CCWG ACCT Meeting #12 (12 February)

---

Link to the ICANN 52 page: http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #12 12 FEB Singapore.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT 12 FEB Singapore.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1in3c0xka4/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-11feb15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, roll call & SOI

2. Input received during the week

    - Engagement session

    - Other sessions

3. WP1 / WP2 way forward

4. Legal group update

5. WP-ST progress

    - review of the 5 stress test examples

6. Timeline

7. Next steps

    - F2F

    - Communication

8. AOB

9. Closing remarks

Notes

Notes  CCWG meeting #12 (Thursday, 12 February)

Item 1. Welcome, roll call & SOI

No updates

Item 2. Input received during the week

ASO.  Discussed with the NRO AC.

1.  any proposed solution should not be a delaying factor for IANA trans

2.  simple with minimal change

3.  not interfere wont the IANA number function

4.  not interfere with the consensus based decision of the operational community

 

ALAC no formal discussion.  Pleasure speed of work. AFRALO statement (Aziz Hilali) (see CCWG meeting #12 page

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188)

Accountability mechanisms should be

1, base don MS approach including genre and other diversity

2. must be implemented once adopted

3. avoid bringing ore changes to the organization

4. preserve the MS modeled, make sure the community remains accountable

5. no prove of one party of anther

6. preserve the security and stability of the Internet

 

LAC RALO

• Must be mindful of cost
• Mindful of not creating excess bureaucracy

 

GAC.  From Communique

<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMMUNIQUE_FINAL.pdf>

 

1. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to develop the proposals for enhancing ICANN¹s accountability, with reporting back to the

GAC and guidance on major issues from the GAC as a whole;

2. The GAC will work to identify particular issues for governments as both individual or collective participants in any new or enhanced mechanisms;

3. The next stage of the GAC input to relevant work streams will include public policy principles that could guide development of any new or

enhanced accountability mechanisms;

4. The GAC will contribute to the work of the CCWG towards a consensus proposal for submission to the ICANN Board.

 

Both processes will have the highest priority for GAC inter-sessional work, the GAC being mindful of the updated timeline."

 

ccNSO

 

CCWG ccNSO members engaged in an information session. Some concerns

raised, not necessarily a position of the  ccNSO:

1.  need for complicity and not adding complexity

2.  risk of adding bureaucracy and paralyze ICANN

3.  case where ICANN might relegate a ccTLD outside policy

4.  need for coord with the CWG

5.  one member expressed the view that the CCWG was in wrong direction, and shield reconsider its approach

 

• CCWH co-chairs engagement with the 2 advisors here Jan Scholte and Ira Magaziner. need for simplicity, that the outcome will be widely read and so needs be
  easily understandable 
• inclusiveness of the ICANN model should be on our radar as a key goal.
• Legal contingencies,
• Financial contingencies

Input on the scoping document from Jan Scholte, Willie Currie and Nell

Minow

ACTION:  to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors

 

GNSO briefing

 

    - Engagement session

 

Feedback suggests CCWG in control and asking the right questions

Input (ICANN Fellow) keep accountability procedures and improvements as

simple as possible. How to create simple and precise accountability

procedures.

Canadian remote hub: include recommendations from the At Large Summit,

London ICANN meeting (this has been done)

 

   - Other sessions

 

Item 3. WP1 / WP2 way forward

 

New slide deck on working process (see CCWG Meeting #12 page

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188). To

explain how the work of the group was sticking together

 

There is a difference between doing something simple and doing something simplistic

 

Principle and bylaws: there are some things that won't fit in the bylaws.

 

The process presented is consistent with the messages from the community which were strongly in favor of simple clear processes.  And appreciated the graphic representation.

 

Concern that it was rapidly moving in the direction of a solution

 

A skeleton to enable the minimal changes we need to move forward

 

GAC. Presentation triggers a few questions: What is the role of

governments in all this.  And underline the importance of inclusiveness.

Presents a clear story of what we are doing

About feedback.  To archive simplicity might not mean making minimal

changes. More effective mechanisms might mean a significant program of

change to leave the organization better off.

Care that not everything may fit in the boxes, it is a story-telling tool,

and not prejudge ongoing work.

Contacts are the only truly binding acc models to date and not captured in

the diagram.

