Attendees: 

Members:    Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, James Bladel, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert   (16)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavan, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Erika Mann, Finn Petersen, Ghislain de Salins, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Paul Rosenzweig, Phil Buckingham, Rafael Perez Galindo, Seun Ojedeji, Snehashish Ghosh, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale   (36)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit   (4)

Observers & Guests:  Asha Hemrajani, Elise Lindeberg, Dierdre Sidjanski, Konstantinos Komaitis, Manal Ismail, Michael Niebel, Navid Heyrani, Olaf Nordling, Oscar Mike, Rory Conaty   (10)

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings 

Apologies:  Izumi Okutani, Mathieu Weill

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript  

Recording

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

.Audio only: GShattan

No updates on SOI

TRickert: this group has come a long way from nothing, generating consensus on a number of recommendations by a greatly diverse community. We now have to finish, we are close, possibly the last meter. What we deliver needs to be what the chartering organizations will approve. We need to close this by 2359UTC Monday February 8th. Any general remarks on rec 11.

OCavalli: GAC currently working to find a way forward on rec 11. It would be very clear and stable version of the options so we can properly understand and analyze.

RPerezGalindo (GAC Spain): thanksgiving deal was a good compromise and this seems to be breaking at this point. We need clear and stable version to properly understand and analyze.

BBurr: appreciation how hard everyone has worked to get this done and special thanks to Kavous.

JBladel: Echo what BB has said. gNSO is very diverse and the reasons for not approving rec 11 in the thrid draft have been diverse. This new proposal is a very good step forward and I am encouraged and think we are on the right path.

KArasteh: We need to work together and understand each other. As a member of the ICG I wish to see the transition succeed. I have put together a package with other colleagues such as Becky to let us complete our work. It may not be perfect but includes all inputs and points a way forward.

BBurr: have been listening carefully to calls to try understand the needs. Interest by the GAC to participate. To address what the community was concerned about (second bite at the apple) - whenever the community uses a power to challenge the implementation of GAC advice by the Board would require the GAC to only participate in an advisory capacity.

TRickert: any clarification questions?

Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: I would appreciate a clarification of the intended difference between this new version and the previous text we had on the screen previously - Thanks!

BBurr - I accidentally narrowed the proposal - I have adjusted (its not just for using the IRP).

KArasteh - Uncertain what JC implies when he says it is difficult to understand. Changes to rec. 1 does not change the right of the GAC to participate if it so wishes - however if the implementation of GAC advice by the Board is challenged by the community - the GAC can only participate in an advisory capacity.

TRickert: Support or concerns?

 

SDelBianco: As rapporteur I can confirm this meets the requirements of ST18. It should be the right path forward.

JBladel: Registrars opposition to the proposal is fading with this new proposal.

BSchaefer: I can support the 60% with the other text.

MHutty: this is a possible compromise. Important for people to say if they support. This is the best we are likely to get. If the GAC supports this, I would expect the ISPs to support (not a commitment).

PRosensweig: Supports MH view - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This satisfies no one, but I speak in favour of it with caveat that everyone has to accept it.

KArasteh: In response to Rafael, the third draft of rec. 11 was not agreed by everyone. We are not dealing with the third proposal.

Chris Disspain: it seems to me that the problem is that the GAC folks don't want to go back with a proposal unless they know the gNSO will agree and the gNSO folks don't want to go back unless they know the GAC will agree.

KArasteh: Given the GAC  needs to understand the position of the gNSO vs this proposal. If the GAC understands the position of the gNSO then they could consider it seriously.

PRosensweig: Both the GAC the gNSO have to agree to press this and try and sell it in their community.

OCavalli: Difficult for any govt to participate in the straw poll.

TRickert: Straw poll - green if you do not object. red otherwise.

CDispain: Could we change the question to - as a participant do you agree you can take it back to your community for agreement (TR confirmation of non-objection).

KArasteh: prefer original TR proposal. Please emphasise we are dealing with the package as a whole. It cannot break it down.

