Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard, Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisener, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (23)
Participants: Allan MacGillivray, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brenden Kuerbis, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Salaets, Lori Schulman, Malcolm Hutty, Manal Ismail, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Nels ten Oever, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephen Deerhake, Tom Dale (31)
Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei (5)
Staff: Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings
Apologies: Sebastien Bachollet
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6cc1fbafqj/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-22sep15-en.mp3
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
CLO and Greg Shatan are not connected to the AC room.
Public comment Tool 2
You are all encouraged to review the PC tool 2 in preparation for LA. A common understanding of comments received is a prerequisite for the LA meeting. It can be agreements, issues etc. Community forum discussion will also be added to Los Angeles readlng list. Memo prepared by lawyers on MEM (to be circulated) will also be material to review for LA.
Note: we are expecting a communication from SSAC shortly. Comments are also in translation.
Feedback:
- Statement from ASO on whether plan to participate in model would be helpful.
ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model
Legal team will be sending us a comparison of MEM and our model.
LA Face-to-Face Meeting
Review of intro slides put together for the meeting.
Work Stream 1 relates to accountability requirements needed for transition. Accountability enhancements the community feels need to be in place to replace backstop. We should provide recommendation that offer implementable solutions. It may be good to clarify that we need final set of Bylaws drafted with our final report.
Review of slides prepared
Feedback
- We should not be reopening model discussion from bottom-up. We should be looking at tweaking model. We can't sacrifice designing a good governance model. We need to be primary. We should be improving what we have.
--> This overview is meant to assess what needs ot be made. It is not a judgement on criteria
- We need to distinguish between shape of community powers and what is best legal vehicle to implement them.
- Chart should compare sole model and MEM. Stick to Paris model.
- All should be encouraged to review comments on model and step back from perception that is only Board who raises concern about model
- We need to be more open-minded
- Concerns about simplification of our processes - real burden lies in ability to communicate model. Communication skills to explain solution and not solution itself that makes it understandable.
Mixed points regarding using Ease of Explanation
Tijani suggest use Simplicity and Clarity vs ease.
AG - in line with Tijani - Ease of explanation should not be an overall criterai. Simplicity is a major factor.
JZ - My point is simply that we need to prioritize the measures. Ease of implementation can be a criteria but it's still comes AFTER a comparison to community powers. The sequence here is important
GS - Ease of operation and implementation are important. Any system that is easily operationable should be explainable.
KA - SMM vs MEM - no need to take strong general positions, need to judge vs requirements - look for areas of reconciliation
Izumi O - rephrase to minimum changes to meet CWG requirements to avoid unexpected consequences and for ease of operaiton. Also must be conscious of the time line - we must meet the time requirements.
TR - should go offlist with this.
TR - Political dimension - how would a model vs another would be received by Congress - very sensitive point given our group not tasked with meeting political requirements - should we have this as a criteria? Full disclosure - co-Chairs will be talking later this week with an ICANN political advisor regarding this.If the group feels it necessary we can pursue this more than this.
HG - two staffers that have deep experience and insight on this if necessary.
TR - need to understand if the CCWG needs to take the political aspect into account.
PK - re political acceptabiltiy - should not be a big issue. the .COM act is not yet passed. Focus on having a plan that has strong accountability and broad support.
KA - not criticize ICANN for late comments. would like a comparison table of IRP in SMM and MEM.
TR - JC notes on political sensitivies beyond the US is a good point. Just looking to uderstand what is required for the US to approve the proposal. WSIS is important. Understand that some feel political aspect less important. Does the group want to be informed on this in LA? (no support for this- continue discussion on list).
TR points 3 and 4 can b e discussed on the list (identify your priorities.....)
TR ends this section.
LS - point 4 memos from lawyers - high level memos to come today. 3 documents comparing various points.
HG - it has been difficult given the Board proposal is spread over a number of documents. 2 calls have taken place with Jones Day for more information. Still a bit of a struggle. JD and ICANN legal wanted to review matrix prior to publication (agreed by co-chairs). they should reply by 5PM today.
LS - thanks for the great work.
Tijani - support approach but need documents before we leave to LA. Would also like TR slides.
LS - ends this section.
MW - AOB - we n eed to make progress. IraM and LS will be participating in person in LA meeting.
