Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Finn Petersen, Izumi Okutani, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Kavouss Arasteh, Mathieu Weill, Michael Abejuela, Olga Cavalli, Pedro da Silva, Robin Gross, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (17)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Agustina Callegari, Andreea Todoran, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria Brett Schaefer, Chris Disspain Chris LaHatte, Chris Wilson, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Erin Dorgan, George Sadowsky, Ghislain de Salins, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Jeff Neuman, Jimson Olufuye, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Konstantinos Komaitis, Lito Ibarra, Malcolm Hutty, Marianne Georgelin, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Michael Karanicolas, Milton Mueller, Niels ten Oever, Olivier Muron, Pär Brumark, Paul Rosenzweig, Phil Marano, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Rosalía Morales, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Shreedeep Rayamajhi, Simon Jansson, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephen Deerhake, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale (58)

Observers/ Guests:  John Poole, Taylor RW Bentley

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Karen Mulberry, Brenda Brewer, Theresa Swinehart, Yvette Guigneaux, Trang Nguyen, Elizabeth Andrews, Emily Pimentel

Apologies:  Mona Al-achkar JAbbour, Rosalia Morales, Leon Sanchez, Ricardo Holmquist, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jordan Carter, Lori Schulman 

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

Transcript

• ccwg-accountability-20sep16-en.doc
• ccwg-accountability-20sep16-en.pdf

Recording

• Adobe Connect replay
• mp3 replay

Agenda

1. Welcome/SOI
2. Update on US Senate Hearing on IANA Transition
3. WS2 Planning and Timeline
4. Update on Action Item from 30 August Plenary
5. WS2 Budget Update and Travel to ICANN 57 Hyderabad
6. Status of subgroup work and issues to be raised for Plenary discussion from WS2 Subgroups
   -Sébastien Bachollet - Ombudsman
   -Greg Shatan – Jurisdiction
7. WS1 WP-IOT - IRP Implementation Oversight Team
8. AOB/Closing Comments

Notes 

Notes (including key elements of the chat):

Action Items:

• Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today

1.  Welcome/SOI

• Thomas Rickert: No one on phone only. No new SOIs. Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez send their apologies.

2.  Update on US Senate Hearing on IANA Transition

• Steve DelBianco: Theme for this call is keep calm and carry on. Background on current situation vs Congress. Two main factors for conservatives, Political
  positionning vs a liberal administration and the disrespect of Congress vs the transition from ICANN and NTIA. We should assume there will be at least a 9
  week delay in transition. We should not split the transition and accountability Bylaws.
• David McAuley (RySG): We have a third witness on this call as well - Paul
• Paul Rosenzweig: Thanks David -- I'm glad you noticed.  I don't have any need to intervene
• Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): oh, yes, Paul's point of view would also be useful
• Greg Shatan: Intellectual Property interests have a variety of views.
• Paul Rosenzweig: Jeff -- what would you like to know specifically -- I'll answer if I can
• Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Whether your assessment is the same as Steve's and whether you believe the outcomes are as Steve has said (in your view)
• Brett Schaefer: Why shouldn't the accountability reforms be implemented now if the transition is delayed? The bulk of them are not dependent on the transition. Indeed,
  Bruce and Cherine said that that was the original plan in Morocco. What if the transition is delayed longer than 9 weeks? Are you prepared to wait forever for
  accountability implementation?
• Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): I don't see any reason to wait.
• Edward Morris: Agree with Brett and Julf.
• Avri Doria: Do we really need to split the Bylaws why not just include a statement that the PTI stuff is not active until the transition.
• Alan Greenberg: @Brett, there is a lot of work to do to split the Bylaws and that will take time.  I presume that will not be done until it is obvious the
  delay will be substantial. (> 9 weeks). But that is hypothesis on my part.
• Paul Rosenzweig: Assuming it is part of the bill at all ...
• Philip Corwin: Near-term Board implementation of accountability measures in face of a delay would be very helpful in ending the Congressional roadblock, while
  refusal to do so would add fodder to critics, IMHO
• Edward Morris: PTI is roughly 5% of the new Bylaws.
• Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): +1 Philip
• Edward Morris: Good point Phil.
• Matthew Shears: interesting point Phil
• Alan Greenberg: Even a rider saying that parts are inoperable is a Bylaw change that must go through due process which is time-consuming.
• Greg Shatan: @Milton, not denying that some elements of the IP community are playing a role; we saw one as a witness in the Hearing.  However, "IP interests" are
  not monolithic and there is a diversity of views, including support for the transition and for the multi-stakeholder model.
• Philip Corwin: It's not just the IANA contract. NTIA must also end RZMA contract with Verisign so that it can contract directly with ICANN to perform root zone
  maintenance. Until that is in place ICANN would have no power to direct root zone changes.
• Milton Mueller: Uncertain how we could continue with the transition if there is a new administration.
• Steve DelBianco: many variables. We lose nothing by waiting until the election is done.
• Edward Morris: Matt, I am not an expert on the "test drive" strategy. What I do know is that by delaying implementation we are playing into the hands of those
  who are opposing the transition.
• Steve DelBianco: "test drive" makes no sense, since we will not "test"  our powers in  a few months or even a few years. Test Drive is equivalent to indefinite delay.
• Matthew Shears: agree Steve
• Milton Mueller: Yes, Ed, we need to get as many of the accountability reforms implemented as possible
• Megan Richards, European Commission: @Steve -agree on ineffectual test drive.
• Paul Rosenzweig: We lose nothing by waiting. Some of the opposition ICANN can do nothing about. We will know by the end of tomorrow if a new rider has been included or not.
• Kavous Arasteh: This is purely an American political issue and we should just move on.
• Steve DelBianco: I agree with Paul, that events are moving this week.  Let's not game-out all the outcomes.  Let's get back to work on WS2
• Steve DelBianco: WS2 implementation is part of the Board's commitment -- regardless of IANA contract
• David McAuley: +1 @Steve
• Edward Morris: Agree Steve
• Avri Doria: Steve, rights, and after Sept 30, that commitment comes due.
• Sivasubramanian M 2: Is the US budgetary allocation / NTIA spending on Transition so substantial that the US budgetary process becomes one of the obstructions?
• Steve Delbianco: asper previous answer.
• Thomas Rickert: We have done a great job so far and we should be patient and wait for the next few weeks. As to the possibility of a Test Drive - we have baked
  extensive consultation between the Board and the community which should obviate the need for the community to exercise the community power would make a test drive difficult.

