[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 12 | 5 December

Tue Dec 6 13:15:35 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12 – 5 December 2016 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/XITDAw

A copy of the notes may be found below.  Also, as requested on the call today, here is a link for Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8%5byoutube.com>]

Thank you.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat):
1. Welcome
Greg Shatan:  Vinay Kasari unfortunately unavailable. Also we are competing with IGF. Any changes to SOI's? (none)_.
2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions
Greg Shatan: Any input on the 3 questions as circulated?
David McAuley: Thank you for getting us here GS - Am not a fan of these questions but given the discussions this is the best we can get.
Greg Shatan: any objections to starting the process to publishing these?
David McAuley: I gather we have not decided on the process?
Greg Shatan: Correct DM - process for this is point 4 on our agenda today. No other comments so these 3 are good. Let us now look at the additional question (#4)
3. Discussion of additional question
a. Formulation of question
Greg Shatan: We have rough consensus on the previous questions but not on this one. Neither do we have a stable draft of this question. Any comments on the question.
David McAuley: Does not specify a point of view and could cause issues in analyzing the responses.
Greg Shatan: Question used to be WHAT DO YOU THINK and then mutated.
Pedro da Silva: Generally I favour more straightforward and general type questions - however given the inputs I would support this proposed text - but this question HAS to be part of the questions.
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? Given the limited number of people participating we will have to put this on the list. Let us now talk about including the question.
b. Whether to include the question
Javier Rua-Jovet: If I may, I feel this question is quite clear, balanced and straightforward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes indeed to the list
Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: I have already expressed my viewpoint about this in my comment
David McAuley: I do not support asking this question.
Phil Corwin: Share DM's misgivings and do not really support sending it out.
Greg Shatan: To PC I would note that there is a footnote.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You can count me as not in favour of sending this out. Fluffy questions get fluffy answers - in the end it gives very little results.
Greg Shatan: Temperature check - support for sending the question? (2 for 5 against). Consistent with discussions on the list. Given the low numbers we should put this back on the list.
David McAuley (RySG): appropriate for list, agreed
Pedro sa Silva: IGF is an issue. should go to the list.
Greg Shatan: will work with staff about how to poll the group on this.
4. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
Greg Shatan: KA has brought up that the questions should go to the plenary.
     a. Introduction to questions
Greg Shatan: the SOAC questions had an introduction. I think this would be very important in our case. Any thoughts on this? some support no objections - would need a drafting team. General agreement. DM has offered to help draft.
     b. Review by CCWG
Mathieu Weill: The precedent we have set with the SOAC sub-group should be the basis for this. As such the questions should be shared with the plenary for approval.
     c. How to send out
Greg Shatan: ICANN community or wider?
Pedro da Silva: I would support wider distribution and should not be restricted and we should use the standard ICANN public consultation.
David Mcauley: Depends on expected turn around time.
Greg Shatan: Not really looking at trying to use the formal ICANN Public Consultation. This is not what this is. May not be practical to send this out prior to end of year if we need Plenary approval (next meeting is Dec. 14 and the Jan 11).
     d. Who to send it to
     e. How to collect responses
David McAuley (RySG): if we go free form pdf we need a word limit
Greg Shatan: We have some tendencies as to a process - we will gather these and send to the list.
5. Discussion of “Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction” document
Greg Shatan: Need to regain our momentum on these documents.
Mathieu Weill: The sub-groups were made for working.
David McAuley: As an original sceptic of Google docs I can say that once you get in it its fine.
6. AOB
Greg Shatan: any AOB (none) Action Item - Staff to recirculate Google Docs Primer link to this sub-group.
Brenda Brewer: For Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com]
Mathieu Weill: Let's also acknowledge that some colleagues do not get access to Google Doc as part of their employers IT security policies
Mathieu Weill: Comments via PDF and emails should be ok
7. Adjourn
Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

Documents Presented

·         Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Experience%20Questions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1480968202000&api=v2>

·         Additional Question.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Additional%20Question.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1480968212000&api=v2>

·         InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions_5 Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions_5%20Dec.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1480968226000&api=v2>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161206/e1f44d5b/attachment-0001.html>