Members:    Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco,  Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (18)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Alain Bidron, Alberto Soto, Ali Hussain, Allan MacGillivray, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Bradley Silver, Brett Schaefer, Cherine Chalaby, Dave Kissoondoyal, Christopher Wilkinson, David Maher, David McAuley, Don Moody, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Khaled Koubaa, Malcolm Hutty, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Pedro da Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Sonigitu Ekpe, Stephen Deerhake, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale   (46)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Nancy McGlamery, Rebecca Grapsas, Rosemary Fei, Steven Chiodini   (7)

Observers and Guests:  Adiel Akplogan, Alexandra, Corinne Cath, Elizabeth Andrews, Fiona Alexander, John Jeffrey, John Poole, Konstantinos Komaitis, Lise Fuhr, Lito Ibarra, Mandy Carver, Michelle Bright, Motoko Aizawa, Taylor Bentley, Wendy Profit   (15) 

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Barry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Julie Hedlund, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Mary Wong, Melissa King, Nigel Hickson, Tarek Kamel, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen Vinciane Koenigsfeld, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Andrew Sullivan, Izumi Okutani, Olga Cavalli, Martin Boyle, Leon Sanchez

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




  1. Opening remarks
  2. Update from lawyers on work to date
  3. Timeline
  4. Response lawyer questions
  5. Update on ICANN Budget Discussion (if time permits)
  6. AOB


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

1. Opening remarks (MW)

  • Need to recognize the outstanding effort by all legal teams which have produced a very high quality document.
  • Priority now is to answer the lawyer questions.

2. Update from lawyers on work to date (Holly Gregory)

  • History leading up to here
    • ICANN legal produced an initial draft
    • All lawyers reviewed in Los Angeles for 3 days
    • Intensive since there with great collaboration
    • Draft is a work in process
    • Produced a rough map of concordance bet proposal and draft
    • We expect to be able to certify in time.

3. Timeline (TR)

  • Presentation of the document on timeline and working method. Leadership will suggest answers to certain questions

4. Response lawyer questions

  • MW Question 1 - Defining Root Zone or removing. BBurr suggests removing it.

Chat supports removing.

  • MW Question 2 - gTLD Registry Agreement - Grandfathering of Registry and Registrar Agreements even if renewed. Grandfathering can continue in new forms if they have not been replaced. BBurr explanation. Inclination to confirm both questions but the leadership will provide a more detailed rationale for this on the list by the next meeting.
  • MW Question 3 - RFR posting of discussions atg request of plaintif - BBurr supports recommendation. This was not considered in the report and needs to be considered furthter and put up for discussion at the next meeting.
  • MW Question 4 - AOC what is included in the Bylaws and not - SDB presentation of the issue. SDB will circulate his proposed response to the list
  • MW Question 5 - SSR reviews - need a reference to the security plan?

Awaiting response from ICANN.

  • MW Question 6 - Board - how to obtain consent from the empowered community - Will circulate a rationale of the Jordan approach to the list.
  • MW Question 7 - Interim Board - Proposal was silent on how to consult with the community - JCarter supports proposal. Needs to be lightweight - will circulate to the list.
  • MW Question 25 - GAC advice - SDB explanation - Recommend using Entirely or almost entirely. MH propose Significantly, Mostly etc. MW Complex question - the leadership will propose text for the next meeting.
  • MW Question 26 - DP providing notice - just adding some transparency - accept recommendation.
  • TR Question 27 - Fundamental Bylaws - Agree with recommendation.
  • TR – Remaining questions – Leadership will post proposed answers to the list to facilitate and expedite discussions on the next call.

5.  Update on ICANN Budget Discussion (if time permits)

  • Time did not allow for this to be presented or discussed.

6.  AOB

  • KA - GAC was upset at Congressional testimony.
  • AG - Question 6 - Asked for any other changes to proposal.

Action Items



Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (4/5/2016 13:30) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting on Tuesday, 5 April @ 19:00 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:46) DeAr Brenda


  Brenda Brewer: (13:58) Hello Kavouss. 

  Cherine Chalaby: (13:58) Hello Everyone

  Holly J. Gregory: (13:58) Greetings all. 

  Suzanne Radell (GAC USA): (13:59) Greetings from DC

  nigel hickson: (13:59) good evening

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:59) Hello everyone, it's been a long time...

