Transcript

Recording

• The Adobe Connection recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3bv5z65c11/
• The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-08jul15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Draft Agenda - Work Party 1 CCWG - 8 July 2015 18h-20h:

1. Agenda review

2. Community Mechanism - text to discuss as circulated by Alan (and re-attached here)

3. Community Powers - Budget/Strat Plan - Jonathan Zuck to circulate material

4. Community Powers - Removal of Individual Directors - Alan Greenberg to circulate material

5. Affirmation of Commitments - Review of updated document circulated by Steve (and re-attached here).

6. Confirming/Amending agenda items for 10 July and 13 July meetings - proposal follows

Friday 10 July @ 19h UTC

- Community Powers - recall of whole ICANN Board (Drazek)

- further discussion of matters not resolved on 6 or 8 July

 Monday 13 July @ 20h UTC

- community powers - bylaws (both items)

- any other outstanding items

 7. Any Other Business

Notes

Chat transcript

Brenda Brewer: (7/8/2015 11:04) Welcome to WP1 Meeting #17 on 8th of July at 18:000 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Alan Greenberg: (11:54) Is there really a meeting?

  Kimberly Carlson: (11:55) Hi Alan, yes!

  Adam Peake: (11:56) morning all (or evening etc)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (11:59) Good Evening!

  Keith Drazek: (12:02) Hi all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:04) I'd like to join a sub-group working on budget / strat plan if possible.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:06) will do.  thanks.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:06) Staff - can people be given scroll control please?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:09) I think there were few comments because the questions weren't all on the website page asking for comment

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:14) I also think it's more important for them to be there if it's a group, so they can offer advice

  Keith Drazek: (12:15) +1 Avri, a choice to not participate now should not prejudice the ability of an SO or AC to exercise its powers/authority later.

  Keith Drazek: (12:15) ...or to add future community groups as needed.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:16) I'm happy for us to leave them in for now, so long as we reflect their feedback abck to the community in our draft 2 report

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:16) (we can't assume everyone will read all of the comments, after all)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:16) I do think we ought also to explicitly ask them again, it's good that SSAC is coming on with reps and hopefully they will be in Paris

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:17) +1 Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:18) This relates to the suggestion to have it as an actual group

  Alan Greenberg: (12:21) i am back

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:21) we either need fractional or multiple votes.  Either way, an AC/SO could divide it's "vote" to reflect differing views within their membership

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:28) i'm pretty confident they won't take up votes under any circumstanes, but I do want them in the room for sure (now that there seems to be some consensus that there should be a room, a group)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:29) neither do I

  Avri Doria: (12:30) they most definately represent the tchnical commuity

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:30) i don't think we can resolve this here, so I suggest we move on?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:31) (after the speaking list, of course)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:31) the distinction between expertise / advisory role and a representational role.  I think Greg is right on this.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:32) what is differential voting?

  Avri Doria: (12:32) i think they presetn the technical community. i do not support the logic of deciding one is greater than the others.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:32) Alan: I don't agree with that. It implies registries aren't interested in that. Of course we are - it's absolutely fundamental to our businesses :)

  Greg Shatan: (12:33) I suppose it means having some ACs and SOs have lower votes than others.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:33) let''s leave it open

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:33) and move on on...

  Greg Shatan: (12:33) A number of SSAC and RSSAC members are associated with registries or ISPs or registrars, etc.

  Greg Shatan: (12:34) Steve you're coming in and out.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:34) One of the SSAC nominees to this CCWG is on the board of AUDA, the .AU ccTLD manager, for instance

  Avri Doria: (12:34) and a number if GNSO people are in At Large structures, and a numner of IPC are in business and some are .brands. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:34) I support fractional voting, as long as we don't see a Council of 40 GNSO people and one ccTLD person

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:34) so I htink we should set some high maxima

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:34) GNSO's share needs to be 25% to each Stakeholder Group, and then stakeholder groups can decide how to sub-divide them.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:35) we either need fractional or multiple votes.  Either way, an AC/SO could divide it's "vote" to reflect differing views within their membership

  Avri Doria: (12:36) Robin i agree with the way the GNSO would be subdivided, but i do not think it is a task for the transition to determine.  i think the SOAC should make their own decsions about the way to subdivide.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:36) do we think that the SO or AC should make the decision?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:36) I do remember discusssions about 1.25 votes per quarter of the GNSO

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:37) so we are in violent agreement? :)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:37) @Jordan --empowered AC/SO would make its decision about how to vote.   Then one person would be designated to communicate that vote into the voting mechanism (whatever that is)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:38) NCSG has members that is in no constituency, so dividing it by constituency doesn't work for NCSG.