KA - wish to report on ICG meeting
RoloefM - request, given he cannot join, but many will participate remotely - it would therefore be very useful to have an early and fixed agenda would be appreciated.
MW - we will have a best effort on this given we will need some flexibility. Interest of remote participants will be considered. Comment from HG - all lawyers should formally be itnroduced at the meeting.
MW - KA update on ICG meeting.
KA - ICG discussed all comments received - modified part 0 of the proposal. some points to raise to CWG - note being sent anon - CWG requirements must be met. CCWG output for Dublin is not probable - ICG waiting for results of LA meeting.
MW - meeting closed
ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model
Brenda Brewer: (9/22/2015 04:27) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #54 on 22 September 2015 @ 12:00 UTC. Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:45) Hi Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:45) Did you receive my message saying that I am in new number as described in the message
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:45) Regards
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (04:46) Good afternoon from London!
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:46) Good morning ( 0445 am)
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:52) Hi every body
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (04:54) Hello!
Matthew shears: (04:54) hello
Kavouss Arasteh: (04:54) Hello Olga
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (04:54) Hi all!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (04:54) hi folks
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:55) Hello everyone
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:55) Morning/Afternoon/Evening all
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:56) Or night for Jordan =)
Niels ten Oever: (04:57) HI all
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (04:57) Greetings all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (04:57) hi all!
JP: (04:57) Hello!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:57) Hi everyone !
James Bladel: (04:58) Good morning.
Tom Dale (GAC Secretariat): (04:58) Hello from Canberra
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (04:58) Good morning, all.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:58) hello everyone!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:00) Good morning from San Francisco!
Keith Drazek: (05:00) Hello from Los Angeles
Michael Clark (Sidley): (05:01) Hello all
David McAuley (RySG): (05:01) Good morning all
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:02) Hi all!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:02) 12.02am
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:02) then hello to the future :)
JP: (05:02) Jyoti Panday
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:03) Happy holiday Grec
Alice Munyua: (05:03) hello everyone
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (05:03) hello all
Alice Jansen: (05:04) the spreadsheet can be found --> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+Summary+-+Second+Public+Comment
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (05:04) Big round of applause for them!
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:05) Great work Alice and Grace and anyone else that contributed!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:05) Alice, is that excelk sheet available on web
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:05) is it avaiable in PDF?
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:06) tks jordan
Alice Jansen: (05:06) hi Kavouss yes - it can be found on the wiki https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+Summary+-+Second+Public+Comment - I am afraid there is no PDF version
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:06) Thx Alice!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:07) will try to crystallise the WP1 discussion on the Forum
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:07) tks Alice
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:07) We intend to circulate later this evening eastern time
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:07) and circulate it for review
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:08) probably in about 13-14 hrs
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:08) Mathieu
Alice Jansen: (05:08) Note: we have received one of the translations -
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:08) Did the legal Team stuydy the legal validity of MEWM?
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:09) Sorry I meant MEM
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:10) Yes, Kavouss. We will address in the materials we intend to circulate tonight.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:11) This is the most crucial issue
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:11) we expect a Legal Assement MEMO
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:11) @Jordan, doesn't export to PDF very well. An alternative would be to make it available as a Google Doc or Office 365 doc perhaps?
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:12) I am just thinking of people who don't use MS files, I am personally happy with it as an XLSX
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:12) @staff: will a compilation of relevant documents be compiled and circulated before the meeting os that everyone is on the same page?
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:12) understood. just musing how to help
Ken Salaets/ITI: (05:13) Assume this slide deck will be shared as well?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:14) @ken : yes it will be part of the package of documents
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:14) Thomas
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:14) @Jorge: yes, that is planned
Ken Salaets/ITI: (05:14) @Mathieu: excellent, thanks
Avri Doria: (05:15) So we want to avoid the mergence of new solutions to the difference we find in the meeting. If we don't know the solution going in, we may not discover it there?