Straw Poll - TRickert: Let use the Chris version. 31 support, 3 against, 8 abstain on a total of 63 participants.

Robin Gross CHAT[GNSO - NCSG]: I don't have audio, but I don't think it is appropriate for GAC to use this accountability process to get greater power at ICANN relative to the other groups.

TRickert - We have a new reference position for consensus to discuss. We will publish to the list to continue discussion. We will maintain the Monday call, which could be short.

CDispain - Next step should be to wait to see if there are objections from the communities.

Decision - TRickert: Good point. We usually work by establishing if there is objection. We can end the call on this. We will try to confirm this is still our position on Monday. We will try to get this approved as our consensus position on our next CCWG call on Tuesday February 9th.

LSanchez: thanks to all, we will be distributing the official version to the list shortly to continue the discussion. Any AOB? (none).

Adjourned.

Action Items

Documents

Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (2/4/2016 05:47) Welcome to CCWG Rec 11 Meeting on Thursday, 4 February @ 12:00 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

  Brenda Brewer: (05:47) Hello Kavouss! 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:48) Hello Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:49) Dear Olga, Hi

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:49) Hi Dear Brenda, can you do a dial out to me? +54 11 4826 2530 thanks

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:49) hi Kavouss

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:49) It is again  too early for you?

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:50) no! it is 9 am, this is ok for me

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:50) the problem is with calls at 6 am, which is 3am here

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:50) Ok that is not badf

  Brenda Brewer: (05:51) Hello Olga! Yes, to dial out. 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:52) Hi Tom

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:52) Thanks Brenda

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (05:52) Hello Kavouss.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:52) hiTom!

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (05:52) Hola Olga!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:53) Hi all!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:53) Hi young man

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:54) Hello Kavouss, I love being called yong with my 46 years :-). Thanks for the compliment!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) 46 is the begining of youthness

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:55) :-)

  Olof Nordling: (05:55) Hello all - and agreeing with Kavouss:-)

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:56) hi Olof hi Thomas

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (05:56) Hello Olga!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:56) When we have Lawyers with us we are covered, Hi rosemary

  Becky Burr: (05:57) good morning/day

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:57) Good morning Beckie

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:57) hi Beckie

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (05:57) Hi, Kavouss.  Hi, everyone.

  Jonathan Zuck: (05:57) Good morning!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:58) hello all

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:58) Hi all!

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (05:58) Just checking this IS the CCWG-ACC call. Everyone seems remarkably cheerful :-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:58) Tom,

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:58) is the always present optimistic spirit

  Kavouss Arasteh: (05:58) Life is too short and we must be cheerful

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (05:59) +1 to Kavouss

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (05:59) it always starts cheerful Tom :-)

  Chris Disspain: (06:00) Greetings All

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:00) Hello all

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (06:00) Hello everyone

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (06:00) Thanks Leon.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:01) May be we should wait another 3 mints allowing everybody to join

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:01) Greetings from London (still swinging)

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (06:02) Hello all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:02) Good morning Grec from Newyork

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (06:02) @Greg - You are a real trooper!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:03) hi all

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:03) hello all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:03) Hi Jorge

  Aarti Bhavana: (06:03) Hi All

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (06:04) Good day to all.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (06:04) Hello everyone

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:04) Good Morning from Costa Rica

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:05) Hi Paul

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:05) Hi Kavouss

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:07) Grec, We remained closed friends irrespective that from time to time we may not have the same opinion on a given subject

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:10) And I must point that white smoke is not intended to come from burning everything down, of course

  Keith Drazek: (06:11) I fully support Thomas' comments. Very well said.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:11) good one, Leon :D

  Chris Disspain: (06:11) if it's grey smoke it may be coming from my cigar

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:11) Thomas and Keith+ 1

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:11) And grey would seem as a compromise as well Chris ;-)

  Chris Disspain: (06:11) indeed Leon...

  Chris Disspain: (06:12) there is no black or white....only grey

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:13) Olga ,you are right .I assure you that we would have a clear version of the compromise today at 13.30 UTC

  Chris Disspain: (06:14) I apprexiate what Olga says and would suggest it appies to all of the Sos and Acs....