  Avri Doria: (12:39) and the RySG uses interst groups instead of constituencies, do they have to subdivide as well?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:39) we do still need to make sure the vote is cast as per the will of the group

  Greg Shatan: (12:39) As I said, that's probably up to each SG to decide what to do with its vote.  Though it would hopefully decide to give a piece of a vote to a recognized subgroup (e.g., NPOC).

  Greg Shatan: (12:39) @Avri, I think that's up to the RySG.

  Avri Doria: (12:40) i think the conplexities are such that subdivisions are a matter of local decsion.

  Greg Shatan: (12:40) These are intramural issues.  If the GNSO wants to regulate it, then it'sup to the GNSO.

  Avri Doria: (12:40) exactly, we should stick to the ACSO formulas.

  Greg Shatan: (12:40) @Avri, I agree -- it's local.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:41) but even when we say the designated communicator MUST follow AC/SO instructions...we have to anticipate that people will make mistakes

  Keith Drazek: (12:41) Isn't directed voting a fundamental requirement?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:41) Yes, Keith

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:41) I think directed voting should be required.

  Keith Drazek: (12:42) I agree. I thought that was already an assumption.

  Avri Doria: (12:42) i do not agree on a requirements for directed voting.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:42) It is the community members who hold the authority, the person should just relay that vote to the others.

  Avri Doria: (12:42) that should be up to the various ACSO as much as anything else.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:43) we are still agreeing here team, I think - can we move on?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:43) (in terms of the item we were discussing)

  Avri Doria: (12:44) i dont

  Keith Drazek: (12:44) What SO or AC would allow an individual to vote his/her heart rather than the interest or direction of the group?

  Greg Shatan: (12:44) I agree they should be traceable back to some organization or subgroup.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:44) it is a good point - how do we show the vote cast is in fact the will of the community (or just someone's interpretation)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:44) it will have to be reflected in the text, and debated in Paris

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:45) Jordan and Robin:  AC/SO officers and members can be counted on to sound the alarm if they see that their vote(s) was mis-cast

  Greg Shatan: (12:45) frac·tion·ate (ˈfrakSHəˌnāt/) (verb): divide into fractions or components; separate (a mixture) by fractional distillation.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:45) and THAT would suspend the voting

  Avri Doria: (12:46) Keith, in a case where a group is divided and have elected it reps, it can leave the decsion up to the elected voter to take into account the things they have heard.  also by requiring a forced vote, we mean there is not negotiation on wording whiel decsion making becasue everyone will hav eto consult their capital.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:46) approach seems sensible for now, to me

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:46) [as set out in 4 in the paper]

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:46) what if 50% of community think the vote was supposed to be "yes" and 50% think that vote was supposed to be "no".  the person casting the vote will just be guessing what is the majority view, unless an actual vote is taken from the emembers.  or not?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:47) I support the actual formation of a group in this sort of ad-hoc function - it helps cut through the silos

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:48) @Robin -- an AC/SO with that kind of division had better conduct some formal voting internally.   We will fail a key stress test if we allow AC/SO to avoid transparency and inclusive voting

  Keith Drazek: (12:48) Thanks Avri. I think in that case fractional voting would come into play, would it not? I prefer fractional directed voting over non-directed unified votes.

  Avri Doria: (12:49) i tink that if we are having directed voting we might as well cut out the sock puppoets from the middle of the transaction.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:49) I don't think we should provide for it to meet in person outside ICANN meetings, but virtual meetings/discussions important

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:50) it could precede a decision by a set amount of time

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:50) "vote can only be cast X hours / X days after the discussion of the Council"

  Avri Doria: (12:51) so we are taking the model of assigned negotiators and then a vote recorded from the ACSO itself.? like ratifying a treaty.

  Avri Doria: (12:52) i really think we need to make this very simple and straightforward, whever we do.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:52) I think I would prefer that, Avri.  The group should primarily be about facilitating the community wide conversation, but the decision should still rest at the edges, with the community members.

  Avri Doria: (12:53) i am mmuch more comfrtable with the ACSO in the body of the chair expressing the vote, i am just not in favor of directed voting.

