Members:    Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (25)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Alain Bidron, Andrew Sullivan, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Chris LaHatte, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Jorge Cancio, Jonne Soininen, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Olivier Muron, Paul Szyndler, Paul Twomey, Pedro da Silva, Peter Van Roste, Phil Buckingham, Rory Conaty, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Simon Jansson, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Yasuichi Kitamura   (46)

Observers and Guests:   Abdelmajid Daoufa, Adrian Carballo, Ahmed Amine Naji, Amy Stathos, Annaliese Williams, Asha Hemrajani, Ashwini Sathnur,  Ayden Férdeline, Bobby Chombo, Brian Sun, Bruno Lanvin, Calabar City Hub, Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Gross, Fiona Aw, Gaolingli, Gordon Chillcott, Guoyongan, Hassan, HS, Hatimgm, Ilyass, Imane, Imran, Ismail Derrazi, Jan Scholte, Jimm Phillips, Jim Prendergast, Joan Kerr, John Poole, Joyce Chen, Konstantinos Komaitis, Lito Ibarra, Liang Junying, Luca Urech, Maclovia, Michelle Bright, Milena Timur, Mohamadou Zarou, Mohcine, Naela Sarra, Nicolás Fiumarelli, Okang, Omar, Oudmane, Rachid, RAR, Ryan Carroll, Saad, Shawn W., Stewart Lafayette, Taylor RW Bentley, Ted Bartles, Theresa Stedman, Tripti Sinha, Tyrcotte

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Glen de Saint Gery, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Larisa Gurnick, Liana Teo, Margie Milam, Nigel Hickson, Theresa Swinehart, Xavier Calvez

Apologies:  Barrack Otieno

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




08:00 - 08:30 – Welcome:

      • Roll call and SOI updates; 

      • Opening remarks and housekeeping;

      • Define meeting goals, outcomes.

08:30 -09:30 – WS1 recommendation: preparing engagement session and update on consideration by SO/ACs 

09:30 -10:30 – Planning for WS1 implementation

      • Overall approach with legal counsel, implementation oversight team, and other subgroups

      • Call for volunteers

10:30-10:45 – Coffee break

10:45-12:00 – WS2 Kick-off 

      • Discussion on general approach

      • Plenary approval on scope, requirements, recommendations for public comments

      • Call for volunteers to Chartering Organizations

12:00-13:00 Lunch break

13:00-15:00 – Exchange of views regarding WS2 items scopes 

      • Staff overview presentation 

      • Diversity

      • SO/AC Accountability

      • Staff Accountability

      • Transparency 

      • Human Rights Framework

      • Jurisdiction 

      • Ombudsman

15:00-15:30 – Coffee break

15:30-16:30 – Resources and facilitation for WS2 

      • Meeting and travel support requests

      • External legal counsel 

16:30-17:00 – AOB and Closing Remarks


Chartering Organizations’ Update


Sessions will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday. Each ccNSO appointed member will be invited to provide a summary of whether or not they recommend approval. Session on next steps will take place on Wednesday.


SSAC was the first Chartering Organization to approve the report. SSAC went through a deliberate process.


GNSO is holding its working session this weekend. Draft motion suggests adopting all 12 recommendations.


Planning 5 sessions to review document and plans to finish by Tuesday. There still are issues to discuss.


No issues with initial Third Draft Proposal. Supplemental report was shared. Only issue was explained in minority statement but has nothing to do with substance of report. Our accountability is based on SLA for numbering function. We don’t expect issues. Positive feedback was given. Expect to close on March 6.


2-hour briefing sessions were conducted. ALAC hopes to finish process this weekend. Some are suggesting providing a statement along with the ratification. 

On ratification, CCWG CoChairs strongly discourage combining approval with conditions. Be conservative with any additional language.


-        There might be remarks about Bylaws drafting and implementation.

à This might cause issue for approval and process. Be conservative.

à Statements run risk of creating conflicts in interpretation between Chartering Organizations. Flesh it better if considered internal to Chartering Organization. It would be better if separate.

à One of our objective is to know how we are going to implement.

ICG update

We have received confirmation from CWG that dependencies are met. We have already prepared a draft letter and authorized the Chair of ICG to send it to the Board on March 10. We will wait for Chartering Organizations to approve the CCWG report.

Board update

All-day meeting of Board yesterday. If COs sign off, we will be able to process report quickly. Team on Board was formed to work closely with CCWG Team on getting Bylaws completed.


Objective is to have better view of how organizing WS1 implementation and WS2. Find a strawman approach for next month.

WS1 implementation

Way forward:

  • IRP Team led by Becky
  • IOT – comprised of CoChairs and Rapporteurs

Suggestion to break Work Stream 2 into subgroups. 


-        How do you see approval of language that will emerge from oversight process?

à Implementation oversight team – IRP Team. Will break Work Stream 2. Completely independent.

-        Generally acceptable. Drafting of Bylaws and a specific number of Bylaws is going to be critical. Statements were made along the way.

à We need process to be important and transparent. Opportunity to track process but lawyers are strongly cautioning us against process that is too iterative.

-        ACTION ITEM Display composition for each subgroup.

-        Reconcile with recommendations and turn around for CCWG approval as each section comes along. AOC bylaws is just one recommendation.

-        Concerned that this is a fait accompli. No opportunity for group to reopen issues. Criteria for checking is whether or not wording adequately implements what has been decided. We should be given proper opportunity for review.

  • ACTION ITEM Relabel with CCWG review instead of approval.

-        Writing should be in compliance with recommendation. We should look into availability of projects. Address these issues.

-        You were elected for three/five years – we want respiration and check whether CO members want to stay on board and/or if need more people. Is it time to change them?

à We will need to discuss how we organize work. It is a probability that renewed energy is needed. It will be discussed as part of WS2. The intent to write to COs to ask for confirmation/renewal of members if find it appropriate and have confirmation that group is planning to play in terms of implementation. It is opportunity to liaise with Chartering Organizations.

-        Certify requests instead of topics.

-        Make sure lawyers understand what you want. It is key. Let them do the drafting.

-        Maintenance of budget should be considered.

-        Will there be observers on mailing-list?

à Calls will be recorded and potentially transcribed. We want to avoid lawyers interacting with a large number of people. Objective is to channel input to lawyers through fewer individuals. 

-        Push mailing-list.

à Group is very sensitive to make sure Bylaws are consistent. Flag issue. Check whether requirements make way

-        What will interaction be with ICANN lawyers.

à Exact flow to be determined.

-        Board: subset of directors facilitating process and communicating with wider Board. Board will be using Jones Day to provide advice. Work collaboratively with CCWG. Goals of both groups is common goal.

à Board has fiduciary role. It needs to be collaborative.

à We need to ensure we respect duty of Board to publish for comments. Transparency for Chartering Organizations.

-        By end of week Board will provide timetable to share. All bylaws to review.

-        Setting up a list so that everyone can observe this process.

-        Lleadership group that would be coordinating effort between different groups.  


Overall process set up on slide will be agreed process and include refinements (e.g. insertion of CCWG review/ratification). Initial drafting will be directed to independent counsel working collaboratively with ICANN legal. We are continuing with IRP group set up so far and will use CoChairs/Rapporteurs to oversee the drafting for rest of Bylaws. These groups will operate under same transparency standards. What is at stake here is ensuring we have compliance between report and Bylaws. We will get key milestones from process Board is drafting. It will drive project plan. The IRP group includes lawyers and non lawyers 

Engagement slides

Run-through of engagement slides.


Discuss how this would fit with ATRT review. We need to decide whether we want to combine efforts with existing efforts.

Are there topics we want to work on in parallel or separately? Jurisdiction is multi-facetted. We need to understand how to involve resources. An agreement with strawman project plan is needed. There could be first phase of work where we create inventory of existing tools and establish requirements of what should go into report of these subteams. Do we want to consider a public comment period? We should phase out work irrespectively of when it starts in comparable manner for all work items.


-        - Issues in WS2 are important. Public comment will be important for vision at plenary level. It could be good to have a view of what each of the groups are doing. We have to consult – important to have vision at plenary level to know what each group is doing at each level.

-        Important that we take into account what has already be done at ICANN. For jurisdiction, large amount of doc through presidential review teams are available. Ask people who were participating in these discussions. Subgroup is a must. Diversity should be ensured. We need to take into account what ATRT is doing and its remit. What is current remit of ATRT? Do we want to outsource to other groups for instance human rights? Do we want to have working group with Ombudsman?

-        We need to pitch ATRT implementation. This group has absolute priority. At any time, if we have to choose between WS2 – WS1 has priority.

-        Work Stream 2 items are pretty close to ATRT remit. They could be handed to the next ATRT in a normative way. Step back and be descriptive on how we organize work.

-        What is the envisioned timeline? An estimate of required resources is needed. In terms of working methods, use documents/practices and see how deeply we want to go.

-        We need clear understanding of budget ceiling and to identify process to organize workload.

-        We have no time limit. Urge to get WS1 totally finished and to start with individual projects.

