Attendees: 

Members:    Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (17)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Alberto Soto, Alisa Cooper, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Bradley Silver, Brett Schaefer, Christopher Wilkinson, David Maher, David McAuley, Don Moody, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzanah Badii, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, James Gannon, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Lousewies van der Laan, Malcolm Hutty, Niels ten Oever, Pedro da Silva, Peter Van Roste, Phil Buckingham, Rafael Perez Galindo, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Stephen Deerhake, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tracy Hackshaw, Vrikson Acosta   (36)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rebecca Grapsas, Rosemary Fei, Steven Chiodini   (6)

Observers and Guests:  Alexandra Kulikova, John Poole, Jabhera Matogoro, Navid Heyrani

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Elizabeth Andrews, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Larisa Gurnick, Melissa King, Mandy Carver, Margie Milam, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Andrew Sullivan, Philip Corwin

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

Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1.  Welcome, roll call, SOI 

2.  Outline of next steps 

3.  Discussion of CCWG Responses to public consultation on draft Bylaws 

4.  CCWG general direction of submission     

5.  AOB 

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.

Summary of Action Items:

  • Action item – Bylaws section 1.1.D - “Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to”. Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership.
  • Action Item – Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) – “Wording of Human Rights text”.  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
  • Action Item – Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting.
  • Action Item – Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation.

1.  Welcome, roll call, SOI

  • KDrazek phone only
  • No SOI updates

2.  Outline of next steps (TR)

  • CCWG comments should only include those supported by the group overall.
  • The general tone of our comments should be supportive.

