Original post:  https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-14-en

WEBINAR #3: CCWG-Accountability Briefing on Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

CoChairs are organizing this webinar to provide an additional opportunity for Chartering Organizations/community members to receive an overview of the Draft Proposal and ask questions.

  • Wednesday, 16 December at 20:00 UTC (time zone converter here)

The webinar will be run in an Adobe Connect room. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to acct-staff@icann.org and indicate your language request (if needed). The webinar will be recorded and transcribed. Live interpretation will be made available in English, Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic, Russian and Portuguese.

Download the webinar slides here --> PDF

Webinar Slides Translation:  Pусский | العربية | Español | 中文 | Français | Português

Join the Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/
Please be sure to contact acct-staff for dial in details if needed. 

Attendees:  Albert Daniels, Alexandra, Alison Hayman, Allan MacGillivray, Annaliese Williams, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Ashley Heineman, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David Maher, Everton Rodrigues, Fabricio Vayra, Fiona Asonga, Glenn McKnight, Gordon Chillcott, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, James Bladel, Javier Moreno, Jeff Neuman, Joette Youkhanna, John Poole, Jon Nevett, Julia Charvolen, Karine Perset, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Stubbs, Klaus Stoll, Leon Sanchez, Lori Schulman, Mark Carvell, Maura Gambassi, Maureen Hilyard, Megan Richards, Monica Soliño, Nathalie Coupet, Nick Shorey, Nicola, Nigel HIckson, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Oscar, Owen Smigelski, Pär Brumark, Paticio Poblete, Paul McGrady, Peter Vergote, Pua Hunter, Reg Levy, Ryan Carroll, Sabine Meyer, Samantha Demetriou, Sandra Hoferichter, Sara Bockey, Sébastien  Bachollet, Simon Jansson, Steve DelBianco, Susan Payne, Tatiana Tropina, Taylor Bentley, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (62)


Adobe Connect recording:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1krs5qg0vm/

Adobe Connect Chat:

  Alice Jansen: (12/16/2015 13:41) Welcome to the CCWG-ACCT Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations webinar! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:01) <Question>  On this webinar, can you please cover the recent Board comments and the plans to address (it at all) those comments?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:03) Hi Jeff, we did not plan to cover the Board comments. The purpose of the webinar is to present our 3rd report

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:03) Thomas - I hear you, but given that those comments have been received and they may change the substance of the third report, shouldnt you discuss those?

  nigel hickson: (14:04) good evening

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:04) @Jeff not in this webinar

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:05) If the CCWG recommendation change as a result of their comments, then will there be another comment period?

  Alice Jansen: (14:05) When submitting a question, you wish to have Co-Chairs/Rapporteurs address  please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>”. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” .

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:06) @Jeff we need to assess all comments and if that takes us to substantially change the proposal then we might issue a suplemental report or continue discussion which would ultimately lead to a 4th comment perios

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:07) Question 1


  Glenn McKnight: (14:08) I liked the surevey

  Glenn McKnight: (14:08) one of the better  surveys by ICANN

  Glenn McKnight: (14:08) one of the better  surveys by ICANN\

  Glenn McKnight: (14:08) should put the links in the chat

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) Please record this question as a formal question from Kavouss Arasteh

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:09) @Kavouss what do you mean by negotiation with concerned parties? There is no negotitation going on as far as I know

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:09) Question 2

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:10) At the begining of each Recommendation it is mentioned that the text proposed for Bylaws are of conceptual nature and the final text will be drafted and finalized by the external council and ICANN legal Department.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12) I do not agree with that to the extent that we would be at the merci of the external counsel and legal Department of ICANN. I strongly suggest that any such final text must be get the approval of the CCWG or any replaning entity for that please confirm my understanding

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12) Pls receord this as formal question7 comment from Kavouss Arasteh

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:13) Kavous your questions are noted above

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:14) @Kavouss that is the idea. Whatever comes from external counsel would come back to the CCWG for final approval

  Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (14:14) <Question>  "The thresholds assume that 5 SO/ACs will participate as Decisional Participants. It appears that they choose to participate on a case by case basis - is this correct? What if more than one SO/AC abstains? Is there a point where it becomes unviable? Related to this, can an SO/AC participate part way through the process but remove itself before the end decision? <Question>

  Greg Shatan: (14:16) <Question> Do changes to the Articles of Incorporation have the same approval requirement as the Fundamental Bylaws? </Question>

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:17) @Greg It is being taken into account by external counsel and I believe the answer is yes

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:18) @Greg para 136 in the main proposal

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:19) 3rd black bullet

  Lori Schulman: (14:19) could yo please advance the slides to fully see the required thresholds?  thank you

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:20) qUESTION 3

  Keith Drazek: (14:21) The RySG has identified a concern with regard to the timeframes in the escalation process. RySG comments will state that more time will be needed to ensure that SOs and ACs can properly consult with their members at the various steps. Just a heads up.