-        ATRT is the natural home for transparency, accountability. We should not hesitate to take an approach. We need limits.

-        WS1 was mandatory step. We need to take this into account. We need certain role. We need to have idea of when we want to deliver.

-        Human rights – might be self defeating to have in parallel.

-        When the ATRT is convened – we need to be careful in way we do subdivision.

-        Crucial to finish WS1 first. Agree that there is no time pressure. No more than three subgroups should be set up along with set deadlines for purposes. Before subgroup starts, we should agree when delivers work. All subgroup working same time.

-        There should get 12-month limit on WS2 to make sure issues were addressed.

-        There is expertise on human rigts etc that could be helpful


There are fundamental items on which agreement needs to be reached as a group.


ASO has signed off on supplemental report.

Review Team work

Presentation delivered by ICANN staff on review work.

Accountability includes topics of continuous improvement – work does not have end point. It is important to evaluate to what extent that work has been affected. It is helpful to have shared understanding between Board, community and staff on desired outcome and to measure how that could be accomplished. There needs to be direct and clear outcomes quantified for the community. Recommendation has to be measurable. Another attribute is considering resources

Questions to ask: What constitutes a successful outcome? What frameworks or tools would be be useful to design outcomes? How should various teams look at that and define what constitutes desirable?

ATRT3 is scheduled to kick off in January 2017. Once Board takes action on implementation – one of improvements will be to have continuity: RT members to participate in implementation work with staff and Board.

Preparatory work that was undertaken from CCT-RT should be considered. Starting work with tremendous amount of work.


-        How do our Work Stream 1 recommendations affected the line presented to us?

à Slide based on current mandate.

-        See what changes woll bring to schedule. There is ongoing work. Avoid duplication.

-        It is key to understand where we are.

-        Each team will look at prior reviews.

-        Do we wait for ATRT to finish? Discuss post ATRT3 – we can give them baseline.

-        Do we want to feed into ATRT,  post ATRT or both?

-        We should refer to ATRT – not feed into ATRT.

-        10 months/22 months is kick-off date from now on to transfer to a group that may not exist for a review. They may or may not have desired focus to work on list. We need to make decision once informed.

-        Concern about mixing ATRT3 and Work Stream 2. ATRT is evaluation group – changes how accepted/reviewed. It is a different work basket.

-        We have to limit shortcomings. 


Let’s not make assumptions about ATRT3 until it has not started. As soon as it is up and running, important coordination will be needed to avoid duplication of efforts and optimize resource management, including volunteer time and resources.


-        Agree with conclusions with note that should CCWG deal in Work stream 2 identify activities – understanding on remarks

Are there objections to initiating Work Stream 2 before finalizing Work Stream1?

-        Human Rights should be prioritized

-        Work Stream 1 and 2 are things that would happen before and after We adopted rationale for those we needed leverage of transition. Anything else that needed leverage could be deferred to WS2. We have discovered issues. Up to CCWG community members to say whether can wait

-        Clarifying question – Work Stream 1 is critical path. Limited window – how do we do this in paralle; and keep enough energy to get Work Stream 2 done – most concerned about getting transition done in time.

à Getting WS 1 implemented is our highest priority. New calls for volunteers might be needed for these exercises. Group needs to take that decision.

-        How does the group ensure that the energy does not get sucked up from implementation?. There is strong commitment that CoChairs commitment is highest priority. Delivering on task

-        Wait until majority of implementation work it s done

-        Not in favor of doing two things at same time.

-        We should do background work in the 6-month window.

-        It should not be strictly time bound. We should, however, work on strict scope.

-        Ombdusman invitation to attend session on role of Ombudsman.

-        Transparency should be given priority in Work Stream 2.

Many are keen on prioritization and pre-work. We will discuss sequencing of the work later today. Decision not to bundle any of the items, but the sequencing may have a natural effect in building on outcomes

SDB – not more than 3 at the same time? GA we had up to 5 running simultaneously.

KA – Hope these would not compromise the openness and inclusivity.

PTwomey – Why 10? GA these were guidelines.

GA = outside expertise was brought in as required from staff.

ASullivan – explanation of IETF DTs. Like the idea.

GA – CWG work was more specific.

AGreenberg – CWG reality was less about experts and more about interest. They were designed to be short lived but this was not always the case.

KA – experts or interested could be used.

TR – this should inspire us. Seems CCWG likes the concept. We need to specify if need experts or not – timing should not be an issue. Some WS2 items could have sub-groups.

KA – no need to go into great details as to what the wg does.

TR – Presentation of the 5 step approach:

  1. CCWG

1.1.   Establishes a working group for a Work Stream 2 topic


  1. Working Group

2.1.   Working group selects a WG coordinator (Cannot be CCWG co-chair, rapporteur or coordinator of another WG)

2.2.   Establish inventory of material available on topic in CCWG.

2.3.   Check work under way or previously conduced outside of CCWG

2.4.   Propose scope and work plan

2.5.   Establish list of requirements


  1. CCWG

3.1.   Review and adoption of working group scope and requirements


  1. Working Group

4.1.   Prepare a draft for CCWG and public comment.


  1. CCWG

5.1.   Review and adopt draft.

5.2.   Conduct a public comment on the draft (linked to ICANN meeting schedule)

5.3.   Analysis and consideration of results of public comment

5.4.   Define next steps for working group


TR – questions or comments of this basic project plan for all the WS2 topics.


SDB – Could staff do more than schedule calls?

TR – We could have staff do and issue report as per the gNSO for PDPs.

SDB – Time could be variable

*TR – could staff give us an estimate on the time required for each WS2 topic?

SEisner – RE SDB request re timing – part of it depends on sequencing and parameters.

TR – correct

JCarter – Include ICANN meetings in planning to gather face to face input.

TR – We like the approach combined with the Design team approach seems supported. We will send a request for volunteers soon.

EL – limit number of wgs a single person can participate.

TR – yes

JScholte – how do we get new blood involved?

TR – let communicate to chartering orgs about this including social media.

MHutty – agree with EL – not prevent people who wish to participate from participating.

BTonkin – Board has similar challenges for Board committees – limit size of committees and the number of committees a Director can be on.

JCancio – Any provisions regarding involvement of CCWG advisors?

TR – good point – advisors present seem to agree – WGs would decide how to u se the advisors. We will come back to the group with a proposal on a way forward with respect to this.

LS – Scoping of the various WS 2 issues. How should we approach these and flesh them out. First topic is Diversity.

EL – which order should we look at them.

LS – Human Rights

PTwomey – Need to know what we want ot implement.

Neils Ten Oever – We have a clear way forward as listed in Annex 12 – We need a Human Rights Impact Assessment – then we can see what would be the best way forward.

AGreenberg – Really important that result gets overall buy-in so we need to be able to communicate it properly by everyone especially non-experts.

LS – Agree with AG.

ADoria – Things said I agree with. Regarding groups outside the CCWG which work on some of these topics and possible mergers to not reinvent the wheel. However we need a group in the CCWG to meet the needs of the CCWG given these other groups often have much large remit.

KArasteh – Merge groups in ICANN on one topic?

ELisse – Do not agree with KA – we have said we need to do this we need to do this.

ADoria – These other groups have different concerns than the CCWG.

EMann – Have been working on this topic for over 20 years and it is very tricky. We need valid legal expertise in this field. Agree with Avri.

LS – void broadening the scope of this group. Now Jurisdiction

EMann –


4PM (continued)

Presentation by MW on management of CCWG going forward.

CherineChelaby: Historically it is not in our DNA that CCWG’s could spend this amount of money. The size of the expenses makes us think that we3 need to manage costs going forward – but this would be a change for the community – but we should proceed in a step by step fashion. To get any significant project going requires a real transparent process with adequate approvals based on reliable estimates. Reliable estimates are difficult to generate on an adhoc basis – we should proceed with a pilot project to look back at historical expenditures and analyze to produce better estimates going forward (4- 6 weeks to get this data). Once we have this data we should get back together with the group to consider the results.

RMeijer – we need to ask consultants for estimates before the work is requested.

MW – We have started this way of working with the legal team. Also having more time vs always working in a rush will also help significantly.

TR – The proposed draft project plan presented earlier also help address this.

RGross – who would the project managers report to?

CC: At this point it would not matter given their work is to produce estimates.

RGross =- they should report to the co-chairs.

Jcarter – This proposal seems fine. What is unclear is where the Board is thinking this leads to. CCWG must be able to keep control to get work done.

KArasteh – generally ok but a bit more careful on legal costs. We need to be effective and economical.

CC – terms project manager and financial manager are inaccurate – we simply need people with skill to produce the desired outcome.

MW – under these conditions we welcome the BFC  proposal for the pilot project.

MW – Going forward we will still need staff support. We will also need F2F meeting before the next ICANN meetings as this meeting has shown for WS2 and WS1 implementation. Legal advice may also be needed but should be less. Half the cost was due to us asking for very short turn-around. On some non-critical elements, it could be fine to use other legal resources such as ICANN staff legal. We will maintain the same approval process for submitting legal requests but manage the timing better to avoid rush requests.