3.  Discussion of CCWG Responses to public consultation on draft Bylaws (co-chairs)

  • WHOIS review vs 5 year requirement - AG this has to be NOTED as a minimum. Relation to RDS. JGannon this is not the job of the CCWG to fix - but needs to be noted. GS there may be reasons to postpone reviews. MW general agreement to note in CCWG comments.
  • Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language - Suggested fix GShatan: The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority."  That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer to?"  I support this fix. TR supported. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Bylaws section 1.1.D -  Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to. BBurr this is a significant concern. KDrazek - ICG has discussed this and is more than just PTI but also includes the IETF and IAB and the ICG will be submitting a comment on this. KArasteh serious issue for ICG. TR concerned parties should be the ones making the comments. ACooper the concerns arise because they are not in the ICG or CCWG proposal - therefore this is not consistent with the CCWG recommendations. It would be worth the CCWG taking a broader view. KArasteh - needs to be raised. TR difficult situation - many expect an answer - we need to state what was in our report. MW the CCWG comment can confirm what was in the CCWG report (RA and RAA and renewals) and note that there are other reports which are not in our recommendations. AGreenberg could ask the Chartering Organizations to comment on this topic. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Action item – Bylaws section 1.1.D - “Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to”. Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership.
  • Bylaws 1.1(d)ii(A)(1) –Includes grandfathering RA and RAA agreements that are not yet signed. BBurr explained what is in the CCWG proposal. May need to go back to original draft of the Bylaws.  MW RA and RAA agreements are covered but the wording should be reviewed. BBurr should not allow renewal of agreements that are not in the Form. KArasteh - need to be careful as grandfathering has been expanded. Bschaefer - BB has properly explained the situation and the fix should address this - looking forward to seeing new text. Concern that renewals could take the agreements beyond the scope of the mission. AGreenberg - agree with general thrust. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws 1.1.(d).ii.(F) – Arguing against renewal as drafted - MW if the agreements are removed because they were not in the CCWG report this would fix this issue. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws 6.1.(b) – Expand examples - SEisner - earlier parts name those participants so there is no need to do so here. JHammer, no need to call out SSAC. TR this will not be on the CCWG comments. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws 22.8 - Why does this specify that the Decisional Participants have to decide by consensus? LS - Phrase "by consensus" should struck. No comments, accepted for CCWG comments. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws 22.8 – Board power to redact should not be as significant as proposed.MW. There was no such power in the CCWG recommendations. BSchaefer suggestion to remove "including". KArasteh why should we object to this. BSchaefer as written it leaves it open to the Board's discretion to define what can be redacted. AGreenberg - support removal but if it is removed the list may have to be expanded. Approved for CCWG comment removing INCLUDING. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4.(b)TR. KArateh not convinced. Carve out is a very sensitive issue. IMittemaier (Adler) GAC carve out could apply to an approval. BSchaefer the GAC carve out could apply and this is necessary for clarification. KArasteh cannot agree with this as I do not see how this could apply to approvals. TR this seems to be a point only supported by BS, as such we should encourage BS to file his comment individually. SEisner this was discussed by lawyers and although it applies it would not change the thresholds therefore it did not add anything to include it. TR comment should be that the CCWG ask the Board to check with legal if this is required. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2.(c).(i).(A) – Specific rationales not required in all CCWG Recommendations MW - BSchaefer - need to be clear on the type of rationale that is required and where.  AGreenberg - restrictions only apply to rejecting Budget and Strat Plans. Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): Proposal - Annex 2 - Para 32 bullet 3 says "petitioning Decisional Participants will circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants" MW more work is needed to match the recommendations to the Bylaws. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Approval of Human Rights FOI. LS - Suggested approach – replace ii in draft Bylaws with: “and approved by the CCWG using the same process as for WS1 recommendations.” KArasteh - need to be explicit that any decision needs to be approved by chartering organizations. I prefer explicit approval by chartering orgs. GShatan what needs to be clear there is no different process vs WS1 or all other WS2 recommendations. Lets just make this clear. TBenJemaa - Would like to stick with the final report. Simply add AS PER THE CHARTER OF THE CCWG after Chartering Organizations. LS our lawyers should provide what should be the best solution for the comment to ensure clarity. TBenJemaa the current draft is from the lawyers it must be with the input.  Will be the subject of a CCWG comment -  : LS ask lawyers to clarify that there is no need for approval by all COs, but same CO approval requirement as current CCWG charter. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) – Wording of Human Rights text LS - Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): "herein" refers to 27.3 of the Bylaws, and that could be substituted for "herein". BSchaefer the herein eviscerates the limitation and creates the opportunity to have a basis for filing. KArasteh - RF was correct, please do not use herein. Agree with the suggestion. LS Seem to be agreement with the proposal by RF. BSchaefer disagrees with RF suggestion, prefers to remove. LS disagree. JGannon - have come around to BS thinking. KArasteh - cannot agree with LS proposal.  We do not need this sentence at all. LS will ask the lawyers to explain their rationale for this text on the list so we can conclude on this topic.
  • Action Item – Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) – “Wording of Human Rights text”.  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
  • IRP provisions - six month clause.MW TBenJemaa - This means that even if the panel takes 2 years to issue its decision, nothing can be done. My proposal is to remove the last part, and in the Rule of Procedure, we define the nature of the circumstances that may prevent the panel to issue its decision in 6 months, and the maximum extension that could be given to the IRP according to the nature of the circumstance to complete its proceedings. HGregory - We are happy to remove that sentence that was put in by ICANN legal (we did not disagree with them including it.). However, it is important to note that there cannot be an IRP on an IRP failure - as such the statement is true but redundant. SEisner - We are all in violent agreement that it should conclude in six months but there could be circumstances where this cannot be done. However, given the IRP is in the Bylaws and not meeting the six month limit could allow someone to challenge ICANN is not meeting Bylaws requirements. We just want to avoid this situation. HGregory - SE makes a good point - IRP is available when the Bylaws are not met - bringing an IRP against ICANN on this should be judged frivolous. So I understand the concern and the sentence that is there does fix the problem. It does not address the issue that the development of IRP rules needs to encourage the panel to complete its deliberations in the allotted time. MW we understand the underlying concern and would hope that it can be addressed in a different way? Do we submit a comment that there could be an issue? KArasteh - can we list some possible exceptions? TBenJemaa - ok with what was said. MW our comment will point to this text as not the correct way to translate the recommendations into bylaws and recognize the potential for a claim and request the lawyers address this. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
  • BSchaefer - the last point in my email about the Ombudsman to offer relief in an RFR. TR the point may have merit but we can only verify if the Draft Bylaws meet the CCWG recommendations and so our hands our tied. However, the Ombudsman process will be reviewed in WS2. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.

4.  CCWG general direction of submission    

  • TR we will submit our comments on May 10th. We will begin work on the comments now and will advise soon when we will distribute to the group for a 72 hour comment period.
  •  Action Item – Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting.
  • AGreenberg what happens after the public comment. What happens if there are conflicting comments. We will take this up with the Bylaws drafting team. TR we will discuss this with the drafting team.
  • Action Item – Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation.

