[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Dedicated Rec-11 Meeting | 4 February

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability Dedicated Recommendation 11 Meeting -
4 February will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/OQOAAw

 

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

.Audio only: GShatan

No updates on SOI

TRickert: this group has come a long way from nothing, generating consensus on a number of
recommendations by a greatly diverse community. We now have to finish, we are close, possibly the
last meter. What we deliver needs to be what the chartering organizations will approve. We need to
close this by 2359UTC Monday February 8th. Any general remarks on rec 11.

OCavalli: GAC currently working to find a way forward on rec 11. It would be very clear and stable
version of the options so we can properly understand and analyze.

RPerezGalindo (GAC Spain): thanksgiving deal was a good compromise and this seems to be breaking at
this point. We need clear and stable version to properly understand and analyze.

BBurr: appreciation how hard everyone has worked to get this done and special thanks to Kavouss.

JBladel: Echo what BB has said. gNSO is very diverse and the reasons for not approving rec 11 in the
third draft have been diverse. This new proposal is a very good step forward and I am encouraged and
think we are on the right path.

KArasteh: We need to work together and understand each other. As a member of the ICG I wish to see
the transition succeed. I have put together a package with other colleagues such as Becky to let us
complete our work. It may not be perfect but includes all inputs and points a way forward.

BBurr: have been listening carefully to calls to try understand the needs. Interest by the GAC to
participate. To address what the community was concerned about (second bite at the apple) - whenever
the community uses a power to challenge the implementation of GAC advice by the Board would require
the GAC to only participate in an advisory capacity.

TRickert: any clarification questions?

Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: I would appreciate a clarification of the intended difference between this
new version and the previous text we had on the screen previously - Thanks!

BBurr - I accidentally narrowed the proposal - I have adjusted (its not just for using the IRP).

KArasteh - Uncertain what JC implies when he says it is difficult to understand. Changes to rec. 1
does not change the right of the GAC to participate if it so wishes - however if the implementation
of GAC advice by the Board is challenged by the community - the GAC can only participate in an
advisory capacity.

TRickert: Support or concerns?

 

SDelBianco: As rapporteur I can confirm this meets the requirements of ST18. It should be the right
path forward.

JBladel: Registrars opposition to the proposal is fading with this new proposal.

BSchaefer: I can support the 60% with the other text.

MHutty: this is a possible compromise. Important for people to say if they support. This is the best
we are likely to get. If the GAC supports this, I would expect the ISPs to support (not a
commitment).

PRosenzweig: Supports MH view - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This satisfies no one,
but I speak in favour of it with caveat that everyone has to accept it.

KArasteh: In response to Rafael, the third draft of rec. 11 was not agreed by everyone. We are not
dealing with the third proposal.

Chris Disspain: it seems to me that the problem is that the GAC folks don't want to go back with a
proposal unless they know the gNSO will agree and the gNSO folks don't want to go back unless they
know the GAC will agree.

KArasteh: Given the GAC  needs to understand the position of the gNSO vs this proposal. If the GAC
understands the position of the gNSO then they could consider it seriously.

PRosensweig: Both the GAC the gNSO have to agree to press this and try and sell it in their
community.

OCavalli: Difficult for any govt to participate in the straw poll.

TRickert: Straw poll - green if you do not object. red otherwise.

CDisspain: Could we change the question to - as a participant do you agree you can take it back to
your community for agreement (TR confirmation of non-objection).

KArasteh: prefer original TR proposal. Please emphasise we are dealing with the package as a whole.
It cannot break it down.

Straw Poll - TRickert: Let use the Chris version. 31 support, 3 against, 8 abstain on a total of 63
participants.

Robin Gross CHAT[GNSO - NCSG]: I don't have audio, but I don't think it is appropriate for GAC to
use this accountability process to get greater power at ICANN relative to the other groups.

TRickert - We have a new reference position for consensus to discuss. We will publish to the list to
continue discussion. We will maintain the Monday call, which could be short.

CDisspain - Next step should be to wait to see if there are objections from the communities.

Decision - TRickert: Good point. We usually work by establishing if there is objection. We can end
the call on this. We will try to confirm this is still our position on Monday. We will try to get
this approved as our consensus position on our next CCWG call on Tuesday February 9th.

LSanchez: thanks to all, we will be distributing the official version to the list shortly to
continue the discussion. Any AOB? (none).

Adjourned.


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160204/706d13ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160204/706d13ab/smime-0001.p7s>