Members: Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Farzaneh Badii, Fiona Asonga, Finn Petersen, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Michael Abejuela, Niels ten Oever, Olga Cavalli, Robin Gross, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Thomas Rickert (20)
Participants: Aarti Bhavana, Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Andreea Brambilla, Avri Doria, Bastiaan Goslings, Beth Bacon, Brett Schaefer, Chris Wilson, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Herb Waye, Isabel Rutherfurd, Jeff Neuman, John Laprise, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek, Lori Schulman, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Mary Uduma, Michael Karanicolas, Philip Corwin, Ricardo Holmquist, Ron Da Silva, Rosalia Morales, Rudi Daniel, Seun Ojedeji, Stephen Deerhake, Tom Dale, Wale Bakare (36)
Observers and Guests: John Poole
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Julia Charvolen, Nathalie Vergnolle, Nigel Hickson, Tristana Webster, Yvette Guigneaux
Apologies: Alberto Soto
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour
2. Administration
- Update on IRP-IOT Public Consultation (3 commenters, closes 25 January 2017)
- Update on travel funding for ICANN58 and ICANN 59
- Reminder CCWG-Accountability Face to Face in Copenhagen is Friday 10 March 2017 (visa reminder).
3. Legal Committee Update
- There are no pending requests.
4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups
- Guidelines for Good Faith (15 – 20 minutes) – First Reading
- Human Rights
- Second reading (5 minutes)
- Scope issue (15- 20 minutes)
- Jurisdiction Questionnaire (15 – 20 minutes)
- Transparency – Second reading (30 minutes)
5. Review of Schedule/Timeline (15 minutes)
6. AOB
Notes
1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour
Mathieu Weill: No changes to SOI.
2. Administration
• Update on IRP-IOT Public Consultation (3 commenters, closes 25 January 2017)
• Update on travel funding for ICANN58 and ICANN 59
• Reminder CCWG-Accountability Face to Face in Copenhagen is Friday 10 March 2017(visa reminder).
- Bernard Turcotte: PCST has emailed the November report to the list. We are doing well from a budget POV. Will be happy to take questions off-line or on the list.
3. Legal Committee Update
Leon Sanchez: No ongoing or new requests. Reminder to all sub-groups to look at advice received for other sub-groups as it could answer questions.
Kavouss Arasteh: Reminder re Applicable Law - Footnote for FOIHR regarding Applicable Law - depending on results of Jurisdiction sub-group may cause a need to revise this in the HR - otherwise there may be contradictions.
4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups
• Guidelines for Good Faith – For Information
Lori Schulman: We have tried to keep it short and sweet and could be easily used by the community. Just to be clear this is about protecting the community if they are trying to remove a director by providing indemnity - which would require good faith. ICANN Legal is reviewing. Presentation of the report.
Thomas Rickert: Re first reading issue - agenda was approved by the co-chairs.
Alan Greenberg: We were expecting this to be for information and a first reading at the next plenary.
Thomas Rickert: Understand but we are on a tight time frame. Would suggest we call this a first reading?
Robin Gross: so we aren't do 2 readings anymore, just 1? because the first one isn't final? interesting change of meaning of important words.
Lori Schulman: Alan, as an FYI, I had omitted a requirement that we had discussed. I simply added it. Your point is well taken.
Kavouss Arasteh: Not a first reading.
Lori Schulman: I also don't consider this "ready" until we get the legal opinion.
Alan Greenberg: Sub-group has not approved.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan on this.
Robin Gross: so do I
Robin Gross: Avri, it does seem like w are rushing to meet arbitrary deadlines
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): how much in advance should we hope/ask for papers?
Christopher Wilkinson: At least one week, if more than ten pages
Lori Schulman: I think that is an excellent question. What is appropriate notice? I did not read all of the documents either.
avri doria: i think after the next first reading we may be able to decide that it is really a second reading.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree Thomas - legal review is not the issue.
Lori Schulman: Thomas, so I am unclear as to what is decided.
Thomas Rickert: Given LS has withdrawn the document this is not a first reading. Will remind the group that a legal review was often conducted after our documents were completed in WS1.
• Human Rights
o Second reading
Niels Ten Oever: Let us go over the document. Any Comments on Within Scope... (none). Respecting (no comments) Internationalized HR (no comments) As required by Applicable Law - KA over to you.
Kavouss Arasteh: Reference to Applicable Law - would like to explain this when you reach this. applicable law is part of two sub-groups Jurisdiction and HR. Suggest we include a foot note on HR (see above).
Leon Sanchez: would suggest modifying Jurisdiction if needed.
Milton Mueler: ICANN has no requirement to implement if not per applicable law?
Milton Mueller: Niels, what if respect for an internationally recognized right is NOT "required by applicable law" - does that mean ICANN policies can ignore it?
Erich Schweighofer: I would say, yes, Milton. ICANN applies international obligations as the national laws sees it.
Brett Schaefer: Milton, that is my understanding for why the phrase "this Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create... " language was included.
Robin Gross: We need to find an interpretation of this phrase that can put some actual teeth in it.
avri doria: and ICANN is deciding to not accept any further obligation.
Tatiana Tropina: It’s a balancing act.
Leon Sanchez: It would be useful to get feedback from the wider community. Hence, I would suggest we continue the second reading and publish for public comment and then come back to the issue based on feedback received. Does that sound reasonable?
Milton Meuler: People are concerned this will push ICANN beyond its mission but my question is IF it is IN mission is ICANN obliged to do so.
Robin Gross: Free speech rights and privacy rights are generally obligations states hold (not corporations), so does this recommendation mean those rights don't apply at ICANN (since applicable law does not require them)?
Tatiana Tropina: No we can't. May be for good, if you are criticising me
avri doria: yes Leon, the fact that this point is an open point has been made.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Kavouss raised an important point. At the end the CCWG plenary should issue a document indicating the limits of each subgroup document – some are written broadly and could be read as dealing with other subgroup matter.
Greg Shatan: Mission and Core Values are two different things - Mission ICANN has to do - CV's have to be balanced between each other.
Robin Gross: sounds free speech and privacy are out, then. wow.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Please note there is a basis for filing a Limited Public Interest Objection to a gTLD application based on Human Rights so that was already in the Applicant Guidebook. (comment unrelated to Milton's comment re IRP)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel there is a distinction between the legal obligation (defined by applicable law) and the core value, which goes beyond just the legal obligation (ICANN not only commits not to violate HR but also commits to take them into account).
Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with both LS and DM suggestions and can live with either. As to the MM question GS has done a great job explaining this.
Greg Shatan: There are plenty of human rights laws that protect free speech and privacy, and not just by states.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JOrge - I felt the same way but the ByLaw says that ICANN cannot be required to go beyond requirements of applicable law so I don't think an IRP can be based on this commitment.
Tatiana Tropina: with example of the content regulation - clearly if something outside of the mission it's outside of the mission and that's what bylaw and FoE say
Greg Shatan: @Jorge, the Core Value is limited by applicable law, so it does not go beyond the legal obligation.
Leon Sanchez: suggest we complete the second reading so we can go to public comment using my earlier suggestion.
Neils Ten Oever: Core Value does not create (no comment).
