Content Comparison

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 24 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 24 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7ti4frgbg9/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1600-24apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 3 - 16:00 – 19:00 UTC (time converter)

1. Recap of session 2 (5’)
2. Outstanding stress tests - Stress tests where the contingency does not appear to be fully mitigated (20’)
   1. Including stress test 21: Government official demands rescind of a ccTLD
3. Second reading of outstanding issues for public comment report (120’)
4. Next Steps – Work Plan (30’)

Notes

Rollcall:  all participants in the AC room

1) Recap of session 2

Preserving ICANN commitment from the AoC and through the AoC reviews, but not covered the bylaws changes suggested by the stress tests. 

2)  Outstanding stress tests - Stress tests where the contingency does not appear to be fully mitigated 

Stress test 21.  Govt official demands a reassignment of a ccTLD.  Currently no mitigation on this test. 

No answer, but to see if a revocation of a reassignment that did not follow procedure: RFC, FOI and GAC principles were considered.  CWG has suggest that ccNSO will soon be working on policy.  The test articulates the issues, but no solution/bylaws proposal or mechanism emerging. 

CWG request that CCWG should note define mechanisms, ccNSO addressing this.  Unless perhaps out appeals mechanisms apply.  

ccNSO has been working with GAC on transfer and revocation, a framework of interpretation (FOI) worked on.  The FOI references an appeals mechanism, but the ccNSO is still working on the appeals mechanisms, and as ongoing work the ccNSO is not will to sign up for any particular appeals process.  And not all ccTLD managers are subject to 1591 as their TLD assigned before it was issues and before the GAC principles of 2006 2005. 

Could the local parties use the IRP mechanisms?  Or in line with the CWG input should we say this should not happen in the IRP. 
The view of the ccNSO is until ccNSO policy is developed on this the IRP is not applicable to the relegation process. 

Suggestion that we include language to say these issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. 

Action: Becky to confirm with ccNSO if this non-inclusion in the IRP, is acceptable.

Keep current text, this mechanism could be available if compatible with the Policy development process of the ccNSO

This section was frozen before the CWG request, we will be updating this in the next few days.  CWG explicit not to address pending ccNSO policy. 

Action:  update text redelegation and revocation issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. And considering GAC contributions. 

Action to ensure the IRP txt is aligned as above.


3)  Second reading of outstanding issues for public comment report 

NomCom to recall board members or a new committee and community.

Don’t believe NomCom will be interested in or able to remove people appointed by a previous NomCom.  And don’s want to put a NomCom in the position of taking instruction from the SO/AC ash this affects the independence of the NomCom.

pre-sign an letter to resign under certain conditions, and conditions might be a super-majority of the SO/AC to express dissatisfaction with their service.  This could remove one or more. 

Suggestion for the recall NomCom be created.  

This NomCom takes the SO/AC appeal and no complication over the person’s appointment.  The only issue is the complaint.  A simple matter

Disagree that the pre-signed letter is enough to remove a director, as opposed to being used to initiate a process.  It may tend to be a reaction to a situation going on and does not involve  a check and balance.

Comment: use the current NomCom, does not see the difference in the board process. 

Comment: Removal for cause may cause appeals and other processes.  A group formed ad Hoc may be hard to fit in the member/designator models. 

(legal)  The resignation letter.  Not meant to usurp and checks and balance.  It's the end of the process in an entire board recall situation.  A contractual obligation for the director to step down from the board if the sending organization requested. 

Current NomCom can be used.  The SO/AC may also have a changing membership.  This is the same for the NomCom

In favor of Avri’s proposal to create a new structure of a recall NomCom as in the draft proposal. 

Many seem in favor of not putting the current NomCom on the spot.  And this suggests the recall NomCom mechanisms should be favored. The conditional pre-signed resignation, also useful as the NomCom would not have a voting right in the community mechanism.  

The recall NomCom originally written for individual director recall.  But not the whole board, and that the NomCom appointees to the board could stand or fall with the rest of the board by whatever mechanism is adopted for that.

If the recall NomCom constituted separately from the NomCom then lawyers have suggested this may not be possible as they are not the appointing body.  
[Possible Action for legal sub-team to consult with the lawyers TBC]

Seem that the recall mechanism would be outside the community.  Have often spoken as the threat of removal as a means of influence what a Board member might do.  