  Aarti Bhavana: (14:00) Hi All!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:00) Hi all!

  Alan Greenberg: (14:00) Long wait to get on bridge.

  Erika Mann: (14:00) Greetings from Brussels!

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (14:00) Hallo All

  Becky Burr: (14:00) hello everyone

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:00) @Kavouss  -- hearing is at

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:00) hello everyone!

  Dave Kissoondoyal: (14:00) Hello all..

  Avri Doria: (14:00) feels like coming home, with the dogs barking in the background and everything.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:00) On now.

  Philip S Corwin: (14:01) Seems like old times

  Niels ten Oever: (14:01) Hi all, good to be back!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:01) Greetings!

  Lise Fuhr: (14:02) Good evening all

  Khaled Koubaa: (14:02) Hello everyone

  Sabine Meyer: (14:02) hello everyone

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:02) Hi all! Long time no see!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:02) I hope you have not missed these meetings too badly!

  Sabine Meyer: (14:02) To infinity and beyond! (Knock on wood...)

  Brenda Brewer: (14:03) Barrack Otieno also on Audio only

  Cherine Chalaby: (14:03) I cant hear anything

  Lito Ibarra: (14:04) Hello all

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:04) Kudos to legal team for incredible amount of work

  Holly J. Gregory: (14:06) Appreciated David!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:07) mATHIEU

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:07) pls give me the floor

  Sonigitu Ekpe: (14:07) Good day All!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) Sure Kavouss you are next

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) Mathiedu

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) Point of order

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:08) Mathieu

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:09) Point of order

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:09) Noted Kavouss, I thik Holly deserves to finish her statement first

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:09) POINT OF ORDER

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:10) pLEASE RESPECT PEOPLE mATHIEU

  Lise Fuhr: (14:11) @Kavouss this was only the CWG related bylaws

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:12) Holly old hand?

  Holly J. Gregory: (14:12) Old hand  - literally

  Brenda Brewer: (14:14) One moment for slide please

  matthew shears: (14:17) could we have a copy of this slide - thanks

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:17) +1 mathew

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:18) Question for AOB:  Will CCWG plan to meet in Helsinki at ICANN#56?  Needing to make travel plans now, if so.  Thank you. >>

  Dave Kissoondoyal: (14:18) Is this for public knpwledge or for members only?

  matthew shears: (14:19) + 1 Robin

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:19) Noted Robin

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:19) Let's *NT  spend so much time trying to rework aa method of working the Leadership team and group has agreeed to Kavous  Let's try to get on with  that actual job *as outlined*  and this is not runing like the CWG call yesterday Kavoous differnet Leadership different Work methods

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:20) Perhaps we could get ONTO  some of these uestions  shortly then???

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:21) when shall we bring forward our own questions on the draft bylaws text (not covered by the questions circulated)?

  matthew shears: (14:21) would be good to map the timeline in the slide to the calls

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:22) 2nd bullet Jorge. Until 9th

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:22) Thanks, Mathieu!

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:23) Thanks Bernie, got the timeline

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (14:25) Agree remove reference to root zone. CW

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:26) Seems sensible to remove it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:27) PLease ask participants to limit their interventions to the specific questions asked  C0Chairs In the interests of effective use of all ou time todaY

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:27) Yes  agree to the sense to remove the term frm the text

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:28) Agree should be removed.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:29) question 2: is this the implementation of the grandfathering clause?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:30) yes Jorge

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:32) thanks Cheryl! Does it include the question of PICs?

  Becky Burr: (14:33) that's actually not what I said Kavouss. 

  Becky Burr: (14:34) our proposal very clearly says that the terms and conditions of the existing registry and registrar agreement would be grandfathered for a LIMITED Period - until they were replaced

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:36) question to the drafters: apart from the grandfathering, there was an explicit provision that PICs could be part of future agreements entered and enforced by ICANN. Where is this provision included in the Bylaws text?

  Alan Greenberg: (14:38) That implies that if there is a new round, and something completely new replaces PICS, there will nbe no real way to reneww these contracts without some level of complex 1:1 negotiation.

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (14:38) Jorge: good question

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:40) Thanks, Becky.  That's helpful.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:40) When this round Ry agreement was finalized, it did NOT apply to older registries. It was ONLY for new ones.