Brett Schaefer: How do you resolve conflicts in applicable law given ICANN operates in multiple jurisdictions? Not expecting this to be resolved in this document but wish to know if this was discussed?
Leon Sachez: lets take this offline.
Robin Gross: still sounds like no change for HR at ICANN
Tatiana Tropina: Greg don't scare people away :) If we look at the definition of respect - avoid violations and take into account in developing policies
Greg Shatan: @Tatiana, correct; we don't need to invoke any Core Value if ICANN is operating outside its Mission.
Greg Shatan: @Tatiana, true, tehre is still a positive obligation created by the Bylaw. That is the major change.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: Please take this question offline!
Tatiana Tropina: yes, thereis a major change - positive obligation
Greg Shatan: Inapplicable question on applicable law?
Niels Ten Oever: completes the second reading.
Kavouss Arasteh: Thomas +1
David McAuley (RySG): agree with Tatiana that the new HR bylaw is an important addition
Milton Mueller: positive obligation to take HR "into account"?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Erich - at least in theory, there should be no "different applicable laws". And certainly "applicable law" does not mean pick a law that is applicable in most jurisdictions - that is not at all the meaning of the term.
Tatiana Tropina: but they are transposed into the national laws anyway.
David McAuley (RySG): The term applicable law is a part of the bylaw itself, not just the FOI - we cannot write it away.
Robin Gross: that's what I'm saying, Tatiana, since HR like free speech and privacy only apply to states, they are irrelevant under this definition
Milton Mueller: Tatiana: ICANN is the "state" for internet identifiers
Erich Schweighofer: @Anne: data protection is a strong real example ... Privacy Shield etc.
Brett Schaefer: Again, I would appreciate a link to the documents where this was discussed if someone can forward it to me. Thx.
Tatiana Tropina: Milton, we can't make international instruments applicable to ICANN by this bylaw this is legally ridiculous to me
Milton Mueller: sure, we can. as a private org, ICANN can pass a bylaw that says "we will adhere to HR"
Tatiana Tropina: what we can is to create a negative obligation to avoid HR violations and a positive obligation to take HR into consideration in policy making, and limit all this with the mission so no one will use HR for content regulation or whatever
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Milton: I seem to remember some debate about this is WS1
Milton Mueller: it can also pass a bylaw that says everyone who works for it must dye their hair green
Tatiana Tropina: Milton, that's what is done. See about positive obligation core value.
Robin Gross: ICANN wants to engage in global governance, but doesn't want any of the obligations of those who govern.
Milton Mueller: ok, so you are saying it is done, not that it is "legally ridiculous"
Leon Sanchez: Any objections to taking this to public comment (none) Would ask staff to move this to public comment and advise the group when it goes up.
o Scope issue
Leon Sanchez: Annex 6 and 12 approach WS2 Human Rights in different ways and the sub-group is asking for guidance from the plenary (see report posted by sub-group on this). Co-chairs will consider this and propose a solution to the group. Any objection to proceeding as such? (none)
• Jurisdiction Questionnaire
Greg Shatan: This version has changed since the last time. Review of the questions.
Kavouss Arasteh: GS has done a great job and recommend we accept this delicate balance. If we open this again we will be at it for quite a while.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): the questionnaire looks sensible to me, it would be good to get it out there and see what people think / contribute.
Mathieu Weill: KA good advice thanks. I think we simply have to test if there are major objections "die in the ditch".
Greg Shatan: Thank you, Kavouss.
Erich Schweighofer: Well said, Kavouss.
Robin Gross: We may need to add the "die in the ditch" test to the ICANN dictionary :-)
Christopher Wilkinson: strong support for KA recommendation.
Philip Corwin: What I observed in a WG email is that no matter how carefully we try to word a question those responding to it usually feel free to go beyond its scope in their answer. And that wording of questions is not of the same degree of importance as wording of final recommendations, so the degree of precision required is less.
Alan Greenberg: I am not a participant in the group but have been following the mailing list. We do NOT want to send this back to the sub-group.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): let's get it out there
Robin Gross: Let's send it out!
Keith Drazek: No objection in its current form.
Philip Corwin: Stick a fork in these questions, Not only are they done, they are well done.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: Let's put it out!
Farzaneh Badii: Yes, lets send them out
Mathieu Weill: no objections to publishing. Congratulations to all involved and especially GS for his persistence.
• Transparency – Second reading
Michael Karanicolas: (presentation of the document).
Leon Sanchez: Congrats to the group for the great work.
Brett Schaefer: On page 10 of the transparency report I read a reference to the IRP, “Among the most important aspects of a robust right to information system is an effective, user-friendly and timely process for appealing against refusals, redactions, breaches of timelines, and other administrative failures. Our present understanding is that these appeals will be carried out under the IRP process, currently in its final stages of development.” I saw recent discussion on the lists about how an IRP challenge would not be possible one year after the decision. Would this limitation undermine the effort to make the DIDP more robust?
David McAuley (RySG): The timing of claims issue is under comment and discussion Brett and IOT has received some outside counsel advice.
David McAuley (RySG): I can't speak for IOT as a group but would not be surprised by some change
Christopher Wilkinson: great report and here are a few points I need to make: detail seems to go too far and not implementable - we do not want to paralyze the organization through transparency requirements. This is not meant to be against transparency but things have to be balanced. Re procurement again the report seems to go too far. formalized GAC actions? we need to remove Formalized given most interactions with ICANN staff are informal.
Leon Sachez: very valuable comments but could be made in the public comment period. second readings are thumbs up or down.
Robin Gross: well one of the specific transparency issues we have agreed to do was get more transparency in governments interactions with ICANN. So naturally we don't want to cut that out in another part of the document.
Edward Morris: @Brett. Agree this should be an area of concern. However, how would reconsideration play into this appeals process and how would the time factor then be affected?
Michael Karanicolas: Hi. Thx for that Christopher, I can respond to a couple of points quickly here
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Robin: to be fair, we identified it would be further investigated. We did not test consensus on it as a requirement. The public comment will be a good test
Michael Karanicolas: First - regarding open contracting and publishing competing bids. In terms of its workability - I can tell you this is done routinely in the public sector.
Sebasiten Bachollet: the Ombudsman sub-group had not focused on the transparency document where there are links to the Ombudsman. We discussed these links at our last meeting and there are potential issues with the transparency recommendations which link to the Ombudsman. This goes to how to handle overlapping issues.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx for raising this Sebastien especially as Herb is not here today
Robin Gross: Mathieu, it was a specific issue we decided in WS1
Michael Karanicolas: We cite municipal governments that do this as a matter of policy: Richmond VA is the example we listed, but it's relatively common
Robin Gross: that we would work on in WS2
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: We decided to investigate it in WS2, I fully agree.
Robin Gross: public comments overwelmingly called for more transparency on governments interactions with ICANN, no?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: There were several comments asking for it. I try not to use qualifiers such as "overwhelming"
Brett Schaefer: @Ed, I'm not sure. That is why I asked the question.
