairs

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:48) My understanding is that "absence of formal objection" implies the possibility of one country blocking an advice...we cannot accept this

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:48) @Keith would be great if you could elaborate how you reconcile this ?

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:48) @Keith, does your proposal include the 2/3 threshold to reject GAC full consensus advice?

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:48) Agree with Pedro

  Brett Schaefer: (08:48) Could we put this up in the main window?

  Milton Mueller: (08:48) Yes, Steve its right. To put it more precisely, we are defining what constitutes formal GAC advice to the board; i.e., what ttriggers the special consideration under the bylaws

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:49) @Milton -- we aren't defining "Formal GAC advice".  But we ARE telling our board when it must "try to find a mutually acceptable solution"

  Alan Greenberg: (08:49) @Keith, I was not really advocating presenting a range of possible solutions. I simply said whatever we publish must give the reader a reasonably true impression of what reality  is. Using the term formal in the compromise version with a statement of the opposition is fine with me. As we have done several times in the past.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:49) +1 Christopher!

  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (08:49) Exactly Steve!

  Edward Morris: (08:49) +1 Steve

  Keith Drazek: (08:50) Here's the relevant text from my email this morning: On substance, the ST18 points considered by the GAC in Dublin and reported in its communique could still be recognized and upheld through bylaws changes that do not conflict with NTIA's reiterated expectations on ST18. While any GAC advice requiring special consideration by the Board would require consensus as currently defined (without formal objection), the GAC still has autonomy to refine its operating principles to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in the objection). As I understand it, this has already been discussed within the GAC and is still on the table.  The GAC still has control over its own operating procedures and that should be recognized and respected.

  Brett Schaefer: (08:51) Yes, Steve that point has been made repeatedly. But it keeps coming up as a straw man.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:52) please give details on where the 17 in support and the 8 objecting in the ccwg came from

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:53) Just so we are clear Jorge -- you are arguing to waive the two readings rule, accept the informal vote in an earlier call and cut off all decision making.  

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:53) @Keith, does your proposal include the 2/3 threshold to reject GAC full consensus advice? That would be a friendly way to try to move forward

  Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:53) ? Paul?

  Milton Mueller: (08:53) Jorge a snap poll taken at an arbitrary time that does not include the entire CCWG and on which MOST members abstained can't be used to prove anything

  Milton Mueller: (08:53) Stop beating that dead horse, please

  Milton Mueller: (08:53) If you took a similar poll on the same issue now the results would be entirely different

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:54) dear Milton: I'm talking about the full ccwg call, when it considered the st18wg conclusions

  Philip Corwin: (08:54) 2/3 to reject is DOA, especially in view of the NTIA statement. Its inclusion would be a poison pill for the entire Proposal

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:54) Why not take the temperature on Pauls suggestion earlier with full concensus ( UN def.) and 2/3 board approvel

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:54) @Rafael -- we tried that in the ST18.  Some of the GAC members objected.  I too thought that was a friendly way forward but  the GAC participants said no ....

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:54) So what is the resolution going forward Thomas?  I'm not quite clear

  Keith Drazek: (08:54) @Rafael: I have not made that suggestion; my stakeholder group does not currently support the move to 2/3 so I'm not in a posiiton to support it at this time.

  Milton Mueller: (08:55) @Finn, that would be fine with me

  Milton Mueller: (08:55) But again, the slice of CCWG that attends any particlar call is a bit random

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:55) @Paul, if that was your proposal, and in light odfthe recent develpments, that could be a way to open again

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:56) I proposed after Dublin to do this:   require 2/3 board rejection for GAC advice that was approved in the absence of formal objection.    And that would be the ONLY way to trigger the board's obligation to "try to find a mutually acceptable solution".   I wish the GAC had given that proposal serious consideration

  Milton Mueller: (08:56) All: I cannot speak for NCSG as a whole, but if GAC ADvice is defined as full consensus then I suspect our SG would be willing to change on the 2/3 overturn threshold

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:56) What was the outcome of this discussion

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:56) Its not clear

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:56) I thought it was "discuss more, in the GAC"

  Matthew Shears: (08:57) How does that help us move forward on the next prposal


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:57) Agreewith Brett


  Greg Shatan: (08:57) I can't speak for my constituency as a whole either, but my informal feeling is the same as Milton's above.