  Brett Schaefer: (06:15) Kavouss' latest proposal combines the proposals in a clear package. Could we see it on the screen?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:16) Time is moving, situation is considerably evolved and we all BNEED to move

  Keith Drazek: (06:18) Let's make sure this burst of energy is the result of fusion not fission. ;-)

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:18) Can you put up the concrete proposals in the chat and/or in the connect ...

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:22) kavouss sound is very low

  Brett Schaefer: (06:23) WOud be helpful to also include the later part of the e-mail with the actual text of teh proposed changes.

  Keith Drazek: (06:24) +1 Kavouss. Thanks to you and Becky for your leadership here.

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:25) I can live with the proposal currently on screen

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:25) + 1 Kavouss - we have to move forward

  Chris Disspain: (06:25) Huge respect to Kavouss here for his effortas at coalescing us...

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:25) PLEASE -- Can you put up the actuall language??  It would help

  Chris Disspain: (06:25) and Becky....of course....

  Chris Disspain: (06:25) :-)

  Brett Schaefer: (06:28) This is the older version of Bechy's language.

  Brett Schaefer: (06:28) edit -- Becky's

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:29) Can those, who are not speaking please mute their mics?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:29) We have an echo on the line.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:29) sound is very bad

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:29) hard to understand

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:30) Jorge, what is difficult to understand. Do you need more explanation from Beckie

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:31) To ensure predictability and transparency, any advisory role the GAC provides must be formally based on process including responsiveness by the other SOs and ACs participating in the empowerment mechanism.

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:31) I would appreciate a clarification of the intended difference between this new ver sion and the previous text we had on the screen previously - Thanks!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:32) Mark, pls not to that extent of  widenning

  OscarMike: (06:32) GAC wouldn't be able to defend its advise approved by Board.

  Avri Doria: (06:33) well, it could defend, but not be part of the decision

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:33) As an extension of its advisory role it could do this.

  OscarMike: (06:33) @Avri Then the same should be the standard for all SOs/ACs

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:34) Thanks for the clarification Becky!

  Keith Drazek: (06:34) I think Jorge  was saying he was having a hard time hearing/understanding.

  Becky Burr: (06:34) GAC could absolutely defend its proposal - the GAC may speak, advise, persuade, etc.

  David McAuley (RySG): (06:34) volume has seemed to drop a bit

  Becky Burr: (06:34) Correct, this is my initial proposal

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:35) Thanks Becky for saying GAC could particpate in the way you describe.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:35) @Becky: please could you assess whether the "exclusion" would be expandible to other SOACs ?

  OscarMike: (06:36) I believe Becky has a good proposal in principle. But it should applicable across all SOs/ACs. Nemo judex in causa sua - no-one should be a judge in his own cause

  Becky Burr: (06:36) Rafael, no other SO/AC is in a "two bites at the apple" situation - no other advice/guidance has the same preferred position as GAC advice. 

  Matthew Shears: (06:37) +1 Becky

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:37) +1 OscarMike

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (06:37) Is 60 % a legal standard for this kind of decitionmaking anywhere   in coorporate life

  Keith Drazek: (06:37) I'm confident the RySG can support the proposed solution on the table.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:37) Apart from the singling-out of the GAC (which I do not share), there may be cases where a public interest is at stake and the GAC as a matter of public policy should not relinquish its role

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:37) +1 Becky -- the GAC is unique.  It can't both assert a privlege to force Board consideration and assert equivalence in other contexts

  Keith Drazek: (06:38) @Elise: It's not an illegal standard... ;-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:38) Steve, the answer is YES, IT FULLY SATISFIES St18

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:38) Jorge -- the GAC will not have relinquished its role.  It will have exercised that role by providing advice to the Board

  Becky Burr: (06:38) Applying this to other SO/ACs does not make sense unless and until their advice enjoyed the privileged position - mandatory to try to find a mutually acceptable solution

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (06:38) No Keith, for sure - why are you making up new standards on the fly like this ?