  Becky Burr: (14:40) Alan - the new form of agreement would need to include only PICs that are within ICANN's Mission.

  Harold Arcos: (14:41) Apologies, I have go out because my car was towed.

  Becky Burr: (14:41) which we obviously cannot do

  Alan Greenberg: (14:41) Becky, my point is (as Rosemary is saying), the NEW form Ry agreement does not necessarily apply to then-legacy registries.

  Becky Burr: (14:42) i think we are in agreement Alan, I'm just trying to be clear that this is not precisely what the report calls for - but we have not identified an alternative

  Becky Burr: (14:43) we can't do that

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:44) sounds like we need a renewal provision - that is a big hole for us. 

  Sabine Meyer: (14:47) okay, so forgive me for being obtuse - if ICANN and a Ry would want to retain a PIC that is at that point outside ICANN's mission, would they be barred from including that in their contract?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:47) to be fair, it wouldn't be "solely" because of a renewal.  It would also depend upon a finding of "out of scope".  That is not an insignficant fact.

  Becky Burr: (14:48) @Robin, I think the structure of the RAA actually works - presumably Registrars will want to move into a form of agreement that has been measured against the Mission.  And I think that Registries will have adequate incentives to fix the registry agreement along similar lines

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:48) Sabine, no, they cannot be barred, because ICANN has a binding legal obligation to renew

  Sabine Meyer: (14:48) Thank you Rosemary

  Sabine Meyer: (14:49) I don't brain well these days...

  Greg Shatan: (14:49) The whole point of grandfathering is to prohibit a finding of "out of scope." A renewal of an agreement should not remove that prohibition.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) There are no limits to what ICANN considers a "trade secret" - and bar transparency.  How do we guard against that?

  Becky Burr: (14:50) @Sabine, there is no noun that can't be verbed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:51) including verb, apparently

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:51) PICs renewal is a no-brainer.

  Edward Morris: (14:52) Not surewhat happened - I should have audio now.

  Sabine Meyer: (14:52) @Becky Germans usually do it the other way 'round :)

  Becky Burr: (14:53) Robin - If ICANN takes an unreasonable position with respect to what is a trade secret wouldn't that violate the bylaws?  there certainly are well understood legal prescriptions about what constitutes a trade secret, no?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:53) why bylaw is violated for ICANN claiming trade secrets?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:53) what bylaw, that is

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:54) the proposed language in front of us

  Becky Burr: (14:54) if it redacts for something that isn't a trade secret when it only has authority to redact trade secrets

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:54) back on adobe in 5

  Becky Burr: (14:55) I think you would be entitled to challenge any abuse of the categories

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:55) Exactly, Becky.

  Becky Burr: (14:55) which would at least get you to mediation

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:56) If there is too much redacted in your view, you can challenge that.

  Edward Morris: (14:56) @Becky. Could we perhaps make that a bit clearer in the Bylaws as we did i 22.7 for Inspection?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:56) that's a good point, Alan, about the inaccuries.

  Edward Morris: (14:56) in 22.7

  Greg Shatan: (14:56) Agree with Alan.

  Holly J. Gregory: (14:56) Trade secrets are defined in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act -- could cross reference to the definition there

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:57) but transcription technology will improve over time, so let's write bylaws under the assumption that transcriptions will be faithful to what was said

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) we could say just recordings, if we must only have one.

  Philip S Corwin: (14:58) There's legislation that just passed the Senate and has gone to the House to establish a federal Trade Secrets Act -- would its enactment need to be considered?

  Brett Schaefer: (14:58) Agree with Ed adn Alan, transcripts facilitate finding specific discussions in what can be lengthy meetings. People shoul dnot have to listen to entire recordings to get to what they are looking for. The recordings can be good means for verification or clarification in instances where trancription may be incorrect.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:58) Good bye all I need to leave at the top of the hour

  Greg Shatan: (14:59) Need both....