  Milton Mueller: (08:58) Chairs: you were willing to take a poll last time, what about Finn's proposal for a poll?


  Milton Mueller: (08:58) can people live with that?


  Greg Shatan: (08:58) Agree with Milton, as I so often do.


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:58) How about the GAC members on this call  Would you support "require 2/3 board rejection for GAC advice that was approved in the absence of formal objection.    And that would be the ONLY way to trigger the board's obligation to "try to find a mutually acceptable solution".


  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (08:58) Agree with the Chair. @Tomas CW


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:59) not understanding James


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:59) Sorry very bad mic


  Avri Doria: (09:00) We could always consider the issue further in WS2.


  Avri Doria: (09:00) i am kidding.  i think.


  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:00) Oy ... nooooooo not WS2 ...... please .....


  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:01) Ahhh ... relief @ Avri


  Greg Shatan: (09:01) I think we should take advantage of this well-attended call to take the straw poll suggested.


  Avri Doria: (09:01) well if we stay with the stauts quo and no compromise of any sort.  why not.


  Philip Corwin: (09:01) I think the issues raised by ST18 that it must be presented in final form in the published Report.


  Keith Drazek: (09:01) It's clear to me that we need to define consensus as current practice to meet NTIA's expectations, but also introduce language that acknowledges the GAC's right to evolve it's operating procedures.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:01) I'm sorry but I have real difficulties with this process.


  Philip Corwin: (09:02) Meant to say that the issues are so important and fundamental


  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (09:02) +1 to Jordan's remark.


  Milton Mueller: (09:02) @Keith - it is NOT the definition of consensus but the definition of formal GAC Advice that is at issue


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:02) Agree Jordan, I dont know how this brings us to closure at any point. We are not going to magically come to consensus on this.


  Becky Burr: (09:02) I am pretty confused about what we are proposing to do


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:02) +1 Becky


  Matthew Shears: (09:02) I think we should avoid using a supplemental report unless it is a necessity as a result of issues raised post proposal consultation


  Philip Corwin: (09:02) +2 Becky


  Keith Drazek: (09:03) @Milton: I know. Apologies for shorthand.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:03) I agree with you *again* @Keith


  Brett Schaefer: (09:03) +3 Becky


  Greg Shatan: (09:03) We cannot leave this call without further efforts on the ST18 issue.  Conceding that there will be a Supplement Draft would be extremely unfortunate.


  Avri Doria: (09:04) it seems to me we are saying that except for full consensus Advice (the status quo) all other GAC advice will be treated like any other advice the Board receives.  Read, considered and considered.


  Avri Doria: (09:04) ... and responded to.


  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:04) Colleagues -- I must depart to prepare the family feast.  Turkey, Apricot and Pork stuffing, Sweet potatoes, haricourt vert, and a nice Burgundy await at 4 PM EST, with much to do before then.  I wish you all good fortune and, for the Americans on the call, a happy holidy


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:04) Enjoy, Paul!


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:04) Agree, Avri.   And I propose this: Require 2/3 majority for board to reject GAC advice that was approved in the absence of formal objection.    And that would be the ONLY way to trigger the board's obligation to "try to find a mutually acceptable solution".


  Matthew Shears: (09:04) is this process going to highlight the areas where there is substantial divergence froim prposal 2?


  Philip Corwin: (09:04) Portion control, Paul ;-)


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:04) I support Steve's suggestion


  Greg Shatan: (09:04) Happy Thanksgiving Paul.  Sounds delicious.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:05) Wow, Paul, now I'm hungry!  Enjoy!


  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (09:05) I'm having difficulty seeing how the SO's can seriously consider the Proosal within the suggested timeline without the ST18 issue being put to bed now...  Just saying...


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:05) I dont understand the value of the middle response otion on the survey


  Avri Doria: (09:05) speking of IRP, i personaly find the fact that people had to submitt application to be considered for the IRP implementation team rather offensive.  just making that note.