  Keith Drazek: (06:39) 60% was suggested by Kavouss

  Keith Drazek: (06:39) ...and I supported it for the record.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:39) @Kavouss -- yes, I just said that this proposal DOES satisfy Stress Test 18

  Becky Burr: (06:39) that standard applies to no other SO or AC without the kinds of limitations and safeguards applied to a PDP.  Please see my previous email on the difference between GAC Advice and a PDP

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (06:39) yes,  - and I don`t agree with it 

  Brett Schaefer: (06:39) I would prefer 50 perent, not 60 percent, but I can accept the proposal as on the screen.

  Becky Burr: (06:40) email on that diffference sent on 1 Feb

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:40) I would prefer 2/3

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (06:40) + 1 Rafael

  Brett Schaefer: (06:40) Right Rafael, copromise.

  OscarMike: (06:40) @Becky: But the your proposal is emanating from the understanding that you cannot be a judge in your own cause. I think strogest rationale to support your proposal. So I do not see how GAC's 'unique' position is related to that.

  Keith Drazek: (06:40) 2/3 is a deal-killer for the GNSO

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:40) What is the trade off for the GAC in this proposal, in comparison with the 3rd draft proposal????

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:40) I agree with Brett, 50% is better than 60%

  Brett Schaefer: (06:40) edit, compromise

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:41) OSCARMIKE+1

  James Bladel: (06:41) 60% works for Registrars, but only if the changes to Rec #1 are included.  Thank you.

  Keith Drazek: (06:41) I believe arguments now for 2/3 or 50% are taking the discussion backward and are not constructive.

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:42) I support 2/3 but DK can accept the proposal

  Becky Burr: (06:42) My proposal is emanating from the principle I stated -

  mike chartier: (06:42) Is the addition of a requirement for rationale still included (hard to tell without all the text).

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:42) the keyword here is compromise

  David McAuley (RySG): (06:42) Agree w/Brett, a good compromise package

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:42) Yes, Mike.   That is part of Rec 11 as well.

  Becky Burr: (06:42) in my specific emails, including in particular the email about the difference between GAC Advice and a PDP

  mike chartier: (06:42) Thanks Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:43) Mike, we have not touched the requirements of Rational

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:43) As you are aware of there is no consensus in the GAC with regard to REC11 but I hope that a compromise will be accepted

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:43) On Rec 11 we had 4 clarifications that we agreed to, before getting to the question of threshold (2/3)

  Brett Schaefer: (06:43) Mike, yes I understood that that was agreed to earlier and would be encompassed by the otherwise the recommendations are unaltered.

  Matthew Shears: (06:43) it is a workable compromise - lets not unpick this

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:43) Julia, We can not address lack of consensus in GAC. That is an issue to be decided by GAC

  Keith Drazek: (06:44) @Malcolm: The GAC as a whole hasn't taken a position and may not ever take a position on Rec 11 (or Rec 1).

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:44) @Malcolm: What is the trade off for the GAC in this proposal, in comparison with the 3rd draft proposal? Why would the GAC be willing to accept this prooposal?  I am sorry I fail to see it...

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:44) +1Julia. If we get back a complete gnso position out of this meeting we will be in a position to consult nationally and discuss in the gac

  Keith Drazek: (06:45) The question is, will the GAC reach consensus to REJECT the proposal.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (06:45) +1 Julia. There is no GAC position

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:46) Negotiation tactics aside, I am convinced GAC will accept 60% in the end if Consensus or Full Consensus

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:46) @Kavouss I stated that there is no consensus in the GAC on rec 11 But I still have hopes for a compromise...

  Keith Drazek: (06:46) Well said, Paul.

  Matthew Shears: (06:46) + 1 Paul

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:47) +1 Jorge

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:47) And I will not object to 60%

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:47) @Keith -- I hope you are  right ...