5.  AOB

  • None

Conclusion of the meeting

Action Items

  • Action Item – Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) – “Wording of Human Rights text”.  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
  • Action Item – Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) – “Wording of Human Rights text”.  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
  • Action Item – Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting.
  • Action Item – Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation.

Documents

  • Bylaws Issues Presentation   PPT    |   PDF

Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (5/3/2016 13:45) Good day all and welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 on 3 May 2016 @ 19:00 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

  Niels ten Oever: (13:54) Hello all

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:55) Hi All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (13:56) Hi

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) Hi all

  James Gannon: (13:57) Yo

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:57) Hi!

  Sabine Meyer: (13:58) hello everyone

  Becky Burr: (13:58) hello all

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:58) Hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (13:59) Indeed!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:59) hello all

  James Gannon: (13:59) Im glad thats not on the recording =)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:59) hello all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:00) Tuesday Noon whistle in San Francisco going off.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:01) Hello, everyone.

  Greg Shatan: (14:02) Hello, all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:02) hi

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:02) Who is planning the celebration of the 100th call?

  Sabine Meyer: (14:03) I'm afraid that's every person for themselves, Rosemary :)

  Erika Mann: (14:03) I'm on but my name is not showing

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:03) Rosemary, we plan to form a celebration working party. Are you in ?

  James Gannon: (14:03) I think I will break out a cheap bottle of procecco for that one Rosemary =)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:03) LOL, Rosemary.  ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:03) :-)

  Brett Schaefer: (14:03) I'm holding out for the 1,000th meeting

  James Gannon: (14:04) Brett, now thats the spirit =)

  Sabine Meyer: (14:04) Is that 1000 metric or imperial, though?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:08) ;-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (14:08) hello everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (14:09) apologies for joining late

  Olga Cavalli (GAC Argentina): (14:09) Hola Leon

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (14:11) Hola Olga! Felicidades Sra. Miembro del BoT de ISOC!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:13) enhorabuena!

  Phil Buckingham: (14:13) Good evening, apologies for my lateness

  Avri Doria: (14:16) i endorse Alan's leglistic interpretation.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:16) Just to clarify, the CCWG Recommendation is in Annex 09, rather than 06.

  Avri Doria: (14:17) even though i am comfortable with not postponing and having a lvel setting run of the review

  Olga Cavalli (GAC Argentina): (14:17) Gracias Leon, gracias Jorge!

  Alan Greenberg: (14:18) It is also not good governance to waste resources. Particularly when thoseresources are being contributed at no cost by the community.

  Edward Morris: (14:18) Agree with Greg. Postponing the review is not good governance.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:18) use the green ticks widely

  Greg Shatan: (14:19) Widely, or wisely?

  Alan Greenberg: (14:19) If green tick marks count, they MUST be entered into the record. As it is, they are transient and unrecorded.

  Sabine Meyer: (14:19) As long as it's not excessively ;)

  James Gannon: (14:19) +1 Alan otherwise its pointless

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:19) @Greg Wildly

  Greg Shatan: (14:21) @Sabine, :-)

  James Gannon: (14:22) +1 and thats reflected in CWG discussions also Becky

  Sabine Meyer: (14:22) Just trying to safeguard the process :D

  Becky Burr: (14:22) I think we should defer to IETF on that point

  Brett Schaefer: (14:23) I thought htis was two issues, first that they were not yet drafted so the content was unknown and second that they should be within the mission and shoudl be subject to IRP challenge

  Becky Burr: (14:23) Brett, your point on the grandfathering comes up on the next slide

  Alissa Cooper: (14:24) Is there a pointer somewhere to CCWG discussions specifically about grandfathering *renewals* of the RA/RAA agreements? That has also come up on the ICG list.

  James Gannon: (14:24) Copying Andrews email to the list just now also

  James Gannon: (14:24) Nevertheless, in response to the materials for today, I am verystrongly in favour of the suggestion for handling section 1.1.D --removing everything except that which was in the report to be"grandfathered".I believe this is the only thing the bylaws drafting was supposed todo, since it was supposed to implement the things the reportrecommended.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:24) @Becky, OK thx

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:25) How are RA's that are "unsigned" different from those that are being negotiated,  please?

