Content Comparison

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 4 24 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 4 24 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6fvkt6vyhr/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-4-24mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

            16:30  Timeline and next steps 

            17:30  Public comment document preparation

            18:00  Chair's statement and CWG liaison 

Notes

CCWG Istanbul Meeting - 23-24 March 2015

NOTES:  Day 2 Session 4

About next steps

Important for our group

For the CWG which has dependencies from work.

For community and Board which has expectations.

Are we ready for public comment April 6

* Methodology: is known

* Definitions and Scoping: from the problem statement

* Inventory of existing mechanisms

* Input gathered on community empowerment mechanisms

* Contentions / contingency:

* Contingency list and the stress test Extremely good progress, though dependent on our mechanisms, but thus is an agile set up and ready for his stage

* Accountability mechanisms: provide clarity on WS2 items and how these will be addressed.

* Implementation plan and timeline. 

Accountability architecture.  Which can be graphically represented.  the Work of WP2.  The golden bylaw.  The independent review, which is a key outcome.  

Community empowerment mechanisms

AoC review and writing the appropriate/necessary features to the bylaws.

Are we ready at a higher level for public comment, with entering into specific recommendations for text changes, eg. bylaws language.

Suggestion: focus on mechanisms and structures.  Not asserting the that the Community empowerment mechanisms are the complete list.  A discussion needed on what we are defining as WS1 and what WS2

Comment that the timeline will be pushed out and not the only call for public comment.  How do we represent the community, which would be incorporated in community empowerment.

Concern at the complexity of the issues proposed: what needs to be done, and what ensures that the rest of the mechanisms can be implemented later.

Might check what needs to be done through stress tests, if one mechanism is missing how does that affect our contingencies and mitigation.

Things that have to be done before the IANA services contract ends, rather than things that must be done to enable the transition.  Look at stress tests and keep as narrow as possible.

Will CCWG send a message particularly to CWG if it looks to be backing off from some powers, when the CWG has been asking for clarity of what the CCWG will propose.   These are enablers for the CWG's work 

Don't move to WS2 because of complexity, but recognize that more time is needed if more time is needed.

The CCWG charter's definition of WS1 includes the notion of committed to if the implementation of mechanism is too complex.

Agreement from the group to go for public comment with the list in section 7, i.e. Description of overall accountability architecture

­ Recommendations :

1.  Revised mission, commitments & core values

2.  "Golden" / entrenched Bylaws

3.  Independent Review Panel enhancements

4.  Community empowerment :

  € a)  Challenge Budget / strategy

  € b)  Challenge Bylaw change

  € c)  Approve  Golden / entrenched Bylaw change

  € d)  Dismissal of the Board

5.  AoC reviews transcribed into the Bylaws 

Legal input will feed into each proposal.  If there are legal constraints, but not a specific section

Public comment:  Questions on the recommendations, with free text comment

for each item.   Use the public comment review tool, facilitating the

analysis of comments to make the analysis available as soon possible after

comment closes.

Or, asking generic questions to highlight the underlying assumptions we are making.  Questions simple but not simplistic, need to get a sense from the answers of the tradeoffs we are facing. 

Questions asking if we are on the right track

Questions asking to choose between options (A or B).  A narrative section explaining what we are doing to ensure more informed answers.

Our proposals are a package, they need to presented together  And the questions need to be structured together reflecting the context of the whole package.

Timeline: 

April 6 for 30 days.

Complex issue to finalize is the community mechanism.  Need time, even if not group consensus but a series of scenario, how much time?

Time to discuss with Wp1

How should it look and how to consolidate the discussion of the past two days and decide where there is consensus.  Is there value in going for public comment without legal advice?  Consider meetings of CCWG on 7 and 14 April, to allow public comment

Delivery of legal advice, initial advice by 27 March. Which will be followed by iterations.  Second firm to provide initial advice next week, with final advice in 2-3 weeks.  Which would push acceptance by the chartering organizations very late.