Chairs' intention was to guide you through the presentation

 

Not just bylaws buy bylaws policies contracts. Not just about splining the

board.  Escalation only if all other fails.  Role of governments, not

included as proscriptive to single out any particular stakeholder.

 

Suggestions on how to organize our work:

 

Based on the straw man document.

 

ACTION:  Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki

 

Refer to standard rather than principles.  Creating and normative

statement of how we want the community to inter-related.

WS1 is before the transition, WP1 and WP2 may need to disappear and wrap

the work into the new recipe and templates.

Start work early on mechanisms on how the community empowered.

A consistent community structure that exercises these powers, ensure

consistency in structures.

 

Item 4. Legal group update

Legal sub-group met, Robin Gross holding the pen to draft the first scoping document on questions for external legal advice

Item 5. WP-ST progress

 review of the 5 stress test examples 

Examples:

Test 14. Termination of the AoC by ICANN or NTIA.

ACTION:  are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test?

Test 16.  Does ICANN engage in programs that go beyond ICANN's narrow mission.  A non-trigger action might be to reject that part of the budget.

 Or, a trigger action to prevent an action.  And would require a bylaws amendment.  

ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? 

ACTION:  for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving

ICANN's variable fees and amend the stress test example.

Test 22.  ICANN Board fails to comply with the bylaws.

How does the community react to Board inaction.  For example if IANA is not functioning, and the Board is not taking action, what is the remedy?

6. Timeline

Update on the next call

7. Next steps

 F2F Information in a few days, coordination call with the CWG chairs.

 Communication

8. AOB

None

9. Closing remarks

Action Items

• ACTION: to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors
• ACTION: Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki
• ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test?
• ACTION: for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving ICANN's variable
  fees and amend the stress test example.

Documents Presented

• AFRALO-AfrICANN Statement
• AFRALO-AfrICANN Réunion conjointe Déclaration
  
• Graphics
• Stress Tests

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (2/12/2015 06:47) Welcome to the CCWG Accountability Session | Meeting #21.

  Brenda Brewer: (06:47) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.  Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud. 

  Brenda Brewer: (07:00) Please stand by for the session to begin.  Thank you for your patience.

  Allan Skuce: (07:08) sound test?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:20) Test

  Sabine Meyer: (07:20) there is a chat window.

  Allan Skuce: (07:21) Chat works find.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (07:21) Why you don't invite people to seat on the table to have a more round table?

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (07:24) The chat window was not seen, was not there, when I launched adobe, that is why I raised my hand, still there is some problem, possibly specific to my computer, the window appears and disappears when the cursor is moved to raise or lower hand, the typing area becomes visible or invisible... some such problems,  nothing needs to be done, if this problem is specific ONLY to my computer

  Brenda Brewer: (07:25) @ Siva.  Thank you.

  Alan Greenberg: (07:29) @Siva I have raised my hand several time and no problems here.

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (07:31) @ Alan,  possibly this is a problem peculiar to my computer, happening for the first time in this computer, so nothing needs to be done.  Grace offered to relaunch the room, I said it is not needed, if the problem is only on my computer. It happens to be so,.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (07:38) Shouldn't we be discussing the feedback?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (07:39) rather than racing ahead into the next agenda item?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:39) @Jordan did you want to discuss ?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:45) @Sebastien : merci de ta patience, Thomas termine

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:48) While we are here face-to-face, let's also have a substantive discussion of TRIGGERED reviews -- by whom, by what standard, etc.  

  Edward Morris: (07:50) Agreed. We need to start moving away from theory to substance.

  Phil Buckingham: (07:52) Steve - totally agree -   levels of triggerness ??

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:52) I see the value in having these presentation materials for eternal audiences.   But within the CCWG we are eager to get into discussion of implementation.

  Alice Jansen: (07:54) Slides can be found at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52233188/CCWG_Graphics_150212%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423698088859&api=v2

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (07:54) Mathieu: how can we do our job if we don't reflect together on the feedback and develop our understanding of it as a shared group?