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:59) I agree with Kavouss, we should stick as closely as possible to the Final Report. If the Final Report excludes trade secrets, then they must (I personally regret) be excluded. But if there is no mention of them, then excluding them now would be equally wrong.

  matthew shears: (14:59) + 1 Greg

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:59) @CW - minutes are prepared by staff and approved by management.  Don't expect to find interesting debate in a Transcript!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:59) yeah, I've come around to agreeing that we need both recordings and transcripts.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:01) how many questions do we have to get through?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:01) 34

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:01) a bunch of those are CWG, fortunately :-)

  Greg Shatan: (15:02) @Malcolm, publicly revealing a trade secret ends its status as a trade secret.  I agree with Robin's concern about very broad use of the term, but if something is a trade secret it can't be published to the world and remain a trade secret.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:02) We haev 1-7 and 25-34

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:05) @Greg. I know, but the very concept of ICANN having a legitimate trade secret is potentiallly contentious. We must stick to the report as approved by the Chartering Organisations

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06) may be and not should be or shall be

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:06) yes, "may be" is in the report

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:07) on the final matter re any 'vote'   I am happy to have the bylaws reman silent...  We do need to develop OP's  and am equally happy in the interim  for a review team to decide it's own methods

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:08) I am in favoutr of no change

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:10) No change to the existing text

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:11) I do  not agree to replace "Plan" with effort

  matthew shears: (15:12) I believe that continuity planning was also addressed by the CWG

  Greg Shatan: (15:15) @Malcolm, whether or not we bake it into the Bylaws, ICANN will redact trade secrets to preserve their status as such, and probably would invoke (c) ("legal requirement").  Forcing ICANN to reveal information that is legitimately classified as trade secret is beyond our remit.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:17) thx Rosemary...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:18) I have a different perspective on this.

  Steve Crocker: (15:18) I can envision two circumstances where the Board might vote to exlude a sitting member.  Intransigence or obstructive behavior is one.  The other is violation of the duties of confidentiality, etc.  Relaitvley prompt action is needed if it becomes impossible to trust a fellow Board member.  It's not just a case of "difficult meetings."

  Steve Crocker: (15:19) That said, to my knowledge, the Board has never taken this action.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:19) I don't believe there was anything in our report that suggested constraining the Board's ability to remove a director.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:19) As such, shouldn't it be an automatic certification by the EC? same as it is for APPOINTMENTs by the SOs and ACs and NomCom?

  Steve Crocker: (15:20) @Jordan, well that's the question.  What happens if the EC is either slow to act or refuses to act?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:20) It should be automatic and pro forma, In other words no "decision" should have to be taken

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:21) Alan, not possible from a legal perspective

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:21) Agree Alan  there may need to be some sort of 'suspension'  here

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:21) But I think Jordan's suggestion could work, legally.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:22) Well if the auto proform way fwd of JC works  that should not impeed matters  unduley

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:22) Would it be like the board member's own pre-signed resignation letter Rosemary, can the EC do that also?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:23) It is possible if the Board choses to involve the EC ahead of time, and in that case, we should ensure that there is a way to do that without making public announcements.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:23) @Kavouss, that does not work for NomCom appointees.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) Jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (15:24) Interesting. "tHE EC IS DEEMED TO HAVE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT TAKES ACTION"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:25) I do not believe it should have any power ot take action

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:25) I believe Jordan makes a good point that we should be able to work out from legal perspective. 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:25) I did not propose escaltion process but consultaion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:25) or to overrule the Board removal of a director.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:25) I do not believe it should have that power.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:25) Except the 7 powers of course Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:25) I believe we should leave what the Board can do today, unencumbered in a practical sense, but adjusted for the legal requirements of having a recognised designator.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:26) I would be very very opposed to us introducing some random new power at this point

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:26) happy to gothayway JC

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:26) +1 Jordan and Greg


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:26) no comments, no consideration, nothing

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:27) I think that approach, Rosemary, is FAR FAR preferable.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:28) And confirmation that there are a number of legal possibilities means, I think, we should stay closest to our Proposal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:28) Go with the first option Rosemary

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:28) and we never said we should change the Board's rights to do this, as far as I can remember

  Avri Doria: (15:28) i think Jordan's approach, since legally acceptable, works just fine.