Legal advice before public comment, suggested that the group  move forward with proposals in anticipation of the legal advice. Prioritize legal advice and option.

The public comment document will be translated, as priority.

CWG lessons - don't let the deadline force you to send half-backed comment. And get feedback as quickly as possible.  Take the general principles, the same for each mechanisms. 

Legal advice may dictate what is possible.  Seeking public comment on the proposed mechanisms, and legal advice on the comments received may be the way forward. 

Note ICANN document publication guidelines,  to be made available 15 days before an ICANN meeting.

How long will the bylaw revision process take within the Board?

Changes will need to public comment.  Assume relatively easy to draft, if assume legal and CCWG recommendations line up.  Bylaws revisions may wait until after the NTIA decision, until NTIA has indicated that those changes satisfy it's concerns.

An implementation plan:  NTIA approval is T0, and implementation is rolled out sequentially.

Key decision recommendations for WS1 by 20 April.  Goal turn around for a second comment by the time of ICANN#53 Buenos Aires.  A scenario not requiring an additional face to face meeting.

If there is disagreement with the final recommendations then there would be a consensus call, as specified in the charter, with an opportunity for minority views to accompany the proposal.

Items for consideration of WS2 - add to the table of contents of the report, with the group to discuss.

Concern, lack of detail may give CWG the opportunity to say that they can't act until they hear from CCWG.  CCWG has agreed there will be a Board spill, the CCWG delay is in the detail of how to implement that .

Announcement can note CCWG will have  proposal discussed by SO and AC and will have a public comment before sending to the chartering organizations.  20 April is out, but will agree and publish a definitive date. 

Co-chair statement: it will include information about the package, the timeline as discussed,  Other elements? 

We know elements will be there, but not exactly what they will look like.

Thank you colleagues.

END

Action Items

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (3/24/2015 09:11) On short break until  14:25 UTC

  Brenda Brewer: (09:12) Day 2 Session 4

  David McAuley: (09:35) Update on start

  Mike Brennan: (09:37) We should be starting back up shortly, people are beginning to filter back into the room

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:38) :-)

  David McAuley: (09:39) thanks Mike

  Mike Brennan: (09:39) No problem!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:45) I'm hesitant to make the recommendations called for in #7 by 6 April.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:46) @Robin we will be ammending the timeline

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:46) they will be for April 3

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:46) :P

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:46) joking

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:47) We need to include Reconsideration Request reforms that we are working on

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (09:47) @Leon 2016 Yeah?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:47) @James LOL!

  Becky Burr: (09:48) i think we will be able to have a discussion about reconsideration and ombuds in short order, though not fully developed

  Avri Doria: (09:48) why is the budget WS1?

  Matthew Shears: (09:48) aren't these accountbaility measures not architecture - architecture would include models I would have thought

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:48) we need to get Recon Request Reforms in WorkStream 1.  We can't let it slip through the cracks.  It is one of the most important accountability mechanisms.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:49) How do we go for public comment with multiple prpposals?

  Becky Burr: (09:49) design, agreed.

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:50) Robin: I stuck myself in speaking queue to raise that point in the room, if nobody ahead of me does so first

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:50) we can't make our recommendations in #6 until we have the legal advice and an opportunity to consult with the community regarding it.

  Sivasubramanian M: (09:50) i.e how is it feasible to organize public comment on multiple proposls?  Would it be some kind of survy on what is more acceptable>

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:51) Agreed WorkStream 1 will need more than 1 public comment period.

  Avri Doria: (09:51) Robin do we need reconsideration in WS1 for IANA?

  Becky Burr: (09:52) i think many of us agree on the need for more than one public comment period and schedule adjustment to accomodate

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:52) WS1 isn't "for IANA"

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (09:52) +1 Robin + Becky

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:52) WS1 is "Accountability Improvements Needed Before The IANA Contract Goes Away"

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:52) there is a very important difference.