KArasteh – My comments were not a criticism of the past simply  comment going forward.

SBacholet – turnaround left to lawyers? We need some deadlines.

MW – when asking for an estimate for a request we would also seek to have an estimate on time.

XCalvez – add. Suggestion CWG process for working with legal seems to have worked well and we can assist with negotiations regarding charging for estimates.

MW – Estimates are worthwhile only to significant requests.

EMorris – Do we need two law firms? One is substantially cheaper. Therefore, do we still need the expertise of both firms going forward?

LS – you are correct Ed – we would like the group to decide, uncertain if it is correct to simply rule out one firm. This should be considered or maybe even considering obtaining a new firm.

MW – We should review our current legal setup for WS2 – WS1 is locked.

MHutty – Suggestions reasonable and pragmatic. Leave time frame consideration to co-chairs. Concern about ICANN legal providing input.

MW – trust issue which may evolve. MW concern noted.

JCarter – we need the two firms. We should only ask questions to questions that are well developed and considered valuable.

KArasteh – Bullets need improvements. Need to be clear that only co-chairs certify requests.

BTonkin – In managing legal costs usually use in-house for low level simple stuff and can be used to frame questions for the specialized questions. Separation of Duties is required, Policy support is currently separate and is well provided currently under DOlive. This could really be helpful to the CCWG.

TR – thanks Bruce – we will ask the group how they feel about this.

ELisse – Do not agree with MH, 2 co-chairs are lawyers and could be valid for local questions. Do not think we need in-house counsel.

AshaHemrajani – not looking for new lawyers just looking for good estimates.

MW – yes we have agreed to this – but we were discussing going further.

RGross – Suggestion to use the CCWG legal list.

MW – better planning of costs going forward (presentation of the 5 circles) in an iterative process that is based on a discussion with the Board regarding the costs and estimates. Need better cost tracking linked to results. Then we could look at the value of keeping the process going. We have started working on the first circle with the proposal for estimates. This has to be a collaboration between the CCWG the chartering ORGS and the Board.

CChelaby – support this approach that needs to be iterative.

KArasteh – always a benefit to consult colleauges.

ELisse – the main costs are legal – simply reduce legal and everyone will be happy.

ADoria – this is a constant cycle and seems a big overhead.

MW – lets do one iteration and see. We have a plan going forward.

TR – 2 CO’s approved, clarified WS1 implementation, details for WS2 and decided what would not be in these. We can signal to the world that WS1 is going.

KArasteh – thanks

Action Items

  • ACTION ITEM Display composition for each subgroup.
  • ACTION ITEM Relabel with CCWG review instead of approval.


Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (3/4/2016 07:44)           Welcome to the CCWG Accountability Face to Face Meeting on Friday, 4   March!  My name is Brenda Brewer and I will be monitoring this chat room.  In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants.          When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the microphone in this session, please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud on the microphone, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.

  Steward Lafayette: (07:56) Is it also possible to connect to the session via skype?

  RP -  Tech 3: (07:57) no sorry, only via adboe connect or the streams

  Steward Lafayette: (07:58) Thanks for the quick reply

  Alice Jansen: (08:07) Hi all - the session has not started yet - we will begin shortly.

  Steward Lafayette: (08:09) Excited to be here! And Thanks for the high quality #VOIP

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:10) Hello

  Peter Van Roste (CENTR): (08:11) I am hearing an echo, is it just me?

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:12) no echo here Peter

  Jordan Carter: (08:12) hello

  Steward Lafayette: (08:12) #VOIP with no echo

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:12) Hello all

  Jordan Carter: (08:12)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:16) Hi everyone!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (08:16) We didn't manage to make everyone happy but at least we did everyone (evenly) unhappy

  Steward Lafayette: (08:16) <QUESTION>Your host is also not transparent. The Moroccan government is banning #VOIP to citizens. But it is enabling this live meeting.</QUESTION>

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:16) We have windows with open curtains, so I'm quite happy atm :D

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (08:17) @Steward thanks for your question. However this question falls out of the scope of this group and we are not in a position to provide an answer to it

  Asha Hemrajani: (08:21) Greetings all

  Calabar City Hub: (08:25) Greetings from Calabar - Nigeria.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:25) Greetings Calabar !

  Keith Drazek: (08:31) There will be ample opportunity for all Chartering Organizations to engage on implementation. The vote on the CCWG report really needs to be *not* conditional. The domino effect of conditional statements would be extremely unhelpful at this stage.

  nigel hickson: (08:34) good morning

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:34) Hi

  Calabar City Hub: (08:36) <Qeustion> How can we raise more awareness among governments to follow up on all discussion, because does charge with such responsibilities are not very knowledgeable about the subject matter?<Qeustion>

  Amine: (08:36) Hello Everybody

  Steward Lafayette: (08:39) hello Amine

  Calabar City Hub: (08:40)  <Question> How can we raise more awareness among governments to follow up on all discussion, because those charge with such responsibilities are not very knowledgeable about the subject matter?<Question>

  Calabar City Hub: (08:40) Sorry for the typo in the first q

  Brenda Brewer: (08:40) Thank you for your question Calabar City Hub, one moment please

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:41) @Calabar this is one of the greatest challenges of ICANN and the GAC

  Jordan Carter: (08:42) two workstreams if you like

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:42) Thanks Calabar, lots of outreach has to be conducted. We can all contribute to this. The co chairs did some remote of F2F outreach during local events over the course of this group. Icann also does that and I think P. dandjinou would be your contact

  Calabar City Hub: (08:44) @Mathieu can you send P. Dandjinou contact?

  Calabar City Hub: (08:46) Sub-National government can help improve engagement if ICANN considers including local participation

  Becky Burr: (08:46) right now we are talking about Work Stream 1 implementation

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:47) I think PIerre.Dandjinou (at)

  nigel hickson: (08:47) @Calabar - happy to coverse off line; but regional VP for Africa is    Pierre Dandjinou <>

  Jordan Carter: (08:48) all of this work has to be open

  Jordan Carter: (08:48) and I don't think the phrase "implementation oversight" is quite right to be honest in a sense - the key task the Group has to do is make sure the bylaws framework matches the report

  Jordan Carter: (08:49) if the "Group" just has a role to help assure the first draft of those bylaws is largely right before CCWG as a whole reviews and can scrutinise and add changes, all good

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:49) re: what Alan just said -- I think that this is the reason for the 1st/2d/3d reading approach, no?

  Keith Drazek: (08:49) Agree with both Jordan and Andrew

  Matthew Shears: (08:50) + 1 on openess and transparency of process, etc.

  Becky Burr: (08:50) yes Andrew, exactly

  Avri Doria: (08:52) so this discussion is just WS1 implementation.  Thanks, I was getting confused.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:53) @Andrew, my experience is that once the "words" are presented, it can be amazingly hard for one ot two voices to get a change, even if that change would have been intuitively obvious if the "reminder" had come earlier.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:53) Yes Avri

  Alan Greenberg: (08:53) It is alot like the advantage that the drafting party gets in a two-party contract.

  Avri Doria: (08:54) so the IRP implementation team remains alive and is a third part of this plan?

  Jordan Carter: (08:54) it's the second

  Jordan Carter: (08:54) IRP, and the broader bylaws

  Matthew Shears: (08:54) how will an issue be addressed if it is found that for whatever reason it requires further elaboration or reconsideration by the CCWG (although hopefuly this won't be the case)

  Bruce Tonkin: (08:54) @Jordan -0 I certainly think the subgroup is to make sure that the bylaws are consistent with teh report.   That is the purpose of the Board's bylaws team as well.   The community as a whole needs to be able to review before anything is finalized.   I think you do want a smaller group though to get the first pass right - so at least on face value the bylaws are consistent with the report.

  Jordan Carter: (08:55) just two threads

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:55) @Alan: I get your concern, but the remedy for that problem is surely not for 130 people to participate in drafting.  The draft will never happen in that case.

  Bruce Tonkin: (08:56) @Malcom - agree the CCWG group as a whole does have a role in review.   The review though is whtehr the byklaws is consistnet with the rport - rather than re-opening the issues.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:56) Andrew, no argument there...

  Avri Doria: (08:58) i am so confused at the moment. 2 groups, 3 groups, ...

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:59) two groups, Avri

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:59) IOT and IRP

  Matthew Shears: (08:59) + 1 Jordan

  Avri Doria: (08:59) so there is only IRP implementation oversight, other stuff does not need such oversight?

  Jordan Carter: (08:59) it's the cochiars helping with the first draft review for "IOT", and the existing IRP implementation team

  Jordan Carter: (09:00) well, it seems like we are all going to do that Avri - because such a wide array of interests are interested in such different parts in detail, it has to be open

  Jordan Carter: (09:00) so the idea of a first filter is just to reduce the error rate of the first draft, is how I see it

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:01) remote audio and video lost

  Jordan Carter: (09:01) it's come back now

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:02) Just back, thanks

  Avri Doria: (09:03) I guess my confusion had to do with my understanding of the orignal proposal.  i thought you were proposing a general implementation review team, not just affirming the existence of the IRP implementation review team.

