[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #74 - 05 January
brenda.brewer at icann.org
Tue Jan 5 22:50:33 UTC 2016
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #74 - 5 January will be available here:
A copy of the notes may be found below.
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.
1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI MW (5')
* Bruce Tonkin on audio only
2. Update from Chartering Organizations LS (15')
* MWeil - The ccNSO statement on the third draft is being reviewed by the council and is
* JHammer SSAC- Nothing new.
* AGreenberg ALAC - Nothing new
* KDrazez gNSO - For the Chartering Organization Update, I can report the GNSO Council has
formed a working group to analyze the comments submitted by the GNSO SGs and Cs. This is intended to
enable a clear and concise message to the CCWG on January 14 when the GNSO Council will meet and
pass a resolution approving such a communication. There are several areas of concern across multiple
GNSO organizations and the GNSO is working to synthesize these concerns to identify any red flags.
* Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): The GAC has received members views on each Recommendation
and is scheduling discussion calls over the next 2 weeks.
* Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): In addition to Tom Dale's info: there has been also a
preliminary GAC submission on a number of key recommendations.
* Kavouss Arasteh: GAC reply was only preliminary and provisional
* FIONA ASONGA (ASO): The ASO response was already sent in. Observing discussion should there
be changes to the third draft in generating a final proposal.
3. Global Public Interest (GPI) TR (15')
* CCWG advisors have been asked for opinion on GPI.
* CCWG have asked the Board for rationale for mentioning GPI in its comments on the third
* The CCWG is obtaining this information to provide a rationale to the Board should a CCWG
recommendation not meet the ICANN Board concerns.
* KArasteh - There is only one reference to GPI in the ICANN Bylaws - therefore it is
difficult to agree with the ICANN Board that it could reject a CCWG recommendation based on GPI
given GPI is still undefined.
* TRikert - The points you have made are good arguments when providing a rationale to the
* AGreenberg - Any attempt by the CCWG to define GPI is ill advised.
* MHutty - Supports co-chairs letter to the ICANN Board. The CCWG should not attempt to
define GPI. It is the responsibility of the Board to explain to the CCWG if they chose to use this
* TBen Jemaa - Not productive to tell the Board something is or is not against GPI. Best to
ask them for a rationale.
* BTonkin - the Board would produce a full rationale if it used the GPI argument. this being
said it is hoped this would not be needed.
4. January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda MW (30')
* MWeill - 2 calls per week, Tuesday and Thursday with well identified topics. Standardize
approach to all recommendations to work with chartering orgs. and the Board. Participation by the
ICANN Board - Board representatives will participate on all calls and there will be a weekly
coordination call to minimize round-trips on any changes to recommendations. Continue with 2 reading
per item. In rare cases there may be a need to poll the members as per the charter.
* KArasteh - Everyone should agree on these methods. Tuesday and Thursday are too close for
serious consideration. Formatting suggestion on working method.
* MWeill - This is the point of presenting and discussing this today. The 2 reading approach
will not have a second reading in the same week the first reading was taken.
* MHutty - Method for developing changes to the proposal. Concerned about careful
* MWeill - The documents for this call were distributed more than 24 hours. Providing
documents in time will be a challenge and is the objective.
* AGreenberg - Who will produce the documents? There is a level of opaqueness that is
* MWeill - Work has been mostly been co-chairs at this point. Becky is prepping the mission
document. Others can participate.
* AGreenberg - ALAC has identified a number of red lines - how will discussion lead to
* MWeill - what are you proposing.
* AGreenberg - May be best if those that have issues have a chance to discuss solutions.
* MWeill - Our approach would seem to be consistent. Currently simply preparing the documents
and properly presenting issues and possible fixes for simple issues. The summary of comments and
issues should also assist in this.
* ASullivan - Unclear what is being discussed. Some people seem unhappy with the number of
meetings - alternatively we could use the mail list to work productively. Would appreciate
understanding what the issues are - this needs to get done even if this is uncomfortable.
* RMeijer - the more time we have the more time we take. We need to focus on the issues we
have to work on. The question I have is how decisions will be taken given the topics we have to deal
with will be difficult and may require an alternate methodology for decisions.
* MWeill - In rare occasions members will be advised that there will be a poll to establish
formal consensus if required.
* TBen Jemaa - Agree with RM. Do not agree with adding calls of work parties - this will not
be workable. The mailing list should be used between calls to discuss issues between calls.
Consensus will not be easy to achieve and if necessary the charter says we can use polls.