  Avri Doria: (09:52) i thought it was about things that needed to be done before IANA was trnasitoned?  i

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:53) accountability reforms that must be in place or commited to before the transition can occur

  Keith Drazek: (09:53) WS1 is what  is "implemented or committed to" if I recall correctly.

  Avri Doria: (09:53) but if we golde bylws and the ability to spil the board + the bylaw about continuing work, why is that not enough?

  Matthew Shears: (09:53) Keith, yes

  Paul Rosenzweig: (09:54) Because spilling the board is an extrordinary remedy that is not apt to compel Board action in most cases

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:54) In Frankfurt, Recon Requst was put in WS1 and there is a subgroup working on it.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:54) The "what is enough" question is a political one, not an objective one. It's about what will give the community comfort to accede to the transition.

  Matthew Shears: (09:55) how are we going to review, assess and agree the structure before this is issued?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:55) maybe we can do the editing on the list

  Edward Morris: (09:56) +1 Avri

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:57) These items have all been flagged as WorkStream 1 for a very long time.

  Matthew Shears: (09:57) don't have scroll control but do we need to also list those issues left to WS2?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:57) And no, the budget reconsideration is *not* complicated. The discussion today has made it seem it.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (09:57) +1 Avri

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (09:58) Reviewing whether all is needed as Avri has raised makes sense and also checking over with Stress Test

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:58) I like the idea to list the issues identified for WS2 so far - so the community knows where we are headed (or haven't entirely forgotten about their concerns if they don't see them in WS1).

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:58) I think we'd probably all agree that we need the "smallest possible" list of things for WS1

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:58) Robin - that's Section 8 or 9 of this report. So it's going to be there.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (09:58) +1 to Avri and to Matthieu's suggestion

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:59) ok -  I guess I can't see the whole doc.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:59) we have scroll control now :-)

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:59) Section 9

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:59) thank you!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:59) Scrolling has been enabled

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:00) +1 Jonathan

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:00) but crafting them right will be tricky

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:00) The community members should do the drafting of our report (not staff).

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:01) all of them, that is.

  Sivasubramanian M: (10:01)  Golden Bye Law changes might be long term, but in any immediate changes that we make to the bylaws, could there be a provision to allow for ad hoc deviations from bylaws, and define rules under which such ad hoc deviations could be made by the Board / Community?

  David McAuley: (10:01) IRP seems a natural for WS1 – and talks have touched on making reconsideration request a prerequisite for IRP

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (10:03) +& @Avri and Alan

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (10:03) Sorry, I mean +1

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:03) We *always* were going to have such a mechanism - I don't know about anyone else, but I was relying on us being able to do that (enforce later compliance) and the allications have taken that into account

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:04) The political reality is that this list has been out and about for a while and if we narrow it down now, that's going to send bad signals.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:04) i.e. +1 Mathieu.

  Matthew Shears: (10:04) Good point Mathieu on what we have committed to

  Keith Drazek: (10:05) WS1 includes "implemented or committed to" so we could include Budget Authorization as a "committed to" and work out the implementation details later. It doesn't have to be pushed to WS2 if we think it's important.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:05) We gotta get the CEP into the IRP discussion.  It is a necessary pre-step and staff claims its rules are confidential.  We can't omit the CEP from IRP discussion.

  Keith Drazek: (10:05) Budget Authorization is something that needs to be considered along with the other powers/mechnisms in a holistic manner.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:06) I am not sure why people want to push things later.

  Matthew Shears: (10:06) + 1 Keith - "committed to" is a useful if we need to prioritize other enhancements prior to transition

  Suzanne Radell (GAC) 2: (10:06) Plus 1 Robin

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:06) Is it a concern about ability to do  justice to the work? Or is it something else?

  Matthew Shears: (10:07) former, Jordan?