  Milton Mueller: (09:06) Agree with Steve DelB's proposal also, wondering why the chairs keep ignoring it

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:06) I do wish to double check if my understanding of how we handle ST18 is correct - would the 2nd proposal draft be reflected in the coming report we publish (sharing the status of discussions)?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:06) Agree, Avri.  Who is making these decisions?

  Brett Schaefer: (09:07) We really need to resolve ST 18 next steps

  Milton Mueller: (09:07) Izumi: I think many people are confused about that, too

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:07) I understand but it gives us fuzzy data, which is the lastthing we need =)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:07) @James:  I disagree.  We want to see what are possible options, not pushing to stark positions

  Matthew Shears: (09:07) What will include in the 3rd report on ST18 - isn't the text suppsoed to be finalized Monday?

  Avri Doria: (09:07) the answer to ST18 is that we are staying with the status quo.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:07) @Steve: we would have problems accepting a solution that would allow one or a few countries to block a GAC advice for which the board needs to TRY to find a mutually acceptable solution...I guess your proposal maintains that

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:07) But could it be more ""I could accept this"

  Brett Schaefer: (09:07) We also should put Keith's proposal and Steves up on the main window and get a feel for the chat on those two specific proposals

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:07) +1 Andrew

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:08) Support

  Greg Shatan: (09:08) Pedro, isn't that the long-time status quo of the GAC?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:08) @Milton noted. I'd like to confirm this again at AOB -  on ST18.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:08) and there is a comment box

  Milton Mueller: (09:08) @Izumi: you will not be alone

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:08) On the options currently being discussed, I also support Andrew's suggestion

  Keith Drazek: (09:08) @Pedro: My email suggestion acknowledged that the GAC could evolve its operating procedures to prevent an endless block by a single country, as has already been discussed in the GAC.

  Greg Shatan: (09:09) @Izumi, I agree as well.

  Milton Mueller: (09:09) @Avri: Status quo is what gave rise to ST18. If we have status quo we fail ST 18

  Brett Schaefer: (09:09) In other words Keith, that is the GAC's problem to deal with, correct?

  Becky Burr: (09:09) no

  Avri Doria: (09:09) isn't status quo full consensus advice with majority of Board to reject.

  Milton Mueller: (09:10) Yes, Avri but status quo is also that GAC can change its operating procedures by majority rule

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:10) a supplemental draft pushes the transition out

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:10) +1 Greg

  Matthew Shears: (09:10) yes, we need to resolve this asap

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:10) @Greg: It is the status quo, but as Thomas Schneider said in the last call, we want to have the ability to think about other options in case one country or a few make abusive use of a veto...


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:11) we do need to resolve


  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:11) +1 greg - thx


  Philip Corwin: (09:11) How can we comment on a "final" Proposal in 21 days if there is to be a supplemental Proposal?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:11) Pedro, that seems like a legitimate GAC issue, but not appropriate to force into CCWG.


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:12) Agree Phil, on a critical issue for all of us regardless of our positions


  Matthew Shears: (09:12) a supplemental proposal is supposed to be the result of the consultation (if needed) not pre-determined


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:13) Please do a poll on this:   Require 2/3 majority for board to reject GAC advice that was approved in the absence of formal objection.    And that would be the ONLY way to trigger the board's obligation to "try to find a mutually acceptable solution".


  Milton Mueller: (09:13) Again, support Steve;s proposal


  Avri Doria: (09:13) i support Steve's suggestion.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:13) agree with all that Mathieu has said to date, but the ppint is we have to put something in the report, even if we identify it as not being a consensus recommendation and describing what the nature is of the lack of consensus


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:13) do the chair's not see this chat with the options desired?


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:13) +1


  Brett Schaefer: (09:13) It is what I suggested a week ago


  Keith Drazek: (09:14) Steve's proposal is worth consideration (even though the RySG does not like 2/3)


  Philip Corwin: (09:14) Support Steve's request for poll


  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:14) Anyway, I insist that Spain reserves its position, and we should get back to the GAC dublin communique, and that the final decision on its opinion rests with the GAC


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:14) +1 to Rafael´s comment


  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:14) +1 Rafael


  Becky Burr: (09:15) Rafael, of course the opinion of the GAC rests with the GAC.  No one is suggesting otherwise


  Fadi: (09:15) Give consensus another chance for a day or two


  Greg Shatan: (09:15) Reviewing the chat, I see that what I should have said on the mic is that we should take a straw poll on Steve DelBianco's statement.