Steve DelBianco: Robin is correct. CCWG calls for "Transparency of ICANN’s interactions with governments". this is part of the mandate
Robin Gross: that is my understanding as well. and the simple text of the WS1 report.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: It is part of the mandate, as one of our focus points
Steve DelBianco: this WS2 project is supposed to say HOW to do that reporting, not to say WHETHER ICANN must report its interactions with governments
Robin Gross: I know, it sounds like some want to undo that recommendation now.
Brett Schaefer: Agree with Robin and Steve.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: This discussion is premature, we'll take it offline.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): I feel that trying to subject any informal contacts to such level of scrutiny is quite counterproductive, is not agreed in the Marrakech consensus and is divisive
Steve DelBianco: Chris is right. the WS2 Transparency group should give recommendations about which types of govt interactions should be reported, and how
Kavous Arasteh: Support CW wrt FORMALIZE.
Michael Karonicolas: re CW points. re documenting govt interactions.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it would be - in any case - wise to disclose these government interactions. If they are not disclosed and come to light later, governments that are not consulted will want to take action against DNS issues through legislation in their own States that apply to ICANN.
Robin Gross: I agree, Anne.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): I feel the word "formalized" should be at least square-bracketed
Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge +1
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): no objection from me
Chris Wilson: ok to bracket
Greg Shatan: Is the point that interactions that are already formalized should be transparent, or that all ICANN/GAC (or other state) interactions be formalized?
Kavouss Arasteh: If we brackt it when it will be debracketed or deleted?
Robin Gross: I don't see them as mutually exclusive, Greg. We can make improvements on both transparency goals.
Chris Wilson: bracket = up for further discussion
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I definitely think that ICANN should not be having closed meetings with regional and/or national governments without the public knowing when and why.
Robin Gross: it is two different ways of achieving the same goal: transparency in govt interaction with ICANN
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): Kavouss, I prefer to delete "formalized"...
Michael Karanicolas: If the sticking point is just the word "formalized", perhaps we can resolve here and publish.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): Transparency should cover interactions with private lobbysts/interests which may have potential impact on decision-making...
Leon Sanchez: Open issues brought up here should be taken to the list and we would ask the Transparency sub-group to organize a joint meeting with the Ombudsman group to iron out any remaining issues.
Christopher Wilkinson: This seems to not be ready for public consultation - would need input from ICANN staff on the applicability given there is a require for too much detail.
Sebastien Bachollet: need to complete properly before publishing for public comments.
David McAuley: am concerned about the interactions between the sub-groups and we, plenary, need to manage this to avoid conflicts.
Leon Sanchez: seems we are not ready for public consultation. Let us work on getting the Transparency and Ombudsman sub-groups working together and discuss the open items on the list.
5. Review of Schedule/Timeline
Thomas Rickert: we are slipping significantly. There is no guarantee we can continue past ICANN 59 - We have to decide if we are going to warn the community that we may want to extend. It seems fairly obvious from our discussions today that we will have delays.
Kavous Arasteh: Agree with TR. we need to reduce confrontations and focus on reasoned discussions.
Alan Greenberg: Support TR and KA - vs the budget - as a chartering org I can say we did a best effort - but we need to take the time to look at the overall package so that it makes sense and is a quality product that will not bring unintended consequences.
Thomas Rickert: Agree but we are in a test phase of a new way for the community to work with ICANN.
Robin Gross: right, Alan, I didn't think we were tying our hands, just trying to provide a n estimate, which may need to be revised.
Greg Shatan: I think that a "two sizes fit all" approach to timeframes was unlikely to work for all 9 groups.
Robin Gross: When we start with unrealistic timeframes, we can't be surprised when turn out to be too ambitious.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): we should be honest: we were exhausted by the WS1 process, the uncertainty around the transition delayed us, and those are both real things
Mathieu Weill: Started WS in July in Helsinki - 7 months in the process and by Copenhagen we will have shifted by two ICANN meetings = 9 months. We need to be very clear as to what we want to do and we need and I would be in favour of saying to the chartering orgs that we will be taking longer and put in a realistic timeline - and we should begin this discussion at our next meeting.
Greg Shatan: If you look at the average timeframes for the CWG and CCWG, or for GNSO Working Groups, the timelines were aggressive, to say the least.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): +1 Greg
Robin Gross: I like to refer to them as "fantasy timelines", Greg.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): I believe we COULD get the substnative work done by June, but the thing is, we would be making huge demands of the rest of the community to focus on accountability issues at Copenhagen and even more at the Joburg meeting. I don't think that would lead to the best input, and so to the right quality of outcomes.
avri doria: there is really no relationship between the multistakeholder model and project management
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): I do not see any reasonable case for us not managing to get this over the line in this calendar year tho.
Alan Greenberg: We are not talking about a year! At worst, it would be one ICANN meeting.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): just my 15c worth :)
Philip Corwin: Agree with Jordan and Greg, plus you never have a real sense of how long these WGs will take until you get into the work and fully comprehend the issues to be tackled.
Greg Shatan: We need to look at participation levels (on different types of participation), membership in multiple subgroups, etc.
Seun Ojedeji: The aggressive mode also justify the need to have significant time to review the full package once its ready.
David McAuley (RySG): IMO WS2 has been hampered a bit by low subgroup participation rates, perhaps inevitable. But maybe we need to have a plan to kick in full CCWG near April if needed.
Greg Shatan: The most accountable and transparent thing to do is to be honest about our progress.
Julf Helsingius: I agree
avri doria: makes sense to be transparent about it.
Greg Shatan: "We're not late until the deadline passes" is not a good model. Or so I tell my kids about their homework.
avri doria: why it happened, what we are doing to fix it, and how much longer , for example
Thomas Rickert: would ask the rapporteurs to revise the timelines so we can get documents out for public consultation ASAP.
Kavouss Arasteh: The more time we give the more time we take.
Greg Shatan: Yes, we should also be thinking about how to fix it, what needs to be tightened up, etc.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: I'm interested to hear views on "what we're doing to fix it", or what we should do to fix it.
Greg Shatan: On the other end of the spectrum, we need to avoid sprawl. Agree with Kavouss.
avri doria: doing more of the same, only harder, may not be the answer
Greg Shatan: Tightening focus is one of the solution vectors.
Greg Shatan: Work smarter, not harder...
6. AOB
Thomas rickert: AOB (none) Adjourned.
Action Items
• Good Faith
o Good faith subgroup to review and present to the plenary as 1st reading at the next plenary
• HR
o FOI :Staff to move the FOI to public comment and advise the plenary when it goes up.
o SCOPE :Co chairs, liaising with the rapporteur, to propose a solution to the plenary.
• Jurisdiction
o Staff to prepare publication of the questionnaire and advise the plenary when it goes up.
• Transparency
o Subgroup rapporteurs to share list of open discussion items for consideration on the plenary mailing list
o Staff to set up a joint meeting between Ombud group and Transparency group to review interdependencies
• Timeline
o Action item : Rapporteurs to submit revised timelines to the co-chairs
Documents
- CCWG-Acct -WS2-Plenary-Slides-20170111V1.1BT.pdf
- CCWG-Acct -WS2-HumanRights-FOI-20161204.pdf
- CCWG-Acct -WS2-HumanRights-ScopeIssue-20170111.pdf
- CCWG-Acct -WS2-GoodFaith-Report-V1.2.pdf
- CCWG-Acct-WS2-Jurisdiction-Questionnaire-V2.0-20170110.pdf
- CCWG-Acct-WS2-Jurisdiction-Quest-redline-V2.0-20170110.pdf
- CCWG-Acct WS2-Transparency-Report-V2.1-20170110.pdf
AC Chat
Yvette Guigneaux: (1/11/2017 06:43) Welcome all to the CCWG Acccountability Plenary Meeting | Wednesday, 11 January 2017!