  David McAuley: (10:07) Good point about WS1 includes things that are committed and so need not be final for transition and so can remain WS1 rather than WS2

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (10:07) Budget Veto was a power suggested by several community commenters.  It was not driven by the CWG question regarding budget transparency

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:08) because I am *very* confident we can deal with everything that's currenty identified as WS1 in good time. None of them are going to create a hold-up.

  Matthew Shears: (10:08) agree that should be our goal

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:09) This conversation is illustrating what happens when we don't all have the whole scope of the project and its stages (incl implementation) in mind or in front of us.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:10) I see your point on WS1 Jordan and I agree with the approach described by Keith

  Avri Doria: (10:10) i am sceptical on the the resoltution of the budget issue, but if it gets pulled off, great.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:11) can we take for granted that we are going to be crystal clear in what we write?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:11) and that we will have to be very clear in how we structure the text to define things precisely and clearly?

  Keith Drazek: (10:11) Exactly right Chris, thanks for the clarification.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:11) (it's something we havent always done in our internal work)

  Matthew Shears: (10:12) + ! jordan - there should be time for the CCWG to review

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:12) I should also say I am assuming there will be two comment periods - this early one on the big picture, and a second on more detailed and firmed up proposals that doesn't include options or choices.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:12) AGree with Jordon

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:12) (with the latter being done across the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting)

  Keith Drazek: (10:12) +1 Jordan

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:13) +3? Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:13) so we know now it is "needed" and won't be "optional"

  Matthew Shears: (10:13) how and whe will the legal advice on the models be slotted into this?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:13) Before we even get to it, Matt.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:14) so we do need to talk about the timeline between the two activities: receipt of legal advice and  making the recommendations in the report

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:14) @Mathew we expecto to have initial legal advice by next week in some part and begin our iterative process with the lawyers from there forward

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:14) that's coming up

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:16) and keeping in mind we need to have several conversations with legal council to understand what we want to recommend.

  Matthew Shears: (10:20) Leon - thanks - but once we have that advice how do we refine and agree a model that will enable the community to exercise these new powers?

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:21) +1 Thomas

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:21) we can't put out recommendations for public comment until we understand the implications of what we are recommending.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:21) Matthw - I think your question points to why it is so vital that htis first set of public comment solicitation isn't the only one.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:22) and I thinkthe first round and early back and forth of/about legal advice will identify quite quickly whether we are on solid ground with what we think we want to ask, or whether we have a more fundamental rethinking to do

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:22) so we need to include in this timeline at its begining: receipt and evaluation of legal advice.  Otherwise we are missing a key step.

  Matthew Shears: (10:22) yes

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:22) @Mathew I would say that we would need to go through the replies and compare them to what we are cooking so we know if it's legally feasible and if it is in fact the best option out there for our goals. As I said, it will be an iterative process and will need involvement from the larger group

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:23) this must be done holistically

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:23) +1 Steve

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:23) @Leon, does that mean that the plan is to send for public comment before having the legal advice integrated?

  Edward Morris: (10:24) Agree with Steve and Robin.

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:24) Support for Thomas' suggestion to explain the background and the context.  The will help in the quality of the feedback we receive and help in our further work.I think each of us can also help in explaining with the groups we are engaged.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:24) We could not do that, James.  That would be irresponsible to make recommendations when we don't understand the implications.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:24) @James to a certain extent that might indeed happen

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:25) I think thats a very unwise path to go down

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:25) We are sacrificing the quaity of the proposal in order to meet self imposed deadlines in that case

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:25) Strickling is clear that we only have one chance to get this right.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:26) +1 Robin, the timeline needs to be secondary to the quality of the proposal

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:26) Of course we wouldn't want to sacrifice quality. There might be certain points that might be subject to legal advice and some other that don't. We will need to se how that plays with regards to public comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:26) There is no reason we can't make our recommendations after we have the benefit of the information.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:27) We are designing.  We don't have to wait and see.  We decide.

  Edward Morris: (10:27) So we're going to the community with ideas that may not be legally possible or wise?