  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (09:15) AGree with Steve's proposal. Let's do a quick poll on it


  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (09:15) We've got half of the members on the call. Perhaps poll just the members?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:15) yes


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:15) poll of Members


  Milton Mueller: (09:16) Due to NTIA statement I suggest people night change their minds


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:16) It has never been considered by this group, Mathieu. 


  Greg Shatan: (09:16) +1 to James and Steve.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:17) where is the resistance coming from to find a compromise with Steve's proposal?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:17) Fadi: that'd delay the report


  Becky Burr: (09:17) Fadi - can only give consensus a chance for a day or two if we hold up publication of the 3rd draft report


  Fadi: (09:18) Steve's proposal must also deal with one-country block (as proposed by Keith Drazek)


  Fadi: (09:18) solving this is worth a day or two max


  Fadi: (09:18) we are close


  Greg Shatan: (09:18) I don't think a "temperature taking" on this call forecloses further efforts after this call.


  Keith Drazek: (09:18) I saw some GAC members suggest up-list that Steve's suggestion on 2/3 might be a freindly path forward. We must have a definition on current practice, we need to acknowledge the GAC's rights to evolve it's op procedures. The 2/3 would be a major concession at this point.


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:18) Exactly it merely guides us


  Greg Shatan: (09:19) Shying away from a 'sense of the room" only enhances ambiguity, and not of the creative sort.


  Milton Mueller: (09:19) Fadi: one country block is a GAC issue, not a bylaw issue


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:19) +1 Milton


  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:19) the text you be "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 full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board.   With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution" 


  Brett Schaefer: (09:20) +1 Milton, also the GAC cn send a range of options to the Board. It just would not rigger the obligation to negotiatiate a mutually acceptable solution.

  Fadi: (09:20) @Milton: agree. It should simply be acknowledged that it can be addressed by the GAC in their own Oper. Princ.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:20) Agree, Finn

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:20) that's fine from inn

  Avri Doria: (09:20) Milton, if the GAC were to change it definition of consensus later, I expect it would trigger a bylaw change from the Board, that I expect the CM would agree with with.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:20) Finn

  Greg Shatan: (09:21) There was no "consensus proposal" that was "blocked".

  Brett Schaefer: (09:21) Yes, Finn, plus teh clarity text we agreed on in previous meetings.

  Edward Morris: (09:21) Agreed, Brett. No one is trying to muzzle the GAC. This is solely about what triggers it's special privleged advice.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:21) I am also fine with that Finn

  Avri Doria: (09:21) that may be the answer to ST18 about the danglig threat of definitional changes.

  Milton Mueller: (09:22) @Avri I don't think we can or should try to predict the outcome of a CM in the future

  Avri Doria: (09:22) nor should we predict what the GAC may or may not do.

  Milton Mueller: (09:22) but yes, it would not be impossible for teh definiton of GAC ADvice to change in the future

  Avri Doria: (09:23) but since we are predicting one, seems reasonable to project what the repsonse might be to such a suppostion.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:23) we have to close this

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:23) +1 Jorge

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:23) +1 to Jorge´s comment, we shoud review the whole text

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:23) By simple Majorty Milton. Dont a high threshold.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:23) I can support Finn's proposed language as pasted here

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (09:23) +1 Jorge

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:23) Brett clarity is general for all AC's advice

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (09:23) Should we need another poll, it should address the CCWG members and participants as a whole. It also needs to be discussed by the GAC as a whole, not just the few are on this call. CW

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:23) Denmark's text is the thing to consider.

  Avri Doria: (09:23) and ST-18 is all abut indicating the paths that can eb taken to deal with possible negative predicitons.

  Avri Doria: (09:23) in mean stree tests are all about theat.