John Laprise: (12:38) Yes
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:40) Hello Brenda and hello Yvette
Brenda Brewer: (12:40) Hello Kavouss and all!
Niels ten Oever: (12:40) Hi all!
Yvette Guigneaux: (12:41) Hello Everyone, Happy New Year =)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:55) hello
Leon Sanchez: (12:55) Hello everyone!
Leon Sanchez: (12:55) it's good to be back!
Ricardo Holmquist: (12:56) Hello everyone
Keith Drazek: (12:57) Hello all
Nigel Hickson: (12:57) good evening
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:58) Mathieu, HELLO, HAVE YOU RECEIVED MY MESSAGE PLS
Aarti Bhavana: (12:58) Hi all
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:58) Sorry for cap
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:58) Hello everyone
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:58) @Kavouss: sorry could you specify which one of your messages ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:59) The one informing you of my personal accident
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:00) No Kavouss, just finding it now. Sorry to hear that
Tatiana Tropina: (13:00) Hi all, excuse me, whom can I ask for dial out? I have problems connecting on audio bridge.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:00) @Tatiana just give us your number
Leon Sanchez: (13:00) Kavouss I hope you are fine
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:00) hi all
Keith Drazek: (13:00) I see Olga is requesting a dial-out as well. See the CCWG email list
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:00) Howevr, in spite of that ,I am attending your plenary
Niels ten Oever: (13:01) Am working on call-in, sorry for delay
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:01) Thank you fo rbeing with us, and all the best for a speedy recovery
Steve DelBianco: (13:01) Hope you are okay, Kavouss
Wale Bakare: (13:01) Hi all. Good evening/afternoon/morning
Robin Gross: (13:01) Hi everyone!
Niels ten Oever: (13:01) Hope you're doing well Kavouss
Farzaneh Badii: (13:01) what sort of accident Kavouss?
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:01) It takes minimum three months
Farzaneh Badii: (13:02) to recover?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:02) Kavouss, get well please. Sorry to hear about the accident.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:03) Frzaneh my left arms has been broken in two area and tomorrow I will be operated to put metalic connection there
Rudi Daniel: (13:03) hi all. greetings
Sebastien (ALAC): (13:03) Take care Kavous and sorry for your accident
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:04) best of luck with that Kavouss - prompt retablissement
Farzaneh Badii: (13:04) oh I am sorry about that Kavouss. it must be painful. behtar beshid kheyli zud :)
Keith Drazek: (13:04) We are all thinking of you, Kavouss. I hope the recovery goes well.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:04) Kavouss, this sounds terrible. Wish you the speediest recovery possible.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) Tks Farzane
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:04) Kavouss, get well soon. I wish you swift recovery!
Edward Morris: (13:04) Thoughts and prayers with you, my friend.
Rudi Daniel: (13:05) Kavouss sorry to hear of your accident .. get well soon.
Wale Bakare: (13:05) Sorry about that Kavouss. Wish you quick recovery
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:05) Tks all dear freinds for yr symphaty
Greg Shatan: (13:05) Kavouss, I'm very sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you have a swift recovery.
Philip Corwin: (13:05) Sorry to hear that Kavouss. I suffered a compound fracture of my left forearm in 2003, now have two rods and 11 pins in it, and know exactly what you are going through. Best of luck on successful surgery and speedy recovery.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:06) Tks Phil
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:07) where are those with travel funding staying for the night of the 9th/10th?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:08) Kavouss, it sounds awfully painful. Please take care
David McAuley (RySG): (13:08) There are now six comments on IRP rules and have also seen two blogs (possible that there are others but I have seen two). I will post links to those two blogs.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:08) And one blog by Kathy Kleiman: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20170110-5Ffairness-5Fdue-5Fprocess-5Frequire-5Fchanges-5Fto-5Ficann-5Fsupplementary-5Firp_&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=76rTU2MKfstpihlGD1Wls6gUwhGMinuCvdz4jY0Mi_0&s=SJNp_cyMKtMGw2hFO5TEOZtiYr5g-A2cb643OvcYXUo&e=
Rosalia Morales: (13:08) Hi Everyone! Do we have any idea of the time that the the face to face meeting in Copenhagen will take place?
Niels ten Oever: (13:09) I'll be driving to Copenhagen by motorcycle from Amsterdam, if anyone wants to join in that would be a lot of fun!
Julf Helsingius: (13:09) Hmm, tempted to take my motorcycle as well
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:09) @Rosalia : 9 to 6 local time I assume
Farzaneh Badii: (13:09) hmm Niels I don't think anyone would take that offer!
Rosalia Morales: (13:09) Thank you Mathieu!
Niels ten Oever: (13:09) @julf - YES !
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:09) will handle for Kavouss
Robin Gross: (13:09) Niels, there is room on the back of your motorcycle?
Julf Helsingius: (13:10) Niels, keep in mind that both my bikes are British, one from 1982 and one from 1997, so there might be unscheduled stops :)
Niels ten Oever: (13:10) Possible, but no luggage then
Niels ten Oever: (13:10) Mine is British too!
Milton Mueller: (13:11) Are you implying that British stuff breaks? ;-)
Julf Helsingius: (13:11) Triumph?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:11) Milton I think it is implied that old stuff breaks ;)
Niels ten Oever: (13:12) Yes
Julf Helsingius: (13:12) Milton: older british stuff definitely does :)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:12) If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Farzaneh Badii: (13:12) oh I cant hear Kavouss well
Julf Helsingius: (13:12) yes, sound is very bad
Nigel Hickson: (13:12) Kavous; if we can help you in Geneva; please shout.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:12) I can hardly hear Kavouss
Yvette Guigneaux: (13:15) Working on getting Lori on the call now
Alan Greenberg: (13:15) My recollection is that is not a first reading but just a briefing for the Plenary.
Greg Shatan: (13:15) We will take a look at the advice regarding applicable law. Not entirely sure how it fits, but we can discuss that.
Robin Gross: (13:16) that's what I thought too, Alan.
Niels ten Oever: (13:17) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161204/fbddeb37/ProposedFoI-HRforCCWG-0001.pdf
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:17) The agenda circulated by Bernie states it is the 1st reading.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:18) The paper is very straightforward, so I hope we can resolve any isues you might have between first and second reading, Alan and Robin.
Milton Mueller: (13:18) We have a Prelude. Here is the Fugue?
Farzaneh Badii: (13:19) what is the Fugue?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) Something from classic almusic I think
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:19) Milton's making music jokes
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) *classical music
Greg Shatan: (13:20) Are we in a fugue state?
Lori Schulman: (13:20) Finally on.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:20) Welcome Lori
Brett Schaefer: (13:21) I apologize for not following closely, but was there a clarification on how to resolve situations where applicable laws are in conflict? I don't want to go down a rabbit hole, but would appreciate clarification.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) Greg, no we are in suite....