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:47) agree with Julia's assessment

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:47) I will not object to Becky's current propsal either

  Becky Burr: (06:48) #rd proposal was not the product of complete consensus - but more important the community clearly indicated that it does not accept the 3rd Draft approach

  Becky Burr: (06:48) support from community is required for NTIA proposal

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:48) Evolution through compromise by all.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:48) @ Rafael -- it gets an increase from 50% in the current bylaw to 60%.  It gets a seat at the EC to influeence decisions that are not directly GAC related with an actual vote.  It gets a carve out on accountability in Rec 10

  Jeff Neuman 2: (06:48) It would be good to produce the entire draft including the 4 points Steve referenced earlier.  But good work so far

  Keith Drazek: (06:48) Kavouss is absolutely correct. The version 3 language was a compromise PROPOSAL reached by a small group under very intense pressure. It was understood that the proposal would need consideration by the broader group and ultimately by the chartering organizations.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:48) dear kavouss: rec11 left parts of the gnso and parts of the gac unhappy. any compromise should reflect needs of both parts, not only one part

  James Bladel: (06:48) +1 Kavouss.  THe 3rd Draft is "dead". If we go forward, it will be with some version of this compromise proposal.

  OscarMike: (06:49) +1 Jorge

  Chris Disspain: (06:49) it seems to me that the problem is that the GAC folks don't want to go back with a proposal unless they know the GNSo will agree and the GNSo filks don't want to go back unless they know the GAC will agree

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:49) Yes, I could defend this proposal.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (06:49) Agree with Jeff that a draft complete on all points would be helpful - not in the form of an e-mail but just the actual changes.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:49) shouldn't all be trying to encourage  support forcompromise both in GAC and GNSO

  James Bladel: (06:50) Chris:  One group (RrSG) has indicated it could/would drop its opposition.  We need to reahc a similiar position with other opposiing groups in the GNSO

  Becky Burr: (06:50) We have indications that this can gain support of GNSO

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:50) The gac did not reopen rec11 - it's for the gnso to make a complete proposal

  Keith Drazek: (06:50) Are there any GNSO members or participants on today's call who think the Arasteh/Burr proposal would NOT be acceptable to their groups?

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:50) Well put, Chris. Taking into account the diversity of views inside the GAC; the first step would be to have a proposal (or set of) from the GSNO, as I said previously. Thanks

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:50) That's Paul and my point about jumping together.

  Chris Disspain: (06:50) could we ask the GAc the same thing Kavouss?

  Chris Disspain: (06:51) @ James...understood

  James Bladel: (06:51) +1 Kavouss.  This work is already underway.  Can we ask the GAC members & participants to do the same?

  Phil Buckingham: (06:52) Eaxctly Chris

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:52) Rafael, gNSO has already proposed, status quo of 50%, hence this 60% compromise

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (06:52) Chris, you may forget that GAC reps don't decide in a personal capacity. They are representatives of a governemnt and need to have something on black and white that they can take home to consult (which needs a little bit of time...)

  Keith Drazek: (06:52) We heard from James that he thinks this proposal is heading in the right direction (paraphrasing) and I agree withthat. Others from GNSO have spoken in the same manner. I think that's a good signal to the CCWG and GAC that this could be a  reasonable and acceptable outcome.  No one has yet signaled the opposite.

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:53) @Keith, I think there will still be problems/likelihood of rejection if the GAC does not accept it either; but I believe this could be sold *on the basis* that we all accept it, GAC and GNSO alike

  Chris Disspain: (06:53) @ THOMAS...'you may forget that GAC reps don't decide in a personal capacity'...neither do the GNSO reps

  Keith Drazek: (06:53) @Malcolm: The GAC only has to not reject. It may not reach consensus at all, either way.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:54) Then we may ask those people objecting to join the emerging consensus

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (06:54) @Eberhard: the GNSO has proposed so many things including moving targets that we defenitely need something  final to assess. Thanks.