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:21) Indeed, I apologize for that

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:21) Why the IANA bugdet which is of major concverns of Naming Community is subject to the approval of the entire community?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) The other communities' interests may be entrely  irrelevant to the IIANA interests  why they should be empowered to act.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) Pls record this as Q3 from Kavouss Arasteh

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:25) done

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:25) Question 4

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:26) Public policy issues are exclussive powers and area of responsibility of the Governments .Why other community enter to this area which may not be relevant to their responsibility.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) ST 18 is an example of this intrusion in the area of authority of Governments . 

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:28) @ Keith: agree that 15 day window is unrealistic for GAC whose member reps woudl need to consult in capital and revert to GAC chair who then has to determine a GAC consensus.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:28) WSIS 2003 AND wsis 2005 IN WHICH MORE THAN 19500 PEOPLE OF ALL CATEGORIES PARTICIPATED ,confirmed that exclussive and authority of the governments on public policy issues .x

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) WHY ccwg did not respect that fundamental issue

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:29) @Mark -- can you say what would be the minimum number of days for GAC to respond?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) Pls record this as Question 4 from Kavouss Arasteh

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:30) <QUESTION>  How again would nominating Committee Appointed Board members be removed?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:30) Mark abd Steve, what do you mean by that deadline?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:30) @ Steve: is an issue GAC needs to discuss - I guess at minimum 30 - 40 days.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:31) GAC ,like other chartering organizations is expected to comments between 7 to 21 January once the results of public comments are available.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:31) I know some of you pusshing GAC to reply eralier

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:31) I am still not online

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:32) On what basis you propose that?

  Sabine Meyer: (14:32) "not online" = in line to see Star Wars? ;)

  Keith Drazek: (14:32) @Kavouss: I think the discussion was on the timeframes in the escalation path, not on the comment period.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:32) Keioth

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:32) Ohh  I would be keen to join that line  Sabine

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:33) I was absent when you made the famous compromise on ST18,

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:33) w'end activity for me includes gold class ticketting to The Movie!

  Keith Drazek: (14:33) I stated that the RySG has concerns with the tight timeframes in the escalation process. Mark responded saying he also had concerns.

  Keith Drazek: (14:33) Then Steve asked Mark what an acceptable timeframe would be for the GAC. Hope that helps.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:34) What was the basis that the representative of Verisgin proposed amendmnets 7 compromise on the issues relevant to GAC?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) correction

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) amendment/ COMPROMISE

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) Question 5

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:36) @ Kavouss: talking about the escalation ladder - e.g. step 2 on supporting a petition.and step 6 for objectng to use community power.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:36) Seems my Mic  is NOT working  SO  SORRY

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) May the Co-Chairs express their view on diving the Mission in twom parts , One part very concise and high level dealing with Mission and

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) THE second part is moving the rest of the Mission texts into Scope?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37)  Please record this as Quetion 5 from Kavouss Arasteh

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:37) zLeon and I are unable to be dialed out to OR  to dial IN to any of the Adigo Numbers  ( we think we 'broke their system' :-(   we have been working frantically behind the scenes to fix all this  but to na avail :-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:38) Dear Co Chairs

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:39) Pls give the Floor for further exporing the Question 1 already raised

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:40) Dear Kavouss, can you please clarify to which negotiation do you refer to?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) Negotiation made in CCWG Members

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) Between CCWG and ICANN

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:41) @Kavouss ther is no negotiation that I am aware of. Can you please provide details?

  Keith Drazek: (14:41) @Kavouss: After NTIA posted its most recent statement on its expectations for ST18, I suggested that a compromise would acknowledge the GAC is in full control of its own operating principles, to include how it develops consensus advice, provided the definition of consensus is the UN language. It was an effort to find a compromise path forward that would secure the support of all chartering organizations.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:42) icann attended all CCWG meeting after LA,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:43) tHEY WERE ALLOWED TO RAISE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS AND ccwg made ever efforts to take those questions into account and meets the Board's concerns, We did not expect that they now as the case that theyx vnever been consulted not r participated at any meeting

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) ICANN basically object to many issues the principles of which were deliberately and extensively discussed .