3.  WS2 Planning and Timeline

• Thomas Rickert: WS2 work plan.  There is light engagement by the community currently possibly due to the political uncertainty or fatigue. All items in WS2 are
  important and need to get done. We probably need to readjust our work plan to be able to deliver by the end of this FY17.
• Karen Mulberry: (presentation of slides on Planning and progress). Public Consultations now planned in February and May 2017.
• Kavous Arasteh: We should not revisit what has been decided in WS1.
• Sivasubramanian M: WS2 ought not to be time-limited earlier there was a discussion on Accountability as a continuous, ongoing process. 
• Matthew Shears: a number of the issues under discussion are shaping the discussion on transition in the political sphere - these issues should be dealt with asap particularly if we are going to stagger from CR to CR
• Edward Morris: Agreed Matt.
• Niels ten Oever: @Siva - if we don't set deadlines this work will never end.
• Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Setting public comment periods intersessionally ahead of ICANN 58 and 59 respectively so that these meetings can initiate their finalization
  with maximum visibility for community is very sensible and practicable approach. 
• Greg Shatan: It is important for us to recognize that the work in the sub-groups cannot advance if people do not participate. It is important to have active participation
  on the list and in Google docs between meetings.
• Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I have a certain difficulty in planning too much ahead given the present uncertainty regarding the whole process
• Avri Doria: it is hard to get people to focus on WS2 while WS1 remains only a possibility
• Thomas Rickert: There is effectively little interest in most sub-groups currently. Most participants seem to be waiting to see something to comment on vs writing something.
• Christopher Wilkinson: Agree we need more participation in the sub-groups, its not fatigue its just a mountain of work.
• Avri Doria: Blank sheets of paper are an insurmountable problem for many people.
• Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): clear the overall situation and then we will be able to set clear deadlines
• Mark Carvell (UK GAC rep): Much of WS2 are key enhancements and strengthening of the ICANN model that need to be developed anyway regardless of current political uncertainty.
• Jeff Neuman: And there is a lot of other substantive work going on in the ICANN community at the moment. 
• Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Jeff is right
• Tijani Ben Jemaa: need to focus on what is required of WS2 by WS1.
• Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I would be interested in having figures about the engagement from the community - volunteer fatigue is melting active participants to a reduced group.
• Jeff Neuman: @jorge, and my fear is that the community has fatigue on the non-policy issues that ICANN is engaged in.  In other words, ICANN is supposed to coordinate substantive policy.....but we have spent the last 18 months+ on procedural accountability issues.  What good is an incredibly accountable organization if it cannot perform
  the substantive tasks it was formed to do.
• Thomas Rickert: ACTION ITEM: Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented
  today. Unless rapporteurs can deliver a paper 3 weeks prior to Hyderabad we need to do something else. One option could be to do interviews with leaders by staff to
  write down positions? Minor support and no objection. This is optional and sub-groups that want to use this should advise us of this.
• Jeff Neuman: Lots of substantive issues on ICANN's plate now:  RDDS/WHois, New gTLD Reviews, SUbsequent Procedures, Rights Protection Mechanisms, Privacy Proxy, Universal Acceptance / Awareness, etc.
• Michael Karanicolas: Personally - I'd rather draft something myself than provide input by phone.
• Niels ten Oever: Is there staff capacity for that? Sounds good to me! Would save a lot of time.
• Sebastien Bachollet: I we agree to this schedule we should stick to it.
• Thomas Rickert: No opposition to using the new project plan and ensure that we follow it.