  Matthew Shears: (10:27) but there may be models that are taken of the table subsequent to legal advice that  may invalidate the consultation responses

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:28) @Mathew that might be true. That will all depend on how fast we get the advice

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:28) @Ed, no. We would definitely wouldn't go that way

  Keith Drazek: (10:28) I agree with Robin that legal advice needs to be received, considered and incorporated before we publish substance that would rely on that advice.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:29) But we wont know that until we have the legal advice

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:29) We can be ready within a few weeks of receipt of legal advice.  It would be foolish and irresponsible to do otherwise.

  Matthew Shears: (10:30) how many weeks til we have received and disgested legal advice on the models would be my answer

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:32) 3 weeks after final legal advice

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:33) and that's a short consultation for such an important issue

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:34) getting it right is the first priority.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:34) Yes Robin

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:34) I think that we can do it midway through the legal advice but certainly not without it

  Greg Shatan: (10:35) I think the legal advice will likely be collaborative, iterative and will come in portions.  It will not be "tablets from the Mount."

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:36) +1 Greg

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:36) Yes thats why my point was we can do it midway through the iterative legal process

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:36) +1 Greg

  Greg Shatan: (10:36) We may need to prioritize the legal advice to deal with the gating issues that will keep things from going out.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:37) that's exactly what we should be doing, +1 Greg

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (10:38) why don't we just restrict our initial consultation to those things for which we don't need legal advice.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:38) Asking people to comment on the big picture and get a sense of wat they want isn't going to be wasted

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:38) our starting point of recommending a mechanism is based on legal advice.  Not an adjustment.  But a starting point.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (10:38) we KNOW the powers we want, we don't need to show ask them about mechanisms

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:39) if we get told "there is no way to do that power" that is useful but should also be part of the initial legal advice

  Avri Doria: (10:39) the only final legal advice is the advice you get before they pull the switch on your execution.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:39) #6 is recommended mechanisms in the document

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:39) which is a different section than community powers of the document

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:40) #7 I mean.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:41) #5 is community powers and #7 is recommended accountability mechanisms in the document outline

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (10:41) exactly Robin. We could just drop the mechanisms topic as we actually have lots of good work to share with the community and frankly the mechanism might be the PRODUCT of legal device. I suspect we'll have very few preferences on mechanism other than the best one to accomplish our objective3s

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:41) yes, we could drop #7 at this point.  That would make sense.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:42) but we need 2 comment periods on proposed mechanisms because it is the meat and details

  Edward Morris: (10:42) +1 Jonathan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (10:42) perhaps. like I said, if we have consensus on the rest, the mechanism might write itself. we won't be left with a lot of options that meet our needs.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:44) That may well be true, Jonathan.  So we could bring #7 into the next comment period.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:45) But their implications of such import that they'd need 2 comment periods so we can be sure to get it right.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:45) We have heard from Jordan that he needs 3 weeks.  I would like to hear from Becky on how long WP2 needs.  But given what Jordan has said, isn't April 6 impossible???

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:46) yes, April 6 is impossible.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (10:48) The most important principles behind the different mechanisms are the same. In my opinion, the document that goes out for public comment should outline the rough mechanism on the basis of those principles. If we feel the need to give it a name, we could call it "something like a community council"

  Edward Morris: (10:50) I like this plan.

  Greg Shatan: (10:51) Perhaps if you all stayed in Istanbul until the 6th of April, the 6th of April might be feasible.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:52) late april - early may possibly

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:52) @Greg I think not even that way might be possible :P

  Edward Morris: (10:52) Will you join us Greg? :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:52) I think a 1 week push back isn't much.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:52) Greg, we would have all killed each other by then.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:52) Hahah, Greg bring a sleeping bag for me cause I'll be out of the 5* Hilton soon!

  Greg Shatan: (10:53) I will be leaving for Istanbul this evening.  Hopefully, everyone will still be alive by the time I get there.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:53) 50/50 chance

  Edward Morris: (10:53) Safe travels.

