Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Alan Greegberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Isaac Maposa, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Rosalia Morales, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert    (16)

Observers/Guests:  David McAuley, Stephen Deerhake   (2)

Staff:  Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Lars Hoffman, Karen Mulberry, Nathalie Vergnolle, Patrick Dodson   (6)

Apologies:  Herb Waye, Giovanni Seppia

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

Transcript

Recording

Agenda

0.  Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO)

1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd see    https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw[community.icann.org]  (3 min CLO)

2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-

    *Short Review of CCWG Plenary meeting (2-3 min CLO) 

    *Expected input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's (2-3 min CLO)

    * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call (3-5 min SDB/FB)

3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandade to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins)

    * Introduction, outline of IRP and background information   (Total 15 - 20 min guest Chair IRP ST David McAuley)

        -  Further  interventions and comments by the Ombuds  and te Chair of the IOT-WT  (5-10 min HW/SB)

        - Start up discussion on our review of applicability of IRP to AC/SO Accountability   (10 min )

        - next steps  (5 min CLO) 

4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)

5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO) 


Notes

Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat)

0.  Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO)

  • Roll call will be taken from the Adobe Connect room.
  • Audio only: Greg Shatan
  • Asking for more volunteers to join the report drafting team 

1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd 

2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-

  • During CCWG Plenary, our subgroup requested to be moved to track 1. This request was approved, our group will now work towards the longer timeline.
  • Reviewed the SO/AC Accountability dashboard slide - Working now on 3 tracks only. 
  • Steve DelBianco gave an update on the edits made to the draft document.

3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandate to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins)

  • Kavouss would like to discuss the applicability of IRP to SO/AC. It has not been designed for that.
  • Alan  indicated that he would think the rules would be amended if we decide it is a good vehicle
  • David McAuley made a presentation of the IRP:
  • SO/AC are not legal entities. 
  • Costs of an IRP can escalate, not sure if SO/AC could pay for those.
  • It would probably take a change in the bylaws to take SO/ACs in IRPs.
  • CW in support of David's point on costs.
  • Kavouss: if we agree that IRP is not a good vehicle, we should document why in our report.
  • Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply
  • Steve: I hear that IRP is not applicable today, that it could be, but that it should not. More lighweighed vehicles like ombudsman would be more appropriate.
  • Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make no final  decisions applicable to third parties
  • Greg: the IRP is not fit for purpose for SO/AC dispute resolution. 
  • David reinforced that he believes the IRP is not the right vehicle and would require heavy changes in SO/AC entities
  • Sebastien Bachollet, Alan Greenberg express support.
  • The cost implication should not be the only motivation, there could possibly be indemnification.
  • David McAuley offered to make a written statement to the mailing list to summarize his intervention.
  • Avri: appeal to the board could be an enabling step to IRP for SOAC action.
  • Farzaneh summarised the views expressed, ie the existing bylaw is not applicable, and the IRP should not be amended for SO/AC.. 
  • Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction
  • Next steps:
    • Steve: We now need to focus on track 2 on MAR, while we wait on responses from SO/ACs on track 1
    • The drafting team will update our draft report with today's outcomes.

4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)

  • 8 December @ 19:00 UTC

5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO) 

  • ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.
  • Sebastien Bachollet apologizes for not being able to join the next call.

Action Items

  • ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Farzaneh,

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Farzaneh

  Farzaneh Badii:Hello Kavouss

  Kavouss Arasteh:You did not send the refernce doc. that you rferred to and Jorge asked a copy nor you replied to my e-mail and SMS

  Farzaneh Badii:We are talking about jurisdiction here? I am in transit Kavouss, moving to the US and at the moment in Mexico. Give me some time to settle down and then I will. I have not received an email though

  Kavouss Arasteh:As a Member of CCWG, I humbly request the rapporteur to kindly be brief in their conduct of the meeting and allow more time to participants to contribute

  Kavouss Arasteh:Still I have heard any valid reasons why this Group wishes to be transferred from Tack 2 to Track 1?

  Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh ,twoissue raised above, one comment and one question

  Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Participants, pls kindly accept my advance appology ,if by mistake I write 7 type a text in CAP.It should in no way interpreting intentional nor considered as shouting as wrongly interpreted last night by one of the co-chairs CCWG

  Farzaneh Badii:your point is taken Kavouss. as to your question, we need more time because first of all receiving the answers to the questions we sent to the community might take longer. There will be IGF and then holidays. Then we need to analyze the comments and come up with a workplan. and we still have not resolved IRP issue .

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:The link to the Google Doc for sub team 2 (draft report) is:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_14XrP2QiGv04qNtn-5FEuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=D8J0tiHX9-l0nF14wxqYBwk84C3RFykUusCUmJZFIGI&s=GZ-sKCpINm3bFDgxMTAfPNMdfRLlAHnlhiCOzOE3pgE&e=  

  David McAuley:Hi Brenda, I am 4154

  Thomas Rickert:Hi everyone!