Comment.  Discomfort with the notion of removing a Board member.  They are there for 3 years, community does not see al their work.  

On the table: 
Let the community do it, with some push.
The recall NomCom, which can only take place with a trigger from the SO/AC community.  
Would be under the NomCom bylaws, and if a member model the NomCom would be an unincorporated association. and the recall NomCom would come under the NomCom’s procedures. 
Or use the existing NomCom, but hopefully keeping the petitioning mechanisms. 

(legal) The power to remove is a reason for having a member of designator model, with reason or no reason.  And hearing it would be difficult for the NomCom to do this is problematic.  But the proposal is viable.  Could have two committee under the unincorporated association entity and one of those could appoint and one recall.  For individual directors.  And these directors could still file a pre-resignation letter for their removal, or absolutely needed for the removal of the whole Board. 

Is the Avri option what Josh described?  It is his the model could be implemented if we go with a member designator model and the NomCom becomes a unincorporated association. 

Going forward if the NomCom is to put someone on the board it does need to be at least a designator, an unincorporated association.  And that entity can have two committees.  The process from the view of counsel is as described. 

A problem is that the new committee is constituted in the same numbers as the NomCom, so very different from the community mechanism. If constituted same as the community mechanism could go along with this. 

Note, the process is to decide which option we put to the community.  

Some do not have enough information to make the decision now, and objection to the use of a poll.

Would be advisable to have the same organization principles for the group that recalls as the one that appoints. 

If member or designators, then the groups appointing to the board must be unincorporated association.  The NomCom would need to take on the required structure. Then the question is should the same group of people who appoint be different from those who remove. 

Then SO/AC community reps would bring in their input in the petition. 

Suggestion for a legal paper to explain the options. 

Action.  Chairs will review the transcript and put a proposal to the group, and double check with the lawyers. 

Board recall powers 
Reference proposal.  5 for SO and AC of ALAC and GAC, and 2 for RSAC and SSAC brings a total of 29 people.  75% is 22 of 29.  80% 4/5, is 24 votes of 29.  85% is 25 votes of 29. 

Petition is 3 SO/AC.

If we want to block a single group from blocking a proposal then a 85% trigger is not workable.  Assuming that the will be able to split vote, then 80% is appropriate, 75% if a block vote.  The dynamics of the ICANN community will make reaching such a high threshold as 75% will be difficult.  

The group is leaning to individual vote. Removal of the whole board, and need stability.  
80% means if a single group blocks then requires unanimity from the rest and that is too high. Abstention are not counting.
  
The options are 75% and 80% with 75% preferred as the reference option. 

The removal NomCom would have a different structure. 

The pre-resignation letter essential, to ensure the recall process has effect. If the 75% threshold is met then expectation is that all directors would resign.

Diversity (participation and inclusion) as an issue for WS2.
This proposal is consistent with Jan Scholte’s advice received before the meetings. 
Is included in the core values work?

Seeking what does it mean to be transparent by default?  How do we record what is classified and be aware of when something is classified.  And as has come up in ATRT, just because something has classified at the time, does it mean to be so in 5 years. It is almost default that every inquiry requires a DIDP

Not seen any objection to these two items 

Also suggest looking at ICANN’s whistleblower program in WS2.  

In WS1 the 4 AoC reviews we are suggesting bringing over they will have better access than before to information needed to use during a review.  

A package of three items to be added to WS2

Diversity
Transparency and 
Whistleblower policy

Noting we will ask the community for any additional issues during public comment

Package accepted.

AoC Section 8 

Identified that 8b is already reflected in the ICANN bylaws through article 18 offices.  And members and designators could block any changes.  

Question is whether we want to move article 18 to fundamental.

Comment: to reflect that here are 2 opinions in the group that it should either be kept in the bylaws or as fundamental.

Does it cause concern for anyone to replace principles by headquarters. 

Suggestion to seek advice from the lawyers on actual language.  

The bylaws are more specific in CA/Los Angeles, and bylaws only refer to the United States.  Registered offices are often in different states from headquarters. The articles capture that it is a CA corporation, so the package captures the whole. 