* MWeill - reasoning for the current Tuesday and Thursday is the requirement for prep and
debriefs before and after each call of the CCWG.
* KArasteh - As long as everyone agrees I can support. 3 hours is too long. There is no
requirement to finish in January, we need to take the time required. We need to negotiate with each
other to identify a workable solution. Let us remember there will never be perfection. Re TBJ -
* MWeill - we will need good summaries of the discussions after each call promptly. We will
maintain the 3 hours but hopefully we will not need all the time.
* IOkutani - Supports proposed methodology. Question - how will information be shared prior
to calls? Trying to coordinate any changes with the ASO to ensure they can support. will the
options be distributed prior to the calls?
* MWeill - There will be at least one week between a first and second reading which will
provide time for the various communities to consider the options.
* MWeill - presenting proposed agenda for next meetings. Comments welcome now or on the list
if there are concerns given there is still some flexibility. For this Thursday material will be
introduced on all the topics. This would conclude this section.
5. Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 LS (45')
* LS Document distributed with comments-markups for rec. 12. Meetings Wiki page:
* KArasteh - How should we handle the Board concerns.
* LS - BTonkin can comment on this.
* BTonkin - Proposed approach is heading in the right direction of the Board considering the
WS2 recommendations would need to meet the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations. Bylaw
could be generalized - maybe not refer to CCWG - to give flexibility - chartering orgs may wish to
break out the WS2 work into specific working groups so expertise can be allocated as needed.
* LSanchez - Re KA comments - all comments will be considered, if there are substantial
changes then there would be a need for a supplementary recommendation.
* LSanchez - given BTonkin thinks this is a good way forward.
* MHutty - there has been no discussion and no way to have it approved by the CCWG.
* LSanchez - this was not the intent - This is a proposal to the CCWG which would address the
* MHutty - How are we going to proceed?
* LSanchez - We propose to use to 4 key points listed at the top of the document. However we
can go through the document para by para if the group so wishes.
* KArasteh - Need concrete suggestions from the Board which can be considered by the CCWG.
* MWeill - Comments in the word document are the comments from the public consultation. The
edits are suggestions to clarify and resolve certain of the issues. One of these is that WS2
recommendations have the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations.
* MHutty - If we are going to change from CCWG to something else it should be clear that
participation should still be open.
* LSanchez - does not see obstacles wrt.
* Lsanchez - 15 minute break.
* BREAK at 25 past the hour - return at 20 to.
* LSanchez - Next step discuss timeframe modifications. Original proposal was for the end of
* LSanchez - Discuss proposed changes on list. No objections.
* LSanchez - timeline - propose to change to mid-2017. Comments?
* KArasteh - Propose to say start in 2016 and continue in 2017.
* Niels ten Oever - Link bet rec. 6 and rec 12 especially considering ALAC comment on rec. 6.
Uncertain how to resolve.
* LSanchez - there are many interrelations with rec. 12. As to the ALAC comment this is a
point for discussion.
* AGReenberg - Clarification about a timeline in a bylaw which would be the issue. Timeline
are tricky and it would seem unrealistic to try and identify specific end dates.
* SDelBianco - top of page 2 the Goal for the CCWG would be to finalize recommendations for
WS2 by the end of 2016. Current recommendation only notes that the Board consider the
recommendations vs accept them.
* LSanchez - There is no need to have the recommendations implemented by the end -
* CDispain - WS2 recommendations would be under the new accountability rules.
* LSanchez - timeframe is required but should be more of a target than a hard deadline. Any
objections to this approach. Target should be flexible per the needs of the participants - no
objections and there will be a second reading of this at another meeting next week.
* LSanchez - Expansion of Ombudsman role. This was required but not included in any detail.
* MWeill - need a volunteer to craft a few paras regarding the expansion of the Ombudsman
role. Call for volunteers.
* LSanchez - BBurr volunteers. No sound from Avri Doria. Expecting the draft for circulation
in the next few days.
* LSanchez completes this section.
6. Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation TR (30') Annotated rec. 4 document =
* TRickert - We are only dealing with mitigation of removing ind. Board directors at this
point. The issue is that someone who begins such action could be sued by the Director for doing so.
Could the inclusion of pre-service letters by Directors address the concern. Would also like to
ensure the Board has no concerns regarding the implementation guidelines.
* AGreenberg - Suing is not the issue - indemnification is the issue. All the concepts are
there they just need to be adjusted.
* TRickert - We can work on the language.
* TBenJemaa - Same comment as with AG. Agrees with the concept but not the exact wording.
