Attendees:
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Wanawit Ahkuputra (11)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Jian Chang, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Rudi Vansnick, Suzanne Woolf (13)
Legal Counsel: Sharon Flanagan
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Samantha Eisner, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green
Apologies: Seun Ojedeji
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section)
- CSC (Questions #8-12) -- Donna Austin
- IFR, Special IFR, SCWG (Questions #13-22)
- Budget (Question #24) -- Chuck Gomes
- Other comments
2. AOB
- Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC)
- DT-O comments on FY17 Budget & Op Plan
- Implementation Update
3. Closing remarks
Notes
1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section)
- Question 8: response approved with "direct customers"
- Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
- Question 10: no change.
- Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
- Question 12: no change.
- Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
- Question 14: no change.
- Question 15: no change.
- Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs")
- Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance.
- Question 18: no change
- Question 19: no change
- Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers.
- Question 21: no change
- Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
- Question 24: no change
- Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
- Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
Action Items
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5tjsiphcr5/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/cwg-iana-bylaws-review-11apr16-en.mp3
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (4/11/2016 09:41) Good day all and welcome to CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April 2016 @ 15:00 UTC!
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:01) Hi Brenda
Andrew Sullivan: (10:01) Is it just really quiet, or do I have an audio problem?
Andrew Sullivan: (10:01) Ah, never mind :)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:01) Hi all
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:02) Hi JORGE, YOU ARE FAINTHFUL TO cwg too
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:02) Imean faithful.
Grace Abuhamad: (10:02) Sorry all -- I meant to say that this is the 2nd of 2 calls on Bylaws review
Donna Austin: (10:04) Can you give me a minute to dial in
Grace Abuhamad: (10:05) I will reach out to Avri and Matthew
Andrew Sullivan: (10:05) Avri may be in transit. I saw her in Buenos Aires the other day
Donna Austin: (10:05) I'm on
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:05) I will do 24.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:08) I don't understand how that helps
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:08) AGREE Donna lets go with Direct Customers
Andrew Sullivan: (10:08) It seems to me that it's a needless addition and could add future confusion
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:09) Agreed
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:09) We need to clarify what we mean by "non-registry" as it's not specific enough
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:09) yes thanks
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:10) Why is the answer to 9, "No". It sounds like you are syaing yes to that language
Andrew Sullivan: (10:11) re: what Chuck is saying, ok, except that from the DNS point of view anyone who is operating a DNS zone is operating a "registry"
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:11) That was my point Sharon.
Donna Austin: (10:11) @Sharon you are correct. It is my misreading of the question.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:11) (I don't care how this is stated, but pointing out that the confusion cuts both ways)
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:11) Good point Andrew. Let's say gTLD Registry.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:11) Got it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:13) fine by me
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:13) I am not comfortable with that latitude or qualification as this is difficult to verify what is reasonable and what is not reasonable
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:14) I assume the "it may be appropriate" language is not something for the bylaws but perhaps for the charter
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:15) @ Kavouss. Would 'if possible' be better than 'reasonable'? There may be cases where it is not possible.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:16) Reasonable seems reasonable to me -- it just means they are trying
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:16) +1 Alan
Greg Shatan: (10:17) "reasaonable efforts" is a very standard term used in legal documents, with a well-understood meaning under US law.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:17) 'should' is okay but I don't think it makes much difference.
Alan Greenberg: (10:18) With regard to charter vs bylaws, I support pretty much all efforts to not put details in the bylaws.
Rudi Vansnick: (10:18) sorry got stuck in another meeting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:19) I trust your noting my agree or check mrks fr *some* of the interventions
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:20) As I understand it, this is not language for the bylaws
Grace Abuhamad: (10:20) @Kavouss I will be editing the document and removing that language
Grace Abuhamad: (10:20) Please see the notes
Greg Shatan: (10:20) "It may be apppropriate" is a common way to introduce a suggestion for consideration by a broader group.