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (07:54) <QUESTION to Thomas> Your second example, ICANN accredits itself, appears to assume that the contracted parties have no contractual recourse. Have you discussed this (odd) scenario with the RySG chair? A "yes" or "no" answer is sufficient.<Question Ends>

  Brenda Brewer: (07:55) @ EBW..question received

  Matthew Shears: (07:56) So what does this mean for the work that has already been done in WP1 and 2 - how will it e mapped to this overall picture?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:57) @Matthew : coming next...

  Robin Gross: (08:00) What is the surprise?  I've missed that.

  Sabine Meyer: (08:02) I'd say it's the categorizing of all accountability issues in the 4 areas currently presented in cartoon form.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:03) ahhh, ok, thanks.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:03) let's allocate 20-30 minutes for substantive discussion of Community Powers such as Community Veto, Invoking a review, Budget Veto, Bylaws Changes, and Spilling the Board

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (08:03) Fruit is in the meeting room

  Sabine Meyer: (08:04) @Robin It's 1 AM where I am so I'd rather get a second opinion :)

  Alice Jansen: (08:05) Please clear your "raised hand" if you have already voiced your question/comment

  Avri Doria: (08:05) i am sorry that my comment about my confusion was taken as creiticism.  yes, it is wonderful.  apologies.

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:06) @Leon: and a fruitful meeting it is....

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:06) @Avri: that is not how I heard your comment. No worries

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:07) <QUESTION to Thomas>As your answer to my prio question was "no", then do you have any reason to believe that your "scenario" is probable and illuminates an accountability issue?<QUESTION Ends>

  Brenda Brewer: (08:08) @EBW...in queue for your question.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:08) @Eric : can we take this discussion offline ? I am conscious of time

  Robin Gross: (08:09) This is helpful.  But I think it would be better if we had a paragraph or so to explain each quadrant because it isn't automatically understood what is meant by things like "principles in bylaws", etc., and there will be different impressions about what each means.

  McTim: (08:09) Eric, your question goes to the heart of the issue!  The number and protocol folks have contracts in their proposals, but the names folks don't???

  Matthew Shears: (08:10) + 1 Robin

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:10) <Comment Mathieu> The propr point to take an unlkely scenario "off-line" was before it took up valuable time.

  Edward Morris: (08:10) @Robin, Agreed. it's also important to note the circular connections between all four.

  Robin Gross: (08:11) We will use amending the bylaws in order to empower the commmunity for example.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC: (08:11) My apologies for the confusion in the speaking order, I understood that it should follow the adobe connect list

  Avri Doria: (08:11) i think there are probably lots of arcs between the nodes in the cartoon. and lots of different patch that can be taken.

  Avri Doria: (08:11) .. different paths ...

  Matthew Shears: (08:12) + 1 Jordan on interpretation of simplicity and the flexibility to be able to acomodate new items and approaches.

  David McAuley: (08:12) +1 @Jordan

  Edward Morris: (08:12) by, for example, requiring the budget to come to the community for a community approval that could only be overridden by the board through a super super majority

  McTim: (08:12) Zuck hits the nail on the head!

  Edward Morris: (08:12) @robin

  Matthew Shears: (08:13) I would note that its is important that this approach remains flexible so as to be able to accomodate the evolution of work in workstream 2 into the future

  Robin Gross: (08:15) True, Matt.  We don't want to keep it flexible.

  Robin Gross: (08:16) I mean we DO

  Robin Gross: (08:16) sorry for the typo

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:17) finally I am in the AC room

  McTim: (08:17) The ONLY acc. mech that counts is the abiltiy to shift IANA functions to another entity if needed.

  Matthew Shears: (08:18) how will this work be taken forward?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:18) @Matthew : my next slides. I am impatient to get to work concretely now...

  Seun Ojedeji: (08:19) Thanks Matthew, that was a good way to engage/resolve concerns

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:19) @mctim, i don't agree. that (rebidding) is somewhat final, but there can be things that occur prior to, and obviating the necessity for, rebidding.

  David McAuley: (08:20) Thank you Mathieu, and maybe discuss impact on WPs

  Sabine Meyer: (08:20) esp. WP2

  McTim: (08:25) @Eric, yes there are prior steps, but the abiltiy to have a re-bid enshrined in agreements is essential

  Matthew Shears: (08:26) + 1 Steve

  David McAuley: (08:27) +1 @ Steve, there is much yet to be done in WPs

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:28) so, i see two awkwardnesses -- the first is the current contract, was let competitively, with two options to renew, was for a finite term, and not for an indefinite term. the second is, assuming  the recurring contract is for a finite term, what party is evaluating competitive bids?