4.  Update on Action Item from 30 August Plenary

• Karen Mulberry: There are meetings on the 9th.
• Sebastien Bachollet: the last day is for the new bodies only.

5.  WS2 Budget Update and Travel to ICANN 57 Hyderabad

• Bernard Turcotte: (Presentation of slides)
• Tijani Ben Jemaa: Rules are different at each embassy.
• Alan Greenberg: Varies greatly from one country to another for an Indian visa - very complex.
• Kavous Arasteh: this visa caused issues for many. ICANN should come to some arrangements with countries it holds events in.

6.  WS1 WP-IOT-IOT (IRP Implementation Oversight Team)

• Becky Burr: (Presentation of the slides). First issue is the application of subsequent modifications rules of existing IRPs.
  • Avri Doria: Support and explanation of some details regarding the alternative.
  • Kavous Arasteh: Normally rules are not retroactively applied - but in this case I would support this.
  • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I'm not sure whether others feel the same, but without having some prior info in writing on the issues explained by Becky and
    Avri it is extremely difficult to follow.
  • Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge, yes ,it is difficult but the way it has been drafted is quite understandable
  • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Thanks for that clarifications Becky and Thomas
  • David McAuley (RySG) 2: I was active in the sub-team discussions and this alternative seems a fair compromise of the positions stated. 

• Becky Burr: Next is Deadline to file, There are several alternatives.
  • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): under the current rules there seems to be a short timeframe for filing, but it is only triggers if you have or should have
    awareness. In the new alt 2 24 months would be a hard stop: even if you have no clue you would not be able to file a dispute if you gain awareness afterwards...
  • Malcolm Hutty: The issue is that we have different disputes, originally there were only process disputes and claimants usually know very quickly if
    there is an issue. but under the new rules there are also claims vs ICANN following its own Bylaws which is different. As such Alternative 2 is not good. Would
    be ok for a fixed delay for procedural claims. The 45 days seems a very tight timeline - does this make sense for the EC to make a claim.
  • Chris Disspain: Malcolm, how do you ensure that folks do not take actions over time that make them effected so that they can bring a claim and could you
    give me an example of something that would require your formulation?
  • Chris Wilson: some statute of limitations for all claims makes sense. 
  • Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Malcolm's point about the EC decision process is quite compelling
  • Greg Shatan: Agree with Chris, there needs to be some finality.
  • David McAuley: Have agreed that 45 days is too short but support Alternative 2. We need some finality.
  • Kavouss Arasteh: Malcolm, you said 45 days is too short. what time frame in your view is not short
  • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): on the other hand an absence of a statute of limitations weakens legal certainty
  • Alan Greenberg: @Malcom, what deadline for filing would you propose for a harm that is delayed?
  • Greg Shatan: I could see expanding the 45 days, at least for the EC.
  • Greg Shatan: I support Alternative 2.
  • Becky Burr: Please note that the 45 days is tolled once CEP is initiated, so as a practical matter you only need to signal. Any other views?
  • Alan Greenberg: Alos support Alternative 2 - there has to be finality.
  • Malcolm Hutty: If we are agreeing to a fixed time then we are doing something different from a court and is not compatible with the Bylaws. alternative depends
    on a watchful community but someone may not be harmed and therefore cannot file.
  • Kavouss Arasteh: Perhaps 24 months may be argued to be too long?
  • Chris Wilson: For sure!  But 2 years is a long time, IMO.
  • Chris Disspain: my preference would be fewer than 24 but I can accept it if that is the consensus view
  • Kavouss Arasteh: Could be change 24 by 12 months?
  • Chris Disspain: that would be better in my view Kavouss
  • Kavouss Arasteh: I have not seen in any analogous case putting such a long period like 24 months
  • Chris Disspain: all of these things are a balance and need to be both accommodating and workable
  • Becky Burr: but anyone could apply for a name, be denied, and challenge - so I’m not moved by the no standing - the potential lack of motivation is a legitimate concern.
  • David McAuley (RySG) 2: +1 @Chris
  • Greg Shatan: 24 months seems an acceptable compromise.
  • Kavous Arasteh: Supports alternative 2 but not more than 12 months.
  • David McAuley (RySG) 2: it is a difficult thing to calculate but the IoT seemed to think 24 months is right if alternative 2 is used
  • Chris Disspain: it is the members of the community to have to work most closely within the ICANN framework....especially the contracting parties...they are
    entitled to a degree of certainty about position so that they can get on with what they need to do
  • Greg Shatan: I think 24 months is appropriate.  I see calls for longer and shorter times, which indicates we got it right.
  • Becky Burr: Seem to be gravitating towards Alternative 2 with some time. third issue is Cross Examination of Witnesses at hearings.
    • David McAuley: Support alternative 1 strongly. The panel needs to be given a reasonably high bar to avoid trials each time.
    • Kavous Arasteh: Prefer Alternative 2 but could live with Alternative 1.
    • Greg Shatan: do not really support any of these. If we have witnesses, we need to be able to cross examine.
    • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): If the role of the hearings gains weight it is important to also consider flexibilities as to venue and language
    • Edward Morris: Excellent point David. I also support alternative 1.
    • Becky Burr: Jorge, those issues will be decided going forward, not as part of the supplemental rules update
    • Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Agree Jorge, the very principle of witnesses and cross examination has implications on the ability to remain accessible to
      all and provide level playing field for non English speaking parties
    • Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): thanks Mathieu - that's it - and the venue also plays a role
    • Becky Burr: No more inputs.