Pedro: The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 should keep its current status or be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”. In the latter case, any changes to it  would require positive approval by Members/Designators. 

Suggestion that to allow flexibility and a lower threshold, if it is to be a fundamental bylaw or traditional. 

Both options will be in there.

Reviews in the bylaws and AoC

Highlight difference of today and being proposed.  

proposed: assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC in its interaction with the board.

in the AoC, item f.  Implementation of recommendation. The review team may terminate reviews and create new reviews. 

Timing.  ART is every 3 years.  Suggest no less frequently than every 5 years, which would allow us to do this more frequently. 

5 years:  The current implementation is from the receipt of report, so adding an additional year. 

The itemized points are all mandatory, and believed others out of scope. Need to take care to allow flexibility.   

Review other review teams.  Clear in ATRT2, first to review other review teams, 1 lack expertise, 2.  exponentially increasing work. suggested the review be done by the successor review. 

'timing".  to make a point about the time the board received it. 
unclear on itemized issues
(f) May be repeated in each review or in the chapeau

Each ATRT must review the previous ATRT.  

Action Alan to provide a sentence about the reviewing past reviews (WHOIS etc)

comment:  the general principles of what we are trying to archive is actually captured in section of 11 of the ATRT2 report.

If there is a pressing need for a more frequent review then the proposal gives that flexibility.

Review effectiveness of WHOIS (directory services — is included)
Privacy concerns added with the OECD principles, and this is new
AoC every three years, and left at three years (expecting change wrt directory services)

Evaluation of the new gTLD.  Change of languages as written pre new gTLD program. Competition and consumer trust and choice are reflected in the core values.

Subsequent rounds should not be opened until the review of previous review implemented. 

Action: Should take on the action item that CWG will recommend an IANA performance review will be conducted as CWG requirements, as a placeholder.  

Proceed with language as suggested? 

Action: Staff+ Steve Del Bianco to make sure the text in the reviews tables lines up

Fulfilling CWG requirements 

Ability of community to veto the budget.  Feasible, but more enforceable under the member model.

Ability to set up an IANA function review.  And that is be submitted as a fundamental bylaw

Suggested that the CWG would be placed in the same section as the other reviews.  Currently reviews are not Fundamental Bylaws. 

The ability to trigger ad hoc [special] reviews.  

The power to convene a review is driven by the community. And there is room for this special out of cycle review.

ccTLD revocation issue covered. 

The IANA functions review in the CWG only covers naming functions, but it might evolve within the ICG. 

Next Steps

Document update with the feedback received.  Update by the rapporteurs, staff and co-chairs. 

Final document for review and approval by the CCWG 

Final document May 1st, for final adjustments by the group, with a goal to publish on May 4th.  And public comment for 30 days, comment period agreed by the group.  The final review should not be for substantial change: editorial and inconsistencies.

First check of the document on Tuesday's regular call, (April 28) and if needed hold an additional call on Thursday (April 30). 

Is this acceptable? 

Will affect the CCWG timeline. The public comment start was April 28, moving to May 4.  

Public comment moved by a few days.  Staff complies a review tool for the community to review.

Public comment 30 or 28 days?  
30 days, green tick please
Objections to keeping to 30 days red cross
Agreement to open public comment for 30days.

The advisors will also be given opportunity to review the document. 

We will review the CWG stress test.

Kavouss: profound thanks to the co-chairs, the rapporteurs, working group chairs. 

Thanks to colleagues for you participation and support, I have learnt a lot.  Thanks staff.  And congratulations to ICANN.  Thank you to you all.  

co-chairs:  Thanks to staff, rapporteurs, lawyers and thanks to the whole group. 

Adjourn. 

Action Items

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/24/2015 10:31) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Day 2 Session 3 Meeting on 24 April!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:55) The brave are here already, hello !

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (10:57) very kindly put :)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (10:58) Hello everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (10:58) one more to go!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (10:58) :-) Hi all!

  suzanne Radell (GAC): (10:58) Hello again

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:58) Hi All

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:58) This is starting to feel  like a day long therapy session at this stage

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (10:58) so we have our usual typists without a muted line

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (10:58) may I remind you to please mute your lines if not speaking?