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:15) It would be good that you clarfy the discussion strategy and the order of discussion and priority to issues raised
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (05:15) @Kavouss we will be updating the group with the status of the MEM legal assesment memo later in the call and it is expected that our legal team will deliver this assessment later today
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:15) idley: will the Memo compare only the legal aspects of the SMM and MEM (i.e. enforceability, membership model powers...) or will also the different approaches to the community powers, their precise shape, and the way they are exercised be discussed?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:15) athieu: thanks!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:15) Mathieu
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:16) @Sidley I meant before :-)
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:17) Leon
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:17) I asked to specify the order of priority of topics to be discussed
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:18) Jorge, we compare the differences in terms of what powers are supported and enforceability and also point out significant differences in exercise and implementation, but focus is on how the MEM would impact the scope of community powers and the robustness of enforceability
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:18) @Kavouss: I think Thomas will address this but we would welcome your view on the priorities
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:18) @Holly: that sounds quite complete - thanks!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:18) TKS Mathieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:19) I suggest we start from Community mechanism
Keith Drazek: (05:19) Thanks Thomas. Very important point regarding scope.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:20) then major points such as Budget and strategic issues
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:21) then confirmation on whether ICANN clearly confirms Forum step
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:21) Alan- Charter defines WS1 as • Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:21) then the clear relatyion between MEM and Standing Panel
Keith Drazek: (05:21) Agree with Thomas' recollection. Required prior to transition, not specific to IANA functions.
Becky Burr: (05:22) agree Thomas. that was the clear direction of the community
CW: (05:22) Good afternoon. Regret cannot make this call today. Apologies. Please cancel dialouts for this call. CW
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:22) then decision making process
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:22) Preciesely - not directly related to transition, but rather, improvements that must be made before ICANN can have no backstop.
Alan Greenberg: (05:22) I was not referring to gaps, but I recall (possibly incorrectly) that there was one critical issue explicitly identified as to be done during implementations.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:22) ICANN is focussing on consensus all over the process except one area that they mention NOT MORE THAN ONE AC
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:23) The charter is not simple on this question - it's worth reading again if you haven't recently: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:24) And I thought it was the reference to the Frank Sinatra song "my way" ;-)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:24) @Robin : me too. I feel old now
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:24) yep
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:25) Sinatra is so... top-ddown
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:25) In possible outcome of MEM ,ICANN looking to subject the outcome implementation to Board,s DESCRETION WHY
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:25) now I think the sound track needs to be "Heal the World" by Michael Jackson...
Tom Dale (GAC Secretariat): (05:25) I've come a long way and never even left LA (Michelle Shocked)
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:25) +1 Jordan =)
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:25) We need t loop that in the corridors of the hotel
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:26) We have created a comparison chart that may fit your needs or serve as a starting point. We will circulate later today
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:26) We anticipated your needs and have done so
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:26) Let's have a public comment regarding the group soundtrack. We need to find consensus
Sabine Meyer: (05:26) how about bran van 3000's Drinking in LA?
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (05:26) Although what we've prepared for circulation later today does not include the Single Designator model
Arun Sukumar: (05:26) lol jordan
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:26) Wasn't Sinatra the Chairman of the Board? Just asking...
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:27) We need to add sole designator model but we already have something close to what you are requesting
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:27) Holly: that's excellent, thanks
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (05:27) @Mathieu: "we will all go down together"?
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:27) In that legal analysis , the status of the member of MEM ( chairs of SOs and ACs ) should be clarfied
Greg Shatan: (05:27) Phil Carmen was big in Europe, particularly Germany and Switzerland. Never cracked the US.
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (05:28) @Mathieu: or, on amore positive note: "Time of our Life"?
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:28) We will circulate what we have so you can see today but we will continue to refine based on this guidance
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:28) You ARE inspired Roelof ! ;-)
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:28) (never heard of Phil Carmen)
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:28) It is also necessary to verify if the MENM composed of chairs of SOs and ACs have a legal status collectively without a need to have an unincorporated association
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:28) Calling them "bugs" is interesting if we consider the ATRT to be the debugging team...
