Sub-group Members: Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Julf Helsingius, Lito Ibarra, Lori Schulman (6)
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Yvette Guigneaux (4)
Apologies: Herb Waye
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
- Attendance
- Changes to SOI
- Discussion of Current Version of Draft Report including conclusions from ICANN Legal
- Are we ready to request an initial read by the plenary?
- AOB
Notes (including relevant portions of chat)
1. Attendance
Lori Schulman: (6 participants at start of meeting).
2. Changes to SOI (none)
3. Discussion of Current Version of Draft Report including conclusions from ICANN Legal
Lori Schulman: ICANN Legal has responded and I have included this in the report and added two footnotes. I have answered SL questions on the list and believe these were covered in our earlier discussions.
Lori Schulman: (going through document). Exec Summary.
Alan Greenberg: Decisional Participants - participants should be capitalized the same everywhere. Additionally, we are not providing indemnity to Decisional Participants - its the representatives etc (people) and this should be amended everywhere. SO AC councils or equivalent .... or reps to the empowered community.
Lori Schulman: Will include the definition of Decisional Participant in the Exec summary and then will refer to the definition elsewhere.
Alan Greenberg: recommendation 2A - want to clear up who is doing the investigation. B Members of SO's - cannot work for the gNSO which has thousands of members - use wording from above re Councils - C does a secret ballot meet the requirements of transparent? need to clear up. Page 4 "working group" is a technical term in ICANN may be better to simply use Group.
avri doria: 'entire members' doesn't even make sense as a stand along phrase. how do we define a partial member. probably enough to say the membership.
Alan Greenberg: Could there be a problem with divisions of opinion within SOs and ACs as each SO/AC puts specific processes in place, and issues over whether or not they are according to the set of guidelines? Would normal consensus procedures be adequate to resolve such differences here or is there need for something beyond the individual SOs and ACs to be involved?
Alan Greenberg: My thoughts are that since an SO/AC has to build a coalition to remove nomcom appointees, it would be up to the other SO/AC’s to determine adequacy of any procedures. I believe that we may have touched on this in earlier discussions.
Lori Schulman: Discussion of SL questions and responses by LS.
Alan Greenberg: uncertain if SL is talking about within an SOAC or between SOACs. Internally its the SOAC's issue. Between it is the usual mechanisms to come to an agreement. there is no formal process for SO and Ac's to resolve issues between themselves - if they want something to happen they will need to find a way. We may have overlooked the need for a secretariat for the empowered community.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): not our job to describe the collaborative processes just refer to the requirements for it
Avri Doria: may not need a secretariat - chairs of SOs and ACs should be encouraged to work together. Issue about "turthful" caution. Concerned how truthful gets adjudicated. Also have problem with SHOULD - when I hear should means it is not always required.
Alan Greenberg: AD comments have merit. Truth is not absolute but if you make the assertion you need to believe it. What are the right legal words for this.
avri doria: well if the purpose is indemnification, we need to be legalistic. of course i am not a lawyer.
Lito Ibarra: Avri, the interpretation of the word "Should" is why I asked if ALL of the conditions below (1 to 6) need to be satisfied, if applicable.
Lori Schulman: Valid criticism. Would not object to deleting it and re-drafting.
avri doria: btw, no comment i make is a 'die in the ditch' comment.
Lori Schulman: SHOULD is related to the fact that directors can be removed for ANY reason. given we have so many IF's in the specific points we could change SHOULD to MUST.
Alan Greenberg: But if the person has never been seen in purple pants, and you have no evidence, it is NOT a valid reason
avri doria: so it is for any true reason.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): written and verifiable
Avri Doria: "detailed in writng" comment.
Lito Ibarra: Although English is not my mother tongue, "must" is a good option
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): must works for me
avri doria: for 2b recommend replacing entire members with membership
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup... believed to be......
avri doria: 2c recommend replacing transparent voting with transparent use of a voting method
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): then validation can also include All
Lito Ibarra: Yes to "believed to be..."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If you go to Beleived to Be covers "allegations" but does not have to be typed in our recommendations. this provides "wiggle room". "Purple pants" analogy.
Lori Schulman: So this is not ready for submission for a first reading by the plenary as it needs to be edited per the comments today. If I make these changes could we approve it over the coming week so it could be sent to the plenary?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): polishing from today's work required list review then call for consensus pre 1st works
Julf Helsingius: Works for me too
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 72 hours for any substantive changes.
Julf Helsingius: I agree!
Lito Ibarra: 72 hours is ok
avri doria: yeah, one of these, silence is consent 72 hours. they can comment during the mtg.
Lori Schulman: I will make the changes today and put this up on the list. Any substantive changes have to be brought up on the list by 23:59 Sunday. If none this will be the version for a first reading by the plenary.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great group to work with and kudos to Lori for doing should an incredible group.
Adjourned.
Action Items
Documents Presented
W2 Guidelines Draft Report v1.3.pdf
divisions of opinion within SOs and ACs as each SO.pdf
Chat Transcript
Yvette Guigneaux: (1/25/2017 09:29) Welcome all to the Guidelines for Guide Faith Subgroup |
Meeting #9 | 25 January @ 19:00 UTC!