  Farzaneh Badii: (10:59) that was fast typing! 60 words per minute prolly !

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:59) it's a tradition

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (10:59) Hi again everyone. I'm spending more time here than with my colleagues :)

  Farzaneh Badii: (10:59) hi

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (10:59) same here Izumi...

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:59) @James my name is Mathieu and I have not touched a conference call for the last two hours

  Alan Greenberg: (10:59) Family? What family?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:59) @Izumi definintly, I counted if I wanted I could have had 28 hours of ICANN related calls today, and I dont even work in the DNS/Numers/Protols industury!!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:00) /s/today/this week

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:00) you're still trying to find out where CCWA-CCWF went, don't you?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:00) http://docfilms.uchicago.edu/dev/images/2015/winter/2015-02-12-1.jpg

  Chris LaHatte: (11:00) I have poured a glass of wine for this one

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:00) @Matthiew, you didint come to the CWG Webinar?? I'm dissapointed, no gold star for you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:01) Surely  it should be an amber liquid  on April 25th @Chris

  Avri Doria: (11:01) I have made my 3rd mug of coffee for the day, one for each all.

  Avri Doria: (11:01) .. each call

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:01) I went :-)  gold start for me then  :-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:01) that's a very conservative coffee ratio...

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (11:01) hello all

  Avri Doria: (11:02) very big mugs

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (11:02) Amazing James,you are not working in these indusry. I'm very amazed by those who join both the CWG and CCWG.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:02) hello all.

  Chris LaHatte: (11:02) @clo red wine

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:03) nit very ANZAC of you though...   that said I too have a red by my side ;-)

  Avri Doria: (11:03) Izumi, amazes me as well.  I think people doing both are a bit, you know, crazy.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:03) @Izumi I think this may be the onset of some form of insanity for those of us who are 100% not connected to the indistury :P

  Becky Burr: (11:03) hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:03) Hi Becky

  Alan Greenberg: (11:03) I assume we will get to AoC reviews later?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:04) Stress Test 21 is on page 64, everyone

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:04) *claps for efficiency* @CLO

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (11:05) Hello everybody

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:05) Hi Ingrid

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:06) NOITE  the GAC  Reference 23 Feb 2000  shiuld also note  the later 2005(I think)  update of the GAC Pronipals...  @Steve I thought we had FIXED that!

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:07) hello

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:07) Kia ora Jordan!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:07) Cheryl -- you sent me that new date AFTER I submitted to the Frozen Doc.   It's noted for next draft

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:08) there goes that gold star, Cheryl ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:09) GRRRR

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:09) Downgraded to a silver star

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:09) must have been by microseconds then

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:10) I'm  more of a platinum girl anyway @Sabine ;-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:11) that doesn't surprise me at all.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:12) That wasm my understanding also

  Keith Drazek: (11:12) makes sense to me @Becky and Mathieu

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:12) Goal is to meet CWG expectations

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:15) We can make that update, Kavouss.    But we published this Frozen Doc last Friday -- before CWG published

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:15) And won't its up to ccNSO to provide policy, CWG wont be examining it as far as I understand? Or am I mistaken

  Becky Burr: (11:15) I think CWG says it is up to ccNSO to develop policy in accordance with PDP

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:15) +1 Becky, thats my understanding of the output of the CWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:15) That is my understanding @Becky

  Greg Shatan: (11:16) My understanding as well.  There will be no CWG proposed mechanism.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (11:16) that is right, Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:16) Correct

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:17) There are a dozen Stress Tests that note we are awaiting CWG proposals.   We will update Stress Tests -- after we get off these phone calls!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:17) Stress Test WP is scheduled to talk next Wednesday

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:18) ccNSO are working with the GAC on the policy so...

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:18) agree Mathieu, thanks ST team

  suzanne Radell (GAC): (11:18) Agree as well re ST team/efforts!