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:29) Thomas
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:30) Please note that we must verify whether there is any room for recoliliation between CMSM and MEM
Avri Doria: (05:30) the political scene is alwasy in our peripheral vision.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:31) Mathieu
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:31) we should be distinguishing between the community powers and the legal vehicle used to implement them
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:31) Enforcement requires Legal personhood . The MEM concept assumes that either the MEM itself of SOs/ACs or chairs of SOs and ACs can satisfy the legal personhood requirement.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:31) It is also incumbent on ICANN to actually discuss some of these concerns with the drafting groups, to be fair, but on Budget despite efforts that hasn't been possible, regrettably
Avri Doria: (05:31) but it is not just the US congress, there is a wider political scene we also must be aware of.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:31) I have prepared a commentary version of the ICANN Matrix
Keith Drazek: (05:32) The role of the GAC (advisory vs. voting) is an important component of point #2, regardless of model. Do we have any idea about the GAC's deliberations on whether it plans to remain advisory only?.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:32) for Sos and Acs or for the MEM that could mean unincorporated associations
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:32) Do you want that I send it to co chairs
Philip Corwin: (05:32) Congress will generally support what the CCWG produces so long as there is broad consensus behind it. I would advise against trying to prognosticate whether SMM or MEM would get more support, as that is a level of detail that few in Congress will delve into.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:32) +1 Avri: there is a world (wsis+10) out there...
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:32) @Kavouss: please share with the wider group
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:32) "political acceptability" is an overriding constraint in the sense that the proposal has to work, be coherent, and achieve a reasonable level of consensus
Avri Doria: (05:32) Philip, that is why i place it in our peripheral vision.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:33) anyone going into more detail on that question is seeking some other sort of outcome
Phil Buckingham: (05:33) Philip + 1
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:33) one ofd the important point in the ICANN proposal is the decision making which is not quite clear all over the process
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:34) @Keith: there is a GAC consensus input on the record. In sum we say: we want to participate in the deliberations (community forum) and we want to have the possibility (opt-in) to participate as a voting organisation, if we agree to do so in the future
Avri Doria: (05:34) sacrifice for ease of explanation? really?
Becky Burr: (05:35) Thomas, that is simply not the difference between work stream one an wrk stream 2
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:35) sometimes they are focussing on consensus ,some othertime subject not to have a contray view from any AC and some other time not more than one objection
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:37) Thomas
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:37) pls kindly reply to my question s raIsed in chat
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:37) I assume "voting" includes both "who" votes and relative power of votes.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:38) @Robin: yes, good point
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:38) thanks
Greg Shatan: (05:38) Something would have to be pretty darn inexplicable to drop the point on that ground alone.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:38) We need to have a very well structured way of discussion
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (05:39) Could we have the link in the second slide deck in the chat, please?
Edward Morris: (05:40) Agreed James
Avri Doria: (05:40) the ease of explanation has more to do with communication than the model itself.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:40) +1 Avri
Greg Shatan: (05:41) Best for ICANN the ecosystem, not ICANN, Inc....
Brenden Kuerbis: (05:41) Agree with James, not sure why we are reopening consideration of model(s). Rather we should be seeking to refine the SM model which largely has consensus.
Avri Doria: (05:41) agree that comparisons of all the model for refrence may be useful. but also agree that we must not reopen the model grabbag.
JP: (05:42) +1 James on Board and distinguishing on broad community consensus. We should be tweaking not beg again
JP: (05:42) *begin
Alan Greenberg: (05:42) Acceptance of something for the purpose of issuing the draft proposal does not imply full support for it.
Philip Corwin: (05:43) Board may be a stakeholder, but it is the stakeholder upon which accountability mechanisms are to be focused. That should be mentioned as well, and considered in evaluating its input.
Avri Doria: (05:43) Alan, isn't that the nature of finding consensus
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:43) Can we start with the proposals discussed in Paris? Hard to go back earlier than that because we would be drafting the comparison chart from scratch
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:43) given the time constraints
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:43) Yes Holly absolutely
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (05:44) yes Holly
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:44) Thanks! @ Mathieu
Avri Doria: (05:44) Paris seems like a good enough checkpoint to use for reference's sake.
Alan Greenberg: (05:44) @avri, I think so, but James was saying that if we accepted something in the draft, we had to stand behind that decision going forward.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:45) In the end we're going to have to end up with a proposal that most of us don't like significant elements of - if we don't accept that then there isn't going to be a consensus at all
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:45) I didint say that Alan, I said that the 2nd draft report was the result of rough consensus within the communit
Greg Shatan: (05:45) I think any decent governance model can be explained.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:46) Agreed Greg.