  Becky Burr: (14:26) Rosemary, i think that the point is that they need to relate to 2013 new gTLD applicants and use the 2013 form.  don't know what the carve out for terms and conditions not in the form agreement means/encompasses

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:27) Thanks, Becky. 

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:28) Renewals are governed by the terms of the existing agreements, which essentially require ICANN to renew.  ICANN cannot change those requirements unilaterally.

  Becky Burr: (14:29) yes, renewals must be accomodated

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:31) Good point Alan

  Jordan Carter: (14:31) hi all, on Adobe now

  Alissa Cooper: (14:31) I didn't think anyone was asking for changes to the report, but rather changes to the bylaws.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:32) SInce we all have scrolling capability. Please identify WHICH POINT is th next point. that we are discussing.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:33) Slide 8 & 9

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:35) Becky, even for agreements already in force?

  Samantha Eisner: (14:35) @Becky, weren't those "other terms and conditions" for the legacy agreements?

  Becky Burr: (14:36) well, tell us what you are worried about??

  Samantha Eisner: (14:36) i.e., those agreements that are in existence but not on the form

  Becky Burr: (14:36) any existing agreements are grandfathered, all terms and conditions.

  Becky Burr: (14:36) all future signed agreements follow the form

  Becky Burr: (14:37) just need to clarify

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:38) So as to existing agreements, everything in them is grandfathered.  As to unsigned agreements, only terms and conditions that are part of the form are grandfathered, correct?

  Becky Burr: (14:38) all of the agreements are evergreen and ICANN must have the ability to renew

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:39) The renewal provisions are in the form

  Becky Burr: (14:39) yes Alan

  Brett Schaefer: (14:40) @Becky, so clean renewals are fine, but changed terms have to be within scope and mission?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:41) Text in the draft Bylaws prior to the parenthetical covers them.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:42) The parenthetical is examples, and exhaustive.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:42) Thanks Rosemary

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:42) Sorry, NOT exhaustive!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:44) Slide 12

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:45) Thx Brett seems we OK then

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:45) slide 13

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:46) slide 14

  Alan Greenberg: (14:48) We have always said that each AC/SO makes decisions by their own methods

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) Agree with Brett's suggestion.

  James Gannon: (14:51) Non exhaustive list is open to potential abuse

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:51) And rationals for redactions must be made.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (14:52) absolutly Robin

  Edward Morris: (14:53) 0

  Edward Morris: (14:53) .....

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) Greed

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:53) Terms like "confidential information" is very vague.  Whatever the board deems "confidential"?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) Agree with explanation given

  James Gannon: (14:53) +1 Brett

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:54) It's my 15

  Alan Greenberg: (14:54) 15

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:55) slide 15 on screen, slide 16 is set of slides Bernie sent

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:55) slide 16 IN set that bernie sent

  CW: (14:58) On a first reading, the comment on Section 1.4 (b) is totally incmprehensible. CW

  Alan Greenberg: (14:59) Note that the middle of 3 third-level bullets on the slide is extraneous.

  Greg Shatan: (15:01) I hope that someone reading Section 1.4(b) will understand that the GAC Carve-out applies, without an express reference to it.  The EC will need a good parliamentarian/secretariat/support.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:02) @Greg, yes, it is good to be specific.

  Greg Shatan: (15:02) Of course, the GAC Carveout applies to approval of a Bylaw, if the Bylaw is based on GAC Advice.

  James Gannon: (15:02) ^^^

  CW: (15:02) Greg: no such understanding. What is an Approval Action?

  Farzaneh Badiei: (15:02) Gacophobia

  Greg Shatan: (15:03) No matter how many roofs or windows you throw yourself out of....

  Brett Schaefer: (15:03) Now Kavouss is arguing that teh carve-out does not apply to approval actions? This is why we need this spelled out.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:03) :-)

  Greg Shatan: (15:03) CW, read the Bylaws.  It's defined there.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:03) I support Brett's comment.

  James Gannon: (15:04) As do I

  James Gannon: (15:04) Its a common sense reflection

  Greg Shatan: (15:04) Agree with Brett.  If there's any room for Kavouss's misinterpretation in the eyes of any reader, we need to be explicit in this section.  Sadly.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:04) I agree with Ingrid and with Sam

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:04) Greg, it is explicit in 3.6.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:05) The phrase "any adjustments" does not assume there are any, but that there may be some.