  Jordan Carter: (09:05) Avri: I think that's what Leon said, but all that "general review team" would do is help make sure the bylaws drafts that come to the CCWG are accurate

  Jordan Carter: (09:06) at least, that's how I understand it

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:06) OIT means?

  Sébastien (ALAC): (09:06) Organisation Internationale du Travail ;)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:07) I tihnkn it's ILO in English

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:07) International Labour Organisation

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:08) Good suggestion from @Eberhard.

  Avri Doria: (09:08) Jordan, I understand a split between bylaw review and new structure implementation review, my question is whether the IRP the only thing that needs structural implementation review

  Imane: (09:09) How do you guys feel hosting ICANN in a country where VOIP isi blocked, furious nation out there is not being able to connect with their loved ones and families in Morocco. We need somebody to represent us and escalate this unfortunate decision.

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:09) T@Chris - yes the key to to properly articular the requirements.   Hopefully that is the roile of the CCWG propsola.   Wher the lawyers are unclear then they can go to a smaller group to help clarify.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) AALAC APRegional Member: (09:10) Yes Chris the prep and effectve brifing is essential as a step pre dafting ... I gree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) AALAC APRegional Member: (09:10) Agree  ;-)

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:10) Complete unwillingness to challenge lawyers is very dangerous, and consistent with Board's seeming excessive deference to Jones Day. CCWG MUST be satisfied that the Bylaws adequately and correctly implement the points of principle that it decided

  Chris Disspain: (09:10) absolutely CLO...proper brifing :-)

  Jordan Carter: (09:12) I think the idea is that we should avoid redlining the lawyer drafts

  Jordan Carter: (09:13) if we think something is wrong we describe what we think is wrong, and why

  Jordan Carter: (09:13) we don't try and "Fix It"

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:13) It strikes me that the level of detail in the disucssion here illustrates somewhat why having too many people engaging directly with the  lawyers won't work

  Jordan Carter: (09:16) +

  Jordan Carter: (09:16) +1

  guoyongan: (09:17) where can i find chinese transcript?

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:17) makes sense @Andrew. However a "read only" access on their status/activity may not hurt. I think we've done this before within the CWG and it worked well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:18) CONFEDANT THT CN BE THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE @Seun / Alan

  Jordan Carter: (09:18) and also, of course, if people see stuff on that list they don't agree with, the normal list remains to raise it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:19) Sorry Caps was on.. not  shouting ;-)

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:19) @Seun: I have no objection to people being able to read things as they go along

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:19) I think that's wise

  RP -  Tech: (09:19) @guoyongan: unfortunately, there is only English availabe for this particular session

  Avri Doria: (09:19) it is good the bylaws group include some non lawyers as a legal construct is not necessarily a workable construct.

  Jordan Carter: (09:20) I am not a lawyer

  Avri Doria: (09:20) drive by lawyers can give a very legal structure that does not work when the reality of the multistakeholder bottom-up  hubbub is taken into account.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (09:20) Well Jordan, nobody is perfect :P

  Jordan Carter: (09:21) thank god for that

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:21) LOL

  Avri Doria: (09:21) ok, then we are covered., thanks Jordan.

  Jordan Carter: (09:21) and neither is Steve I think

  Jordan Carter: (09:21) nor Mathieu

  Avri Doria: (09:21) did not knwo we knew who was on it yet.

  Avri Doria: (09:21) i was not clear on that.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (09:22) Thank you Mathieu for the summary and the taking stock on this topic makes sense to me

  Becky Burr: (09:22) @Avri - love the "drive by lawyers" concept

  Sébastien (ALAC): (09:22) @Avri it is IOT

  Jordan Carter: (09:23) as per what Mathieu just said, the voluntolding has no end

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:23) Whats the composition of laywers? is it CCWG council and ICANN's?

  Jordan Carter: (09:23) Seun, yep, CCWG counsel doing drafting, ICANN lawyers review

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:24) Okay thanks jordan. That makes sense and hopefully will save us some time at board approval level

  Alice Jansen: (09:24)

  Jordan Carter: (09:25) Seun -------- here's hoping!

  Becky Burr: (09:25) yes, both CCWG attorneys and ICANN counsel from Jones Day participated in the first call

  Avri Doria: (09:27) thanks for the IOT victims list.  is there also a bylaws victims list?

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:31) @Avri i thought the bylaw oversight will also be done by the IOT? although i agree it makes sense splitting to reduce wirkload on IOT

  Jordan Carter: (09:32) I think the idea was that the "IOT" with that limited role would be the cochairs and rapporteurs

  Jordan Carter: (09:32) working through an open email list

  Jordan Carter: (09:32) that's what I took from Mathieu's sum up, anyhow

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:32) Yes Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:33) and then acting as a "first filter" only before material goes to CCWG as a committee of the whole of course...

  Calabar City Hub: (09:34) +1 @Cheryl

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:35) Okay @Jordan although i note that the composition in the url shared does not seem to be just the co-chairs and rapporteurs

  Jordan Carter: (09:35) the URL was for the IRP implementation group, Seun

  Jordan Carter: (09:36) (this one, anyhow:

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:36) okay fine. it says IOT-WP -IRP an that confused me

  Jordan Carter: (09:36) yeah

  Jordan Carter: (09:36) the lingo is a bit confusing

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:38) Re: groups does it mean we have 7 groups by the presentation in front of us? can't diversity and transparency be under a group for instance

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:38) Cannot lower my hand :(

  Jordan Carter: (09:39) that's the discussion we are just starting Seun - the slide identifies the threads of work that need to be done

  Jordan Carter: (09:40) by the end of today we should all have decided how to structure the work

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:40) Yes Sebastien with this list of topics, therr will be *plenty* of work to go around...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (09:40) agree Jordan

  Calabar City Hub: (09:41) I think the work stream as display is good for easy of work.

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:41) Yeah and that was a comment/suggestion from me ;-) on a lighter note, i also sent a few comments on the mailing list and i hope they will also be considered. Will soon leave the AC for my next conecting flight

  Calabar City Hub: (09:41) Safe trip Seun.

  amine: (09:45) the video quality is pretty good, we can view the conference as if we are attending, however, thousands of mothers can't see their sons/daughters living abroad, #freeVOIP ofr internal users

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 2: (09:47) FYI - the ASO just sent through their approval of the Final Report on WS1 Recommendation

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:47) Yay! @ASO

  Jordan Carter: (09:51) awesome Athina!

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:52) Agree with @Eberhad's points.   THere is a finite amount f activity that the community can do at once - there is also real policy work to be done in the GNSO, ccNSO etc.   It we need to look at the totality of work that ICNAN is trying to pwork on and the actual volunteer resources available.

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:53) Congrats Athina, ASO

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:53) I think I agree completely with Jordan

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:53) While we have made great progress on the accountability work - progress on others areas is stalling - e.g. replacement direvtory services for  domain name registraiton information etc.

  Matthew Shears: (09:54) @Athina - bravo

  Jordan Carter: (09:54) we should avoid overload, and it doesn't matter if we are very light on some of these areas where the community, organised through other structures, is working on the topics

  seun ojedeji 2: (09:54) @Bruce +1

  Calabar City Hub: (09:54) @Bruce I think there is need to spread into other areas equally.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (09:56) Great news Athina!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 2: (09:57) :)

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:01) I think the idea of having a date after which we declare end regardless of output seems like a reasonable idea

  Calabar City Hub: (10:01) Congrats

  Ahmed Amine Naji: (10:01) Good

  Mary Uduma: (10:02) Great News

  David McAuley (RySG): (10:43) I took mine Thomas

  Steward Lafayette: (10:48) Is anybody excited about "citizen access to the net" in this forum?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (10:53) that slide is insane. Talk about review overload.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (10:55) We should review the review process?

  George Sadowsky: (10:57) I think it's worthwhile to look at the efficiency of the multiple review processes that we are obligated to execute.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:01) could ATRT3 review those?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (11:01) indeed @george, it is a matter of effective resource Mx.

  Ayden Férdeline: (11:03) Sorry I have been listening in to this session but haven't been reading that chat, so maybe this has been addressed. The presentation window on my computer shows a slide partially covered in criss-crossed blue lines. Is this intentional? Or am I missing something?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:03) it seems to be a failure in the Adobe room, Ayden

  Ayden Férdeline: (11:04) Ok, thanks for clarifying Jordan. For a moment I was curious as to what was being shared that was so confidentail!

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:05) If you expand it to full screen and then exit full screen, the crosshatching seems to get smaller

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:06) (i.e. to cover less of the slide)

  Edward Morris: (11:09) ARE

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:09) I don't fully understand why there is a need for multiple ways to review the same stuff.  Wouldn't it be better to identify all the stuff that someone else is already doing, and then not do that?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (11:09) I suspect it could be useful to feed into ATRT3  and yes we could also pick up at the end.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:10) 4 of the 7 items in WS2 are closely related to the ATRT:   Transparency, Ombudsman, SOAC Accountability, and Staff Accountability.   That's where the potential relationship lies

  Edward Morris: (11:10) Agree with Alan

  Matthew Shears: (11:10) With regard to waiting on ATRT to accomplish some of the WS2 items have we not committed in the proposal to have reccommendaitons on WS2 to review by end of 2016?