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (06:54) Rafael: 60% plus Becky's

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:55) +1 Thomas and of course we will do what we can

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (06:55) Like many colleagues, I have to refer up to my minister on final positon on thsi text but GAC colleagues will know UK urges an approach that reaches for community-based compromise rather than reverting to impasse.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:55) ticks are under the mand with the raised hand at the top of the Adobe screen

  Chris Disspain: (06:55) Thomas...if you go for a straw poll - fine - but we need to be VERY clear what proposal we are polling on

  James Bladel: (06:55) +1 Chris.

  Becky Burr: (06:55) the combined proposal on the screen

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:55) +Chris

  Phil Buckingham: (06:55) +1 Chris 

  Keith Drazek: (06:55) Green tick is in support of proposal. Red tick is opposed to proposal.

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:55) +1 Kavouss

  Chris Disspain: (06:55) Fine with me Becky... :-)

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (06:56) @Chris: but maybe you would agree that an average GOV reps's procedures to consult are slightly more complex than those of a average GNSO rep in the CCWG

  Chris Disspain: (06:56) @ Thomas...I may hold you to that view in the future :-)

  Paul Rosenzweig: (06:56) I can't hear Olga

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:56)   Green tick is in favour of seeking consensus on the compromise with the respective community is it not ?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:56) I will step away as this proposal is just being presented and we still lack security on whether this is a final gnso proposal

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (06:56) @Chris: do that :-)

  Becky Burr: (06:56) Olga, the clear version is on the screen. 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:57) Jorge,

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:57) Denmark is a green country!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:57) You may react with that condition as you mentioned

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (06:57) Becky yes thanks now we have it

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:57) in our full written version of this package, please include points 1-4 on the Rec 11 cover page.  Those are the clarifications and the requirement for AC formal advice to have a rationale

  Keith Drazek: (06:57) In lieu of a poll, perhaps we should just ask if anyone has an objection or *feels* their respective group might object/reject. Does anyone feel this is an unworkable solution?

  Keith Drazek: (06:57) But I'm fine with a straw poll.

  Jeff Neuman 2: (06:58) +1 Steve.  I think that will be important

  James Bladel: (06:58) I need to step away from Adboe, but if there is a straw poll, please indicate that I am "GReen" for non-objection to the combined (Becky/Kavouss) proposal.

  Brett Schaefer: (06:58) +1 Steve

  Keith Drazek: (06:58) Agree Steve.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:59) sound is very poor

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:59) Right quesiton Chris

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:59) Noted @ James

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:59) question

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:59) +1 Chris

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (06:59) Agree with Chris' formulation of the question.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:59) +11 Chris

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:00) @ Olga - urge this is dealt with expediently. GAC colleagues need to respond with consensus-based position in advance fo Marrakech. My green tick is in favour of a process to take a decison on this proposal - so similar to what Chris is now saying.

  James Bladel: (07:00) @Chris:  Thomas has chaned both of our names to "Steve" this call.  Please make a note of it. :)

  Chris Disspain: (07:00) @ Gary (James) noted :-)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:00) If we tick green for willingness for compromise we are all green

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (07:00) Consistent with its previous advice, the SSAC will choose not to express comment on this issue, as it is not a security and stability issue.  However, the SSAC strongly supports the urgent move towards consensus and the progress achieved in these last days.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:00) if we have to decide on this gnso proposal, we need to get back for consultations

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (07:01) my iPhone is acting up, and Adobe Connect doesn't have ticks, so please note me as green

  Keith Drazek: (07:01) This is a joint proposal, not a GNSO proposal. Becky and Kavouss.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:02) GAC members of CCWG need to report back from this call so all GAC reps have opportunity to react.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:02) certainly it is not a proposal which responds to something the gac has asked...

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:02) ...to react to the Rec 11 proposal.

  James Bladel: (07:02) @Jorge - to my understanding, the GAC (as a group) has not made a proposal, but rather from individual GAC members.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (07:03) I would say the part put forward by Kavouss belongs exclusively to him

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:03) What I proposed was as a CCWG Participant

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:04) Robin - Are you in a position to explain why?

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (07:04) Please see earlier SSAC comment to abstain

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:04) I cant tick and am not a member but would tick green if I could

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:04) I am also not a member but I would have ticked green

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:04) BC is Green, but I cannot speak for IPC and ISPCP yet.