• Thomas Rickert: Adjourned.
   

 ACTION ITEMS:

1. Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today. Rapporteurs to deliver their subgroups paper 3 weeks (October 5^th) prior to Hyderabad outlining work.

2. Staff to review resources to see if there is a means to do interviews with leaders to assist in drafting positions. Sub-groups to advise staff if interested in this assistance. 

Documents

• CCWG WS2 Final v2 Plenary 20Sept2016.pdf

AC Chat

Yvette Guigneaux: (9/20/2016 07:25) Welcome to the CCWG Accountability Plenary WS2 Meeting #5 - 20 September 2016 @ 13:00 UTC

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Dear Brenda,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Hi

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Pls kindly remind operator to dial me in.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Regards

  Olga Cavalli: (07:45) Hello!!

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (07:54) Hello from Amsterdam

  Niels ten Oever: (07:58) Hi all

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (07:58) hi there

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (07:58) Hello all!

  seun ojedeji: (07:58) Hello everyone

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (07:58) Greetings all...

  Aarti Bhavana: (07:59) Hi All

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:59) Hello all

  Sivasubramanian M: (07:59) Hello

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:00) Hi all.

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (08:00) Whoever is doing a mic check - yes, it works! :)

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:00) Queueing on phone bridge for operator

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:00) Good morning

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (08:01) Good afternoon

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff Support: (08:01) hello all - please remember to MUTE if not speaking

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:02) Also queueing

  Milton Mueller: (08:02) Hello Thomas

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:02) Hallo Thomas

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) On hold for too long.

  Philip Corwin: (08:04) me too/more than 2 minutes so far

  Alan Greenberg: (08:04) Ditto here

  Alan Greenberg: (08:05) Sadly on AC only....

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:05) hope Mathieu and Leon are doing well (as I have seen their apologies)

  Greg Shatan: (08:05) I'm on.

  seun ojedeji: (08:06) Leon for sure is, as its his birthday today

  Brenda Brewer: (08:06) My apologies for delayed response from Verizon.  Your audio line should be answered soon.

  Philip Corwin: (08:06) Finally in after 4 minutes

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:07) Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:07) pls slowly sléowly$

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:08) What aquiet meeting!

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:08) the 1-million-dollar question for Steve and Becky is: will there be a delay?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:08) Pls kindly spèeak slowly

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:08) We have a third witness on this call as well - Paul

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:08) sorry i was muted

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:08) Thanks David -- I'm glad you noticed.  I don't have any need to intervene

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:09) oh, yes, Paul's point of view would also be useful

  Milton Mueller: (08:09) Congress - Obama admin completely polarized since 2010 (Obamacare ). Don't blame transition for it

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:09) It was a long and interesting hearing - thanks to all who participated

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:10) Paul - You should weigh in as well

  Milton Mueller: (08:11) I think IP interests are playing a role in the opposition

  Brett Schaefer: (08:11) Two Democratic Senatr's Steve, Senator Klobuchar asked a question as well.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:12) And Senator Blumenthal was there too -- a Democrat from Connecticut

  Avri Doria: (08:13) What NTIA resources are needed to avoid terminating the contract?

  Avri Doria: (08:13) No need to split the bylaws, and no reason to wait for transtion on the WS2 issues.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:14) could someone clarify how the 9 week extension would work exactly?  thx

  Milton Mueller: (08:14) Steve, how will NTIA be able to go ahead if the administration changes?

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:14) That's OK Thomas ...

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:14) Paul testified otherwise.  SO, can we hear from him as well

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:16) good question from Milton

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:16) Jeff -- what would you like to know specifically -- I'll answer if I can

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:16) Whether your assessment is the same as Steve's and whether you believe the outcomes are as Steve has said (in your view)

  Brett Schaefer: (08:17) Why shouldn't the accountability refoms be implimented nowif the transitionis delayed? The bulk of them are not dependent on the transition. Indeed, Bruce and Cherine said that that was the original plan in Morocco. What if the transition is delayed longer than 9 weeks? Are you prepared to wait forever for accountbility implimentaiton?

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:17) Brenda, I just called in as well - am 8222 if it shows up

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (08:18) I don't see any reason to wait.

  Edward Morris: (08:18) Agree with Brett and Julf.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:18) I have the same "misunderstanding" Avri

  matthew shears: (08:18) GAO sugests they have resources from FY16

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:19) That's correct Matthew -- but the rider will, to be effective, will almost certainly rescind those resources.