  Matthew Shears: (08:30) + 1 Becky - standards is more appropriate, particularly with Jordan's idea of compact

  McTim: (08:31) @mathew, I haven't seen the proposal that you and Avri and a3rd authoer wrote, can you send it to me please!

  Matthew Shears: (08:31) @ McTim - sure

  Becky Burr: (08:31) stongly agree with Jordan re the "compact" approach

  McTim: (08:31) TA

  McTim: (08:32) yes, compact.  It is not at all clear that current staff, esp GDD folks understand that they are the Secretariat of a policy community and not policy makers themselves.

  Keith Drazek: (08:33) +1 McTim...several active examples this week. Whois clarifications, Spec 11, etc.

  Phil Buckingham: (08:35) McTim  +++1  COI , Auction proceeds re gTLDs

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:35) yes the compact approach has my support as well @becky/jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (08:36) @Siva, extreme solutions in extreme situations. Yes, but it will require a wide consesnsus about stakeholders, and that does not happen all that often in ICANN, so I think we are safe.

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:37) @Alan: exactly

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:38) Well said steve

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:38) please post the url to the "Powers" slide.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (08:39) Eric, all of these slides were circulated before here (a URL) and are on the email list too

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:39) <Comment> I differ from steve delbianco in thinking that the "why" is useful, and necessary, to state.

  Guest 1000: (08:39) https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52233188/CCWG_Graphics_150212%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423698088859&api=v2

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:40) thank you guest 1000

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:40) @Mathieu @Steve: I think we are confucing the "why" (charter) with the how (ingredients)..

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:40) confusing...

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:41) +1 sam

  Greg Shatan: (08:46) +1 Mathieu

  Avri Doria: (08:47) it seems we should include ombudsman among the mechanisms

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:48) hell yes @avri

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:48) @avri: that bucket lacks a bottom.

  Avri Doria: (08:49) EBW, do you mean the ombudsman fell through the hole in the bucket?

  Keith Drazek: (08:49) I like the "triggered" and "non-triggered" distinction.

  Avri Doria: (08:49) Keith me too.

  Edward Morris: (08:49) As do I.

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:50) audio stream interrupted

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:51) @co-chairs: one positive surprise after the other this morning, I am actually having a great time here. You're dream team!

  Edward Morris: (08:52) I agree with Steve on this matter.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:52) stop that Roelof I'm blushing

  Avri Doria: (08:52) is there room for a non confidence against the entire Board instead of just picking a particlar board member to bear the brunt?

  Brenda Brewer: (08:55) @EBW is your audio back?

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:56) there were half a dozen cut-outs, one on the order of 15s -- the rest were 1s in duraiton

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (08:56) @Avri: actually, I think that in most cases that would be better than recalling one or a few. The ones that "we want to keep" can be reappointed, but picking on individual members introduces the risk of board members not daring to differ, express individual opinions, trying to find safely in numbers

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (08:56) so audio is returned, and ever since steve stopped speaking (coincidence i presume) audio has been uninterrupted.

  Alan Greenberg: (08:58) @avri, I think that there might be multiple mechanisms to remove 1 or more board members.  The community individually targetting a particular board member selected by an AC/SO is really problematic in that it could be used to removed someone who is "annoying" because they have a different point of view.

  Avri Doria: (08:59) Roelof, also a 'vote' of non confidence can have different levels from public censure to removal.

  Keith Drazek: (09:03) +1 Avri

  Matthew Shears: (09:03) + 1 Jordan - stil lots of work to do on deciding pre and post transition items

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (09:04) May I make a note about our face to face meetings: this is only our second, but we must make sure we never spend such a proportion of our time on *process* again.

  Avri Doria: (09:05) Jordan +1

  Matthew Shears: (09:06) + 1

  Alan Greenberg: (09:06) @Jordan YYYEEEESSS (take tat as yelling out support).