Edward Morris: (05:46) +1 Jordan. WE need to draw as few absolutekly 'red lines' as we can to make oprogress. Lots of grey lines, sure, but absolute nonacceptances in the context of the whole package: as few as possible.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:48) are we really giving the MEM an equal weight to the SMM? We haven't even really seen key details of MEM.
matthew shears: (05:48) agree Robin
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:48) AGree Jordan. The vector to the analysis has got to be the community powers around which there is broad consensus
Edward Morris: (05:48) +1 Robin.
JP: (05:49) +1 robin
Bruce Tonkin: (05:49) @Robin the MEM can easily be shaped by this grop if there is a willingness to explore it as an alternative. I am sure the Baord and the legal team could make stuff up to fill in gaps - but really I thought we shoudl be doing that together.,
matthew shears: (05:49) we have to look at the board contibutions in terms of how they might strengthen the eixsting model - the SMCM is the reference model
Arun Sukumar: (05:49) agree robin, i thought the Board's proposal was going to be weighed just like any other public comment?
matthew shears: (05:50) + 1 arun
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (05:50) I understood we would have more detail of the MEM in time for consideration - but not a decision - in LA.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:50) +1 Mathieu - let's keep focused on what is key: the community powers. The legal vehicle is important, but subsidiary
Greg Shatan: (05:50) The MEM, as such, is merely an arbitration proceeding.
Greg Shatan: (05:51) It is the exercise of rights/powers in our model that needs to be compared and contrasted to the Board's comment.
Lori Schulman: (05:51) @Bruce - no one should be "making stuff up". The model should be shaped around community goals.
matthew shears: (05:51) we have to look at comments on the SMCM and among them are the boards
Keith Drazek: (05:52) Mathieu is correct. Other commenters raised questions and concerns about the Sole Member Model. Not just the Board. We need to assess all comments equally.
matthew shears: (05:52) + 1 keith
Lori Schulman: (05:52) @Greg, I agree. MEM seems more than an arbitration proceeding than a governance model.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:53) MEM is an arbitration system and not a governance system. It is only an enforcement mechanism
Brenden Kuerbis: (05:53) Agree with Lori
Lori Schulman: (05:53) Holly just said it better.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:53) Agreed Holly
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:54) the MEM and the CMSM are entirely different things that achieve diferent sets of requirements. The MEM migh tbe useful alongside CMSM, or it might not, that's one thing we need to unpick in LAX
matthew shears: (05:54) + 1 Holly
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:54) We shouldn't get caught up in pride of ownership, for sure. We need to start with the community powers first and see how best to accomplish them. The models are merely the means to the end, which is the community powers.
Arun Sukumar: (05:54) an arbitration process enforceable in california courts - that too is an important point for international stakeholders Greg
Lori Schulman: (05:54) +1 Jonathan
Keith Drazek: (05:54) Agreed Jonathan
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:54) Mathieu
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:55) +1 Jordan, the MEM could be used with the Sole Member although it has been proposed as an alternative, but it really is only an enforcement mechanism and not a governance system
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:55) I wouldnt support it
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:55) only if ALL other things are equal
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) May ask you respectfully to also add some of my comments to the two docs. thgat I sent you
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:55) @Arun: enforcement of any community powers under any of the discussed models would be basically under California courts in the last instance, right?
Keith Drazek: (05:55) Ease of understanding should be a requirement for the communications phase. Not the design phase.
matthew shears: (05:55) an enforcement mechanisms is not a substitute for agovernance system
Arun Sukumar: (05:55) that is an excellent way to put it Holly - "not a governance system"
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:55) Keith: +100
Greg Shatan: (05:56) @Lori, the arbitration process we have proposed is also enforceable in court. While not entirely clear from the Board's comment, the IRP in their proposal also appears to be enforceable in court (as clarified by Bruce Tonkin).
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:56) completely agree with Keith
Edward Morris: (05:56) Agreed with Keith.
Greg Shatan: (05:56) My point was that the "MEM" is not a proposal. It is an element of a proposal, so using the term "MEM" to refer to the Board's intervention is misleading.
Arun Sukumar: (05:57) @jorge probably, but the community that is governing the process is not california-based. unlike an arbitral tribunal that creates case law and precedent around California jurisdiction
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:57) +1 Avri
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:57) Greg is right - we have to look at the proposal as a whole, especially on what refers to the community powers
matthew shears: (05:58) not to explain but perhaps to implement and +1 Avri
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (05:58) Agreed Greg. We call it the Board Proposal
Arun Sukumar: (05:58) true, greg
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (05:58) Agree with Avri - the most important criteria is quality of the proposal.