There is no mention that there will be a reason for a recall - the rules states that there will a
rationale given to remove the director. Remove no reason association with suing.
* TRickert - let us not wordsmith, this goes to implementation phase. Volunteers should work
with the lawyers to finalize the text and bring it back next week.
* KArasteh - Are all Board comments being considered.
* TRickert - they will be but not today.
* AGreenberg - It would be useful to know under California law if this is a valid concept.
* TRickert - Lawyers implementing this would never draft this if it was not feasible.
* BTonkin - Removing a director requires a due process (escalation), Board has required a
written a rationale so any issues could be addressed. Protections are necessary but statements have
to be factual. Statements need to be factual.
* TRickert - There is a requirement to publish a reason for the removal which should meet
this requirement. Lawyers should provide the director to protect themselves from unreasonable
accusations (murderer, swindler etc.). the way forward is to certify the lawyers to help with the
wordsmithing so the text can be considered at a future meeting.
* MHutty - Protection are needed. Wild accusations would be unprecedented given this is a
community position vs individual.
* TRickert - this closes this issue. The new text will be presented for discussion by the
7. Marrakech - ICANN 55 MW (15')
* MWeill - ICANN has rejected the option for a Friday meeting prior to ICANN 55. TSwineheart
* TSwineheart - This is the first meeting under the new strategy and adding days would not
* MWeill - this requires us to revise the planning for the Maraketch meeting. Comments?
* MWeill - re GShattan chat question - what is the ICANN option? MWeill - ICANN will free up
time during the meeting.
* SBacholet - As a Chair of the working group referred to by TS should not be used to not
* KArasteh - Changing dates requires people to change tickets which will imply penalties.
Please provide additional warning to avoid this.
* AGreenberg - SB said most of what I wanted to say. Using this as the basis for not
supporting this is poor. Scheduling sessions during the ICANN meeting does not consider that many
people have other work to do during the week.
* ASullivan - Trying to understand if using the meeting policy is useful.
* TSwineheart - useful feedback, the work required for ICANN 55 would better accommodated
during the meeting. As the CCWG moves into WS2 this is a different phase and looking at how to
integrate this into the standard ICANN meetings. This not about not wanting to support or being
supportive it is about better integration.
* MWeill - this will require further discussion on ICANN 55 and forward. Who is responsible
for making these decisions and has ok'ed the change.
* TSwineheart - We will be happy to consider in the context of the evolution.
* MWeill - The question has not been answered. The CCWG is responsible for making its work
plans - who is responsible for the decision to meet those requests?
* TSwineheart - this is a cross -organization group that considers this. I will take it back
and get back to the co-chairs.
* MWeill - We will need an answer in the next 24 to 48 hours.
* TBenJemaa - This is a decision of the CCWG and not of the staff or the Board - this is not
about the new meeting strategy. If not possible let us ask why.
* SBacholet - there is a discrepancy between the CCWG and ICANN.
* KArasteh - CCWG has to be very clear if it needs an additional 1 day meeting then make the
request to the Board. We need a dedicated 1 day meeting. and get an answer within one week.
* JCarter - The new meeting strategy should not be the basis for this considering the other
work we all have to do. this should not be an endless process and ICANN should reconsider.
* BTonkin - There are two types of meetings - phone and face to face. The face to face is a
much richer experience. I would encourage staff to make a room available for this during the
meeting. Is there a way to resolve this during the week - as a last resort we can look at the Friday
* RMeijer - Understand Bruce's point, we have has Friday meetings before and attendance was
never a problem. Doing this work is exceptional, this is like expecting us to do CCWG during office
hours. So it is strange that given the CCWG is responsible for its schedule that ICANN should not
* MWeill - There will be a need for significant face to face in ICANN 55 for completing WS1
and starting work on WS2. We will continue to work with ICANN and advise the CCWG of the results.
The discussion is not completed.
* BTonkin - I will commit to work with staff to try and make the Friday meeting happen.
* TSwineheart - This has been very useful and helps us move forward in a constructive
* This completes this item.
8. A.O.B LS (10')
* LSanchez - Any other AOB
* TRickert - The question is do we wish to get our own legal input on how the risk can be
mitigated with respect to human rights. This could be a way to bridge the gap with the Board on HR.
* TBenJemaa - There are other comments than the Board with respect to HR. All of these have
to be considered.
* Niels ten Oever - we have done this work with our lawyers and found there to be no risk.
But if this helps move this forward it should be done.
* LSanchez - we will develop text to frame the request to the lawyers which we will send to
* LSanchez - any other AOB. None.
* This completes the call.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community