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) Raising these questions at this last moment is not productive

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:45) @ Keith: your efforts much appreciated by the GAC contributors.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:45) Mark

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:45) It is helpless to opposing to my comments

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:46) Leon

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) DISCUSSIONS AT ccwg IS A GINUINE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ccwg participants? Do you disagree with that?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:47) Has the GAC had a structural review?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) What is Structural Review?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:48) <Question>  What is the CCWG rationale for including the 2/3 vote provision in this stress test?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) ST18 WENT FAR MORE THAN IT SHOULD

  Lori Schulman: (14:49) Does this means  that if the Board chooses to accept the advice it doesn't have to have a formal vote?'

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:49) Stress test is designed to proposed remedial action in case that some abnormal situation occurs. The current GAC advice was ans is workin for 17 years if we maintain the current situation.

  Lori Schulman: (14:50) its odd language

  Lori Schulman: (14:50) if not rejected does that mean its accepted?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:51) This language implicitly requires the ICANN Board to vote on every piece of GAC advice

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:51) Should the condition based on which the consensus is made is changed then we may need a stess Test . Cosequently ,we should maintain the current Byléaws if the current princuiple to reach consensus  is changed

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:51) different than current

  Lori Schulman: (14:51) Didn't Fadi say to Congress that this is what would not happen:?

  Lori Schulman: (14:51) If implicit then we should make explicit so there is no confusion

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) In that case we should carry forward the existing Bylaws text and adding the eventuality of a change in the Principle 47

  Greg Shatan: (14:52) <Question> This Bylaw currently makes no reference to voting.  The revision states that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board.  This appears to create an obligation for the Board to vote on every piece of GAC Advice?</Question>

  Keith Drazek: (14:52) @Jeff: the 2/3 only applies to consensus advice.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) Steve

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:52) @Keith - Understood, but why was it put in there

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) Pls note that ST 18 went far from that it should go

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) There needs to be limitations other than it being agreed by a consensus

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) that is even more than the GNSO is given

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) The GNSO is only given that right when part of a FORMAL PDP

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:53) And I too have finally got through to an AU dial In number to cinnect to audio phone bridge :-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) Please read the chat ,my comments

  Alice Jansen: (14:53) link to public comment period https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:53) If the GNSO Council approves something unanimously, but it is not part of a formal PDP, the board does not have to be deferential

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:54) We are doing so Kavous  they will be included with all other questions  when we do the Q&A at the END f the presentaion...

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) The board does not need to negotiate with the GNSO

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) it can ignore the GNSO

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:54) So if the GAC gives advice which the community believes is beyond its jurisdiction, then why should it have the 2/3 standard applied

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:54) Leon

  Greg Shatan: (14:55) <Question> After this revision, what is the status of GAC Advice if (a) no vote is taken on it or (b) a vote is taken to reject it but the 2/3 majority is not achieved? Is this GAC Advice now binding on ICANN in either or both cases? </Question>

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:55) I totally disagree with the way that you explain the time line

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:55) Pls read my comments in chat  pls

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:56) There needs to be a clear definition of public policy to which the GAC advice gets this deferential treatment

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) Grec

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:56) if outside that limited scope, it should be treated the same as any advice from the community

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) I do not understand the term " Binding " There is no binding.

  Lori Schulman: (14:57) Does transparency include transparency in contract enforcement?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:57) There an obligation for ICANN to get into negotiation with GAC if ICANN disagree with the advise .Consequently getting involved in discussion does not mean to be binding

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:58) I do not know from where the term 2 Binding 2 emanated in this particular case

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (14:58) @Kavuouss - that deferential treatment should only apply to subjects appropriate in the jurisdiction of the GAC and only where there is consensus

  Lori Schulman: (14:58) I understand that the discussion/negotiation requirement essentially puts the advice in limbo

  Lori Schulman: (14:59) so there could be a "no vote" outcome

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:59) Consensus building and its defintion is totally remain within the mandate and authority of GAC.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:59) Did you entered in the way that IETF OR gnso ARRIVE AT CONSENSUS ?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:00) Actually Kavouss yes the GNSO and IETF have definitions of consensus

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:00) Why for GAC everbody is so sensitive and whants to tdetermine what is the definition of consensus.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:01) That definition is the sole authority and mandate of GAC and NO OTHER COMMUNITY

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:01) @Kavouss - because GAC advice can place all policies that the rest of the community wants into limbo for many months

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:01) pLS INDICATE DOES GAC entered in the business of how other SO 7 AC make their consuensus? Pls reply

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:02) @Kavuouss - when the GAC gives advice (unlike when other SOs or ACs do), the ICANN staff stops everythiing.  Look @ all of the new gTLD issues, the 2 characters, category 1 and 2 strings.....