  Milton Mueller: (09:23) James: but if the current definition of GAC advice is a fundamental bylaw, for if GAC changed its operational procedure it would have to be approved by the community

  Brett Schaefer: (09:24) Finn, yes, but I thought it would be tackedon at teh end of the text?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:24) Yes just speaking abut the internal process for the GAc to start that.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (09:24) for your information: the GAC will continue to discuss this internally. but that will take more than a few days... :-)

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:24) +1 to Pedro´s and Jorge´s comments


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:25) run Finn's language with no additional tacked on text please


  Keith Drazek: (09:25) I support Jorge's request for clarification. I support a clear acknowledgement that the GAC's operating principles and its own business and that flexibility is warranted. But it's also very clear to me, from NTIA's statement, that we must define consensus/Advice as current practice.


  Becky Burr: (09:25) agree, and ultimately words have meaning


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:25) anyone could suggest language on the flexibility guarantee?


  Matthew Shears: (09:25) agree that consensus advice should be as in current practice


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:26) agree with Becky and Matt and Keith


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:26) that is constructive, Keith - but we need language on that


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:27) +1 Keith


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:27) nobody has ever suggested GAC control of GAC OPs should be compromised

  Becky Burr: (09:27) +1 Keith. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:27) so let's remain very clear about that

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:27) A simple statement that we support Operating Princile 52 of the GAC could assist in this

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:27) @Keith very constructive comment

  Greg Shatan: (09:27) +1 Keith

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:27) +1 Keith

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:27) Principle 52The GAC may decide at any time to revise these Operating Principles or any part of them.

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (09:27) +1 Keith. CW

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:27) Jorge what about the text Finn put in chat

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:27) GAC has already been empowered by this process, but the additional power sought will kill the whole transition


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:28) OP 52 or 53 even


  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (09:28) What is ambiguous about this: "...we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board  in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).  Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection."?


  Megan Richards, European Commission 2: (09:28) I'm back in full time now - just in time I see - perhaps Finn's proposal could be looked at now ?


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:29) could we have text with the flexibility guarantee on screen?


  Brett Schaefer: (09:29) +1 Megan


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:29) +1 Megan


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:29) this is Finn's text for our compromise:


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:29) Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: the text you be "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 full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board.   With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution" 


  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:30) +1 Jorge

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:30) Finn's text needs the flexibility guarantee added

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:30) Jorge: the flexibility guarantee, what is that?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:30) exactly Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:30) is it a plain language statement that nothing compromises GAC's control over its OPs?

  Becky Burr: (09:31) Nothing in this language undermines the abiility of the GAC to modify its operating procedures

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:31) thats why I asm asking what the "flexibility guarantee" is

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:31) it is a guarantee that GAC may consider how formal objections may be placed within GAC processes

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:31) I agree with Jorge that we need a language on the flexibility

  Keith Drazek: (09:31) It seems like we have a possible path forward,  subject to text for review.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:32) jorge: that is implicit I think

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:32) I think I can live with this approach

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:32) we need it explicit

  Milton Mueller: (09:32) Becky: true, GAC can modify its OPs unlaterally but it cannot modify the fundamental bylaws that way. That was the point

  Matthew Shears: (09:32) agree Keith - this seems to be possible

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:32) Steve - thx - I can't speak - I am in the cph Airport

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:32) + 1 to Jorge´s comments about language for flexibility

  Becky Burr: (09:32) correct Milton.  and as I said, the phrase "formal objection" consists of words with definitions

  Keith Drazek: (09:33) Perhaps we should add language to the bylaws stating that ALL SO/ACs have authority over their own operating principles.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:33) i don't think that's appropriate for SOs

  Keith Drazek: (09:33) Rather than single out any one group.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:33) I would support that, Keith

  Brett Schaefer: (09:33) Jorge andPedro, nothing it being discussed to restict GAC options for changing its procedures. We re just defining what GAC advice triggers the obligation to find a mutually acceptable solution.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:33) nor do I think it's an Accountability WS1 job, Keith

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:33) ;)

  Edward Morris: (09:34) I would strongly support that Keith.

  Brett Schaefer: (09:34) +1 Keith, would be fine with that

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:35) I think we should go with Finn's text and add a note re Keith's email

  Becky Burr: (09:35) that makes sense Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:36) our report has to have bylaws language

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:36) esp since we had bylaws language on this last time

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:36) A GAC member can object but need not prevent consensus - the member objecting  can agree to it being recorded as an abstention for example, so not "a formal objection".  Welcome willingness on this call to compromise and accept 2/3 threshold for rejection.

