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

Tue Dec 6 15:32:32 UTC 2016

Dear Mathieu Weil,
Thank you very much for the clear views that you have expressed. I
commented exactly the same but one participant strongly criticise me that I
intended to impose my point and I replied that I just indicated the
procedure.
Tks
 Kavouss

2016-12-06 14:15 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>:

> 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]
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161206/99f737b3/attachment-0001.html>