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:19) NOT adhoc, but recall nomcom

  arasteh: (11:19) Avri+1

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:19) No

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:20) I have an audio problem will fix

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:20) @Avri wouldn't that make it kind of an adhoc NomCom?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:20) no.  it would be defined in the bylaws and would be called by an established mechansim.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:20) understood. Thanks

  Becky Burr: (11:23) could the community council be the nomcom recall mechanism

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:24) You mean the 29 reps of members for instance ?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:25) it is not ADHOC

  arasteh: (11:26) I agree with Avria arguments and reasoning to iniate a process for removal of the Board Mmeber nominated by NOm Com

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:26) Alan, no.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:27) having a reason is not reobal for Cause.  even if the same word is included.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:27) ... is not removal ..

  arasteh: (11:27) What is not removal

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:28) fixing the word reobal in my previous

  arasteh: (11:28) Initiation of process which may end in removal

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:30) who else comprises NomCom besides SOAC?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:31) To be clear, a director appointed by a member or designator can only be removed by that same member or designator.  There can't be a  different committee that  acts to remove the  director.  This i in reference to a  "not for cause" removal.  The board can remove any director "for cause."

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:32) Josh: the same body (the NomCom) or the same body made up of identical people??

  Sébastien (ALAC): (11:32) @Robin IAB for IETF

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:32) not For Cause, but for good reason.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:32) It will still be the NomCom

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:32) it will just be populated by a specific set of participants

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:32) I suggest for clarity we use "remove" when discussing individual directors and "recall" when referring to replacing full board

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:32) surely that's OK...?

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (11:32) @Robin:  I believe as follows:The breakdown of voting members of the Nom Com is:GNSO = 7, from specified constituent groupsALAC = 5ccNSO = 1ASO = 1IETF = 1---------------------------Total = 15

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:33) I do NT see your last point Thomas...

  Greg Shatan: (11:33) Also note that GAC has nonvoting liaison on NomCom.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:33) Holly, I was hinking just the reverse.  but whatever, we should distinguish.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:33) Good poiint ZHolly re the use of terms for clarity/...

  Sébastien (ALAC): (11:33) https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/nomcom-org-chart-900x675-19mar14-en.png

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:34) Avri go ahead

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:34) @Jordan, yes.  If the NomCom is established as a legal entity, then the individual participants could be different.  The decision of appointment and removal would still come from the NomCom in thtat instance.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:34) was responding to some chat and did not qquite understand the bridge

  Becky Burr: (11:34) Yes, Mathieu, my question is, can we constitute the member reps as the "recall nom com" and leave it at that.  seems simple and elegant

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:34) +1 Avri

  suzanne Radell (GAC): (11:34) Greg, the GAC has not filled that slot since 2007 or 2008; it's now a current subject of discussion but nothing has been decided as yet

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:35) Becky, only if we have members

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:35) @Avri works with designators as well ;-)

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:36) @Mathieu +1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:36) @Becky : interesting option

  Greg Shatan: (11:36) @Suzanne, thanks for the clarification

  Alain Bidron: (11:37) I really do not see why the NomCom IN place could not also be a recall NomCom ...

  Olivier Muron GNSO/ISPCP: (11:37) I heard very few people supported the ad hoc nomcom!!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:37) the point that even in a membership body, Nom Com could be a designator is an important one for full board recall

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:37) I didn't realise we were talking about both individual removal and collective removal at the same time, my mistake

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:38) alain, becase it is not only distraction, but it is a conflict of purpose.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:38) @Holly I guess that would make the option of resignation letters a more practical one?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:38) we don't understand the concern re NomCom conflict of purpose

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:39) i am suggesting it be constituted in the same way.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:39) Avri: have you changed your suggestion from what is written?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:39) no

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:39) the suggestion rsts on using the ame mechsins not the same nomcom

  Becky Burr: (11:39) don't we just have to change the nom com provisions of the Bylaws to create the recall NomCom as part of the process, even if constituted in a slightly different way?

  Matthew Shears: (11:39) surely the community should be driving the recall not the nomcom

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:40) I  BTW  d NOT support the recall NC model... 