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:21) Dear Lawyer. why whatever IO proposed you disagree and insist on your4 owns h
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:21) It's clear
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:21) The answer on #12 I mean
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:22) @ Kavouss: One disagreement doesn't mean a change should be made.
Grace Abuhamad: (10:23) one moment. apologies for the interruption
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:23) Need to be called back
Brenda Brewer: (10:23) Apologies, will call Lise back.
Grace Abuhamad: (10:23) we'll get you too @Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:24) Agree with you Greg
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:24) Agree on the 'hair splitting'.
Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (10:24) I feel the same way as Greg
Andrew Sullivan: (10:24) I knew I shouldn't have shaved today.
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:25) I disagree with Greg totally
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:26) some people may be indifferent to a subject
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:26) Silence is not consent
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:26) Nor is one comment definitive.
Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (10:27) @Kavouss: I am listening very carefully
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:28) exactly Jonathan we are answerg questions and clarifying
Greg Shatan: (10:29) Kavouss, in this exercise, I think silence can indeed by considered consent. If anyone wishes to agree with your changes or to suggest any of their own, I'm sure they will speak up. If not, they clearly do not want a variance from the texts.
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:29) There is no logic to accept such lattitude or qualifier
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:29) I can not agree
Andrew Sullivan: (10:31) The current bylaw text defines "consensus" as "where a small minority agrees". Since Kavouss disagrees, perhaps we have reached consensus.
Grace Abuhamad: (10:31) I uploaded the section of the proposal in case that is useful. Will return to document shortly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:31) your concerns are nooted Kavous including I'm sure by the experts in law and language who are drafting the by laws text draft
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:31) This is polirized session .People line up with each other to oppose against the idea which has logic
Andrew Sullivan: (10:32) @Kavouss: for what it's worth, I don't agree with your observation. I agree there is a lot of slack in some of the ways we've written things, but "reasonable efforts" in appointing people is not the place where that's most serious
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:34) An alternative -- if it has the same meaning -- is "direct customers of the naming services" which is what we are using in CSC language
Andrew Sullivan: (10:34) @Sharon: I like that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:35) thx Sharon I like that too
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:35) @ Kavouss: Note that in the chat I agreed that 'should' was okay but I went on to say that I didn't think it made any significant difference in the result. In other words, I agreed with your logic but I didn't think it was material.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:35) yes thanks
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:36) It is a pity that legitimate and valid arguments are rejected by few people that systematically agree with each other against some other people
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:37) this is not a healthy discussion
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:37) Sorry you feel that is the situation Kavous I for one do not feel tht is wht is happening here.
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:38) because you are part of that group thus it is evident that you support that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:38) but does that matter Avri I think it is ok fr 14 as a yes it makes sense
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:39) q13 notes: isn't this an and, not an and/or?
Greg Shatan: (10:39) Sounds like someone got cut off....
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:39) Here I suggest to replace the reasonable by every
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:39) Would 'best efforts' be better than 'reasonable efforts'?
Grace Abuhamad: (10:39) yes, sorry again. problems with phone lines today
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:39) Jonathan I made a proposal
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:39) Kavous please note my lake of replies on this matter here indicates my attention to the current discussions and matters discussed not silence as agreement
Andrew Sullivan: (10:39) @Kavouss: with respect, if a large number of people with vastly different interests disagree with you, it might not be the case that they're all wrong
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:40) every effor instead of reasonable effort
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:40) Makes sense Sharon.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:40) lake should read lack
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:41) evry possible effort instead of reasonable
Maarten Simon: (10:41) reasonable sounds reasonable
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:41) I would interpret "every effort" to be equivalent to "best efforts"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:41) Thx Sharon so why not go for Reasonable Efforts
Paul Kane: (10:41) Martin - I agree I think q13 is an "and", not an "and/or"
Andrew Sullivan: (10:42) @Greg: kind of like making the IANA transition!
