Sub-group Members: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Elise Lindeberg, Gary Hunt, Jonathan Zuck, Julia Wolman, Nick Shorey, Olga Cavalli, Mark Carvell, Pedro da Silva, Rafael Perez Galindo, Steve DelBianco, Tom Dale (13)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Pär Brumark, Jorge Cancio
**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/p6ww6kegfyg/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-stress-tests-07oct15-en.mp3
Review of analysis of public comments on Second Draft
Areas of consensus - no commenters expresses overall concerns with STs.
Stress tests on capture or unintended consequences of changes are areas needing clarification. Is our analysis of
ST 35 (unintended consequences of operationalizing advisory groups) complete?
No feedback.
Requests for New stress tests: Conduct new stress test on deadlock over approving changes to fundamental
bylaws and blocking changes to regular bylaws. Should this be taken on?
The ST-WP could respond to comment and explain why it cannot be addressed. No conclusion.
Areas of convergence: 1) stress test 21 regarding revocation and reassignment. We stayed away from it per CWG-stewardship. ccNSO indicated that policy is underway. We should retain ST21 analysis ant not recommend
other actions. No feedback.
2) Stress tests 29 and 30 - submissions were concerned with content regulation. 7 objected to inclusion. Contract
enforcement would not be affected by mission and core values. Suggest adding something that would carve out
contract enforcement so that it would not be affected by IRP; 3) Stress test 18. 16 comments were in favor of Bylaws
changes. 4 comments were opposed to Bylaws changes. Olga in LA commented that governments did not submit
comment but are against stress test 18. Suggestion to remove freedom of expression example. No objection. How
does one instruct ICANN Board? Board needs to understand level of support. Board action is subject to IRP if top
down - outside bylaws - if went into content. We are awaiting text from GAC that would reframe ST18 - instructing
Board on how it understands advice. Conclusion is we should clarify ICANN Bylaw. Request for rationale.
Is the GAC working on text - should we wait for that or proceed with writing new rationale?
Feedback:
- The perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18 but it does consider
differently how the GAC makes its decisions. It does not change our concern for this ST 18.
- If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only kicks in if the Board has rejected
consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing by GAC individuals has not
got to GAC-wide exchange yet. Need CCWG explication of rationale and purpose in tandem with this effort.
- Cannot understand why ST 18 is needed.
- Fail to see what problem is. ST 18's purpose is to skip engagement step when GAC provides advice to Board. If no solution can be found, ICANN Board will state why advice was not followed. Board has ability to reject
GAC advice. what is advantage to skip engagement steps?
- It needs to be clear how this relates to transition requirement.
ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question
ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question
Brenda Brewer: (10/7/2015 05:26) Welcome all to Stress Tests Meeting #11 on 7 October 2015 @ 11:00 UTC!
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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:48) hi Brenda in the van on our way home from airport now, flt landed early :-D
Brenda Brewer: (05:53) Hi Cheryl. Do you still want a dialout to your mobile #? Or will you let me know when you're home.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:54) mobile number now then we will do the swap :-D
Brenda Brewer: (05:54) thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:55) still 15-20 mins from home
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:56) hi Julia.... welcome
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (05:56) Hi Cheryl, thanks:-)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:57) good day one and all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) hello seems like only hrs since we spoke
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:58) someone has an open mike
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:59) yes
Brenda Brewer: (05:59) Very much better
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (05:59) Hello Tom
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:00) I'm here
Brenda Brewer: (06:00) Steve just joined the Adobe
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:01) Brenda can you please load the draft I sent last night?
Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:01) Hello Cheryl. Still in Melbourne.
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:02) Hello all
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:03) Hi all
Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:04) Hello All.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:04) only a short call today but we need to start our formal analysis of the public comments
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:05) and yes I am an open source software girl... :-S
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:11) correct it is James.... Yes let's reach out to him on this and then bring back to the WP on list
Cheryl langdon-Orr: (06:27) we also committed to rewrite the rationale for ST18
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:27) Very helpful to remove that exemplification.
Elise Lindeberg: (06:28) Mark - agree
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:28) Agree as well
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:35) Steve the perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:35) I have no mic now apologies
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:37) but it does consider differently how the gac makes its decisions so for Argentina it
does not change our concern for this ST 18
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:37) If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only
kicks in if the Board has rejected consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing
by GAC individuals has not got to GAC-wide exchnage yet. Need CCWG explication of ragionale and purpose in tandem with this effort.
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:38) Agree with Mark that the CCWG also need to start working on new wording
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:38) Sorry not on mic - am at meeting in Brussles without a phone.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (06:39) sorry issue with the mike :(
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:39) yes pedro
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:40) and apologia for ode typos
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:40) Brenda -- please bring up our 2nd draft, page 85
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:40) pedro you are very low
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:40) Hi all back on the audio and ion the AC room again
Alice Jansen: (06:40) Pedro - we are having trouble hearing you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:40) very faint
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:41) Yes audio volume has decreased..
Brenda Brewer: (06:41) Working on volume.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (06:42) My mike seems to be working now, I 'll try again after Pedro
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:42) Great Rafael
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:45) Rationale needs to explain why such change in deciosn-making creates a risk needign to be addressed.
Elise Lindeberg: (06:46) again - agree Mark, - this is not clear today
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:46) yes we hear you
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:46) sorry, I want still to talk after Rafael
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:46) Perfecty clear Rafael
Elise Lindeberg: (06:49) What we want to secure is that all GAC advice is valuable for the board - also when is shows
that a large majority of the GAC is concerned
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:50) There is no intention to codefy any skipping of existing steps but rather codefy
the current specual consideration goven to GAC Advice under to days rules
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:50) Time check - 10 minutes left in the call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:51) thanks Bernoe
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:51) I stand to be corrected but in 17 years Board has never rejected a negotiated
solution. Relevant fact of life is that Board know that if it were to reject a solution, govts would probably walk away from ICANN.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:51) typos Bernie
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:54) I must leave the call to attend other meeting, I will follow up from notes and
records, regards and thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:55) We will need to end at the top of the hour for another call to begin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:56) I will already be in a flight this time next week but thast does not mean
the call should not proceed...
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:56) In any case the Board must always take GAC Advice (as well as advice
from other AC's) duly into account and the board must provide a rationale if it decides not to follow advice from the GAC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (06:57) but an hour or two earlier might work for me
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:57) bye all
Elise Lindeberg: (06:57) thanks
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:57) bye
Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (06:57) Bye