  Greg Shatan: (15:05) I think it needs to be expressed in 1.4(b), or there should be an express cross reference to 3.6.  At the very least.

  James Gannon: (15:05) Ok but it needs to to go in our report

  Greg Shatan: (15:05) I think a cross-reference might satisfy all parties.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:06) Yes, as James said, this needs to be clearly said in our report.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:06)    NO CHANGE         

  James Gannon: (15:06) Perect thanks!

  James Gannon: (15:06) Just wanted to double check

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (15:07) :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (15:07) Chair juggling

  Greg Shatan: (15:07) I prefer chainsaws.

  Jordan Carter: (15:08) have to leave - see you all next time

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:08) Look at Proposal Annex 2 pages 7-8

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:09) Annex 2, pages 7-8:  petitioning decisional participant must circulate a detailed rationale for proposing use of community power

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:10) Holly is referring to Paragraph 32, bullet 3

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:10) Again I support Brett's clarifying proposal.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:11) Proposal - Annex 2 - Para 32 bullet 3 says "petitioning Decisonal Participantwill circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisionsl Participants"

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:11) Kavouss, we are not discussing that point now!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (15:11) Of course Kavouss we will go to you in our next agenda item

  Brett Schaefer: (15:12) @Holly, but not what the basis of that rationale must be to be a valid exercise of the power

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:13) Thanks Holly - had missed this point

  James Gannon: (15:13) Getting hard to hear Leon

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:13) correct @Brett -- just that a detailed rationale for proposing the use of the Community Power will be given by the petioning Decisional Participant to all other Decisional Participants

  Brett Schaefer: (15:14) Yes, which is why I suggested reverting to a requirement for a rationale and not spelling out criteria

  Alan Greenberg: (15:14) @Holly, yes, but that is for the purpose of gaining support. I don't tthink we required that rationale be given along with the overall rejection. Indeed, it is concievable that an AC/SO could support the rejection of a Bylaw for a completely differnet reason thatn the originating AC/SO used.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:14) where is the info from the last slide on HR comes from? Did I miss the discussion? ("except as provided herein" wording)

  Brett Schaefer: (15:15) Tanya, I made that point.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:15) Ah thanks for the explanation Brett

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:16) I don't think anyone discriminates GAC here

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:17) at least not in the bylaw text

  Niels ten Oever: (15:17) And not on mailinglist

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:17) Kavouss, is your position that all Chartering Organizations must approve the FOI-HR?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:18) I did not interpret this way Rosemary

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:18) Exactly, it was just a historical example, I think going into this discussion leads us nowhere

  James Gannon: (15:18) We cant draft bylaws on misunderstandings, I support the proposed approach

  Greg Shatan: (15:18) Kavouss, if you are referring to my email, you are completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting it.  I said nothing remotely similar to what you said.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:18) Let's move off this discussion and focus on text

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:18) Greg, I think it's clear to everyone except Kavouss...

  Avri Doria: (15:18) didn't our charter have language that defined this conditon, and can't that same langauge be used since we want it to be the same?

  Niels ten Oever: (15:19) Exactly

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:20) +1 Greg - make reference to COs that it is same as in WS1

  CW: (15:20) @Rosemary: CCWG is an useful forum but it is not a legislature. At the very least, the Chartering organisations have to endorse or demur ... CW

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:20) Well, but if the bylaw mistakenly requires full endorsement, it shall be corrected - I think everyone agrees that such correction is needed

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:20) I agree Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:21) and agree with what Greg said of course

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:21) Agree with Greg.  We knew all along that unanimious approval was not required.

  James Gannon: (15:21) Agree with greg

  Niels ten Oever: (15:21) +1 to Greg

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:21) Tijani's language seems right

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:22) I would like to see the language before agreeing with Tijani...