Greg Shatan: (05:58) The arbitral tribunal would not be creating case law and precedenat around California jurisdiction, except to the extent that we are dealing with a California corporation.
Avri Doria: (05:58) yes, ease of implementation is important.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:58) ICANN referred to NTIA statement in ICANN 53 and took it in an iterpretative manner a support for the simlicity ( in my view ,incomplete and .)for its MEM
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:58) i would choose a simple thing over a complex one if the did the same thing
Greg Shatan: (05:59) Enforceability would not be limited to California courts, under either proposal.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (05:59) and that's been something we have mentioed a number of times, economy of changes, most simple possible, etc
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:59) We heard your jingle johnatan
James Bladel: (05:59) Agree. All things being equal, we need to be able to communicate the plan/model (including non-English translations).
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:59) Mthieu ,Thomas and Leon
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:59) @arun: would not the same happen if another model was used? i.e. instead of an arbitral court (which btw could be an international arbitration body), wouldn't the precedent be set by Californian courts?
Arun Sukumar: (05:59) @greg: would it not. under MEM? then i have to read the board proposal better
Avri Doria: (05:59) anything becomes indefinitly complex once you really dive down into it. often simplicity is just a measure of aspects not yet explored.
matthew shears: (05:59) ease of explanation, ease of implementation and effectiveness of the overall model are different things
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:00) If they have the same outcome yes.
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:00) I sent you the doc. thgat i mentionedi
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:00) Sorry. My point is simply that we need to prioritize the measures. Ease of implementation can be a criteria but it's still comes AFTER a comparison to community powers. The sequence here is important
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:00) we also have to remember - try explaining how ICANN works at all. In that context, anything we propose for this accountability layer is relatively trivial.
matthew shears: (06:00) + 1 Jonathan
Lori Schulman: (06:00) Lawyer could learn from engineers.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:00) Thank you very much Kavouss. May we share it with the rest of the group?
Avri Doria: (06:00) yes Alan, a a mechanism solution with fewer parts may be preferable. at least until the storm comes.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:01) GS fading badly
Avri Doria: (06:01) the easiest solution is alwasy an infinitely wsie benevolent despot.
Arun Sukumar: (06:01) @jorge: my concern is not that california courts enforce a decision. some court ultimately has to. but as a lawyer im concerned about ways in which bylaws will be interpreted if the seat of arbitration is california. call it legal culture, but its not a woolly thing
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:02) @Greg, as we read the MEM it is a binding arbitrationand there is a parallel IRP contemplated in the Board proposal similar to current IRP which is NOT binding through court action to enforce an arbitration award
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:02) but that's not a thing we are debating in WS1
Arun Sukumar: (06:03) +1 to wise despot
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:03) @arun: the seat of arbitration need not be there... but in other models it seems that the link to the specific jurisdiction where the corporation is based is even clearer, isn't it?
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:03) @Arun but isn't that concern true irrespective of the place/jurisdiction the arbitration is based?
Arun Sukumar: (06:04) @leon: absolutely. care must be taken to ensure that diverse perspectives on human rights, IPR and law enforcement are taken into account.
Arun Sukumar: (06:04) @jorge: true
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:04) We choose to [acheive ICANN accountability] in this decade and do the other things,not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone....
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:04) We need to take the best of the submissions we ahve recieved and construct a model that reflects the best of the inputs
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:05) Jonathan - is that from a speech? :-)
Arun Sukumar: (06:05) will NTIA reps be in attendance at the LA F2F?
JP: (06:05) +1 arun on diverse perspectives
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:05) @Arun: yes, will update on that in AOB
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:05) Arun: yes, Fiona and Larry are on the published list of participants
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (06:05) JFK on going to space?
Greg Shatan: (06:05) @Holly, I think the Board explanation is unclear on enforceability of the IRP. There are indications in both directions. In subsequent emails on list, Bruce Tonkin expressed the view that the Board's IRP was enforceable (assuming that there is a party with legal personhood able to commence an action).
