Sub-Group Members: Becky Burr, Carlos Raul, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Villa, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: James Gannon
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
no notes
Brenda Brewer: (7/27/2015 07:17) Welcome to the WP2 Meeting #11 on 27 July! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Becky Burr: (07:56) Hello
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:56) Good morning
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:56) 1
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:57) Hi Good evening from Tokyo
David McAuley: (08:01) Good morning all
Mathieu Weill: (08:04) HI everyone
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:06) so broader standard? sounds ok
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:09) Greg's compromise sounds like a good one.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:13) Not everyone in the world pays attention to ICANN public comments
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:13) +1 Robin
Greg Shatan: (08:14) They don't know what they're missing!
Mathieu Weill: (08:14) I think they are just being reasonable and sane
Mathieu Weill: (08:14) ;-)
David McAuley: (08:16) I did not think this was under frivolousness - thought it was separate grounds
David McAuley: (08:17) my comment was on BGC action it seems - still apt, but looking at wrong language
Malcolm Hutty: (08:17) I agree with Jonathan
David McAuley: (08:18) I agree with the idea that frivolousness alone is a decent ground to disregard an appeal
Greg Shatan: (08:18) If they meet the other criteria, how would it be frivolous?
David McAuley: (08:19) Like Steve's amendment
David McAuley: (08:21) Yes, clarification needed
Malcolm Hutty: (08:22) Hard to see how the Ombudsman could be less independent than ICANN's lawyers
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:23) "Could" at who's discretion?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:23) Should is better, I think
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:23) I think "could" was meant to be "shall"
Matthew Shears: (08:24) should would make more sense
Matthew Shears: (08:24) or shall
Malcolm Hutty: (08:25) "shall" is best: if we're defining a process, let's say straightforwardly what should happen instead of leaving unstated alternative possibilities to be chosen...how?
David McAuley: (08:25) That sounds reasonable Becky
Greg Shatan: (08:25) Managing expectations is good.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:25) did we get any public comment on the timing? I think that was a specific question we asked.
Mathieu Weill: (08:27) 90 extensible to 150 for specified reason ?
David McAuley: (08:28) Ok, sounds good
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:28) agree with Greg's suggestion on timing
David McAuley: (08:28) Greg's suggestion, that is
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:29) 30 days
David McAuley: (08:29) 30 ok
Mathieu Weill: (08:32) Excellent, just wanted to make this clear
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:36) Re-consider implies that the board had made an initial "consideration" of a decision.
Mathieu Weill: (08:37) Doesn't it apply to any other decisions from Icann, out of the Board ?
David McAuley: (08:39) IMO, decisions by panels like community objections panel were set up by Applicant Guidbook to deal with disputes on relevant issues and the issue is well handled - an appeal, seems to me, should go to IRP
Malcolm Hutty: (08:40) @David, but grounds for appealing them to IRP should be more limited than grounds for using the objections panel
David McAuley: (08:40) Agred, Malcom
Mathieu Weill: (08:41) I also suggest that the reconsideration paper is presented to CCWG-A as largely supoprted and refined, without getting into details
David McAuley: (08:43) Malcolm, that is
Edward Morris: (08:44) Agree with Greg
Malcolm Hutty: (08:48) How about a minimum then, instead of a range?
David McAuley: (08:48) I like flexibility with baseline target number (7?) as Greg suggests
Becky Burr: (08:48) minimum of 7?
David McAuley: (08:48) Ok with me
Malcolm Hutty: (08:48) I oppose setting a maximum, less worried about a minimum
Becky Burr: (08:49) no max will be set
Matthew Shears: (08:50) agree with David
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:50) I agree with David
Matthew Shears: (08:51) application of a legal standard is easier to measure than a clear error of judgement
Mathieu Weill: (08:52) Re: David suggestion, I'm concerned about potential Panelist lobbying activities as a consequence
Mathieu Weill: (08:53) Might affect independence
David McAuley: (08:53) Fair point, hopefully we will have panelist level of intergity to avoid that but a fair point nenetheless Mathieu
David McAuley: (08:54) "nenetheless"
David McAuley: (08:54) nonetheless, third try
Mathieu Weill: (08:54) I would defer this to an experienced panel ?