  Brett Schaefer: (08:19) +1 Avri

  Alan Greenberg: (08:19) @Brett, there is a lot of work to do to split the Bylaws and that will take time.  I presume that will not be done until it is obvious the delay will be substantial. (> 9 weeks). But that is hypothesis on my part.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:19) Assuming it is part of the bill at all ...

  Philip Corwin: (08:19) Near-term Board implementation of accountability measures in face of a delay would be very helpful in ending the Congressional roadblock, while refusal to do so would add fodder to critics, IMHO

  Edward Morris: (08:19) PTI is roughly 5% of the new Bylaws.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:20) +1 Philip

  Edward Morris: (08:20) Good point Phil.

  matthew shears: (08:20) intersting point Phil

  Alan Greenberg: (08:20) Even a rider saying that parts are inoperable is a Bylaw change that must go through due process which is time-consuming.

  Greg Shatan: (08:20) @Milton, not denying that some elements of the IP community are playing a role; we saw one as a witness in the Hearing.  However, "IP interests" are not monolithic and there is a diversity of views, including support for the transition and for the multistakeholder model.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:21) Steve - thanks for the clarifications

  Philip Corwin: (08:21) It's not just the IANA contract. NTIA must also end RZMA contract with Verisign so that it can contract directly with ICANN to perform root zone maintenance. Until that is in place ICANN would have no power to direct root zone changes.

  Sivasubramanian M 2: (08:21) what is the quantum of us resources spent on transition?

  Avri Doria: (08:23) we can assume that if there is a delay, it will be a rolling delay, from CR to CR

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:23) Phil - and for your clarification but hasn't NTIA already done most of what is necessary for the RZMA contract to  be reassisgned?

  Philip Corwin: (08:24) @Megan--yes, but preparing for it is not equivalent to terminating that RZMA contract, which cannot occur until Oct 1 under current funding restriction

  Edward Morris: (08:25) Some representatives are calling for a "test drive". E may not like this but if that is potentially a prequisite for eventually getting this done why wait?

  Avri Doria: (08:25) i think this shoe dropping it the start date

  Milton Mueller: (08:25) OK. Thanks, Steve.

  matthew shears: (08:25) "test drive" what exactly?  

  Milton Mueller: (08:26) The test drive idea is totally bogus

  Avri Doria: (08:26) lets not test drive, lets just get in the car and drive off with the accountabilty.

  Milton Mueller: (08:26) We either implement the existing plan or we don't

  seun ojedeji: (08:26) +1 Avri

  Sivasubramanian M 2: (08:26) Is the US budgetary allocation / NTIA spendspending on Transifilm so substantial that the US budgetary process becomes one of the obstructions?

  Edward Morris: (08:26) Matt, I am not an expert on th "test drive" strategy. What I do know is that by delaying implementation we are playing into the hands of those who are opposing the transition.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:27) "test drive" makes no sense, since we will not "test"  our powers in  afew months or even a few years.    Test Drive is equivalent to indefinite delay.

  matthew shears: (08:27) agree Steve

  Milton Mueller: (08:27) Yes, Ed, we need to get as many of the accountability reofrms implemented as possible

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:27) @Steve -agree on ineffectual test drive

  Milton Mueller: (08:28) How shall we "demonstrate" accountability Paul? Remove a board member or two?

  seun ojedeji: (08:28) irrespective there is provision for test drive because there are reviews built into the proposals just that USG does not get to decide, the community does.

  Rafael Perez Galindo: (08:28) +1 Steve delBianco and MM

  Aarti Bhavana: (08:28) +1 Steve and Milton

  seun ojedeji: (08:29) I don't know how we test drive while NTIA maintains current status quo

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:29) The board's commitment to implement our reforms for accountability is there, whether or not the IANA contract expires

  Milton Mueller: (08:29) sorry that was an old hand

  Edward Morris: (08:30) If we need to test drive something I volunteer to a document Inspection request.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (08:30) MM -- I would start by enacting the accountability bylaws that are non-PTI related

  Milton Mueller: (08:30) I volunteer to be the policeman enforcing speed limits. Will wear a body cam too

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:30) I agree with Paul, that events are moving this week.  Let's not game-out all the outcomes.  Let's get back to work on WS2

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:31) WS2 implementation is part of the Board's commitment -- regardless of IANA contract

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:31) +1 @Steve

  Edward Morris: (08:31) Agree Steve

  Avri Doria: (08:31) Steve, rights, and after after Sept 30, that committment comes due.

  matthew shears: (08:33) Agree on WS2 moving foward - and hopefully quickly addressing some of the issues that impact the political discussion such as jurisdiction

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:33) @Siva -- sorry if I did not understand your question

  Avri Doria: (08:33) so they are repsonding to Cruz's threats of prosecution?

  Milton Mueller: (08:33) no, they want to protect their budget

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:34) No, Avri.  Commerce does not want Congress to penalize them

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:34) +1 Milton

  Greg Shatan: (08:34) Siva, the _amount_ of money is not an issue, if that was the basis for your question..