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:21) Hopefully not getting the blues during the call
Milton Mueller: (13:21) Niels, what if respect for an internationally recognized right is NOT "required by applicable law" - does that mean ICANN policies can ignore it?
Erich Schweighofer: (13:23) I would say, yes, Milton. ICANN applies international obligations as the national laws sees it.
Brett Schaefer: (13:23) Milton, that is my understanding for why the phrase "this Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create... " language was included.
Edward Morris: (13:24) Good solution Leon. Thank you.
Robin Gross: (13:25) We need to find an interpretation of this phrase that can put some actual teeth in it.
avri doria: (13:26) and ICANN is deciding to not accept any further obligation.
Leon Sanchez: (13:27) It would be useful to get feedback from the wider community. Hence I would suggest we continue the second reading and publish for public comment and then come back to the issue based on feedback received
Leon Sanchez: (13:27) Does that sound reasonable?
Milton Mueller: (13:27) can people hear me
Farzaneh Badii: (13:28) no
Chris Wilson: (13:28) no
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:28) No Milton
Leon Sanchez: (13:28) no Milton, we can't
Farzaneh Badii: (13:28) yes
Leon Sanchez: (13:28) now we hear you
Robin Gross: (13:28) Free speech rights and privacy rights are generally obligations states hold (not corporations), so does this recommendation mean those rights don't apply at ICANN (since applicable law does not require them)?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:28) No we can't. May be for good, if you are critising me
avri doria: (13:28) yes Leon, the fact that this poiint is an open point has been made.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:28) I think Kavouss raised an important point. At the end the CCWG plenary should issue a document indicating the limits of each subgroup document – some are written broadly and could be read as dealing with other subgroup matter.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:29) I think Greg is in the queue and can elaborate further - I can probably answer this question too but I think Greg can
Tatiana Tropina: (13:29) thanks Greg, I can intervene after if I have anything to add
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:31) Time check - 90 minutes left in call
Robin Gross: (13:31) sounds free speech and privacy are out, then. wow.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:31) Please note there is a basis for filing a LImited Public Interest Objection to a gTLD application based on Human Rights so that was already in the Applicant Guidebook. (comment unrelated to Milton's comment re IRP)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:31) I feel there is a distnction between the legal obligation (defined by applicable law) and the core value, which goes beyond just the legal obligation (ICANN not only commits not to violate HR but also commits to take them into account)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:32) does anyone else find Kavouss very difficult to understand on the audio, or is it just me?
Greg Shatan: (13:32) There are plenty of human rights laws that protect free speech and privacy, and not just by states.
Farzaneh Badii: (13:32) Yes Jordan , I can't hear Kavouss well either
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:32) @JOrge - I felt the same way but the ByLaw says that ICANN cannot be required to go beyond requirements of applicable law so I don't think an IRP can be based on this commitment.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:33) Yes JOrdan - very hard to hear Kavouss and cannot understand his comments.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:33) with example of the content regulation - clearly if something outside of the mission it's outside of the mission and that's what bylaw and FoE say
Greg Shatan: (13:33) @Jorge, the Core Value is limited by applicable law, so it does not go beyond the legal obligation.
Robin Gross: (13:34) still sounds like no change for HR at ICANN
Tatiana Tropina: (13:35) greg don't scare people away :) If we look at the definition of respect - avoid violations and take into account in developing policieis
Greg Shatan: (13:35) @Tatiana, correct; we don't need to invoke any Core Value if ICANN is operating outside its Mission.
Greg Shatan: (13:35) @Tatiana, true, tehre is still a positive obligation created by the Bylaw. That is the major change.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:36) Please take this question offline!
Tatiana Tropina: (13:36) yes, thereis a major change - positive obligation
Greg Shatan: (13:36) Inapplicable question on applicable law?
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:36) Thomas +1
David McAuley (RySG): (13:36) agree with Tatiana that the new HR bylaw is an important addition
Milton Mueller: (13:36) positive obligation to take HR "into account"?
Milton Mueller: (13:37) big woop
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:37) This is a "conflict of laws" question. It will depend on a determination as to which law actually applies.
Erich Schweighofer: (13:37) Different applicable laws - we have to find a line acceptable to most jurisdictions.
Robin Gross: (13:37) since no HR laws apply to ICANN, using an "applicable law" standard gives us nothing
Tatiana Tropina: (13:37) David, Greg, I think the problem here especially with Milton's question is the difference between core values and commitments. We spent some time in our group debating this and we now think about all this in the "core value" context but may be we better to take some time to explain all this
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:37) This is exactly the point that I raised
Tatiana Tropina: (13:38) Robin, we had this discussion. What does it mean "no HR laws"? No international instruments yes
Tatiana Tropina: (13:38) because they are applicable to states only in any case
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:38) @Erich - at least in theory, there should be no "different applicable laws". And certainly "applicable law" does not mean pick a law that is applicable in most jurisdictions - that is not at all the meaning of the term.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:38) but they are transposed into teh national laws anyway.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:39) The term applicable law is a part of the bylaw itself, not just the FOI - we cannot write it away.
Robin Gross: (13:39) that's what I'm saying, Tatiana, since HR like free speech and privacy only apply to states, they are irrelevant under this definition
Milton Mueller: (13:39) Tatiana: ICANN is the "state" for internet identifiers
Erich Schweighofer: (13:39) @Anne: data protection is a storng real example ... Privacy Shield etc.
Brett Schaefer: (13:40) Again, I would appreciate a link to the documents where this was discussed if someone can forward it to me. Thx.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:40) Milton, we can't make inetrnational instruments applciable to ICANN by this bylaw this is legally rudiculous to me
Milton Mueller: (13:40) sure we can. as a private org, ICANN can pass a bylaw that says "we will adhere to HR"
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) what we can is to create a negative obligation to avoid HR violations and a positive obligation to take HR into consideration in policy making, and limit all this with the mission so no one will use HR for content regulation or whatever
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:41) @Milton: I seem to remember some debate about this is WS1
Milton Mueller: (13:41) it can also pass a bylaw that says everyone who works for it must dye their hair green
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) Milton, that's what is done. See about positive obligation core value.
Robin Gross: (13:41) ICANN wants to engage in global governance, but doesn't want any of the obligations of those who govern.
Milton Mueller: (13:41) ok, so you are saying it is done, not that it is "legally ridiculous"
Robin Gross: (13:41) this is where ICANN as corporation and as global governance institution does not work.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:41) Agree with Mathieu - we did arrive at the bylaw statement in WS1 after considerable debate
Milton Mueller: (13:42) I know David, I am just rubbing your nose in how dumb this is
Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) It is legally ridiculous to say "we commit to UDHR" for me. Because it's a declaration for states.
Milton Mueller: (13:42) I shouldnt say dumb, just meaningless
Alan Greenberg: (13:42) The sub-group explicitly requested that this not be a first reading.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) David, Milton :-)
Milton Mueller: (13:42) It is legally ridiculous to me for folks not to recognize that ICANN governs as a state in the DNS
David McAuley (RySG): (13:43) Point taken, no offense taken
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:43) Ttiana, it is not rediculous at all
Robin Gross: (13:43) when was this document released?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:43) @Milton: some do agree, to the point of requesting an international treaty...
Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) Mathieu, exactly. I think Milton's view is a bit dangerous :-)
Farzaneh Badii: (13:43) I do remember that once a practitioner of arbitration said companies can be committed to HR, and we can use arbitration to enforce that commitment.
Milton Mueller: (13:44) It's not my "view" it's the economic and political fact about what ICANN is
Alan Greenberg: (13:44) I am not saying there is a ssubstantive result difference, but I have a problem with a staff-written agenda overrulling what a sub-group has decided.
Greg Shatan: (13:44) L'etat c'est ICANN?
Milton Mueller: (13:44) as Robin said, we give it global governance capabilities but then pretend it's exempt from the kinds of rights that states should have
Robin Gross: (13:44) I agree, Alan.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:45) Ido not see any problem to consider what staff has prepared.
Robin Gross: (13:49) when was this document released?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:49) Rule #1 : blame the cochairs
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:49) @Robin Tuesday
Alan Greenberg: (13:49) I referred to staff because Thomas said that is where it originated.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:50) @ Greg - mais non - (au moins pas encore) ICANN is not a state - at least not yet.;-)
Robin Gross: (13:50) Yesterday, Bernie. By the subgroup? I don't remember seeing it go through the subgroup.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:50) but it did
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:50) I can dig it up
Alan Greenberg: (13:50) I have not had a chance to review this version.
Robin Gross: (13:50) thanks
Greg Shatan: (13:51) So this is a zero reading.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:51) I also circulated it the material for this call yesterday
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:51) No such thing as zero reading anyway. Our rule is "no decision at first meeting". We won't make a decision today.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:52) Mathieu+ 1
Robin Gross: (13:52) I agree with Alan. I don't understand the need to push this so fast onto us.
Rudi Daniel: (13:52) thx you, I have to leave .
Erich Schweighofer: (13:52) Alan is right.
Greg Shatan: (13:53) I invented "zero reading." I will now register it as a trademark and send you a cease and desist letter.
Robin Gross: (13:53) so we aren't do 2 readings anymore, just 1? because the first one isn't final? interesting change of meaning of important words.
Lori Schulman: (13:53) Alan, as an FYI, I had omitted a requirement that we had discussed. I simply added it. Your point is well taken.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:54) @Greg - LOL
Lori Schulman: (13:54) I also don't consider this "ready" until we get the legal opinion.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:55) pls repeat yr q. Thomas
avri doria: (13:55) Are we rushing things?
Greg Shatan: (13:55) So is this a first reading or a Zero Reading TM informational review?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:55) AGree with Alan on this.
Robin Gross: (13:55) so do I
Robin Gross: (13:56) Avri, it does seem like w are rushing to meet arbitrary deadlines
Robin Gross: (13:56) because no one has seen it?
Lori Schulman: (13:56) Perhaps, 24 hours was insufficient for all to read?
Greg Shatan: (13:56) I must confess that I have not read it.
Greg Shatan: (13:56) It seems well formatted.
Robin Gross: (13:56) we got a bunch of papers dumped in our lap last night
avri doria: (13:56) though in the development of processes, i find the birth of first readings that are not first reading is fasincating.
Erich Schweighofer: (13:57) No time for reading so far.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:57) Nor have i read it yet
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:57) can't we just say i there are major changes, then the second reading becomes a ierst reading
Christopher Wilkinson: (13:57) The documents arrived so late that there are several that I have not yet read. CW
Lori Schulman: (13:57) I just lost my phone connection.
Lori Schulman: (13:57) But I can hear on Adobe.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:57) how much in advance should we hope/ask for papers?
Christopher Wilkinson: (13:58) At least one week, if more than ten pages
Lori Schulman: (13:58) I think that is an excellent question. What is appropriate notice? I did not read all of the documents either.
avri doria: (13:58) i think after the next first reading we may be able to deside that it is really a second reading.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:58) Agree Thomas - legal review is not the issue.
Lori Schulman: (13:59) Thomas, so I am unclear as to what is decided.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:59) no decision made, Lori
Lori Schulman: (13:59) re: this particular draft
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:59) We will now stand by for your team to formally submit the document for first reading
Lori Schulman: (13:59) Ok, then we will keep working on it and refining it? Does that make sense?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:59) @Lori waiting for you to submit it for first reading when the sub-group is reading
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (13:59) it does
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:00) ready
Lori Schulman: (14:00) OK. It seems like the parallel reading by legal and the plenary will not work.
David McAuley (RySG): (14:00) yes
Michael Karanicolas: (14:01) @Kavous - we've been having a lot of trouble with your audio. Perhaps may be better to type, if that's easier?
Lori Schulman: (14:01) I will get an ETA from ICANN legal and then socialize the findings and we will adjust the report as subteam sees fit.
Leon Sanchez: (14:01) @Michael, Kavouss has an injured hand and that's why he hasn't typed in the chat
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:01) @MK Kavouss has a broken arm
Michael Karanicolas: (14:02) @Leon - Oh - my apologies Kavouss.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:02) yes we did Greg
Steve DelBianco: (14:02) You got it to one page, Greg. Good work
Alan Greenberg: (14:04) For those not on AC, may be worth reading the questions.
Milton Mueller: (14:05) yes
Michael Karanicolas: (14:05) Oh - gosh - Kavouss - I apologize.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:05) the questionnaire looks sensible to me, it would be good to get it out there nd see what people think / contribute.
Greg Shatan: (14:06) 7 meetings....
Philip Corwin: (14:06) I heard my name taken in vain ;-)
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (14:07) please who is speaking now
Farzaneh Badii: (14:07) questions should be sent. it's around 19 years late!
Farzaneh Badii: (14:07) Kavouss
Robin Gross: (14:07) I agree with Farzi.
Lori Schulman: (14:07) I have another call. My apologies but I need to leave the meeting.
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (14:07) ok
Greg Shatan: (14:07) Thank you, Kavouss.
Erich Schweighofer: (14:08) Well said, Kavouss.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:08) bye Lori
Mary Uduma: (14:08) well said Kavouss
Robin Gross: (14:08) We may need to add the "die in the ditch" test to the ICANN dictionary :-)
Philip Corwin: (14:09) What I observed in a WG email is that no matter how carefully we try to word a question those responding to it usually feel free to go beyond its scope in their answer. And that wording of questions is not of the same degree of importance as wording of final recommendations, so the degree of precision required is less.
Alan Greenberg: (14:09) I am not a partiicpnat in the group but have been following the mailing list. We do NOT want to send this back to the sub-group.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:09) time check 50 minutes left in call
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:09) let's get it out there
Robin Gross: (14:10) Let's send it out!
Keith Drazek: (14:10) No objection in its current form.
Philip Corwin: (14:10) Stick a fork in these questions, Not only are they done, they are well done.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (14:10) Let's put it out!
Farzaneh Badii: (14:10) YEs, lets send them out
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:10) Tear down this damn wall
Leon Sanchez: (14:10) applause!