  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:29) Rosemary options are : automatic consent, Standard Bylaws objection style, Fundamental Bylaws approval style

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:29) Kavouss: yes, but we *have* to have designator consent by law

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:29) so we have to do something

  Holly J. Gregory: (15:29) Item 7 has not been discussed

  Steve Crocker: (15:30) To repeat a bit, I think there are two fairly distinct cases re removal of a Board member.  If a Board member is absent or ottherwise not performing but not actively causing harm, a lengthy process is ok.  If the directror is activley causing harm, prompt action is needed.  A lengthy escalation process won't be helpful.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:30) All three options can be implemented legally -- automatic consent by the EC on notice of Board vote to remove; use standard bylaws rejection escalation process, or fundamental bylaws consent escalation process

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:30) she said they would *DRAFT  something for the new 1st Jordan Option,  the 2nd option is as outlined in the Doc displaye here and the 3rd was a larger escelatioon,  Alan  and I ony support the 1st  at this stage... (pendng the review of suchdrft Bylaws  text)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:30) are we sure that we did not mention that

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:32) Steve: agree, those two cases are different. But I don't think we have a mandate to change the process, is my basic point

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:32) Mathieu

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:32) pls read para 98

  Steve Crocker: (15:32) Jordan, the current process only depends on a vote by the Board.  There's no escalation process.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:33) Steve: exactly

  Brett Schaefer: (15:33) Automatic consent is not actually consent. If the designator is required to consent there should be a specific affirmation.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:33) Steve: I am saying that that should remain the case.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:33) Brett: our lawyers say otherwise.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:33) Seb: our report says there has to be a consultation

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:34) Consulting through a Community Forum seems more time-consuming than through SO and AC Chairs.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:34) Exactly Jordn  and Yes it makes sense as a way fwd to me as well

  Steve Crocker: (15:34) Jordan, it's a fine point whether "automatic consent" is the same as not requiring consent at all.  From a practical perspective, as long as the process is prompt and certain, I am ambivalent.  But I suspect from a legal perspective, these are viewed differently.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:34) They say it is a legal option. That does not mean that it is preferable. The only real reason given is that it is expediant.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:34) it's only silent on HOW to consult.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:35) Steve: yep. Legally there has to be consent. Practically, I think we should do it in a way that makes that irrelevant.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:35) aLAN 11

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:35) +1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:35) question 25 is a sensitive one...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:36) so to be clear on question 7 - my pref is Option a, not b.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:36) Yes

  Alan Greenberg: (15:37) @Jordan. My preference it to require consultation but NOT specify how or with whom, but I can accepts chairs.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:38) Who would decide?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:38) I was responsible for the "solely or almost solely" construction, under extreme time pressure to ensure the "solely" standard was not too strict in the draft.  Happy to have better words -- I've been thinking about better wording myself.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:38) "entirely or almost entirely"

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:39) distinctively?

  mike chartier: (15:39) +1 malcolm

  Greg Shatan: (15:39) I agree with Malcolm.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:39) What is difference between "entirely" and "almost entirely"?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:40) Black and white, versus some grey

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:40) "substantially" is a good option. "primarily" would be stronger; "signaficantly" weaker.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:40) Almost entirely is open to interpretation and suject to procedural interpretation. What if a decision incorporates GAC consensus advice within a broader decision like a budget? It might be only a minor part of the overall decision, but would nonetheless involve consensus advice.

  matthew shears: (15:41) Malcolms sugestions also work

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:41) The question arises when the Board decision is based on different SO/ACs inputs - it  should only apply if the Board decision is based on a distinctive advice from the GAC, which is not shared by other SO/AC

  Edward Morris: (15:41) I do like "substantially" better than the other options presented.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:42) GAC consensus advice should required to be addressed through a separate Board decision so there is no ambiguity.

  Sabine Meyer: (15:43) Wouldn't that make it harder in cases where GAC engaged transversally?

  Steve Crocker: (15:44)  Given the last IRP ruling, isn't the Board more or less prohibited from justifyibng its actions based on GAC advice?

  Steve Crocker: (15:45) More subtly, if the Board is going to follow the GAC'

  Steve Crocker: (15:45) s advice, it has to justify it on its merits and not solely that the GAC said to do it.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:45) @Brett  -- GAC advice might later result in a budgetary increase.  Would the GAC be carved-out of a budget veto decision for the enitre budget?

  Greg Shatan: (15:47) @Steve C., I think the issue is whether the proposal resulted from GAC Advice, not whether the Board justifies the proposal on the basis that it's GAC Advice.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:47) @Steve, that is what I am concerned about. If a GAC consensus based decision on a budgetary matter we handled separately as a budgetary addon, then the entire budget would not be threatened, just the narrow matter.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:48) I thought Seun was in q

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:49) Thanks David Indeed !