  James Gannon: (15:22) 8 min warning =)

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:23) The COs are not being given special rights but nor are they being cut out from this process – it is as in WS1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:23) 1 slide after this + a non slide matter

  Greg Shatan: (15:23) P.S.: I love the GAC.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:23) + IRP / 6 month issue

  Brett Schaefer: (15:23) The current bylaw text implies approval by all COs is required. My recollection is that we had agreed that we would use WS1 processes to approve it. I will say, however, that CO support would be desirable.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:24) we said we would handle of WS2 the same as WS1.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:24) Greg, it seems that you contributed to phobia of GACophobia with your email :)

  Brett Schaefer: (15:24) Calification -- support of ALL COs would be desirable.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:24) Dang, mis-typed again. Meant clarification.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:24) Brett, Calification is a good term under Cal law

  Brett Schaefer: (15:25) @David :-)

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:25) "herein" refers to 27.3 of the Bylaws, and that could be substituted for "herein"

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:26) Agree with Rosemary

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:26)     I fully suppirt Tijani thatz the rtext provided by lawyer as it is norw IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

  Brett Schaefer: (15:27) So if 27.3 says that ICANN should create an obligation then that would be OK?

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:27) Brett, but if there is no "herein", there is no sense in this bylaw, no?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:28) 27.3(b) is what I should have said.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:28) but it obligates to respond to requests that are based on the bylaw?

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:29) and applicable law?

  Greg Shatan: (15:29) There is no herein, because this sentence refers only to the "enforcement" of human rights.  ICANN's obligation is to "respect " Human Rights.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:30) Apologies, but I must move to phone only as I dash to the airport

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:30) noted Holly

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (15:31) I agree with Brett

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:31) +1 Greg

  Brett Schaefer: (15:32) I do not think Rosemary's proposal work

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:32) I am not sure Rosemary's proposal solves Brett's concern...

  Greg Shatan: (15:32) What does 27.3(b) say?

  Becky Burr: (15:32) what slide are we on?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:32) 18

  James Gannon: (15:32) Last one Becky

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:32) Yes last

  Becky Burr: (15:32) thanks James

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (15:32) again I agree with Brett

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:33) Hm, I am converted. I agree with Brett.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:33) Without excepting 27.3 (b), you create an inconsistency between 1.2(b)(viii) and 27.3(b).

  James Gannon: (15:33) Yup I am also now converted

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]\: (15:33) @Greg -- 27.3 is where we describe the creation of a Human Rights FOI

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:33) but FOI can't provide for enforcement of HR anyway

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:33) thsi is what we were trying to avoid

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:34) (converted me speaking)

  Niels ten Oever: (15:34) FoI only described how ICANN will respect human rights

  Niels ten Oever: (15:34) *describes

  CW: (15:34) @Brett: What you say is highly political. CCWG is way out of its depth here. Forget it. CW

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:34) ehm, nope I disagree with removal of the word enforcement :O

  Anne Aikman-Scalese: (15:34) The issue will be how the word "respect" is interpreted in the FOI.

  Greg Shatan: (15:34) I suggest the "except as provided" language should come after "additional obligations for ICANN" and not at the end of the sentence.

  Brett Schaefer: (15:35) @CW, not sure what youmean?

  Ingrid Mittermaier: (15:35) Section 27.3.  HUMAN RIGHTS(a)         The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights (“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i) the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2, (ii) each of the CCWG-Accountability’s chartering organizations and (iii) the Board (in the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to consider the Work Stream 1 Recommendations).(b)   No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR contemplated by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN or the Board that occurred prior to the effectiveness of the FOI-HR.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:35) agree with Greg.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:35) I share Brett and James' concern on this point.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:35) and with James

  James Gannon: (15:35) Sorry, agree with Brett

  Niels ten Oever: (15:36) me too

  Greg Shatan: (15:36) sorry only on adobe now.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:36) 27.3(b):  No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2 or the IRP provided in Setion 4.3 based solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set for in Section 1.2(b)(viii) --UNTIL  after the FOI-HR contemplated by Section 27.3(a) is in place . . .

  Greg Shatan: (15:36) ok, herein is too vague.

  James Gannon: (15:37) I think that we may need a rewording to solve this problem rather than a striking

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:37) This is not dissimilar from argument over grandfathering – this “except” refers ultimately to WS2 work that does not yet exist.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese: (15:37) AGree with David

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:37) David, but the work can't include enforcement in any case

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:38) agree Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:38) may be we can move this discussion to the list

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:38) because I don't think it's likely we solve this now

  Brett Schaefer: (15:38) ICANN should not be enforceing HR. Any caveat to that is concerning.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese: (15:38) IRP is a form of enforcement I think

  James Gannon: (15:38) Thats why I think we need a rewording to accomodate

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:38) IRP is only for enforcing obligation to respect I assume

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:39) though am open for any other thoughts

  Greg Shatan: (15:39) Correct, Tanya.