  Xavier Calvez: (11:12) Avri +1

  Brett Schaefer: (11:14) @Steve, Those matters are also the ones most closely related to ICANN accountability. Relating back to the previous discussion of what should go first in WS2, perhaps those four issues should be the first tier agenda?

  Steward Lafayette: (11:17) One recommendation is: Transparency and accountability indicators should measured by users (citizens) satisfaction. A close accountability system is losing legitimacy

  Matthew Shears: (11:18) There is good work going on already on HR so it wouldn't make any sense not to encourage that to continue. 

  Avri Doria: (11:19) There is a notion of continuity in the ATRT cycle.  A major task of each ATRT is to review the work done since the last on on implementing the required changes.  I do not say that is the Only task but it is a major required task.

  Steward Lafayette: (11:20) HR is considering humans as resources. The idea is to get citizens a seat on the front table. (logistically, you would know best the right timing to discuss it)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:27) I think they should be done in parallel (WS1 and WS2). 

  Niels ten Oever: (11:27) @Robin +1

  Matthew Shears: (11:27) I don't think we need to wait - some of that work has already been going on for some time

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:29) We've got people who want to specialize on issues in WS2, so they are ready to focus on WS2, while many of us continue with WS1.

  Edward Morris: (11:29) WS2 should begin while we have the momentum from WS1.

  Niels ten Oever: (11:29) I would be very interested in getting the human rights work going, this will help us stay within the target date of one year.

  Matthew Shears: (11:30) yes, I believe that we are supposed to have recommendaitons for review by the end of 2016?

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (11:30) Total support to Andrew's comment

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 2: (11:32) agree with Andrew

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (11:32) I agree and share Andrew's concern,and  per Thomas's clarification, if the parallel work doesn't affect the WS1 implementation schedule to delay, I am OK

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (11:33) Helpful to confirm from co-chairs that getting WS1 implementation is highest priority, thank you Thomas

  Niels ten Oever: (11:33) Doing both in parralel will also create synergies, also agree priority should be WS1.

  Edward Morris: (11:34) There are different people involved in WS2 issues than would be involved in WS1 implementation and review issues. There should be no problem staffing and continuing with both efforts in parallel.

  Matthew Shears: (11:35) WS1 implementation absolutely has to be the prioirity but that should not preclude those interested in taking WS2 forward at the moment  from doing so

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:35) exactly, Matt.

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:35) It seems to me that, if the CCWG has enough confidence in some small group to ensure the completion of implementation, then it'll be possible to work in parallel

  Edward Morris: (11:36) A delay in WS2 will be perceived by some as a lack of commitment to WS2.

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:36) I confess I'm not sanguine that the CCWG will in fact have such confidence, and that instead there is a danger of  distraction

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:36) realistically, we have to have implementable bylaws for WS1 finished in June/July

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:36) Issues like "transparency" are absolutely critical to our work.  It cannot wait for WS1 to be fully implemented.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:36) to allow time for public comments, etc

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:37) so there is some intense work to do in a few months

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:37) so what's new, Jordan?  ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:37) nothing new under the sun

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (11:37) WS2 1 year? How long was it again that we thought WS1 would take us, back 1 year ago?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (11:38) queue is closed after Avri

  Niels ten Oever: (11:38) @Roelof - Is that a reason for not trying to make the deadline?

  Becky Burr: (11:39) but arent we expecting the replies from the community this week Kavouss?

  Matthew Shears: (11:40) IN Annex 12 para 03 its says: "The CCWG Accountability expects to begin refining the scope of Work Stream 2 during the upcoming ICANN55 meeting in March 2016. It is intended that Work Stream 2 recommendations will be published for comments by the end of 2016"   The question this raises is whether or not we will have time post transition to meet that end of year timeline?

  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy: (11:41) I raised my hand early, Is the response restricted to Members and not particiapnts?

  Niels ten Oever: (11:41) +1 to Jan Scholte && +1 to Avri

  Matthew Shears: (11:41) agree

  Keith Drazek: (11:41) I agree with Avri

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (11:41) Agree with Avri

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:41) I agree with Avri on this

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:41) Avri agree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (11:42) good point @avri

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:42) +1 @Avri

  ismail derrazi: (11:42) what about the blocking of VoIP in Morocco?!!!

  Edward Morris: (11:42) Delaying the launch of WS2 will endanger support of some of us for the WS1 proposal as submitted to the NTIA. For some if us, WS2 issues are as if not more important than WS1 issues. Delay now would engender the question as to if WS2 will ever take place.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (11:43) noted Ed  I know the Leadership Team is well aware of that.

  Avri Doria: (11:44) the continuity is between WS1 and WS2.  WS1 created the requirements for WS2.  Work will feel abandoned if we do not at least slow start WS2.

  Matthew Shears: (11:44) agre Avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (11:45) I agree @ avri

  Edward Morris: (11:46) +1 Mathieu

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 2: (11:46) I see your point Avri. I guess a slow start of WS2 in that sense would make sense

  Phil Buckingham: (11:46) + Mathieu

  Paul Twomey: (11:46) Thank you Matthew.   The previous discussion was a bit alarming to all of us who came here to keep working on WS2 issues

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (11:46) that's why it is important that it's volunteers who are different people in these areas

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:47) Siva Muthusamy speaking

  jorge villa (ASO): (11:51) I think that we must keep the focus on finishig successfully WS1, but as Avri said, we can start doing some ground work paving the way for a full WS2 deployment

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (11:54) +1 Steve Delbianco

  Mary Uduma: (11:56) +=@ Steve

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:00) Transparency is largely meant to address DIDP as I rec all, and it seems that that subject is important enough not to be lumped with others that might deflect the focus on that aspect of transparency

  Keith Drazek: (12:02) Transparency also has a relationship to SO/AC Accountability.

  Keith Drazek: (12:03) (responding to Eberhard)

  Bruce Tonkin: (12:04) I recommend that the CCWG give some consieration to prioritisation.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (12:04) We have to compliment Eberhard for the transition he went through!

  Bruce Tonkin: (12:04) A simple mechansim coul dbe to get each "member" of the CCWG to provide their top 3 priorites amongst the workstream 2 list of topics, and use the results to help prioritize.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (12:04) IANA stewardship transitions have some good things for everyone

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:05) @Bruce : at the moment we are "slow starting" it. We'll see which topics get volunteer traction but WS1 is the high priority.

  Brenda Brewer 2: (12:06) Lunch Break for one hour.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:06) Reconvening at 13:00 WET

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:06) Thanks Grace

  nigel hickson: (12:08) thanks 


  Okang: (13:05) Hello


  Calabar City Hub: (13:07) Welcome


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:16) half of the CCWG is still at lunch


  Calabar City Hub: (13:16) Thank you for the commendation


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:23) No question, here, but I will say that the DT approach seemed to work for the CWG


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:23) I should note that DTs do not work quite the way the IETF uses them, and so they're inspired by but not actually used as IETF works


  Calabar City Hub: (13:25) <Question> How do we  identify experts?<Question>


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:29) The key point is to get a small number to focus on a narrow and clear topic and produce a  concrete proposal


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:29) Methodology needn't be religious, for sure


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:30) but "narrow and concrete" is the key bit


  Matthew Shears: (13:30) the work areas in WS2 could be broken down into mustiple "design teams"  - the template approach is useful


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:31) Yes there may end up being sub sub Dt's :-)


  Matthew Shears: (13:32) a number of us in the room have led or been on DTs in the CWG so could spend some more time assessing how the model might be adapted


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:33) Indeed we have @Matthew


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:33) good point, Matt.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:33) Some of us are still working in DT0


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:33) @Steve - what you are describing also sounds a little bit like the Internet draft process.   Note that it is possible for more than one proposal to be developed by subgroups, and then presented to the Group as options for discussion.


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:34) The key is to have a properly thought through proposal put into a document or presentation for discussion.


  Suzanne Woolf: (13:34) @Bruce it ends up being a challenging situation to manage for chairs but yes it gets many eyes and views on a problem


  Suzanne Woolf: (13:35) And in a slightly more structured way than having open discussin of the full group trying to decide where to startt


  Grace Abuhamad: (13:37) yes, it is more work for the chairs and staff to juggle between groups, but if sequenced proporly, then it is more manageable.


  Grace Abuhamad: (13:37) properly*


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:41) Will staff draft the issues report on the WS2 issue of staff accountability?  Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest, if so?


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:42) I like the idea of starting with an issues report - for most of the topics there are been some form of mailing list discussion where several of the issues have nbeen discussed.   IN other cases the issue has been discussed in other forums at ICANN.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:42) I think the group itself must play a role in drafting the issues report.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:42) in finalising it, sure


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:42) SO there is quiote a bit of information already available - it is just not in a form that serves as an easily accessible backgrtound briefing on the topic.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:43) i dont mind if staff draft stuff for the groups to work on and interate


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:43) iterate


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:43) @Robin -- Good point about the WS2 item on Staff Accountability


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:43) Yes @Robin - those interested could make a simple one page summary of the issues that they want to see addressed in the working group.  