Mathieu Weill: (08:54) in the detailed rules
David McAuley: (08:58) Agree with Malcolm
Brenda Brewer: (08:58) Mathieu, we cannot hear you.
David McAuley: (08:59) Yes, but it can also explain iots decision Steve
Brenda Brewer: (08:59) you may want to close and rejoin adobe
Mathieu Weill: (08:59) Sorry my audio was disconnected. was in agreement with Malcolm (and Steve)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:59) The .Africa IRP found it could recommend a remedy also.
Mathieu Weill: (09:00) And I also wanted to note that I have to leave for another meeting. Keep up the good work and let's present all this as "almost agreed" tomorrow in CCWG.
David McAuley: (09:00) Farewell, Mathieu
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:01) Can we look at this (community over-ride) in WS2?
Becky Burr: (09:02) yes Robin
David McAuley: (09:02) Good point Steve re clashing appeals
David McAuley: (09:05) seven years seems so long
Edward Morris: (09:05) Agreed David. Five years nonrenewal seems a goood mix.
David McAuley: (09:05) I like three year terms, renewable once
Matthew Shears: (09:05) 7 is far to long - 3+3 or 4+3
Greg Shatan: (09:06) 4+4
Malcolm Hutty: (09:06) Not keen on renewable; very against renewable if the decision as to renewal is made by ICANN
David McAuley: (09:06) Nonrenewable's impact on independence is a good point, I could live with Ed's suggestion - 5 years nonrenewable
Matthew Shears: (09:06) good question malcolm - who decides on renewal?
Matthew Shears: (09:07) maybe non-renewable is best
Matthew Shears: (09:08) 5 years non renewable makes sense
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:08) We are really trying to avoid questions in the public consultation
David McAuley: (09:09) I think Bernard's point is a good one, we should answer these as best we can
Malcolm Hutty: (09:11) SCOTUS was happy to appoint for life, why are we so concerned to recall in a mere few years?
Malcolm Hutty: (09:12) 5-7 years non-renewable
David McAuley: (09:12) agree with five nonrenewable
Greg Shatan: (09:13) I only checked for 4+3
Malcolm Hutty: (09:14) @Becky, that works for me as an initial position; would prefer the community had ability to evolve that in the light of experience
David McAuley: (09:15) Agreed
Matthew Shears: (09:15) agree
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:15) yep
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:17) no, not remove it.
Becky Burr: (09:18) i wasn't suggesting removing it altogether
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:19) Makes sense. And applies to all ACs
Matthew Shears: (09:19) sounds ok Becky
Malcolm Hutty: (09:19) Am content with that approach Becky, but I suspect we would all like to see it written down
David McAuley: (09:20) so the rationale requirement is still there, just in different place
Edward Morris: (09:21) I like that idea Becky.
Matthew Shears: (09:21) I think that works
Matthew Shears: (09:22) It would give the various parties additional time to find the right phrasing and framing for the issue
Edward Morris: (09:23) Agreed Matt
Matthew Shears: (09:24) its not timing so much as framing
Greg Shatan: (09:25) That's not what I meant by a question of timing. That said, I tend to agree with Malcolm and David's comments.
David McAuley: (09:27) Agree w/Robin re potential for unintejnded consequences requiring careful handling
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:27) + 1 David
Greg Shatan: (09:27) Also consequences intended by some but not clear to others....
David McAuley: (09:27) None here
David McAuley: (09:28) Thanks Becky
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:28) GAC is not against providing rationale for decisions. We do not understand the prupose of this amendment whiel there is concern that its advice will be rejected outright on the basis of contestign the rationale and this leave no scope for finding a mutually acceptable solution. Hope this helps explain the concern expressed by some GAC members. If you feel this is overstated concern, you need to explain the reason for adding this text and the consequence of it.
David McAuley: (09:28) Agreed on Greg's draft - it was helpful
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:28) inform the discussion
Malcolm Hutty: (09:29) Becky, I offered some polishing up of Greg's language
David McAuley: (09:31) thanks all, esp Becky
Matthew Shears: (09:31) thanks!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:31) Thanks, Becky, and All. Bye.