  Sivasubramanian M 2: (08:34) @Steve. The position of Commerce department is understandable. But what is the present quantum of money spent by US Govt on Transition?

  Avri Doria: (08:35) but those bylaws are menaingless until they are activated.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:35) @siva -- transition spending is a trivial sum, in context of Commerce department budget.

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:37) If it is a trivial sum, spent on an administrative discretion that was disliked, why wouldn't ICANN consider paying back this trivial sum, so as to remove this as one of the reasons?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:37) Thank you so much Steve for the comprehensive update and also for testifying at the Hearing

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:37) (unless that would also be dislked)

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:38) seems that we will have to wait for decisions to be taken in Washington

  Milton Mueller: (08:38) It's not a monetary issue, Siva

  Milton Mueller: (08:38) it's a policy issue

  Philip Corwin: (08:38) It does not matter if the amount of money is only 1 cent and is expended for the amount of salary expended on Secretary Strickling's one second decision to do this or not do that to facilitate the transition -- it os forbidden nonetheless under the current funding freeze, and likewise will be if that is extended. This "power of the purse" is the US Congress's most powerful and effective restraint on the Executive branch.

  Chris Wilson: (08:38) it is a political issue

  Philip Corwin: (08:39) It is totally a policy/political issue, not a dispute about whether the money involved is affordable

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:40) we could take a time out - and focus on other pressing issues

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:40) The bylaws comittment to WS2 implementation is independent of  the IANA contract.  The board resolution for the new bylaws includes  the commiitment  to adopt  those parts of the bylaws.

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:40) Thanks Milton. Yes, it is a policy as well as a symbolic issue, but if there is someway ICANN could SMOOTHLY repay this trivial sum, we remove one of the symbolic reasons around which the opponents construct their arguments.

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:40) But it may not be easy as writing a cheque. I understand that as well

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:40) No, Siva.   This has nothing to do with the cost.  

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:41) Yes, Steve it is clear.

  Edward Morris: (08:42) Thnks Karen. It looks like an aggressive but doable timetable.

  Niels ten Oever 3: (08:42) It's aspirational, but we should do it!

  Olga Cavalli: (08:42) Looks good but challenging

  Greg Shatan: (08:42) +1 Edward

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:43)  I think we would need to hear from each sub-team on their reaction, wouldn't we

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:43) Is this the schedule for the design of the Work Stream, or the work of the workstream and final output?

  Niels ten Oever 3: (08:43) @Siva - the latter

  Sivasubramanian M: (08:45) WS2 ought not to be time-limited,  earlier there was a discussion on Accountability as a continuious, ongoing process.  

  matthew shears: (08:45) a number of the issues under discussion are shapoing the discussn on transiton in the political sphere - these issues should be dealt with asap

  matthew shears: (08:45) particulalry if we are going to stagger from CR to CR

  Edward Morris: (08:46) Agreed Matt.

  Niels ten Oever 3: (08:46) @Siva - if we don't set deadlines this work will never end.

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (08:46) Setting public comment periods intersessionally ahead of ICANN 58 and 59 respectively so that these meetigns can initiate their finalisation with maximum visibility for community is very sensible and practicable approach.  

  Niels ten Oever 3: (08:48) @Greg +1  !

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:48) I have a certain difficulty in planning too much ahead given the present uncertainty regarding the whole process

  Avri Doria: (08:49) it is hard to get people to focus on WS2 while WS1 remains only a possibility

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:49) that's it, Avri

  Tatiana Tropina: (08:50) Avri, agree

  Greg Shatan: (08:50) Everyone's an editor....

  Avri Doria: (08:51) Blank sheets of paper are an insummountable problem for many people.

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:51) clear the overall situation and then we will be able to set clear deadlines

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (08:51) Much of WS2 are key enhancements and strengthening of the ICANN model that need to be developed anyway regardless of current political uncertainty.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:51) And there is a lot of other substantive work going on in the ICANN community at the moment.  

  seun ojedeji: (08:52) the fact that over 18months of work is about to be a waste of time(depending on what comes out of US) perhaps is one of the reason for low level participation within WS2.

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:53) Jeff is right

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:53) Chistopher11

  Greg Shatan: (08:53) Sidley has only done what we have asked them to do.

  Greg Shatan: (08:54) Agreements were only put in place where they were necessary.

  matthew shears: (08:54) +1 Greg

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:55) I would be interested in having figures about the engagement from the community - volunteer fatigue is melting active participants to a reduced group

  Greg Shatan: (08:56) I'm melting, melting.... Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:56) cold winbter

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:56) @jorge, and my fear is that the community has fatigue on the non-policy issues that ICANN is engaged in.  In other words, ICANN is supposed to coordinate substantive policy.....but we have spent the last 18 months+ on procedural accountability issues.  What good is an incredibly accountable organization if it cannot perfom the substantive tasks it was formed to do.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:56) cold winter weather is coming Greg :-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:56) Yes I agree that Sidley should only produce legal views if the question is agreed by the entire sub group

  Olga Cavalli: (08:57) which are lighter topics and more complex one? is this established?