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:45) Bruce, yes, I think the first "draft" or outline should come from the CCWG group.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:46) all relies on the volunteers doing it, I guess!


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:46) IN terms of ICANN face-to-face metings - the exitance of those opportunitis to meet shoudl form part of the work plan.   Idfeally draft proposals would be available 14 days before a public meeting so they can be adequately discussed by the community


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:47) I would also suggest that nailing the work to face to face meeting time is perhaps not the best way to make progress


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:47) Agree @Bruce


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:47) Agree with Sebastastian


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:47) Sebastien (sorry)


  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48) Pls change the box 5.4 as follows: Taking nececessary action as appropriate


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:48) Don't we already have volunteers for Human Rights in WS2?


  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48) Pls kindly do not use the title " Design Team "


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:49) I'm in favour of Dr Lisse's suggestion


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:49) the chart calls these Working Groups


  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:49) Let's call them parties !


  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:50) Yes I agree with working Group


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:50) I want to participate in most of the WS2 groups (not as a chair or anything) so would be against limiting partiicpation to only a certain number.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:50) we can't call them Work Areas or Work Parties because we've already used those, and DTs might confuse with CWG, so WGs works fine for me


  Avri Doria: (13:50) we could cann them DPs


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:50) I *don't* want to participate in many if any of these groups. I want to see in the plenary the outputs of those groups and engage with them there :-)


  Avri Doria: (13:51) ... call ...


  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:51) Anby Established working Group MUST be open to intrested oparty. Ths must be expicitly mentioned


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:51) Aren't these groups open?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:51) I should jope so


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:51) *hope


  Matthew Shears: (13:51) + 1 Malcolm


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:51) indeed!


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:51) A key point of the methodology is that the groups themselves don't get to make decisions


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:52) they get to make concrete proposals for the larger group to accept or not


  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:52) We need to remove any doubt anbout theiur openess


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:52) Important point, Andrew


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:52) so far all of our groups have been open right


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:52) The point of the mechanism is not to minimise participation in decisions, but to minimise the number of people working on a particular concrete proposal


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (13:52) Agree @Bruce Balance is essential to attempt at least


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:53) so that the proposal can be put together quickly and can be as concrete as possible


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:53) wide participation in the small group is an anti-goal: small and returns fast is more important than other considerations


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:53) so that progress can happen


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:54) i agree - it's more important than diversity


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:54) the diversity in the main group will see work thrown back if it's biased


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:55) @Jordan: yes, that's the idea behind the methodology


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:55) I think openness and inclusion are important - just as important as being quick.


  Bruce Tonkin: (13:55) To summarise - I thin kit is worth identifying members of a working group that shoudl be appropraitely diverse across the chartering organazations, and participatns that can be members of all the mailing list that they wish to jon.   You use the membershiop of working groups to arrange teleconferences etc, and it is useful if yuou don;t have the same people that are members across all working groups.


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:55) @Robin: the idea is that the openness and inclusion happens in the larger group


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:55) the smaller group is just there to try to get something concrete


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:56) that is not openness and inclusion, then.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (13:56) in the whole, I agree Robin. In every step? Openness is, but inclusion can't be equally important based on the approach proposed does it?  Anyhow, given hopeully people will volunteer, it would bd ideal if it happens through people's choices


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:57) If the criteria are openness and inclusion, then the separate groups are actually a bad idea


  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (13:57) Good point raised by Jorge...e.g. our advisor on International Law/Jurisprudence would be extremely important for the Jurisdiction WG, for example


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:58) because they are additional overhead without the benefit of limiting the numbers for the practical benefit of getting concrete text quickly


  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (13:58) IL/Jurisprudence advisor*


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) Andrew, not if they are open to those have an interest in the subject matter.


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:58) @Robin: everyone who have such an interest?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) I think WS1 was the big rush.  Now we are supposed to rush WS2 also?


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:58) I am not suggesting any rush


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:59) I don't actually care if this approach happens.  I'm just trying to describe the advantages and disadvantages


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:59) a disadvantage is that people feel they need to be in every group, and that's a bad idea


  Andrew Sullivan: (13:59) because it encourages the idea that the groups get to make decisions.  They shouldn't


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:00) it isn't about making the decisions, but framing the issues.


  Andrew Sullivan: (14:00) they make a proposal.  The proposal is supposed to be worked over by all interested in the wider group


  Bruce Tonkin: (14:01) The order appears to be alphabetic


  Avri Doria: (14:02) except for ombudsman it look alphabetical 


  Bruce Tonkin: (14:02) That must be becuase the Ombudsman is supposed to be outside of the day to day process :-)


  Avri Doria: (14:03) thanks Bruce, i was sure there was a _good_ reason


  Bruce Tonkin: (14:03) I recommend allow discussion of each of them in the order they appear, but then have a prioritisation discuss afterwards


  Grace Abuhamad: (14:03) @Bruce -- yes I think that's the Chairs direction, but they may need to clarify that


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:04) don't we alrady have a CCWG volunteer list for Human Rights?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:04) I thought so, Steve.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:04) don't we already have a CCWG Working Party dealing with HR?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:04) can't we use that?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:04) WP4?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:05) I think we should.


  Becky Burr: (14:05) agree, no need to reinvent the wheel


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:05) Yup agree


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:05) It has already begun and we don't want to start all over again.  Lots of work was done, but it was agreed to go in WS2.


  Avri Doria: (14:05) We also have a GAC group, but i think for thing that are within the WS2 scope, e might want to use a specific WS2 effort.


  Avri Doria: (14:06) think of how  times in history a better wheel has been discovered in the process of reinvention


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:07) what is the CCWG on Human Rights?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:07) it exists, too


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:07) CCWP sorry


  Niels ten Oever: (14:07) More info on the CCWP HR here:


  Niels ten Oever: (14:08) And please join the session on Monday


  Matthew Shears: (14:09) + Alan


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:10) agree @Avri +1


  David McAuley (RySG): (14:11) In my opinion, HR scoping was done in WS1, Rec 6. The next step is to start the WS2 work either in the existing CCWG HR group or a newly formed group – even the existence and definition of an HR impact assessment needs to be subject of that work.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) We do not have unlimted budget.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) We should not have various group dealing with the same issue.


  Andrew Sullivan: (14:13) I am not sure that attempting to boil the ocean by first parcelling it out into smaller segments and then boiling the segments will achieve so much either.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) We have ONE ICANNN and should avoid dubplication of work


  Keith Drazek: (14:14) We should only boil the part of the ocean that is relevant to ICANN and its narrow mandate. Nothing more.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:14) Yes Kieth...


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:15) Can anyone explain what the pount of boiling the ocean (or any part thereof) is in the first place?


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:15) ...point...


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:15) There are already many expert in CCWG,


  David McAuley (RySG): (14:16) I agree with Keith - the HR work should not lose sight of the fact that ICANN has a discrete, limited, technical remit – it is not a government nor a law enforcement agency.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:16) I do not understand an external individual coming and dictate her or his views to us


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:16) Not sure if we are on the same boat with regard to boiling the ocean ;-)


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:16) Basically agree with Avri. GAC Working Group on HR and International Law will meet during the GAC meeting here; and will also meet jointly with CCWP so that is first opportunity to exchange views on the respective inputs into the workstream 2 - which may overlap on soem aspects.


  Paul Twomey: (14:17) +1 Erika  Especially on lawyer who understands DNS and HR


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:18) +1 Mark


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:18) presumably this group also has to lead the Framework of Interpretation


  Matthew Shears: (14:20) probably Jordan :)


  Avri Doria: (14:23) while i would like to agree with Alan's lite hearted comment, what we decide regarding jurisdiction shuold be applicable no matter who is presiedent. 


  Avri Doria: (14:25) but waiting might help us by not creating juicy quotes for those who are bent toward political cmapaigns


  Megan Richards, European Commision: (14:28) agree Steve.


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (14:32) ( In the notes, under Juridiction, it is noted "jurisdictional framework", What was actually mentioned was Justice framework, or "a framwork for global justice"  This may please be corrected in the meeting notes


  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:33)


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:34) Support Pedro (Brazil) on first task to review ealier delineation of issues and definitions of applicable law; and the need to bear in mind the linkages to othert topics such as HR. Inviting external experts will be useful option.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) Invitation of any external individual is not necessary.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) They are most welcome. any way ,if they come they should not have any dominating status


  Keith Drazek: (14:40) @Alan: or accountable to one another.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:40) Alan+1


  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:40) Not sure I agree that the work of the Jurisdiction WG is more descriptive than should start with a descriptive phase and, depending on the issues found, consider moving to a "normative" phase


  Grace Abuhamad: (14:41) @Siva -- sorry for the delay, but we captured your edit


  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:42) And by "normative" I understand "make concrete improvement recommendations"


  Samantha Eisner: (14:46) With apologies, I have to leave for a bit.  On the upcoming issue of Staff accountability, I wanted to raise a concern that the work of the group should be careful to avoid impacting the employer/employee relationship.  Any improvements that relate to internal practices/policies governing an employment relationship, or that impact the management or evaluation of staff need to be coordinated to respect the proper reporting lines.