Arun Sukumar: (06:06) thanks mathieu
Greg Shatan: (06:06) @Rosemary, you win the grand prize -- an all expense paid trip to Santa Monica, California!
matthew shears: (06:06) Does the MEM complement or stregnthen the SMCM?
Phil Buckingham: (06:06) @ Jordan - yes maybe we combine elements of both models to get the desired outputs / solutions , but must be implementable.,simple and understandable
Greg Shatan: (06:06) The MEM weakens the IRP, by creating two tiers of arbitration.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:06) matthew; i have interpreted as replacing part of the CMSM's function, and leaving other parts unrealised
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:06) Attendee list : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56135261
Keith Drazek: (06:07) Agree James. We have an opportunity to evolve and refine our work based on the constructive input of all commenters, including the Board.
Greg Shatan: (06:07) Can we please use MEM to refer to the arbitration mechanism and not the entirety of the Board's proposal.
matthew shears: (06:07) Just wondering if we can incporate without weakening the reference model in anyway
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:08) good point, Greg. The board made suggestions on other aspects of the proposal as well (like Recon Request, etc.)
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:08) I guess one way to look at all this at the highest level is this: if we can't as a community come to consensus on ways to replace external accountability (NTIA contract) with a functional internal/community system, then we aren't ready for the end of the external accountability linkage
Arun Sukumar: (06:08) +1 to greg - the concern with MEM is that there is no finality to community decisions
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:09) +1 Jordan
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:09) Cam Kerry, former Acting Secretary of Commerce and Rick Boucher, former US Congressman, are part of the Sidley team and available for consultation
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:09) Who are those Political Team
Greg Shatan: (06:09) Also, on the Community Powers. For instance, the power to veto budget, etc., becomes a "right to be consulted", with some limitations if our consultation is not heeded.
Arun Sukumar: (06:10) the right to hearing of board members when they are interested parties is a concern that ought to be addressed (if it is not already) under SMM
Edward Morris: (06:10) /9 I woukd certtainly want to use more than ICANN's lobbyist. Frankly, I have not to date been impressed with what I have seen and know of their work on the Hill.
Edward Morris: (06:10) Agree with Holly.
Greg Shatan: (06:10) Bringing out the Secret Weapons!
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:10) The powers are the thing. Starting any place else would be a mistake. THEN look at risks. THEN look at ease of implementation.
matthew shears: (06:10) agree on using independent policitcal counsel
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:10) Yes I think that engaging Sidleys expertise on this is a good idea
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:11) Greg: I think that's a good point to keep in mind
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:11) the MEM isn't "plug and play" with the CMSM
Arun Sukumar: (06:11) speaking of independence - funding models for the arbitration mechanism will hopefully be addressed in the comparison chart
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:11) the Board's proposed changes are very much broader than that
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:11) @Thomas: please include in the notes that the political dimension extends beyond the US and we have the WSIS+10 process looming
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:11) exactly, Jordan.
Greg Shatan: (06:11) This was one of the attractive aspects of the Sidley team from the beginning....
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:12) Could Beckie prepare a comparision table for CCWG IRP and ICANN MEM IRP including the process of decision making 9Simple majority of CCWG and tacitly consensus of MEM)
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:12) Tottally agre with Jorge.
Avri Doria: (06:12) ie. congress is insisiting on running code?
Arun Sukumar: (06:12) +1 to Jorge
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:12) Totally*
JP: (06:12) +1 jorge
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:12) +1 Phil
matthew shears: (06:12) Unless we treat the Board's contribution to the public consultation as any other stakeholder's we will be undermining our ability to meet the NTIA's following criterion: Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
Arun Sukumar: (06:12) How the road from LA to Dublin goes may influence whats happening at the WSIS hl meeting in December at the UN
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:12) Agree with Phil - we shouldn't engineer for politicians, who will change on a whim any way.
Avri Doria: (06:12) i still think political awareness has to be much broader than just the US.
Edward Morris: (06:13) Exactly Matthew. Well put.