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:29) To mute & unmute phone, please press *6
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:57) hello all
Julf Helsingius: (10:59) Evening
Lito Ibarra: (11:00) Hello
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:02) no worries =)
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:05) scrolling available if need be
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:05) First Reading
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:06) 8 February
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:06) so we need it February 1
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:06) yes
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:07) Bernie is handling notes for you today
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:07) individual control
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:07) individual control
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:14) probably best to clarify
avri doria: (11:15) 'entire members' doesn't even makse sense as a stand along phrase. how do we define a partial member. probably enough to say the membership.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:15) good
Alan Greenberg: (11:17) from Sam
Alan Greenberg: (11:17) Could there be a problem with divisions of opinion within SOs and ACs as each SO/AC puts specific processes in place, and issues over whether or not they are according to the set of guidelines? Would normal consensus procedures be adequate to resolve such differences here or is there need for something beyond the individual SOs and ACs to be involved?
Alan Greenberg: (11:18) My thoughts are that since an SO/AC has to build a coalition to remove nomcom appointees, it would be up to the other SO/AC’s to determine adequacy of any procedures. I believe that we may have touched on this in earlier dicussions.
Alan Greenberg: (11:18) If there a dispute over whether or not guideline based processes, as developed, are followed within a particular SO/AC action, how would that be resolved?
Alan Greenberg: (11:18) The SO/AC would resolve that internally if challenge is internal. If challenge is external, then if the SO/AC is relying on a coalition, it will have to support its actions. If potential coalition partners question the process, it will have to be reconciled with the SO/AC
avri doria: (11:20) oh well
avri doria: (11:21) still hear nothing. need to reboot. later .
avri doria: (11:21) not even sure you see what i type.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:21) we see you in the chat Avri
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:22) we see you in the chatt
Julf Helsingius: (11:23) avri, can you hear us?
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:23) i think Avri got booted out of the AC Room or got disconnected
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:23) working on getting her back in
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:25) Avri - you good?
avri doria: (11:25) in trying to fix microphone, i lost audio. from expereinnce i have learned it is quickest to just uses the biggest hammer and reboot.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:26) lol
avri doria: (11:26) yes seems ok now, thogh until i try to talk wont knwo for sure.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:26) do you want me to try dialing you in Avri on your cell?
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:26) ok we'll try it, let me know if you need a hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:26) not our job to describe the collaborative processes just refer to the requirements for it
Alan Greenberg: (11:29) When I say "secretariat", I am talking about a small fraction of on person mandated to do this.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:30) Yes Minister
Alan Greenberg: (11:30) Don't make fun of one of the best TV shows of all time!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:30) +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:32) written and verifiable
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:38) lol
avri doria: (11:39) well if the purpose is indemnification, we need to be legalistic. of course i am not a lawyer.
Lito Ibarra: (11:39) Avri, the interpretation of the word "Should" is why I asked if ALL of the conditions below (1 to 6) need to be satisfied, if applicable.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:40) +1
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:40) Time check 20 minutes left in call
avri doria: (11:41) btw, no comment i make is a 'die in the ditch' comment.
Alan Greenberg: (11:41) But if the person has never been seen in purple pants, and you have no evidence, it is NOT a valid reason
avri doria: (11:42) so it if for any true reason.
avri doria: (11:42) so it is for any true reason.
Alan Greenberg: (11:42) I can live with must
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:43) and use the panting system to validate the purple
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:43) painting is supposed to be Pantone
Lito Ibarra: (11:44) Although English is not my mother tongue, "must" is a good option
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:44) must works for me
avri doria: (11:44) for 2b recommend replacing entire members with membership
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:45) yup... believed to be......
avri doria: (11:46) 2c recommend replacing transparent voting with transparent use of a voting method
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:46) then validation can also include All
avri doria: (11:46) just wanted to get those written in casse we did not get there in time before the end of the meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:46) "allegations" ?
Lito Ibarra: (11:46) Yes to "believed to be..."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:48) bit of wriggle room
Julf Helsingius: (11:50) It might not be malice, but it might still offend someone's fashion sense
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:51) yup
Julf Helsingius: (11:53) I think so
avri doria: (11:53) ok by me. i could go with this, so am fine going with the new and improved.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:54) yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:54) polishing from today's work required list review then call for consensus pre 1st works
Julf Helsingius: (11:54) Works for me too
Julf Helsingius: (11:55) I agree!
Lito Ibarra: (11:55) 72 hours is ok
avri doria: (11:56) yeah, one of these, silence is consent 72 hours. they can comment during the mtg.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:56) exactly Avri
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:57) use UTC time
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:57) 23:59 UTC Sunday
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:57) sold!
Lito Ibarra: (11:59) Thank you. Hasta luego!
avri doria: (12:00) bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (12:00) bye
Julf Helsingius: (12:00) Thanks everybody