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:42) we are not obliged to follow US laws Greg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:42) Nice Greg I understand the point :-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:42) object to follow a specific law
Andrew Sullivan: (10:42) @Kavouss: I'm sorry, but these are bylaws of a US corporation. They need to follwow US conventions
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:43) We are internationalé meeting and should not be dominated by US Law$
Andrew Sullivan: (10:43) I'm not particularly keen on US law either, but that's the one we need to worry about
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:43) Of course it needs to be Adrew
Andrew Sullivan: (10:44) I really feel like we are allowing a discussion about a topic that isn't even going into the bylaws to use up our time which ought properly to be devoted to getting these bylaw questions answered
Greg Shatan: (10:44) The document is a US law document. Using terms that can be consistently interpreted is common sense.
Greg Shatan: (10:44) Andrew, you should be stroking your beard while saying that.
Alan Greenberg: (10:46) This is not a matter of law but of how legal systems tend to interpret wording. From my experience with the laws of several countries (and I am not from the US), I do not see vast differences.
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:46) Greg, ICANN bYLAWS IS NOT us Dopcument????
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:47) ICANN Bylaws IS NOT A US doument GREG
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:48) I'm ok with that
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:48) THIS IS A CROSS cOMMUNITY wORKING gROUP it is not a US group
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:49) 18.12 (a) (i)-(iv) looked ok to me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:49) AGree Paul, so use the originsl wording perhas
Paul Kane: (10:49) Yes - Agree Cheryl
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:50) yes - good here
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:53) ICANN bYLAWS NOW IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE PURELY us Document According to Gregory Stans'S STATEMNET.i TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:54) Dear all: please note that I'm in agreement with concerns on the proposed answer for question 22.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:54) I have to switch to another meeting in a couple of minutes...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:55) Noted Kavous (and your caps lock seems to be on again - I'm sure that is not intentional)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:55) I also need to go (partially to another cll) but will stay here in audio and AC now
Andrew Sullivan: (10:56) I'm getting drop-outs. Network performance at my end or are others too?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:56) #18 and 19 are clear
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:56) Thanks very much, Jonathan!
Paul Kane: (10:57) Jonathan - can you repeat
Donna Austin: (10:57) Thanks everyone, I have to drop for another call.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:57) we missed most of what Jonathan said
Grace Abuhamad: (10:58) Thank you for your work on this Donna
Andrew Sullivan: (10:58) I'm also getting the drop outs. Sounds like Jonathan is on a laggy network, because I heard reordered packets too
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:58) i agree to the reply given to 18 and 19
Grace Abuhamad: (10:58) Whoa, that's a technical way of putting it @Andrew
Jonathan Robinson: (10:58) I suggested that it should be at least 2, ideally 4
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:59) what the US law say Jonathan
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:00) Let's not change the proposal.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:00) Given what the proposal said, it should be recommended but no minimal requirement
Andrew Sullivan: (11:00) no changing of the proposal, like Chuck said
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:00) That's clear
Paul Kane: (11:00) I'd say min of two but not limited to 2
Maarten Simon: (11:01) agree with chuck and andrew
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:02) I also agree
Paul Kane: (11:02) ok - I agree with Kavouss - let's not specify a number
Greg Shatan: (11:02) Sarcasm not appreciated.
Mary Uduma: (11:03) @Paul +1
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:04) ACCORDING TO us Law .YES
Greg Shatan: (11:04) Clearly this not an issue where there would be a standard US legal requirement. That said, the language used to express ourselves needs to be as unambiguous as possible. Using terms with standard meanings under US law and legal/business practice advances that objective.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:04) I can provide background on what proposal says on this
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:05) WHAT STANDAR? us STANDARDS???
Grace Abuhamad: (11:05) I uploaded paragraph 391 for you
Grace Abuhamad: (11:05) I will come back to question document shortly.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:05) ipc LEGAL bUSINESS PRACTICE?
Grace Abuhamad: (11:06) Please keep the chat relevant to the discussion on the all
Grace Abuhamad: (11:06) call
Alan Greenberg: (11:11) And I agree that a simple majority is NOT sufficient in this case.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:12) @Kavouss + 1
Paul Kane: (11:12) Kavouss - I agreed with the point you made and I changed my position.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:13) yes Consensus should be the primary aim ( but perhaps we need a fallback *if* necisarry
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:14) exactly Chuck
Paul Kane: (11:15) Chuck - you raise a good point.....