  Keith Drazek: (09:36) Agree. Also note my comment above that we could make explicit reference to all SOs and ACs are in control of respective op procedures.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:36) Good point mark.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:36) Keith: the problem is that they don't

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:37) quite a lot of GNSO and ccNSO OPs are in the bylaws, aren't they?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:37) was my call interrupted?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:37) You dropped Jorge

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:37) your audio vanished Jorge

  Keith Drazek: (09:37) Yes, Jorge, we lost you

  Megan Richards, European Commission 2: (09:37) Side message for HLIG members coming to Brussels tomorrow - we are moving the meeting to  CCAB building near  rond point Schumann as metro is still not running to Beaulieu - our secretariat will forward details asap

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:37) when was it?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:38) I said that we should stick at a conceptual level: full consensus + 2/3 rejection + GAC autonmoy to handle formal objections

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:38) thx - megan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:38) I'd support the Denmark text for draft bylaws inclusion, and a note along the lines of Keith's text in front of us

  Matthew Shears: (09:38) I think we are close - it would be a shame just to state agreement at a conceptual level in the proposal

  Keith Drazek: (09:38) Yes, we heard that Jorge. And I support the path you suggest.

  Becky Burr: (09:38) general reservation of right with respect to operating procedures okay with me

  Milton Mueller: (09:38) but current definition of full consensus must be in the bylaws

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:38) and then let us consult on that

  Keith Drazek: (09:38) I think you were wrapping up when the line dropped.


  Greg Shatan: (09:39) Remember that anything we write is not a final bylaw.  It is only guidance to the legal drafters.


  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:39) How to handle formal objections  should be GAC autonomy, yes


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:39) Thanks Megan. Remote participation details are also welcome :)


  Keith Drazek: (09:39) no, back to Pedro


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:39) CLO is ceding to Jorge


  Philip Corwin: (09:39) @Greg--will the final Bylaws be in the 3rd Proposal?


  Megan Richards, European Commission 2: (09:39) For HLIG remote participation details will also be provided - moved from video to audio but still better than none :-)


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:40) no - just was wrapping up: let's stick to the conceptual level


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:40) I support bylaws draft language, not conceptual


  Keith Drazek: (09:41) @CLO: technically, business is already closed here...all day. ;-)


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:41) I said that we should stick at a conceptual level: full consensus + 2/3 rejection + GAC autonmoy to handle formal objections. We can improve the legalese later on


  Brett Schaefer: (09:41) +1 Jordan


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (09:41) @ keith: i like the "technically" :-) this is how i feel at least 5 times a week :-)


  Keith Drazek: (09:41) lol


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:42) @Keith For the people down under it's already Black Friday.


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:43) lol


  Keith Drazek: (09:43) I think we can come up with text for everyone to consider in short order.


  Matthew Shears: (09:44) agree


  Greg Shatan: (09:44) No!


  Brett Schaefer: (09:44) That is not his latest.


  Keith Drazek: (09:44) Can we agree in principle today (as Jorge suggested) and follow up with text on the list?


  Becky Burr: (09:44) No, no formal objection


  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:44)   no - this is the old text


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:44) +1 Keith


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:44) that Is what I was trying to frame a KD / Denmark  meld


  Brett Schaefer: (09:45) Pull it from the chat or Finn could e-mail it.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:45) from Finn's. Text today


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:45) +1 to Keith


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:45)  thanks Steve appreciate your wordsmithing


  Brett Schaefer: (09:46) Steve, also add a generic calrification that all SOs and ACs have authonomy over their operating procecsses. Don't know where it would fit in the bylaws.


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:46) +1 to Keith


  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (09:46) +1 a song from James


  Matthew Shears: (09:47) excellent idea


  Becky Burr: (09:47) yes, see the clarification in the chat -


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:47) right - that needs to be clarified in the notes.


  Keith Drazek: (09:47) sing James, sing!