  Niels ten Oever: (15:39) I think we solve it with striking the sentence though as proposed by Brett, enforcement of HR is a role of states, not ICANN.

  Greg Shatan: (15:39) IMHO

  Anne Aikman-Scalese: (15:39) Again it comes back to definition of "respect" which will be developed in FOI work to come.

  Greg Shatan: (15:39) We need to get Aretha Franklin as an expert on this subject,

  Erika Mann: (15:39) Brett, I think you said it in the right way, ICANN should not be enforcing HR

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:39) Greg, I thought your rewording suggestion earlier on the chat looked ok

  Niels ten Oever: (15:39) just a little

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) Leon

  Greg Shatan: (15:40) :-)

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:40) Niels :)

  Greg Shatan: (15:40) Tanya, thanks -- the problem with the second sentence is that it contains two thoughts.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) I disagree the inclusion of " except as provided herein "

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) We do not need that

  Niels ten Oever: (15:40) You mean you agree Kavouss?

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:40) Greg, this is why I feel a bit lost now

  Greg Shatan: (15:41) I partially agree with Kavouss, the "except as" should be more explicit than "herein" and should come after the  first clause of the second sentence.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:43)   NIELS, i do not agree to add any type of exception

  Alan Greenberg: (15:43) OUr IRPs have a history of ignoring the IRP rules with impunity.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:46) I trust that will change with SoP's post WS2

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:47) On this occasion, I agree with Samantha/ICANN legal: if I were a complainant facing a late IRP, I would allege that ICANN had failed in its duty to provide a mechanism for enforcing timeliness by the IRP. We should provide for that, so I agree with Samantha for proposing this language (or something similar)

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:48) In other words, there should be an incentive to complete an IRP quickly, and sanction for failure, but it's not an IRP

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:48) An incentive/sanction remains to be developed

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:48) And we should try to avoid meta-litigation

  Greg Shatan: (15:52) who would be sanctioned? the panelists?

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:54) Good question, Greg, that remains to be answered.

  Farzaneh Badiei: (15:55) This question is also related to the independence of panellists. if the disputant wants to challenge the panellists independence where should they go ? California court?

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:56) Greg, surely not. The contention would have to be phrased as a complaint against ICANN. So, "by failing to make rules for the IRP that provided an enforceable mechanism for ensuring timeliness, ICANN has failed to uphold its own six months standard for IRP returns. Accordingly, ICANN should be instructed to enter a new rules-making process to correc this"

  Brett Schaefer: (15:56) For the record, this is the point I raised on RFR -- •               4.2 -- The CCWG draft does not provide for interim relief or stay in the case of a request for reconsideration. However, the possibility for harm with no adequate remedy exists for such cases just as it does for the IRP, which does provide such an option. Adding similar protections, at the determination of the Ombudsman, to the reconsideration process in instances where the request is not summarily dismissed would seem to be consistent with the intent of the CCWG report although it is not expressly stated. Should the CCWG public comment suggest granting the Ombudsman authority to confer interim relief during the reconsideration process? 

  Brett Schaefer: (15:57) WIll the review of the Ombudsman be able to address his role and powers in teh RFR process?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:57) @Brett ; yes that us in the scope

  Brett Schaefer: (15:58) @Mathieu, thx

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:58) Thx all!Bye!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (15:58) Great progress everyone!  More on list  and of course after we get the CCWG Comment Draft after this calls work... Bye for now then... Talk Soon.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:59) Thanks all, bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:59) Thanks all, bye.

  Greg Shatan: (15:59) Bye all

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:59) Bye, all.

  Avri Doria: (15:59) bye

  James Gannon: (15:59) thanks all

  Samantha Eisner: (15:59) @Farzaneh, the issue of independence of individual panelists and requirements for disclosure of potential conflicts is already built into the IRP

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO) 2: (15:59) Thanks bye

  Brett Schaefer: (15:59) bye

  Samantha Eisner: (15:59) Bye

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:59) thanks bye all