  Thomas Rickert:Let me go on record with my apology for not having attended the previous calls!

  Julf Helsingius:Hi, am in a noisy environment so might not use the mic.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Thomas, Hi, you owe me something

  Thomas Rickert:That is a kind opening, Kavouss! Greetings to you!

  David McAuley:CLO - that is me, 4154

  Kavouss Arasteh:Steve, pls speak slowly

  Farzaneh Badii:yes sorry I was a bit absent lately.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Kavouss -- we are discssing IRP for AC and SO activities because the CCWG Final report tasked us with that question

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:See Annex 12 of CCWG Final report, pages 5-6

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:our task is to "Assess whether the IRP would also be applicable to SO and AC activities"

  Kavouss Arasteh:David ,I said that also

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Jorge -- you're right in that the SO decisions are subject to board approval.   But the GNSO does "decide" on Policy Development Processes

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):well the GNSO recommends to the Board - it is not final, right?

  Farzaneh Badii:that's a great idea Kavouss. I will compile everything and summarize

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:our task is to "Assess whether the IRP would also be applicable to SO and AC activities".   The answer seems to be: Would not.  Could be.  Should not be.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make nofinal  decisions applicable to third parties

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Agree, Jorge

  matthew shears:David - do you have a write up of what you presented?

  David McAuley:No Matthew but I could mail in a brief restatement to list

  matthew shears:I think that would be useful if you don't mind

  Farzaneh Badii:haha :)

  Kavouss Arasteh:Chyrl,

  Kavouss Arasteh:I am in the queue

  David McAuley:will do

  Farzaneh Badii:Thanks David, if you can send us a write up that wold be great. But I will also go through the recording

  David McAuley:Thanks Farzi, will do, will be short, probably mail to CLO for forwarding

  Kavouss Arasteh:Alan+1

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:my own summary of this discussion so far: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.WHile it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to So & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge]

  David McAuley:very loud noise

  David McAuley:cant hear Alan

  Julf Helsingius:Ouch, that hurts!

  Julf Helsingius:yes

  David McAuley:yes

  CW:Loud interference. My mike is mute. CW

  avri doria:And most anything can be appealed to the board.

  avri doria:so is appeal to the board the enabling step to IRP for SOAC action.

  Brenda Brewer:Yes, Calling Cheryl back

  avri doria:also charters are approved by the Board as another entry point for an appeal?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Agree, Kavouss

  Farzaneh Badii:I agree with Kavouss.

  Mary Uduma 2:+1 Kavouss

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction

  avri doria:action on non action

  avri doria:action or non action

  Farzaneh Badii:so if Board does not take action if someone challenges SO/AC activities, then that person can go to IRP?

  avri doria:that is sort of my assumption

  Julf Helsingius:Did audio just go quiet?

  Alan Greenberg:dead air

  CW:Let's go to the next point on the agenda. IRP Done, OK? CW

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):argh   seems you have lost my audio on IN again  ...  redial again plese BRENDA

  Brenda Brewer:Calling Cheryl.  one moment

  Kavouss Arasteh:CW+1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):no dropped stilll  Thx  Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back again *Sigh*

  Mary Uduma 2:Echo

  Brenda Brewer:Cheryl, echo is from your line.

  Julf Helsingius:Please mute your mics

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I WAS ALREADY MUTED  IN MY PHNE  BUT NOW THE SYSTEM HAS MUTED ME AS WELL

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):caps  partly intended

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-)

  Brenda Brewer:the echo stopped when I muted you Cheryl.  Sorry!!

  Brenda Brewer:will umnute when Steve is finished.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as long as you unmute  noq

  Kavouss Arasteh:Good and efficient meeting ,tks to all

  Farzaneh Badii:thank you

  Kavouss Arasteh:Tks Cherl and Steve and others for positive  contributions

  Julf Helsingius:Thank you everybody!

  Mary Uduma 2:very productive meeting, thanks all.

  matthew shears:happy to help with the drafting

  CW:B'ye - CW

  Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Matt

  David McAuley:Thanks for kind remarks

  Farzaneh Badii:thanks David :)

  Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh, pls kindly do not forget that reference doc.

  David McAuley:TY Farzi

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:GNSO Council is discussing answering our qeustions at the Council meeting today.

  Farzaneh Badii:Kavouss I will but give me some time please. I am doing too much at IGF and swamped

  Kavouss Arasteh:OH Sorry busy young lady

  Thomas Rickert:I will keep you updated!

  Thomas Rickert:on RSSAC

  Farzaneh Badii:thanks for understanding Kavouss. will be in touch.

  Mary Uduma 2:Why not we meet after IGF?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye all!

  Alan Greenberg:Have to go to another call.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Will be at IGF as well.

  David McAuley:Good bye and thanks all

  Mary Uduma 2:Thanks and bye. please see my question

  Farzaneh Badii:bye all


  • No labels