  Edward Morris: (09:06) Jordan. absolutely agree.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:09) Absolute +1 to Jordan on that as well, we have less than an hour to go for this face 2 face

  Keith Drazek: (09:11) +1 to Steve DelBianco's point on WS1 and WS2...narrow WS1 is acceptable provided it is sufficient. Also +1 to Jordan's comment that community consensus must be a consideration.

  Alice Jansen: (09:12) Please clear "old hands"

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:12) Steve makes a good point -once the group has decided what direction it wants to go - the right way to approach the legal resources is to ask how to achieve it.     THis I think is more productive than asking what is possible.   Nearly everything is possible if you hae a good lawyer :-)

  Bruce Tonkin: (09:13) By the way - I like the current slide on teh screen - a good structure for what it needs to cover.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:13) @Bruce, yes. That is one of the main drivers of the legal sub-team. That's why we're waiting for the questions by WP1 and WP2 while drafting our own questions in parallel

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:13) good point @Bruce and for the record, we may need to repeat that during the CWG ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (09:15) I am not clear what the co-chairs are trying to do here.

  David McAuley: (09:17) Thomas +1 -

  David McAuley: (09:17) on team members already aboard

  Matthew Shears: (09:20) + 1 Steve

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:21) Please show the previous slide for a moment

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:24) Or is this presentation online somewhere?

  Yasuichi Kitamura: (09:25) slides were delivered by e-mail at the CCWG ML.

  Aaron Pace: (09:26) +1 Bruce T on advice +1 Steve on making sense and shooting stuff straight!

  Alice Jansen: (09:27) please refer to the ST-WP document -> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v2%5D.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1423481410000&api=v2

  Keith Drazek: (09:27) Well said Cheryl

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:30) <Comment> No sensible statement can be made for something for which no estimate of its likelihood is offered.

  Robin Gross: (09:33) mistake in the transcription.  Steve said the existing mechanisms are "inadequate" but it came off as "adequate" in the transcript.

  Thomas Rickert: (09:36) Thanks for pointing this out, Robin

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:39) CWG RFP 4  merged document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QVC12Q-NuB35pyaBirUDF85DBR_oFHkEYC5vbWu04go/edit?usp=sharing   for reference

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:42) audio out again, 15s and counting

  Yasuichi Kitamura: (09:42) no sound?

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:42) Is there a link to the previous presentation that covered mechanisms-  Triggered and Non-Triggered

  Albert Daniels: (09:42) Audio gone

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:42) ?

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:43) audio out now for 1m

  Brenda Brewer: (09:44) @EBW...checking this out

  Philip Corwin: (09:44) No sound

  Romeo: (09:44) ?

  Yasuichi Kitamura: (09:44) if you are in the CCWG ML, alice jansen sent the slides to you by e-mail.

  Yasuichi Kitamura: (09:45) let me move to the audio stream.

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:45) 2m

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:46) staff, please halt the meeting until there is remote participation.

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:46) audio restored

  Peter Green（CONAC）: (09:46) sound back

  Yasuichi Kitamura: (09:46) :-)

  Romeo: (09:46) tx

  Keith Drazek: (09:47) I think Alan makes a good point. This area of "forcing action" coulld be one of the hooks between the CWG and CCWG recommendations.

  Keith Drazek: (09:48) I think this is an area where we create a placeholder to accomodate the final recommendations of the CWG.

  Keith Drazek: (09:49) We're describing an escalation path prior to any so-called nuclear option. The ability of the community to hold the Board accountable and to ensure they are holding ICANN staff (and IANA staff) accountable.

  Brenda Brewer: (09:49) Apologies for any sound issues.  For Sudio Stream Live see:  http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:54) For clarity, my point was that we need to take a relook at the proposed mechanisms and examine if the existing / proposed mechanisms adequately cover various possible conceivable Accountability needs

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:54) @Siva : right

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (09:55) Thanks Mathieu

  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw): (09:55) @mathieu, the room is not the entire meeting, you could be asking if the remote participants have views.

  Matthew Shears: (09:56) + 1 Jordan

  Roelof Meijer - ccNSO (in the room): (09:57) You're completely right, Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (10:00) Is there a possibility we can have our next meeting somewhere that is not-Frankfurt?

  Alice Jansen: (10:01) Thank you for your participation in this meeting!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:02) Thank you everyone !