Brenden Kuerbis: (06:13) Agree Matt
Keith Drazek: (06:14) Agree Kavouss. The Board's comments were received during the public comment period. They werer not late. Let's focus on the substance of the inpucs.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:14) IRP comparison suggested by @Kavous would be valuable but in some ways premature in that many details of CCWG IRP proposal and MEM are not worked out
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:14) Thomas
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:15) You have referred to POLITICAL level, POLITICAL aspects of the matter
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:15) May you further clarify why such dimention is brought into our working arrangemnets
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:15) Welcome analysis of political perceptions on how proposal addresses risk of capture. Beyond US message to WSIS+10 negotiaiosn must be that transtion is still on track with many areas of agreement and community is now needing to finalise the implementation.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:15) I don't mind either way - either from experts or from Larry
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:15) correction to notes requested by initials HG -- I was not speaking of "staffers" but of high level partners in my firm with considerable high level government experience
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:15) If its from Rick and Cam yes
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:15) Information from whom?
Edward Morris: (06:16) Ditto Robin
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:16) some info on wsis+10: http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/roadmap
Edward Morris: (06:16) Thomas, the questiin was not clear
JP: (06:17) Thomas informed on what in LA?
Alan Greenberg: (06:17) @Thomas, a useful discussion.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:18) Edward - yes, we need more clarity on what topics / etc.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:18) I thought that the suggestion Thomas had made was for some briefing from the Sidley politically linked team
Sabine Meyer: (06:19) the range of topics to be covered might in some part depend on who is giving the information.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:19) Yes. And maybe other advisors. But there did not seem to be sufficient traction for that.
Edward Morris: (06:19) @ Jordan. If t were phrased that way I think you would have received more support.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:19) At least at this point in our work
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:19) I think it would be more valuable after LA
Greg Shatan: (06:21) The Board's chosen style of comment was difficult to deal with -- an 81 page document with about 10-15 pages of actual commentary, plus additional documents. That's why I prepared my (6 page) chart.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:22) and some parts of the board's materials contradict other parts.
Greg Shatan: (06:22) That, too... :-)
Greg Shatan: (06:23) But that's harder to find when buried under mounds of restatement.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:23) We will miss you Mathieu
Greg Shatan: (06:23) Indeed.
Brenda Brewer: (06:23) Today's slides are posted on Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8otYAw
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:24) Could we request that in LA, any lawyer for ICANN or for CCWG be introduced formally. We understand that there have been meetings where JD lawyers attended but we were not aware.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:24) Holly, that is a very good suggestion
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:24) Agreed
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:25) yes Holly we will formally request this
matthew shears: (06:25) + 1 Roelof
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:25) yes Jordan, I was fairly well surprised. As a matter of professional courtesy I would have expected them to introduce themselves
Phil Buckingham: (06:25) + Roelof
Phil Buckingham: (06:26) +1
Arun Sukumar: (06:26) All lawyers in the CCWG should be introduced so they can be shown to another room while the more sensible folks talk
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:26) :-)
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:26) LOL
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:27) +1 Arun!! Especially if the other room is the bar.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:27) hahaha
Arun Sukumar: (06:27) lol
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:27) +1000 Holly!
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:27) Paris worked by turning the whole room into a bar, let's not forget.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:27) +1000 Arun (I'l go voluntarily to the other room)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:27) let's not
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:27) Yes Jordan, fantastic strategy by our co-chairs
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:27) let's not forget, that is.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:27) @Jorge, and I will buy you a drink!
Sabine Meyer: (06:27) i'll toast to you remotely
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:27) "Multi-sipholderism"
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:28) I count on that Holly :-)
Keith Drazek: (06:28) lol jordan
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:29) thanks Kavouss
Keith Drazek: (06:29) Nothing to add. thanks Kavouss.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:29) I hope nobody mistakes my occasional levity here as anything other than what it is - a desire for a light tone to keep our chins up. :-)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:29) much appreciated, Jordan.
Stephen Deerhake: (06:30) +1 Jordan.
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:30) Bye all!
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (06:30) Safe travels to all who will travel
James Bladel: (06:30) Thanks all.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:30) thanks and see you in Los Angeles
JP: (06:30) Thanks and bye. Safe travels
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:30) thanks all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:30) bye all
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (06:30) bye al
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:30) Goodbye from London
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:30) thanks all
Greg Shatan: (06:30) Bye all!
Farzaneh Badii: (06:30) bye
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:30) bye all
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (06:30) Bye all
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:30) thanks - see you in LA!
Michael Clark (Sidley): (06:30) Bye all safe travels
Allan MacGillivray: (06:30) Bye all.
Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (06:31) See some of you in LA.