[IOT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #18 - 6 April 2017

Thu Apr 6 21:19:07 UTC 2017

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #18 on 6 April 2017 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/R8DRAw
A copy of the action items and notes may be found below.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
[cid:image001.png at 01D2AEF1.83438F80]

Action Items:

·         David McAuley – Arrange for meeting of small group to discuss repose on the week of 10 April.

·         David McAuley – Provide EOI comments on list by 9 April.

·         IOT Participants – Any comments on EOI should be posted to the list by 12 April 23:59 UTC.

·         Sam Eisner – Post ICANN comments on Joinder issue to the list by 7 April 23:59 UTC.
Notes (includes relevant text from chat):
1.  Admin/SOI
2.  Status on timing issue – small group discussion
David McAuley - Have made progress but the issue of Repose remains. Decided on the last call that a small group would look at this. We have not met yet but plan to do so next week.
Action Item – David McAuley – Arrange for meeting of small group to discuss repose on the week of 10 April.
3.  EOI document – including staggered terms for panelists (see Sam’s mail to list of 3/29)
David McAuley - ICANN has asked for our thoughts on this and this is important. Probably need to deal with the proposal for a staggered panel to ensure continuity. I personally support this.
Sam Eisner - presentation of the issue. Open to other solutions.
avri doria: Exccellent idea.  the hard part is figuring out who to stagger. it is a normal bootstrap problem
David McAuley - great idea - if 7 panelists would split 3-4 with 3 for the 3 years term and the 4 for the 5 year term. Do we need to change the Bylaws for this?
Sam Eisner - Bylaws are not clear on this and we probably have a way around it - given this is a fundamental Bylaw we would look at a 6 to 9 month process. One option could be to hire the panelists in a staggered fashion all for 5 years with the disadvantages this would bring.
Kavouss Arasteh - difficulty understanding Sam and please avoid colloquialism. Also do not understand technical amendment.
avri doria: i have trouble understanding what My Aresteh is saying about language.  To Bootstrap is international language.
David McAuley - agree vs colloquialisms - any comments on staggered terms (none). Ok on to other comments on the EOI document - I will put my smaller editing comments to the list for all to see. Re reference to skills - ICANN using DEMONSTRATED seems to go beyond what is in the Bylaws.
Action Item – David McAuley – Provide EOI comments on list by 9 April.
Liz Le - We can agree with that.
Samantha Eisner: @Kavouss, we do not have any carve-out in the CCWG process to allow for changing the Bylaws without going through the Bylaws-mandated processes, even if the CCWG WS2 were to recommend changes to the Bylaws
David McAuley - EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH LARGE INTERNATIONAL ORGS - this would desirable but not necessary?
Liz Le - Agree we can take it out.
David McAuley - do not have to take out but just not required.
Kavouss Arasteh - panelists need to DEMONSTRATE their expertise - this is important. What you are suggesting is oversimplifying things and I do not agree.
David McAuley - The compensation section is panelists will be paid if they are on cases - but is there a retainer?
Sam Eisner - we have discussed this with ICDR and it would seem that we need some type of retainer to ensure availability.
Becky Burr: agree with Sam on this.  important
David McAuley - Are we asking why they want to serve on the panel and what they could bring to it - any thoughts on this. If this is included there should be a word cap on submissions for this.
Sam Eisner - Great suggestion - we support that.
Kavouss Arasteh: David+1
David McAuley - will provide the remainder of my comments via email within 48 hours. Would encourage everyone to do the same. What is the plan after our comments are completed?
Sam Eisner - we would update the document based on input and would send it back to the IOT for a short period to confirm changes and then would post it. We have not discussed how long we would keep it posted for. Once we have enough candidates there would be interview portion. At then end of this process ICANN would then push out to the SOACs a list of the candidates that meet the core requirements.
David McAuley - We could ask the SOACs to disseminate the EOI.
Kavouss Arasteh - why are you talking about SOACs? do not understand.
David McAuley - SOACs have a role to nominate the panel and we have been working with them to prepare them for this.
Kavouss Arasteh - We should ask the SOACs what their procedure so they can select panelists.
David McAuley - fair request. We have been advising them of their responsibilities under the Bylaws - but we should ensure.
Avri Doria  - Am confused by this last interchange - why require a process ahead of time?
Sam Eisner - there is some intermediate position between KA and AD - There is no requirement in the Bylaws for the SOACs to develop processes for this. However, given there are no specific requirements it could be useful to work with the SOACs to identify some basic principles to guide the selection of a slate of panelists.
Kavouss Arasteh - Some SOACs may use Diversity considerations before anything else when considering panelists. this is what I think should be avoided - the most important criteria is qualifications.
David McAuley - there is room for the IOT to work with the SOACs on this as they need. (Reading Bylaws on this)
Samantha Eisner: (B)ICANN shall issue a call for expressions of interest from potential panelists, and work with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and the Board to identify and solicit applications from well-qualified candidates, and to conduct an initial review and vetting of applications. (C)The Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall nominate a slate of proposed panel members from the well-qualified candidates identified per the process set forth in Section 4.3(j)(ii)(B).
David McAuley - any other comments? (none) Please post on list by next Wednesday 23:59UTC. ACTION ITME.
Action Item – IOT Participants – Any comments on EOI should be posted to the list by 12 April 23:59 UTC.
4.  Joinder issue
David McAuley - (recap of the issue based on the email including suggestions).
Kavouss Arasteh - some who joins has the same status as the main party?
David McAuley - this is what I am proposing but it should be made clearer.
Kavouss Arasteh - could a joinder party be in conflict with the main party or should there be a requirement they be consistent.
David McAuley - have to think about it - they would be completely independent.
Sam Eisner - important that ICANN has no fundamental opposition to proper people joining. The rules surrounding this that the question is focused on the violation of the ICANN Bylaws - it cannot be about resolving issues between parties. In terms of interested parties there is probably a need for further work to identify them and if they are allowed how does this affect the timeline ....(did not capture all of the comment)
David McAuley - could you post these to the list?
Sam Eisner - yes by tomorrow.
Action Item – Sam Eisner – Post ICANN comments on Joinder issue to the list by 7 April 23:59 UTC.
5.  Working methods-list and meetings
David McAuley - we need to work more on the list (see email from list). Any comments?
Avri Doria - do not agree. different people communicate in different ways - so strongly disagree.
David McAuley - would you think it would be ok if someone could make a new point but the chair could be more of aggressive to move along.
Avri Doria - could work.
Kavouss Arasteh - need a single document. If in joinder if they are completely independent and they disagree it will cause great problems for the panel - this needs to be considered.
David McAuley - food for thought.
6.  Consensus policy
David McAuley – we are out of time. Thanks all. Adjourned.
Decisions: (none)

Documents Presented

·         EOI-Standing-Panel-DRAFT for IOT Consideration<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077895/EOI-Standing-Panel-DRAFT%20for%20IOT%20Consideration.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1491507930606&api=v2>

·         Greg_David email_29 March<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077895/Greg%3ADavid%20email_29%20March.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1491507948255&api=v2>

·         Email from David McAuley_6 April<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077895/Email%20from%20David%20McAuley_6%20April.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1491508578725&api=v2>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170406/6d83b43c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5171 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170406/6d83b43c/image001-0001.png>