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:10) I mean, send out those questions
Farzaneh Badii: (14:10) YES, THANK YOU (I am just excited not shouting)
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (14:10) tataaa!
David McAuley (RySG): (14:10) +1 @Mathieu
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:10) indeed
Greg Shatan: (14:10) Thank you. That is salve for my wounds.
Wale Bakare: (14:10) Yes
David McAuley (RySG): (14:10) Thanks Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (14:10) Am excited too. Thanks to Greg and to David for proposing the new version of Q4
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: (14:11) Kudos, Greg!
Alan Greenberg: (14:11) Thanks Greg.
Jeff Neuman: (14:11) Now we just have to get some responses ;)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:11) good work everyone.
Niels ten Oever: (14:11) w00t
Keith Drazek: (14:11) When do we get to start arguing about how we deal with the responses?? :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:11) Felicitations! (Congrats!)
Mary Uduma: (14:11) Bravo Greg and the team.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) @Keith : give us two hours to celebrate 1st ? ;-)
Chris Wilson: (14:12) Michael will lead.
Greg Shatan: (14:12) @Keith,hopefully not immediately. We might want JSub to do some substantive work.
Tatiana Tropina: (14:12) Keith we already argued about this a bit :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:12) and note I ws among the cohort that was *not* in support of a Q4 but support this compromise text being used
Tatiana Tropina: (14:12) Cheryl, ues, I am in the same cohort - happy we reached compromise
Greg Shatan: (14:12) Please take down the questionnaire before my PTSD kicks in.
Tatiana Tropina: (14:13) I am so happy can't even type with no typos :)
Chris Wilson: (14:13) Can staff load the transparency report?
Chris Wilson: (14:14) Thanks!
Wale Bakare: (14:14) Exactly, the Q4 took long time and probably would have dragged but still, agreement reached
Wale Bakare: (14:14) *on*
Brenda Brewer: (14:20) Documents on today's call can be found here; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_mZTDAw&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=76rTU2MKfstpihlGD1Wls6gUwhGMinuCvdz4jY0Mi_0&s=3rXk3OiXR0s2uggTIFjsoXCJQDHbMjiV1bfvN2-HK4M&e=
Brett Schaefer: (14:20) On page 10 of the transparency report I read a reference to the IRP, “Among the most important aspects of a robust right to information system is an effective, user-friendly and timely process for appealing against refusals, redactions, breaches of timelines, and other administrative failures. Our present understanding is that these appeals will be carried out under the IRP process, currently in its final stages of development.” I saw recent discussion on the lists about how an IRP challenge would not be possible one year after the decision. Would this limitation undermine the effort to make the DIDP more robust?
David McAuley (RySG): (14:21) The timing of claims issue is under comment and discussion Brett and IOT has received some outside counsel advice.
David McAuley (RySG): (14:22) I can't speak for IOT as a group but would not be surprised by some change
Greg Shatan: (14:24) Good point, CW.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:25) Agree with Christopher on the latter point... it would be weird to subject GAC informal interactions with Board, staff etc. to such requirements
Greg Shatan: (14:25) It might create a few jobs, though.
Brett Schaefer: (14:25) Thx David.
Greg Shatan: (14:25) "Transparency Proctor."
Michael Karanicolas: (14:26) We can
Robin Gross: (14:26) well one of the specific transparency issues we have agreed to do was get more transparency in governments interactions with ICANN. So naturally we don't want to cut that out in another part of the document.
Edward Morris: (14:26) @Brett. Agree this should be an area of concern. However, how would reconsideration play into this appeals process and how would the time factor then be affected?
Michael Karanicolas: (14:27) Hi. Thx for that Christopher, I can respond to a couple of points quickly here
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:27) @Robin: to be fair, we identified it would be further investigated. We did not test consensus on it as a requirement. The public comment will be a good test
Michael Karanicolas: (14:27) First - regarding open contracting and publishing competing bids. In terms of its workability - I can tell you this is done routinely in the public sector.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:27) thx for raising this Sebastien especially as Herb is not here today
Robin Gross: (14:27) Mathieu, it was a specific issue we decided in WS1
Michael Karanicolas: (14:27) We cite municipal governments that do this as a matter of policy: Richmond VA is the example we listed, but it's relatively common
Robin Gross: (14:28) that we would work on in WS2
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:28) We decided to investigate it in WS2, I fully agree.
Robin Gross: (14:28) public comments overwelmingly called for more transparency on governments interactions with ICANN, no?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:29) There were several comments asking for it. I try not to use qualifiers such as "overwhelming"
Brett Schaefer: (14:30) @Ed, I'm not sure. That is why I asked the question.
Steve DelBianco: (14:30) Robin is correct. CCWG calls for "Transparency of ICANN’s interactions with governments"
Steve DelBianco: (14:30) this is part of the mandate
Robin Gross: (14:30) that is my understanding as well. and the simple text of the WS1 report.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:30) It is part of the mandate, as one of our focus points
Steve DelBianco: (14:30) this WS2 project is supposed to say HOW to do that reporting, not to say WHETHER ICANN must report its interactions with governments
Robin Gross: (14:31) I know, it sounds like some want to undo that recommendation now.
Brett Schaefer: (14:31) Agree with Robin and Steve.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:31) This discussion is premature, we'll take it offline.
Robin Gross: (14:32) wow
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:32) I feel that trying to subject any informal contacts to such level of scrutiny is quite counterproductive, is not agreed in the Marrakech consensus and is divisive
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:33) time check 27 minutes left in the meeting
Steve DelBianco: (14:34) Chris is right. the WS2 Transparency group should give recommendations about which types of govt interactions should be reported, and how
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:36) I think it would be - in any case - wise to disclose these government interactions. If they are not disclosed and come to light later, governments that are not consulted will want to take action against DNS issues through legislation in their own States that apply to ICANN.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:36) Transparency should cover interactions with private lobbysts/interests which may have potential impact on decision-making...
Robin Gross: (14:36) I agree, Anne.
Herb Waye Ombuds: (14:36) Hello everyone, sorry for the late arrival.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) Jorge +1
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:37) I feel the word "formalized" should be at least square-bracketed
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:37) no objection from me
Chris Wilson: (14:38) ok to bracket
Greg Shatan: (14:38) Is the point that interactions that are already formalized should be transparent, or that all ICANN/GAC (or other state) interactions be formalized?
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:39) If we brackt it when it will be debracketed or deleted?
Robin Gross: (14:39) I don't see them as mutually exclusive, Greg. We can make improvements on both transparency goals.
Chris Wilson: (14:39) bracket = up for further discussion
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:39) I definitely think that ICANN should not be having closed meetings with regional and/or national governments without the public knowing when and why.
Robin Gross: (14:39) it is two different ways of achieving the same goal: transparency in govt interaction with ICANN
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:40) Kavouss, I prefer to delete "formalized"...
Michael Karanicolas: (14:40) If the sticking point is just the word "formalized", perhaps we can resolve here and publish.
Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) I support you Jorge
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:41) GAC community members should be subject to the same rules as any other community members
avri doria: (14:41) i am fine with deleting it.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:41) I agree as well; it will be better to finalise before pushing to PC
John Laprise: (14:41) +1 David
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:42) Agree with DAvid as to cross-referencing
avri doria: (14:42) i think the end result should be coherent among all th sections.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:43) indeed in case my green tick while Davidvspokuwas missed
Wale Bakare: (14:43) I agree with @Jorge, that, is one major objective of multistakeholderism
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:43) @Jorge - I think the GAC as a whole has same rights as other constituencies. When you says "members", do you mean the whole GAC or do you mean individual members of the GAC? That is different.
Robin Gross: (14:45) Will GAC open up its working groups to others to participate in (as GNSO has done)?
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:45) @Anne: I mean GAC members... what is the difference between a coffee chat between a private interest rep with ICANN staff and the same conversation with an individual GAC rep? Please think about how that would stifle interactions
Seun Ojedeji: (14:46) Sorry what is ICANN in that motnhly affiliation, is that staff?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:46) Yes, staff and Board Seun
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:46) oups, Board is elsewhere
Seun Ojedeji: (14:47) So Staff, thanks.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:47) @JOrge - Governments have the ability to legislate - private interest reps do not.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:47) my memory of our overall timetable is that we would have had to engage the community on substantive discussion at hyderabad and at copenhagen to finish by joburg
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:47) Correct Jordan
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:47) so since we didn't do that, we'd need one more meeting to wrap.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:48) at least. I think our workplan has been shifting since then as well
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:48) Or, we make the Joburg meeting very focused on accountability, which I don't think the community would appreciate.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:48) @Anne: an informal conversation is far from exercising legislative authority - let's recognize how things work - and informal interaction is key for participating in ICANN - for all of us equally
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:49) it would be prudent to get an extension for support etc of six months, to december 2017
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:49) @Jorge - there must certainly be a balance between transparency and "informal interaction."
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:49) substantive discussions with the community over two meetings, and then a sign off of the package at abu dhabi
Robin Gross: (14:50) Agree, Jordan. We need to be realistic and give notice of what we anticipate
Keith Drazek: (14:50) Extensions would require Chartering Organization approval, correct?
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:50) I assume so
Robin Gross: (14:50) I don't see why. We never placed a date deadline on what was approved by the CO's.
Alan Greenberg: (14:50) Yes and s[pecifically support to add to the budget.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:50) in respect of budget, if not the group
Alan Greenberg: (14:51) But that was designed as part of the process because we KNEW that we had guestimates at best.
Keith Drazek: (14:51) The FY18 budgeting process should kick off in Feb or March.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:51) time check 9 minutes left
Robin Gross: (14:51) right, Alan, I didn't think we were tying our hands, just trying to provide a n estimate, which may need to be revised.
Greg Shatan: (14:52) I think that a "two sizes fit all" approach to timeframes was unlikely to work for all 9 groups.
Robin Gross: (14:52) When we start with unrealistic timeframes, we can't be surprised when turn out to be too ambitious.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:52) we should be honest: we were exhausted by the WS1 process, the uncertainty around the transition delayed us, and those are both real things
Robin Gross: (14:53) very true
Seun Ojedeji: (14:53) +1 Jordan
Greg Shatan: (14:53) If you look at the average timeframes for the CWG and CCWG, or for GNSO Working Groups, the timelines were aggressive, to say the least.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:53) +1 Greg
Robin Gross: (14:53) I like to refer to them as "fantasy timelines", Greg.
Greg Shatan: (14:54) "The plane, the plane!"
Robin Gross: (14:54) :-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:54) I believe we COULD get the substnative work done by June, but the thing is, we would be making huge demands of the rest of the community to focus on accountability issues at Copenhagen adn even more at the Joburg meeting. I don't think that would lead to the best input, and so to the right quality of outcomes.
avri doria: (14:54) there is really no relationship between the multistakeholder model and project management
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:54) I do not see any reasonable case for us not managing to get this over the line in this calendar year tho.
Alan Greenberg: (14:54) We are not talking about a year! At worst, it would be one ICANN meeting.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:54) just my 15c worth :)
Philip Corwin: (14:55) Agree with Jordan and Greg, plus you never have a real sense of how long these WGs will take until you get into the work and fully comprehend the issues to be tackled.
Greg Shatan: (14:55) We need to look at participation levels (on different types of participation), membership in mulitiple subgroups, etc.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:55) The agressive mode also justify the need to have significant time to review the full package once its ready.
Christopher Wilkinson: (14:55) Have to leave the call. Good Night. CW
David McAuley (RySG): (14:55) IMO WS2 has been hampered a bit by low subgroup participation rates, perhaps inevitable. But maybe we need to have a plan to kick in full CCWG near April if needed.
Greg Shatan: (14:55) The most accountable and transparent thing to do is to be honest about our progress.
Julf Helsingius: (14:55) I agree
avri doria: (14:56) makes sense to be transparent about it.
Greg Shatan: (14:56) "We're not late until the deadline passes" is not a good model. Or so I tell my kids about their homework.
avri doria: (14:56) why it happeoend, what we are doing to fix it, and how much longer , for example
Greg Shatan: (14:57) Yes, we should also be thinking about how to fix it, what needs to be tightened up, etc.
Keith Drazek: (14:57) I have to drop for another call. Good work all!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:57) I'm interested to hear views on "what we're doing to fix it", or what we should do to fix it.
Greg Shatan: (14:57) On the other end of the spectrum, we need to avoid sprawl. Agree with Kavouss.
avri doria: (14:57) doing more of the same, only harder, may not be the answer
Greg Shatan: (14:58) Tightening focus is one of the solution vectors.
Greg Shatan: (14:58) Work smarter, not harder....
avri doria: (14:58) eeek Grec.
Julf Helsingius: (14:58) Have we nailed down a date for a Copenhagen F2F?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:58) March 10
Julf Helsingius: (14:58) Thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:58) @Greg - I am going to get a trademark on SOLUTION VECTOR. But agree with others WS2 should not be rushed.
Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:58) thanks all for a good discussion on a number o topics
Robin Gross: (14:59) are WS2 subgroups meeting at ICANN58?
Tatiana Tropina: (14:59) I wonder why we didn't discuss HT group scope?
David McAuley (RySG): (14:59) All vacations are canceled until morale improves
Leon Sanchez: (14:59) thanks everyone
Greg Shatan: (14:59) Ygreque?
Tatiana Tropina: (14:59) HR group
Tatiana Tropina: (14:59) ok, meeting is closed anyway :) bye all
Wale Bakare: (14:59) Thanks, and bye for now.
FIONA ASONGA: (14:59) Thank you and bye
Philip Corwin: (14:59) ciao
Erich Schweighofer: (14:59) Sevus from Vienna
Seun Ojedeji: (14:59) Vacations are exhausted for some :-)
Michael Abejuela (ASO): (14:59) Thanks everyone and bye :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:59) bye
Greg Shatan: (14:59) Au revoir!
Niels ten Oever: (14:59) bye all!
avri doria: (14:59) bye, thanks for the wonderful mtg.
Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): (14:59) Bye!
Nigel Hickson: (14:59) goodbye
Julf Helsingius: (14:59) bye!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:59) bye all
Seun Ojedeji: (14:59) Bye
Robin Gross: (14:59) thanks, bye!
David McAuley (RySG): (14:59) Thanks all, goof bye