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:50) If ALAC provides same advice as GAC I do not see logic of GAC being carved out on basis of "two bites" rationale.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:51) I cannot see the difference between solely and distinctly

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:51) @Mark, is it your view that the GAC carve-out should only apply where the whole community other than governments is united in opposition to GAC advice?

  Brett Schaefer: (15:51) If GAC advice is broadly supported in teh EC, there is no concern about reversal.


  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:53) Board decides whether to label decision as based on GAC consenses advice; complaining party decides how to frame their complaint to meet the standard in the Bylaws.  Then, like everything that will be in the new Bylaws, any improper characterization could be subjected to an IRP.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC SPAIN): (15:54) +1 Mark

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:54) Petition notice is  strictly and exclusively invoked from GAC advice

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:55) Any other business

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:55) yeah!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:56) Thomas

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:57) I declared having an statement under AOB

  Alan Greenberg: (15:57) I have  an AOB also. VERY SHORT.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:58) tIME IS OVER

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:58) the final report requires PDP implementation by agreement

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (15:58) it's a fulfilment of the report

  mike chartier: (15:59) For the next meeting, if Leadership has suggested answers  for the  remainder of theQuestions, can they send them before  hand?

  Brett Schaefer: (15:59) @Mike, that would ruin the big reveal!

  Malcolm Hutty: (16:00) @Jordan, thanks, the lawyer's question was confusing. I read "Required to approve" in the context of the question as "cannot dissent"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:00) "otherwise it won't be approved"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:00) Re these AOB interventions essentials   to todays AOB as oppossed to time in a futurre call ( even later this week?

  Holly J. Gregory: (16:01) Sorry Malcolm, we were drafting in the middle of the night and running on fumes.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:01) time criticl mtteers re the questions  should prevail today I beleive

  Philip S Corwin: (16:01) Must disagree with Kavouss' zero sum game theoory of the outcome of the accountability process

  Malcolm Hutty: (16:01) @Holly, no problem at all. Good to have it cleared up

  Alan Greenberg: (16:01) Late for another meeting!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:01) we should always keep in mind that this is all about a positive-sum game

  Brett Schaefer: (16:03) Here is the link to the mysterious statement referred to by Steve:

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:04) Going to leve AC  and join my other call now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:04)  Bye

  David McAuley (RySG): (16:04) Agree with Steve that context is important in understanding such statements, especially when one is being questioned rather than making a prepared statement

  Philip S Corwin: (16:04) The private sector gained by nailing down the definition of GAC consensus advice -- and the GAC gained by having a higher formal voting threshold set for Board rejection. Win-win, not zero sum.

  Holly J. Gregory: (16:04) Alan, We have tried to raise them as questions with the Bylaws /coordinating Group and there is a record of those questions.  We do not have time to go back an provide a list.g

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:04) mAZHIEU / tHOMAS,$

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:05) @Philip: we should always take into account the larger picture, where the win-win is more apparent...


  mike chartier: (16:06) Thanks

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:06) Where we can find the mapping pointing the changes to CCWG rECS

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (16:06) Kavouss it has been circulated a couple of hours ago.

  Philip S Corwin: (16:06) Everyone wins with a more accountable and transparent ICANN

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (16:06) Thx All! Bye!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:06) thanks all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:06)  Testimony said

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (16:06) speak in a couple days

  Becky Burr: (16:06) thanks

  Philip S Corwin: (16:06) And I didn't even mention that GAC became part of the Emppowered Community

  David McAuley (RySG): (16:06) Thanks and bye all

  Avri Doria: (16:06) bye

  Khaled Koubaa: (16:07) thanks bye

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (16:07) Bye !

  nigel hickson: (16:07) thanks; goodbye

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:07) PRIVATE SECOTS HAD A NET GAIN

  Lito Ibarra: (16:07) Bye

  Sabine Meyer: (16:07) Good bye everyone!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (16:07) bye all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:07) bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:07) bye!

  Dave Kissoondoyal: (16:07) thanks and bye to all

  Philip S Corwin: (16:07) Bye all

  • No labels