Paul Kane: (11:16) I do not want to see a seperation but having an effective back-stop that is achievable will encourage the IANA operator to address the concerns of direct customers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:17) yes if we have a fall back it could be a higher bar such as Super Majority *in the rare cases where cincensus can not be achieved
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:18) apols re typos
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:18) Jonathan, may you please advise what the US laws mentioned in this regard as we are working under that law AND THE bylaws is a US document
Paul Kane: (11:18) Andrew +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:18) I like what your saying Andrew AGREE
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:18) @ Jonathan: Note that I have a hard stop at the bottom of the hour if you want me to cover #24.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:19) undoubedly my question was based on what I heardt
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:19) I already delayed a call for 30 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:19) and Greg Donna and I are alredy in 2 calls at once
Jonathan Robinson: (11:20) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:21) the SCWG output still needs to go to the ccNSO & GNSO councils and then to the Board and then an escalation process if it is rejected...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:21) works for me Jonathan, and wher you get FULL Concensus you state that
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:21) Jonathan
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:21) (Our porposal para 399)
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:21) @ Jonathan: How will we deal with Bylaws issues not covered by the questions in the table?
Andrew Sullivan: (11:21) Note that there's a structural problem with that definition of "consensus", because it means that consensus can only be achieved if someone disagrees. Which is at least pretty strange.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:22) so would a proposal without reasonable consensus get through that process?
Andrew Sullivan: (11:22) I think Martin is right about that
Greg Shatan: (11:22) This is the charter, so we need to define it now. In our charter, the definition is " Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:22) I thnk the intention is "no more than a small minority disagres"
Jonathan Robinson: (11:22) Consensus is the minimum threshold
Andrew Sullivan: (11:22) That may be the intention, but it's not the words :)
Greg Shatan: (11:23) Andrew -- this needs to be read in context, where it is mentioned right after Full Consensus.
Greg Shatan: (11:23) Sharon, true and better stated.
Greg Shatan: (11:24) But I didn't write the CWG charter. :-)
Maarten Simon: (11:24) I like Sharon's suggestion
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:24) also agree with Sharon's wording
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:24) what is Small?
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:25) What is Minority?
Greg Shatan: (11:25) This is in essence the charter for this body. Decision making threshold is a critical aspect and must be clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:25) We need to push for Concensus (however defined) by whomever
Greg Shatan: (11:26) Kavouss, we've used these terms for a long time in GNSO working groups. The chairs have some latitude in interpretation. I think challenging the concept of (Rough) Consensus is not fruitful.
Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (11:26) Need to go. Will hear all of you this Thursday
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Jonathan
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) We have another call at 19,00 hours
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:27) We are ok on 24
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:28) Dear Chuck
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:28) Yes
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:28) Pls allow us to think
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:28) Dear all - just for info: I have posted some comments on the CCWG-Principles draft framework, where I suggest that "consensus" needs also a positive level of support standard :-)
Grace Abuhamad: (11:29) thank you Jorge. All -- the deadline for that public comment is 16 April
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:29) Kavous the 1900 hrs call is the CCWG one
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:30) Sidely is our legal adviser and need to limit its intervention to that level and not beyound that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:31) Audio?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:31) OK now
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:32) Sidely needs to allow us to think and digest the text but not pushing
Greg Shatan: (11:35) Bye all.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:36) There is a lot of distortion on audio
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:36) Paul is rather close to his mike I think
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:36) I just turned down my volume to compensate
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:37) I am intrested in the argument but difficult to hear properly
Andrew Sullivan: (11:38) Thanks very much
Maarten Simon: (11:38) thank you Jonathan, bye
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:38) thanks Jonathan, thanks all & bye
Andrew Sullivan: (11:38) bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:38) Thanks everyone talk soon
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:38) Bye