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:46) GAC has not discussed this topic and modalities yet but I support in principle a review of the GAC under workstream 2 - just as we have previously welcomed the ATRT recommendations relating to the GAC.


  Matthew Shears: (14:47) + 1 Mark


  Grace Abuhamad: (14:47) All -- you can contribute to the document on screen!! Here is the link:


  Grace Abuhamad: (14:47) I captured Pedro's comment. Will add Samantha's as well


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) This is a tottaly inefficient work as ,no matter what we establish as principle that make a given SO/AC avccountable to a larger group, if is is not implementable it would be counter productive


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:47) See our WS1 recommendation in Annex 10: Include the review of SO and AC accountability mechanisms in the independent periodic structural reviews that are performed on a regular basis.These reviews should include consideration of the mechanisms that each SO and AC has in place to be accountable to their respective Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Regional At-Large Organizations, etc.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) Steve, that is different from what Mathieu said.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) I agree with Annex 10


  Malcolm Hutty: (14:49) ALAC represents 4billion people? Wow. No wonder they've been upgraded to equivalent to a whole SO


  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:49) Alan+ 1


  Chris Disspain: (14:50) I am lowering my hand


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) We just heard the ALAC chair say individual users have no interest in ICANN.  Huh?


  Alan Greenberg: (14:51) No MAlcom, we do *NOT* represent the n billiob users and never claimed to. We represent the INTERESTS of those users and that is something that is very different. ANd we have no interest of becomming an SO, and I for one do not beleive it would be an upgrade in any case.


  Keith Drazek: (14:51) The contracted parties are relieved ICANN is not providing travel support to 4 billion people. ;-)


  Chris Disspain: (14:51) we aren't?


  Keith Drazek: (14:51) lol


  Alan Greenberg: (14:52) Glad to reduce your anxieties Keith.


  Alan Greenberg: (14:53) @Robin. If you canprovide evidence that ALL Internet users have an interest in ICANN, I would be delighted to see it.


  Avri Doria: (14:54) Robin, that is not what i heard.  I heard that most could not care lass.  not that none cared.


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:55) Good ideas, Brett


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (14:55) if individual users start having to worry about ICANN, we have all colossally failed


  Alan Greenberg: (14:56) @Jordan. You got it!


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:56) Indeed!


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:56) @Jordan: Exactly. Affected, yes, interested, no.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (14:58) yup


  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:58) Diversity DOc 24 July 2015


  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:58)


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:59) People have an interest in that which impacts them.  It doesn't mean they find something to be "interesting". 


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:59) Agree - need data and to measure how efforts to increase diversity has impacted outcomes. Enhancing Board diversity has been important for the organisation. GAC now has 160 governments and administrations represented in its membership (was about 100 when I joined the GAC).


  Andrew Sullivan: (15:00) I guess people are trying to distinguish between "disinterest" and "uninterest", yes?  I agree strongly that most people are utterly uninterested, and had better remain so or ICANN has failed


  Andrew Sullivan: (15:00) (And given the remarks we're currently hearing, I have to say that many of the geeks I know are not merely uninterested in ICANN, but are hostile to discussions of it.)


  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:01) Very good point, Paul


  Sébastien (ALAC): (15:02) Well done Paul


  Alice Munyua (GAC): (15:03) Gender diversity?


  Paul Twomey: (15:05) Mark you make a good point.  When the GAC was formed: as Chair I wrote to invite to every Minister who had attended the ITU plenipot to send a representative.   Just over 30 did attend in 1999.  The growth to 160 now is a map of how govts have realised that ICANN/Internet effects their interests


  Avri Doria: (15:05) LGBTQI diversity


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (15:05) the area of 'Diversity'  is indeed "diverse"


  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:05) @Alice: +1 I was going to suggest this too. SOs, ACs, Board -- gender diversity is pretty poor


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:05) Income diversity.  Not many financially challenged people can come to ICANN to participate.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (15:05) Or should be :-)


  Avri Doria: (15:06) indeed and when we tlk of metrics we need to be very careful we aren't being counter diverse.


  Paul Twomey: (15:06) Alice and Avri, I was careful to say that the point I was making is only part of the diversity scope :)


  Avri Doria: (15:06) I understand Paul


  Chris Disspain: (15:07) Nice to hear Avri....I never have :-)


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (15:07) But  a valuable example of change / drivers  Paul


  Andrew Sullivan: (15:07) I would encourage very strongly that we not start scope creeping towards "all the I* organizations" in this discussion


  Avri Doria: (15:08) well Chris now that you put it that way, i should either add a comma to my statement or withdraw it.


  Suzanne Woolf: (15:08) @Andrew +1


  Andrew Sullivan: (15:08) since in fact ICANN has literally nothing to do with the operation of those other organizations.  If one wishes to say something to those orgs, I encourage one to go participate there


  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (15:08) Totally agree Andrew


  Suzanne Woolf: (15:08) yes


  Paul Twomey: (15:08) Diction diversity  ;)


  Alice Munyua (GAC): (15:09) I like diction diversity :)


  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:09) Hi just came to my knowledge that the right way to say it is "gender balance" to be considered into diversity


  Avri Doria: (15:09) me too


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:09) Can we add "income diversity" to the list?  Or do I need to raise a flag to make that request?


  Avri Doria: (15:10) guess one has to actually say it, typing it hear is not enough lgbtqi did not make the list either.


  Avri Doria: (15:10) .  i mean typing it here...  they need to hear.


  Brenda Brewer 2: (15:10) Break for 20 minutes, Will ba back at 30 minutes past the hour.


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (15:11) Avri, Robin, can you put in in the google doc?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:11) Staff: can you please add these two requests for types of diversity to look at?


  Alice Munyua (GAC): (15:12) Income equality :)


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:12) exactly, Alice!


  Alice Jansen: (15:30) We are about to reconvene


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:32) Is it a conlfict of interest for us to take notes on this part of the agenda ? :0


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:32) (that was a joke)


  Avri Doria: (15:36) sorry i came back late and missed the Staff Accountabilty - wanted to include discuion of whistleblowing.  which is also part of trnasparency


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:36)  A Reminder --- you can contribute to the document on screen!! Here is the link:


  ilyass: (15:36) what do you think guys about the ANRT forbidding access to VOIP apps (skype, whatsapp calls, messenger calls...) ?


  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (15:37) @Ilyass we kindly encourage you to join our conversation by keeping it focused on the topic discussed


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:37) @Avri I'll nte your point in Google doc


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:37) @Edward  I am not aware that any Board members charge speaking fees on topics related to ICANN.


  RP -  Tech: (15:38) should be able to raise hands in AC now


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:38) You also made the comment about whether you trust the Board member sin 2025 - but the communiyt appoints the Baord members - so if the Baord members are a probelm that means that there are widespread failures in the communities appointment processes.


  ilyass: (15:38) yes sure @leon


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:39) I think the bigger long term risk is tha tthe size of the community shrinks as domain names and IP addresses are relaced with some other technology.   Then a much smaller pool of people end up appiotng the board.   RIght now the active ommunityi s probably still slowly growing.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:40) Are we "on" the issue of "staff accountability" now?  Or still transparency?


  Andrew Sullivan: (15:41) @Bruce: if those tehnologies are replaced, why is it a problem if ICANN's Board is appointed by a small number of people?  ICANN's very importance will presumably be smaller, no?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:41) I agree with Brett's point.


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:41) Note that the current copnflicts of interest policy was reviewed by three independent groups.   Of course it should continue to be reivewed periodically - but just want to point out that it went through a thorough review last time.


  Chris Disspain: (15:42) Can we get some specific feedbck on the conflict of  interest 'problem' referred to?


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:43) @Andrew - I agree that the importance of ICAN may dimiish over time.


  Becky Burr: (15:43) on the last topic chris?


  Chris Disspain: (15:43) Becky, yes, the point Brett raised


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:46) We discussed having an independent party do the initial evaluation for the board in the Reconsideration Request reforms.  So this *could* be the ombudsman - PROVIDED THAT he/she is independent in judgment.


  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:47) Ensuring transparency of how the Ombdusman takes decisions whether to accept cases is important.


  Brett Schaefer: (15:47) @Chris, yes. In the NCPH meeting in LA, I asked Markus Kummer to find out what steps were taken by the Board and ICANN senior officers to comply with ICANN’s conflict of interest policy in regards to potential conflicts of interest surrounding Fadi’s involvement in the World Internet Conference. Under ICANN’s conflict of interest policy any Board member and senior officer (covered persons) who has “reason to believe that another Covered Person has a Potential Conflict” has a duty to “inform the Office of the General Counsel, including disclosing all relevant facts relating thereto.” I have since been informed that this obligation is not clear or is ambigous.