  Greg Shatan: (10:53) @James, you can sleep on my second bed (or floor if I get a King bed).

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (10:54) Well hey if your bankrolling why not the Presidential Suite =)

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi): (10:54) +1 roelof on time for public comment - CWG draft offered too little time to engage with proposal for folks who were not on top of its work till then

  Chris Disspain: (10:54) Mathieu, I have a question on legal advice that I would like to ask...I have not oput my hand up

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:56) Agree with Jonathan.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:56) it isn't a risk.  it is the necessary process to get it right.

  Edward Morris: (10:56) Robin, self evident.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:58) It would be better for us to have an integrated package even at a high level for first consult round

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:59) yes, Jordan, because 2nd comment periods tend to be about tweeking details

  Edward Morris: (10:59) +1 Chris

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (10:59) I think the best timeframe for *any* kind of proposal to go out for first public comment is 20th - and that' for the CCWG to finalise it, not for it to be translated and open for comment

  Becky Burr: (10:59) aren't we going to have to have a full blown comment period on the bylaws changes needed to implement the powers and mechanisms?  Seems to me that will necessarily need to follow a full blown comment period on the proposals and in depth discussion in BA?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:00) Agree, Becky. 

  Greg Shatan: (11:00) @Chris, good suggestion. On CWG side we have been meeting weekly with the lawyers, and that could well ramp up after our F2F.

  Edward Morris: (11:01) +1 Jordan

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:01) The Legal Sub-team is going to be very agile and the lawyers would be expected to adapt to that dynamics

  Chris Disspain: (11:03) No offence to lawyers - but the longer you leave them alone with a problem the more likley they are to head off in unecessary directions and charge you for it - constant communication and adjustment of their instructions based on conversation is the key

  Chris Disspain: (11:04) SAAL - speaking as a lawyer

  Becky Burr: (11:04) strikes me that we should plan for board adoption of revised bylaws in Dublin and work backward from that

  Samantha Eisner 2: (11:05) @Jordan, it makes full sense that as specific language is worked up for the Bylaws that there is coordination with the CCWG on those items prior to getting those out for public comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:05) 20 April would be the soonest possibility.

  Keith Drazek: (11:06) Agree with Becky re Dublin for adoption

  Samantha Eisner 2: (11:06) Bylaws revision process - there'd be a standard comment period on the specific text; if no significant changes, can be presented to the Board for approval

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:06) Agree with Becky and Keith on Dublin also.

  Becky Burr: (11:06) there will be significant changes

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:07) @Chris you are precisely right wrt communications

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:07) Yes Dublin sounds like a good plan(But I'm biased)

  Edward Morris: (11:07) Agree with Becky, Keith and Robin. Realistic.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:07) I am uncomfortable about committing to some of these timeframes without aproject plan lens being put on them

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:07) e.g. I *think* we can do WP1 work in a couple off weeks, but I haven't done the planning to be able to assure myself or us of that

  Keith Drazek: (11:07) Couldn't the re-drafting of the bylaws be initiated in the CCWG? Obviously with the help of our legal advisors?

  Samantha Eisner 2: (11:07) @Becky, I was referring to Bylaws language drafted AFTER the initial comments on the CCWG work, etc.  So hopefully we'll be able to have the language in a place that significant changes aren't necessary at that point; we'd already have considered community inputs into teh drafting

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:07) Remember the old saying: Put a problem in front of 5 engineers and you'll get 5 solutions. Do the same in front of 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 problems

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:08) only 5 @Leon!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:08) Yes, Keith, that is my understanding of how the drafting would work.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:08) Some are suggesting we should relax the time and do the first consultation over th Buenos Aires meeting - finish our draft proposal mid-May, and consult after that.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:08) @CLO if you're lucky!