  Greg Shatan: (12:53) It's merely an option, only to be used if necessary.  If we are going to spill the whole board, that should be discussed in a very serious fashion.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:58) I don't think in respect of #6 that coexistence of advisory roles and participation in the mechanism is a problem

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:59) i.e. I agree with Steve, and it seems with Alan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:01) I agree with Avri.  It should be one or the other for GAC, not both bites at the apple.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:01) It's not a trump card.  GAC advice is a Queen or King, perhaps.  But no an Ace of Trump

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:01) but we would otherwise make them less equal by leaving them out?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:02) The Board has not agreed to negotiate with us - they said in Singapore that they'd pass our proposal through. They had better not back away from that...

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:02) If Board decides to accept GAC advice in opposition to a Community vote, I bet the community would file an IRP

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:03) Fadi said the same thing in BA.  

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:03) I was there.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:03) the don't have a voting mechanism - they have a consensus approach :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:04) I think that GAC will opt out anyway, but I think the GAC needs to work through this

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:04) at this stage, us saying there has to be a choice would just be a distraction?

  Keith Drazek: (13:08) +1 Steve. The proposal does not give the GAC more weight or influence relative to the rest of the community.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:08) Good work on that, sub-group

  Greg Shatan: (13:09) I'll continue to work with Alan on the redlining.

  Greg Shatan: (13:09) of the first draft to turn it into the second.  I've already "clipped" the section we need to redraft and put it in its own doc.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:10) Good work, Greg

  Alan Greenberg: (13:11) Greg, I don't understand what you just said. Can we talk offline?

  Greg Shatan: (13:11) Alan -- certainly.

  Avri Doria: (13:21) WP2 is working on diversity

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:22) what one views as "diversity" is too arbitrary to enshrine in bylaws.  dangerous.

  Avri Doria: (13:22) i am fine with being specifc mention of gender and geo

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:24) this issue is definitely moot from my point of view

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:24) neither proposal suggests limiting "participants"

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:25) Board is on the review team.   See first paragraph on page 3

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:26) so Avri's proposal is OPEN to ALL participants?  More than 3 from each AC/SO?   

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:26) Steve, that's what it says in blue and white

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:26) first sentence

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:27) Jordan -- the 3rd sentence says 3 are chosen from each AC/SO

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:27) those are the "members"

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:28) Alan -- one reason for lack of participation was that GNSO was limited to number of participants

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) So neither proposal meets what Alan has said, to keep the group small (and, may I see implicit, functionally sized?)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:29) if a F2F meeting were held, should we assume that only the Members would get travel funding. Right?

  Alan Greenberg: (13:29) 3 forces hard decisions instead of easy political ones.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:30) how does 3 force anything, Alan?    that number only matters if we have a consensus call.  And we have yet to have one in this CCWG

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:31) neither of these proposals limits Participants.    The only limitation is ... Exhaustion !

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:31) glad to move on

  Alan Greenberg: (13:31) 3 does not allow you to divide by "party line" (ie SG/Const/Region). That forces more considered choices

  Greg Shatan: (13:32) Exhaustion is not a limiting factor!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:32) If only it was!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:33) as agreed, yep

  Keith Drazek: (13:33) This is my 6th hour of conference calls today....so far!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:33) text looks good to me

  Avri Doria: (13:34) i think the large number of people we have as particpants in the CCWG has not been an impediment to movign forward.  perhaps some few people with hard postions has been, but not the number of mostly silent patrticpants.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:34) Keith, that's horrible

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:34) Avri: so you reckon it works better than the more closed approach?

  Avri Doria: (13:34) make the nukber too small and all you get it those with a strong PoV.

  Avri Doria: (13:34) Jordan, i do.

  Keith Drazek: (13:34) What's horrible is I'm not the busiest among us.... ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:35) Avri: me too

  Alan Greenberg: (13:35) #Keith, only 5 for me.

  Keith Drazek: (13:35) Avri, are you in favor of "Directed Membership" but not "Directed Voting?" ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:35) I prefer Steve's text with one change, "and amended in 2013" rather than as amended

  Avri Doria: (13:36) Keith confused you have made me.

  Keith Drazek: (13:36) It was a poor attempt at humor. Disregard!

  Avri Doria: (13:37) then again i am in my 8th hour of calls so far starting at 2am with isoc

  Alan Greenberg: (13:37) Silence = exhaustion

  Avri Doria: (13:38) Keith sorry, alwasy feel bad wen i do not get the joke.

  Greg Shatan: (13:39) Only in hour 5, but there's still the WP2 call in an hour!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:40) bye all

  Keith Drazek: (13:40) Thanks everyone. Great work on this.

  Adam Peake: (13:40) thank you. all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) Thanks, Jordan, and all.  Bye!

  Greg Shatan: (13:40) Bye all!