  Calabar City Hub: (15:48) <Question> Shall the office of Ombudsman be rotational?>


  Calabar City Hub: (15:51) <Question> Shall the office of Ombudsman be rotational and from which Constituency?<Question>


  Becky Burr: (15:52) @ Calabar City Hub - the Ombuds is not from any constituency, that would create significant independence issues


  Calabar City Hub: (15:53) @Becky how will be appointed or elected?


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:53) @Brett - how is the obligation that you refer to ambiguos?   How culd the wording be improved?


  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (15:54) @Calabar City Hub it is defined in the current bylaws


  Becky Burr: (15:55) @ Calabar City Hub - currently, by the Board.  In the future, that could continue, it could be Board selection and community confirmation, other way around, etc.  But selecting an "insider" for the role would create at least an appearance issue


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:55) are any of our outside counsel at this meeting?


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:56) no


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:56) thanks!


  Brett Schaefer: (15:56) @Bruce, I don't think it is. I was told that it is open to interpretation. I want to kow why. If that obligation is unclear, it needs to be fixed. If it is clear and was not complied with, then their is an enforcement issue that needs to be addressed.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:56) Maybe we can use the gtld private auction profits to fund this group?  ;-)


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member: (15:57) :-)


  Bruce Tonkin: (15:57) OK @Brett - lets discuss in a break so I can understand your issue better.


  Brett Schaefer: (15:59) @Bruce, will do.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:02) SO the proposal is to put more resource into understanding the project's resource use?


  Keith Drazek: (16:03) The RySG would strongly support "reliable cost estimates" and more predictability in budgeting. Xavier and his team have done a great job in this regard in the recent budget FY16 budget process, and extending that level of rigor to this effort, in my view, would be welcome. We need to control costs for WS2 better than we did for WS1, without negatively impacting the job.


  Keith Drazek: (16:04) ....or at least "predict" costs better.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:04) both, I think, Keith: predict and control


  Asha Hemrajani: (16:04) @Jordan the proposal is to come up with an estimate of costs going forward.  And yes some resources will be needed to come up with these estimates.


  Andrew Sullivan: (16:10) Perhaps the co-chairs would _like_ to have a project manager to handle all this?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:10) it should help, done well


  Andrew Sullivan: (16:10) I suspect that they may also have other things they'd like to do


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:10) :-)


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:10) Should help all of us


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:11) I agree "manager" is the wrong word for these jobs.


  Avri Doria: (16:14) when your time is valueless, as volunteer time or fixed salary employee is,  it is hard to remember that people who charge hourly for a living don't do quick turn aorund inexpensively.


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:15) Within the ICANN community and the larger Internet Community, we have several participants who are lawyers or otherwise have legal expertise, and most preliminary questions could roughly be satisfied with opinion by open or occasionally closed email exchanges


  Asha Hemrajani: (16:15) And that's why it is so important to plan and get estimates in advance as best we can.  We have to know how much we are going to spend and see how we can work more efficiently


  Avri Doria: (16:16) and as Siva says, exploit free labor even more han we do.


  Keith Drazek: (16:16) +1 Asha


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:17) The legal exopenses could be drastically brought down, if legal opinion is towards the conclusive stage of the process, and not during deliberations of options which invairably change along the process


  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (16:17) @Avri: nobody's time is valueless...


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:17) what if the lawyers try to turn around too fast?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:17) Do we want to consider only using 1 outside law firm at this point?  (Rather than the 2)?


  Avri Doria: (16:17) i was careful and said valueless, as in money per hour, not worthless.


  Asha Hemrajani: (16:18) @Robin interesting idea


  Avri Doria: (16:18) i think it is good that from this we get a clue of what it would cost to do something like ICANN if everyone was paid their value.


  Calabar City Hub: (16:19) +1 at Robin Gross


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:19) if we could ascertain we didn't need the different skillsets, we could


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:19) Robin, would your suggestion include implementation of WS1?


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:19) but I suspect if we looked at it, we'd need both


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:19) Avri, that is another side of the issue, but what I am suggesting here is that those questions that are more ealisy answered, and would be happily answered by participants with legal expertise, could get general answers from participants with espertise and ease


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:20) Sabine, not sure.  We may want to consider the expertise of the two firms and which is needed for bylaws drafting?


  Keith Drazek: (16:21) They each have different still sets, so we'd need to ensure we have the requisite expertise applied to the appropriate topic.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:21) sorry for the question mark at the end - not a question.  :-)


  Keith Drazek: (16:21) skill sets sorry


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:21) Agreed, Keith.


  Keith Drazek: (16:22) although if they had expertise in running a still, that might be worth keeping them both


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:22) Well, I had thought (not thought through though) that bylaw drafting for a California non-profit might need a different set of expertise than human rights considerations (just as an example)


  Becky Burr: (16:22) we would have SIGNIFICANT start -up costs by hiring a new firm or hiring additional Adler lawyers at this time. 


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:22) Could we also consider the option of RETAINING one or two Lawyers who would observe the whole process, become familiar with the whole process and offer expertise on an ongoing basis. They could be compensated participants


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:22) Sabine, I think that is exactly what we need to look at.  Maybe it doesn't make sense, but let's think about it.  Possibly deciding to stay with 2.


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:23) learning curve for a new law firm could be high...


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:23) Sure, leet's just keep it in our minds.


  Avri Doria: (16:23) many of us have written bylaws in the past.  we could have decided to put togther a drafting group to do the work, with review for money.  we decided against that  path.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:23) Agreed, Jorge - very steep.


  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (16:24) Agree Jorge, I was just trying to illustrate the point that Ed's point is a fair one and that we would like the group to remain open to evaluate options


  Brett Schaefer: (16:24) Here are two cost saving ideas, why don't we restrict our legal requests to legal issues (rather than policy) and waiting to ask until the endgame (instead of asking when matters are influx and may have to be revisited)?


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:25) As I recall, ICANN legal said we didnt need an independent view on whether the community could have ANY authority over the board.


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:25) Legal viability might be decisive factor.


  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:25) I share Malcolm's concern on this point.


  Calabar City Hub: (16:26) Policies require legal backing


  Avri Doria: (16:26) +1 Jordan, we sent them many issue as referees not legal advisors


  Asha Hemrajani: (16:27) +1 Jordan


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:27) we also asked them questions that five minutes on Google could have easily answered


  Malcolm Hutty: (16:27) @Avri, +1, we did sometimes fall into that temptation, and we should strive to avoid it


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:27) because we wanted our knowledge validated by people


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:27) Stop it, Jordan, or Google will bill us, too :D


  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccNSO): (16:28) hopefully, this phase of work is less conflictual and so that sort of boosterish behaviour is less required


  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (16:29) Well, it might have more aspects that are policy instead of legal issues...if this is less conflictual I'm not sure.


  Malcolm Hutty: (16:30) the idea of a CCWG-employed staff lawyer is startling but - looking at the bills - seems like an idea we should seriously consider


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:30) Going back to the item of appointing a "Project Manager", or otherwise support staff for the CCWG,  the staff for WS2 could include an existing staff / new appointment with Paralegal skills, or a young lawyer


  Malcolm Hutty: (16:30) but if we do, it should report to the Co-Chairs


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:32) Yes


  Bruce Tonkin: (16:33) Well ICNAN is paying for the CCWG lawyers - so that argument makes no sense to me.


  Keith Drazek: (16:33) The CCWG's external counsel was paid by ICANN.


  Bruce Tonkin: (16:33) I think it is more about separation of responsibilities.


  Keith Drazek: (16:34) Agreed Bruce


  Keith Drazek: (16:34) I don't think anyone would suggest Sidley/Adler were not responsible to the CCWG, no matter where their funding was sourced.


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:35) @ Asha That is understood. but I mentined Staff support for CCWG, which is a usual process


  Malcolm Hutty: (16:35) @Bruce, yes, ICANN pays, but it is clear Sidley, Adler answer to the co-chairs, not to ICANN executive hierarchy. That needs to be retained.


  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2: (16:35) And the suggestion is to include a paralegal staff in such staff support


  Bruce Tonkin: (16:35) Agreed @Malcolm.   I am not suggesting changing that.   Just as Glen de Sait Gery works on behalf of the GNSO COuncil chair.


  Malcolm Hutty: (16:37) @Bruce - and, thank you for the creative suggestion.


  Avri Doria: (16:43) on this cyclical plan is the idea that a whole cycle of the 5 stesp occurs between each set of meetings?


  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (16:43) roughly yes Avri


  Bruce Tonkin: (16:45) Agreed @Eberhard - it is the legal fees that are not currently under the nromal corporate cost management process.  


  Bruce Tonkin: (16:46) Managing costs on a quarterly basis is not that onerous for any project.


  Avri Doria: (16:48) the trip was ages ago.


  David McAuley (RySG): (16:51) thank you Thomas


  David McAuley (RySG): (16:51) thanks all, good bye


  Seun Ojedeji: (16:51) thanks and bye


  Mary Uduma: (16:51) Bye All

  • No labels