  Samantha Eisner 2: (11:09) We do not post Bylaws changes for less than 30 days comment; 15 would not be workable

  Chris Disspain: (11:09) you are correct Leon 5 problems plus 5 invoices

  Becky Burr: (11:09) agree Sam

  Greg Shatan: (11:09) Well, that takes the pressure off of CWG-IANA!

  Greg Shatan: (11:09) :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:09) =)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:10) @Chris and 5 quotations for further steps

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:10) well, where are we landing here?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:10) in Dublin

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:10) 6 April is dead, and we adopt a new timerame on our CWG next week?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:10) I guess so @Jordan

  Greg Shatan: (11:10) @Chris: 10 invoices -- 1 for the problem, another 1 for the solution.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:10) :-) :-) :-)

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:10) a timeframe that looks all the way to NTIA approval?

  Becky Burr: (11:11) I would say formal comment period on proposed languagemust open in early September

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:11) It's encouraging to see us lawyers can be creative :P

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:11) Becky, would we have a preliminary comment period on the language before then so we know about what to expect in Sept?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:12) (it would be better to plan for the worst case than the fantasy case)

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:13) +1 Jordan, better to deliver early on a worst case timeline than to keep slipping on unrealitic timelines again and again

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (11:13) @Jordan: I see no better one there..

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:13) well we said key provisions of the mechanisms in #7

  Becky Burr: (11:14) if we go that route Robin, and have draft language out for comment in the summer then presumably we could do a shorter comment period for the final language if we are close the first time

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:15) so we have some options, good.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:16) What happened to CCWA through F =)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:16) If staff is to draft sections, will the CCWG be able to edit that text?

  Sabine Meyer: (11:16) they asked too many questions, James.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:17) Well in that case I doubt im making it home from IST =)

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:17) Robin, darn right we will be able to

  Matthew Shears: (11:17) absolutely

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:17) just checkin' thanks!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:21) I have doubts about the 20th also.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (11:22) Why not the 21st after CCWG call on that day?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:23) Earliest *could* be 20th, but a realistic timeline should include breathing space.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:23) +1 @Robin

  Matthew Shears: (11:23) agree

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (11:24) +1 Steve

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:24) Aree with Steve.  We could be setting ourselves up for failure by focusing on a date.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:24) and we need to be very careful because setting expectations and not meeting them might have a very negative impact not only in the perception of the working group but on our hability to carry out the work

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:24) exactly, Leon.  We can do this!  But we need a little more time to do it right!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:25) +1000 Robin

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:25) the CWG can't rely on us to sort out accountability for the IANA functions post-transition

  Matthew Shears: (11:26) agree Jordan

  Matthew Shears: (11:27) Chris lack of detail on the CCWG side won't slow down or provide a rationale for stalling the CWG - they (we) have enough challenges

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (11:27) +1 Matt we ahve enough to work against ourselves

  Chris Disspain: (11:28) delighted tohear that Matthew

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:28) There are two proposals kicking around here, I think

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:29) One is proposal V1 consulted in April/May, proposal v2 consulted over ICANN BA

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (11:29) the other is proposal V1 consulted in May, engage community over ICANN BA, and proposal V2 consulted after ICANN BA

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:30) right, Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:32) I think CCWG needs to review the stmt

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:34) For those legal sub-team members present in the AC room I remind you we will be having our coordination call in one hour and 30 minutes more

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:34) Please join

  Greg Shatan: (11:34) @Leon, I look forward to it.

  David McAuley: (11:34) will be on call Leon

  Sabine Meyer: (11:34) I'll be there.

  Wisdom Donkor: (11:35) clap

  Matthew Shears: (11:35) thanks all!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:35) Thanks everyone!

  Suzanne Radell (GAC) 2: (11:35) As a remote participant, also happy to concur with all of the expressions of appreciation and thanks.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:35) thanks all

  Wisdom Donkor: (11:35) thanks all for this deep insight

  Wisdom Donkor: (11:36) God bless and keep you all safe

  Sivasubramanian M: (11:36) Bye everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:37) bye