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:04) leon

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:04) <FOLLOW UP QUESTION> Can we have a community call to discuss any changes that the CCWG is thinking of making as a result of the Board Comments>

  Keith Drazek: (15:04) The GAC can determine its own operating procedures. But the entire community can contribute to discussions around the threshold for ICANN Board obligations in response to GAC advice. We can all be impacted by that obligation.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:05) YOU DID NOT ANSWRE MY QUESTION AT ALL

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06) Leon

  Alice Jansen: (15:06) Please mute your lines if not speaking

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06) I thought ICANN is an organization in which every body is duly and timely listened

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:07) @Kavouss whish question. You have raised several questions

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:07) which of your questions Kavouss?

  Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (15:07) thank you Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:07) All was not answered

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) Leon

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) Pls do not play with the words

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:09) I meant rehjection of IANA bUDGET

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) Leon


  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) cO-chairs

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:11) @Kavouss I am not playing and I am sorry you are dissapointed

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:11) I tried to answer your question not to dodge it

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:11) Either intentionally or due to lack of proper answer you did not reply my quesions ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:12) Thomaso

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:12) yOU DO NOT READ THE MAILS

  Greg Shatan: (15:12) This question relates to the Board's comments.

  nigel hickson: (15:13) Leon; it is not you that is being slow, Kavous is being really difficult!

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:13) yes 18

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:13) and why 2/3?

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:14) I do read mails Kavouss. I am sorry for your frustration

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:15) @Steve:  But the Board only has to reject FORMAL PDPs with 2/3rds vote not all decisions of the GNSO

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:15) Pleae kindly review the e-mails exchange between Bruce ( MBoard Member) and the rest of the aCCWG to understand my question

  Greg Shatan: (15:16) It's the new language that's the problem.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:16) Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:16) Pls read my comments for your Famous ST 18 AND REPLY TO THAT

  James Bladel: (15:18) Presuming that the Board determines whtheer or not its actions are compliant with GAC advice, and not the gAC?

  Lori Schulman: (15:20) <question>  Does the transparency work contemplated in workstream 2 envision transparency with regard to decisions made regarding contract compliance? <question>

  Leon Sanchez (CCWG Co-Chair, ALAC): (15:21) @Lori the scope of that work should be defined within WS2 so there's no clear answer to your question at this stage Lori

  James Bladel: (15:22) (1) GAC issues advice.  (2) Board agrees,  takes action.  (3) GAC does not believe Board's action is aligned iwth advice, requests a vote.

  Lori Schulman: (15:23) Thank you Leon

  Greg Shatan: (15:23) I had a second question.

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) That's one.

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) I also had a third question.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) lEON

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) <Question> After this revision, what is the status of GAC Advice if (a) no vote is taken on it or (b) a vote is taken to reject it but the 2/3 majority is not achieved? Is this GAC Advice now binding on ICANN in either or both cases? </Question>

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) i RAISED 5 QUESTIONS

  Greg Shatan: (15:25) Articles are even more fundamental than fundament bylaws....

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:25) nONE OF THEM WAS ANSWERED BY YOU`?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:25) No, Greg.  Not binding.   But if the board does not get 2/3 to reject GAC advice, then that implies the board is not rejecting GAC advice

  James Bladel: (15:26) Thanks Thomas, Leon, Steve & others.

  Lori Schulman: (15:27) <question> My concern with Steve's answers is that the bylaws should not be implicit but explicit.  It's too important.  Why not use explicit language?<question>

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:28)  WAS INTERRUPTED WHY'?

  Lori Schulman: (15:29) Understand.  Thank you for your consideration and for all of the very hard and thoughtful work.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (15:29) We had to end the call

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:29) @Lori - from the report

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:29) 42           Note: The language proposed in recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability’s external legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws).

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:29) i FULLY RESPECT THE CO cHAIRS

  Annaliese Williams (GAC Australia): (15:29) Thank you


  Gordon Chillcott: (15:29) Thank you.  

  Greg Shatan: (15:29) Bye all.

  nigel hickson: (15:29) thank you co-chairs

  Alice Jansen: (15:29) Thank you for joining the call - archives will be available at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986256


  • No labels