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (08:57) @jeff: absolutely

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (08:59) Lots of substantive issues on ICANN's plate now:  RDDS/WHois, New gTLD Reviews, SUbsequent Procedures, Rights Protection Mechanisms, Privacy Proxy, Universal Acceptance / Awareness, etc.

  Michael Karanicolas: (08:59) Personally - I'd rather draft something myself than provide input by phone.

  Niels ten Oever 3: (08:59) Is there staff capacity for that? Sounds good to me! Would save a lot of time.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (09:00) I am still confused on the idea....can you repeat

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:00) which idea?

  Avri Doria: (09:00) is this sort of activity within their budget

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (09:01) What activity?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:01) I do not see green or red

  Avri Doria: (09:01) Kavouss it is under the hand raising dropdown

  Michael Karanicolas: (09:01) But - presumably - this service is optional? If so, of course there's no harm.

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:02) we will have to revise the timeline again

  Avri Doria: (09:03) i figured the rapporteurs had volunteered to write stuff, but if the staff has the bandwidth, then their expert help would be a good thing.

  Avri Doria: (09:04) in our copious spare time

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:04) agnosticism

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (09:05) @Avri - However, something to me does not seem to like the idea of staff writing a position paper on issues like staff accountability

  Avri Doria: (09:05) i assume the rappporteurs on that one will need to do it.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (09:05) @Avri - Aren't you one of them ;)

  Avri Doria: (09:06) Jeff, yes, but it is easier tosay that in the thrid person.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (09:06) @avri - lol

  Michael Karanicolas: (09:07) hear hear - absolutely agree

  Michael Karanicolas: (09:07) +1 Kavous

  Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (09:08) +1

  Becky Burr: (09:09) hello all, apologies for joining late

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:09) Hi Becky: do you also share the view that the transition will likely be delayed?

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:11) Kavouss is right regarding the 9th of november - we have a full day meeting

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:11) Hi all, sorry for joining late. I trust you were in capable and wise hands with Thomas

  Becky Burr: (09:11) @Jorge, hard to say, but I think delay is pretty likely

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:11) wow

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:12) for how long?

  Becky Burr: (09:12) I think things are still very much up in the air, so I don't think there is enough data to speculate at this point

  Niels ten Oever 3: (09:14) At least 5 working days in the Netherlands

  seun ojedeji: (09:14) A while is an understatement, it takes months here

  Avri Doria: (09:14) what about the peple in some countries being told that it can only be granted 2 weeks ahaead of travel?

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (09:15) Cristina Monti got her visa in 2 days (sorry to disappoint those of you who may have to wait many days - or even longer)

  seun ojedeji: (09:15) @Avri i fall in that category and I think that is probably why I got an appointment date 2 weeks before the meeting even though i applied since last month

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:16) Happened to me to Avri and Seun (max 30 days ahead).

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (09:16) I guess things are easier in Brussels...

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (09:16) :-) and people complain about Belgian bureaucracy

  seun ojedeji: (09:19) For the record, the visa process for India is surprisingly too complicated that i hope this is noted when chosing furture meeting venue

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:19) I also am having a fun time with the visas...

  Michael Karanicolas: (09:20) considering the visa process as part of the planning seems reasonable enough, but I'm not sure how much success ICANN will have in negotiating a change in processes...

  Jimson Olufuye: (09:21) Indian visa process in Nigeria to the contrary is quite straight forward.

  Sivasubramanian M 2: (09:28) At least in terms of fees, Indian Embassies overseas adopt the principle of reciprocity. And, quite possibly, a part of the complexities and delays in the India Visa Process mirrors the complexities faced by Indian citizens in their visa application process to travel to various countries. But in some cases, it is true that the complexities are unnecessarily imposed.

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:29) I'm not sure whether others feel the same, but without having some prior info in writing on the issues explained by Becky and Avri it is extremely difficult to follow

  Avri Doria: (09:30) we do not know what the future chnges would be.

  Becky Burr: (09:31) acknowledged, Avri

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:33) Jorge, yes ,it is difficult but the wayit has been drafted is quite ubnderstandable

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:35) Thanks for that clarifications Becky and Thomas

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (09:35) I was active in the subteam discussions and this alternative seems a fair compromise of the positions stated

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff Support: (09:39) No hearing Malcolm

  Chris Wilson: (09:39) Minor nit, but I think "affect" in Alt 1 and Alt 2 should be "effect."

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:39) David, which alternative? Alt 1 or Alt 2

  Becky Burr: (09:39) sorry, late night Chris

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:40) under the current rules there seems to be a short timeframe for filing, but it is only triggers if you have or should have awareness. In the new alt 2 24 months would be a hard stop: even if you have no clue you would not be able to file a dispute if you gain awareness afterwards...