  Avri Doria: (07:04) i did not think they were asking just members.

  Keith Drazek: (07:05) Me either Avri. This is a temperature-taking of the entire room.

  Chris Disspain: (07:05) It's pretty clear folks feel comfortable taking the Becky/Kavouss proposal back to their community...

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (07:05) its a poll of all not just members, but since there is no red it implies tyebmembers too

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (07:06) and Consenus includes participants

  Becky Burr: (07:06) is "stepping away" code for "not committing"??

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:06) I have the green too

  Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (07:06) @Becky For SSAC members it means "abstain"

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:06) +1 to lyman

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (07:06) @Becky: i have no mandate from the GAC to express any opinion on this. hence i need to step away

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (07:07) Good idea Thomas - best to hear them out on this.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:07) Brenda ,May you indicate me as Green

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:07) For me it is as I am not a voting member, but am happy this is positive movement

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:07) we are not expressing an opinion just offering to take it back to community to seek consensus view

  Chris Disspain: (07:07) exactly Megan

  Keith Drazek: (07:07) I think anyone ticking red *should* explain. This may be the last opportunity to do so before we finalize the next and possibly final iteration.

  Eberhard Lisse [ccTLD Manager . NA]: (07:07) I am not stepping away, I am leaving. Day job...

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:07) Exactly Megan

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (07:07) +1 Megan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:08) I don't have audio, but I don't think it is appropriate for GAC to use this accountability process to get greater power at ICANN relative to the other groups.

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:08) WIth Megan's clarification, I have changed to green

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:08) I think people are still unclear on what we have opined on

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:08) Agree with Megan;' we're being asked if we will take the text back to our communities, and we're not taking a position on the substance of the proposal

  mike chartier: (07:09) in the interim we should publish ASAP complete text

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (07:10) Agree with Megan and Suzanne

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (07:10) actually, what about those who did not agree or disagree or step away?

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:10) It would be great if the version on the screen could include all of the changes, including those to recommendation 11 as agreed in prior calls (i.e., providing a clear rationale, etc.)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:10) Thomas: please record Suz and Megan's clarifications, which are quite relevant

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:10) Is GNSO community now confirming at least there is no other proposal to consider in parallel - and bearign inmind time is pressing for finalising supplementary report.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (07:12) Agree strongly with Jeff -  all previously agreed changes should be reflected as to Rec 11 so that everyone is presenting the identical proposal to their groups.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:12) @Mark -- I knwo of no other proposal being pursued in GNSO

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:12) I feel that we do not know whether the poll was on good intentions or on this gnso proposal...

  Keith Drazek: (07:13) I think the question is, Who will take this back to their groups and recommend rejection? Perhaps we can ask that question on the list after the final text is frozen.

  Chris Disspain: (07:13) Kavouss +1

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:13) good work - Thomas!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:13) Thx all! Bye!

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:13) Thomas - Can we please get the full version?

  Keith Drazek: (07:13) Agree with the approach, thanks Thomas, thanks all.

  Jeff Neuman 2: (07:13) The version with all of the changes from prior meetings

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (07:14) Thank you Thomas re full veresion!

  Paul Rosenzweig: (07:14) Well done Thomas ....

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:14) Thomas, thanks!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:14) Thanks all and bye for now!

  Matthew Shears: (07:14) thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:14) bye  for now then...

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:14) Thanks Thomas and all

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (07:14) Impressive commitment to building concensus.  Well-done all!

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:15) Cheers all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:15) bye

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:15) bye!

  Brett Schaefer: (07:15) thanks all, bye

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:15) Cheers!

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:15) bye all

  Avri Doria: (07:15) bye - back to sleep now.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (07:15) thank you all

  Harold Arcos: (07:15) bye

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:15) bye.  Hurray!

  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (07:15) bye all

  OscarMike: (07:15) Bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:15) bye

  Rosemary Fei (Adler Colvin): (07:15) Bye

  Aarti Bhavana: (07:15) Bye all