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:47) Sorry to dissapoint, not enough whiskey yet today =)


  Brett Schaefer: (09:48) Zuck can sing


  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (09:48) @James, it's nearly 5pm. Get to work on the whiskey!


  Brett Schaefer: (09:48) Agree, just seems to be a needed clarification


  Matthew Shears: (09:49) Its 5pm sopmwhere


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:49) pour a dram and have a go James


  Keith Drazek: (09:49) Is anyone on this call opposed to the principle we've discussed? Obviously subject to review of text.


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:49) I'm not eaget too die... and least in a ditch


  Becky Burr: (09:49) yeah, don't think of Zuck as an Irish tenor ...


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:50) you mean no formal objection?


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:50) I;d sing at your funeral Jorge =)


  Keith Drazek: (09:51) I support this path forward. Does anyone not at this time?


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:51) Full support Keith


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:51) why don't the co-chairs give a try to a merger in short?


  Philip Corwin: (09:51) In the last sentence it is ambiguous what "such advice" references, IMHO. Can it be made more specific?


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:51) I don't think Keith's note has to be reflected in the bylaws.    But I don't see harm in doing so


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:52) I think its useful clarifying text for the proposal


  Keith Drazek: (09:52) Remember we're just developing instructions to drafters.


  Milton Mueller: (09:52) I think it does need to be in the bylaws


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:52) yes


  Milton Mueller: (09:52) "current practice" in bylaws, any deviation from that require comunity mechanism


  Philip Corwin: (09:52) I believe it is meant to reference the type of advcice described in the preceding sentence, but it could be read as referencing any GAC advice


  Matthew Shears: (09:53) good point Phil


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:53) good point, Phil


  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (09:53) good point


  Matthew Shears: (09:53) consensus advice + 1 Brett


  Philip Corwin: (09:53) Yes, just add "consensus" before "advice"


  David McAuley (RySG): (09:53) might be a happy thanksgiving after all


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:53) let's pardon all turkeys :P


  David McAuley (RySG): (09:54) Agreed @ Jorge


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:54) it already talks about "such advice" and that's a clear reference to the above point in the same clause. So that's OK, with or without that change mentioned by Brett.


  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (09:54) Yes, agreed


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:54) yep


  Philip Corwin: (09:54) Too lkate tp pardon most turkeys--they are being stuffed at the moment ;-)


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:54) No


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:54) Just turkey eating


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:54) OHHH!!


  David McAuley (RySG): (09:55) Turkey, whiskey, and singing


  Keith Drazek: (09:55) Thanks everyone! Good work today.


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:55) Looks good - great spirit well done everybody!


  Becky Burr: (09:55) yes, thanks all and happy day!


  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (09:55) Thanks everyone


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) thanks all and happy thanksgiving


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:55) Happy Holidays Americans


  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:55) bye - and thx to all


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) really good progress


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:55) bye


  Megan Richards, European Commission 2: (09:55) thanks for the sacrifices from the American participants for which we are all very thankful


  Philip Corwin: (09:55) Bye all. be thankful!


  Brett Schaefer: (09:55) Happy Thanksgiving! Bye all.


  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (09:55) Thank you Jordan.


  Matthew Shears: (09:55) good positive call


  Ron da Silva: (09:55) best to all.. cheers!


  Markus Kummer: (09:55) Bye all


  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:55) thanks all


  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:55) Thx all!


  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (09:55) Good bay all!


  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (09:55) Happy Thanksgiving folks


  David McAuley (RySG): (09:55) Good bye


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:55) good work!


  Andrew Sullivan: (09:55) thnak you all


  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (09:55) Thankyou CoChairs and all. Good b'ye. CW


  Alice Munyua (GAC): (09:55) Happy thanksgiving!


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (09:55) ciao!


  Konstantinos Komaitis: (09:55) bye all


  Greg Shatan: (09:55) Bye all and Happy Thanksgiving!


  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (09:55) bye all


  Avri Doria: (09:55) bye, off to cook the turkey


  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:55) ciao


  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (09:55) bye all


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (09:56) tnx everyone.  bye!


  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (09:56) tHansk bye


  Aarti Bhavana: (09:56) Bye all

  • No labels