  Becky Burr: (09:40) please mute if you are not talking

  Becky Burr: (09:41) I think David's comment related to the previous issue re application of the new rules to previously filed disputes, and i believe he supports a

  Becky Burr: (09:41) Avri's language, which I believe Kavouss also supports

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (09:42) Kavouss I can comment on audio in a moment

  Chris Disspain: (09:42) malcolm, how do you ensure that foks do not take actions over time that make them effected so that they can bring a claim and could you give me an example of something that would require your formulation?

  Chris Wilson: (09:43) some statute of limitations for all claims makes sense.  

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:44) Malcolm's point about the EC decision process is quite compelling

  Greg Shatan: (09:44) Agree with Chris, there needs to be some finaility.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:45) Malcolm, you said 45 days is too short . what time frame in your view is not short

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:45) on the other hand an absence of a statute of limitations weakens legal certainty

  Alan Greenberg: (09:45) @Malcom, what deadline for filing would you propose for a harm that is delayed?

  Greg Shatan: (09:45) I could see expanding the 45 days, at least for the EC.

  Greg Shatan: (09:46) I support Alternative 2.

  Becky Burr: (09:46) Please note that the 45 days is tolled once CEP is initiated, so as a practical matter you only need to signal

  Chris Disspain: (09:46) I think that's correct Becky

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:46) Sorry all, my line dropped

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (09:47) Kavouus - did I answer your question or was it about prior issue on supplemental rules

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:47) Chris: if, for example, ICANN had a new policy that looked like the UDRP but addressed some out-of-scope issue, a Registrant would only be able to complain when the UDRP-like procedure was invoked against them

  Chris Disspain: (09:47) wearing my lawyers hat, I could never advise a client like ICANNto accept a clause like Alt 1.

  Chris Disspain: (09:48) Alt 2 is workable

  Chris Wilson: (09:48) rationale for 24 months?  

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:48) I tend to agree with alternative 2

  Chris Disspain: (09:48) you have to pick a time Christopher...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:49) Perhaps 24 months may be argued to be too long ?

  Chris Wilson: (09:49) For sure!  But 2 years is a long time, IMO.

  Chris Disspain: (09:49) my preferecne would be fewer thatn 24 but I can accept it if that is the consensus view

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:49) Could be change 24 by 12 months$

  Chris Disspain: (09:49) that would be better in my view Kavouss

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (09:50) Nothing wrong with bringing a systemic issue to Ombuds if IRP rules don't apply

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:50) I have not seen in any analogeous case putting such a long period like 24 months

  Chris Disspain: (09:50) all of these things are a balance and need to be both accommodating and workable

  Becky Burr: (09:51) but anyone could apply for a name, be denied, and challenge - so i'm not moved by the no standing - the potential lack of motivation is legitimate

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (09:51) +1 @Chris

  Becky Burr: (09:51) a legitimate concern

  Edward Morris: (09:52) If we are going to go with alternative two, I'd suggest we should extend the limit to thirty six months.. Taking quick look at the California statute of limitations, for guidance only, terms vary but two years would be considered exceptionally short.

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:53) Becky, they might not be denied. The policy might give a right to a third party to challenge the registrant's name. That would mean the registrant was exposed permanently

  Becky Burr: (09:53) note for scribes, my "a legitimate concern" should be added to the end of my previous comment

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (09:54) it is a difficult thing to calculate but the IoT seemed to think 24 months is right if alternative 2 is used

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) it is the members of the community to have to work most closely within the ICANN framework....especially the contracting parties...they are entitled to a degree of certainty about positionso that they can get on with what they need to do

  Greg Shatan: (09:54) I think 24 months is appropriate.  I see calls for longer and shorter times, which indicates we got it right.

  Greg Shatan: (09:54) ... as a matter of compromise.

  Niels ten Oever 3: (09:59) I will need to jump off the call - we only have up to now, right?

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (09:59) If the role of the hearings gains weight it is important to also consider flexibilities as to venue and language

  Edward Morris: (10:00) Excellent point David. I also support alternative 1.

  Becky Burr: (10:00) Jorge, those issues will be decided going forward, not as part of the supplemental rules update

  Thomas Rickert: (10:01) Sorry, that scrolling was me!!!

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (10:01) Thanks, Becky - but important to keep them in mind...

  Thomas Rickert: (10:01) this is the last substantive slide. We will wrap up after this.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:02) I have another meeting in the next 10 mints

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (10:02) I also have a hard stop now...bye everyone.

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (10:02) will have to leave soon as I have other calls shortly

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (10:02) fair point, Greg

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:02) Agree Jorge, the very principle of witnesses and cross examination has implications on the ability to remain accessible to all and provide level playing field for non English speaking parties

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (10:02)  Sorry. Have to go. Thx all! Bye!

  jorge cancio (GAG Switzerland): (10:02) thanks Mathieu - that's it - and the venue also plays a role

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (10:03) Thanks Becky, well done

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:03) Great to see this progress Becky and team !

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (10:04) Thanks all, bye

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (10:04) Thanks all

  Rosalia Morales: (10:04) bye everyone

  Philip Corwin: (10:04) Bye all

  Sivasubramanian M 2: (10:04) thanks bye

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): (10:04) BYE