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:40) a good reason is the will f the community.  it is a For Cause.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:40) @Matthew I think the community would at least trigger it

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:40) is is not FOR Cause as it is properly defined.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:41) only the entity with the right to appoint a director may remove without cause

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:41) We do not have a "nomcom own notion" removal on the table

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:41) Avri's suggestion is NOT that

  Alan Greenberg: (11:41) @avri, "for a good reason" sounds an awful lot like "cause" to me.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:41) 8 Board Members are NC appointments

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:41) it isn'the same.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:42) could we "divide" NomCom in half (in terms of responsibilities) so some are in charge of appointing and others are in charge of removing (both done under the NomCom banner)?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:42) A NC  could  certainly convene a sub st of itself for that opurpose  as required  yes

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:43) Gotta run be back later in the call

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:43) I did not assume the SOAC could reove based purley on whim.  i thought they needed a reason to take sucb an action even, it it did not properly fall in the category of FOR CAUSE

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:43) Cheryl that is Avri's proposal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:43) Bye James

  Greg Shatan: (11:43) @Robin, the removal NomCom woudl dress all in black and stand quietly behind the Board.  Waiting....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:44) It is notas far as I can tell Jordan  rather the  recall NC is a new entity  not a sub set of the existing one as far as I coiuld tell

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:44) +1 Cheryl

  Matthew Shears: (11:44) i cannot see how the nomcom can recall its own appointess - it will become very political and intranecine

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:44) greg, won't that be true for whichever group of people handle the removal process?

  Greg Shatan: (11:44) @CLO & Leon, the removal nomcom would need to be the same legal entity as the appointing nomcom, I believe.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:45) and all of the commuity is represented on that recall nomcom. picked specifically to deal with this one issue.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (11:45) in the case of SO board members, non-performance of a board member seems something which may be judged by the SO... but in the case of the NOMCOM such non-performance has no underlying interest which may be serve as standard to be considered in that regard

  Olivier Muron GNSO/ISPCP: (11:45) I am ok with the trigger the instrument being the real NomCom

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:45) that has NIT been clear t m Greg  but if it is I need it cinfirmed

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:45) @Greg to comply with legal requirements yes, but as depicted seems it would be a different entity

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:45) tht's how I read it Leon  yes

  Greg Shatan: (11:46) @Robin, not if it is a community-driven mechanism.  It would also seem odd to have half the nomcom solely waiting as executioners.

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:46) @CLO I think Josh said so shortly ago

  Greg Shatan: (11:46) @Leon, a different group of representatives of the same entities, but not really a different entity.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:47) So put in football  (american) it would be like offense and defense teams¿

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (11:47) Josh - you are giving the statutory removal, but our Bylaws could modify that, right?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:48) THAT  works  for me Josh  yes within the same entity NC

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:48) So it's clear the NomCom is the only body that can remove individual directors it has appointed. If you take that for granted, aren't we dancing on the head of a pin as to whether it's the same set of NomCom individuals ora different one? In essence, Josh has just explained that Avri's model works just fine.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:48) but nit a newly convened one just for recall/removal

  Greg Shatan: (11:49) NomCom Subcommittee A giveth and NomCom Subcommittee taketh away.

  Greg Shatan: (11:49) Subcommittee B.

  Greg Shatan: (11:49) Being on subcommittee B (taketh away) seems like a dark and lonely job.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:49) sounds like fun to me ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:49) My preference was expressed as my view, not some "official" Rapporteur's view, for the record

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:49) Greg, some might like it.

  Greg Shatan: (11:50) @Avri, seem like Robin might be one of those people... :-)

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (11:50) I'm with Robin. It would be awesome.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:50) where do I sign up?  ;-)

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:51) Josh outline one possible implementation in a Member or desingator meber wehre nomcom becasue a UA

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:51) Can we take 2-5 mins for Josh and Cheryl to clarify this

  Matthew Shears: (11:51) + 1 Cheryl

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (11:51) I dont thin this is clear enough to poll at all

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:51) Could Josh confirm?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:51) I'm glad I'm not the only one confused about what we are voting on

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (11:52) @Robin you're not alone! ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:52) That is what I suspected  Avri which is why  I need  calrity

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:52) NomCom *has* to become a UA under a membership model, does it not?

  Alan Greenberg: (11:52) Avri's suggestion that the group br constituted according to the same rules is a BIG problem to me

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:52) @Avri, correct.  My description was a way of artiuclating Avri's proposal. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:53) Clearly there is confusion here about what is being proposed.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:53) I would not advocate two different committees

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (11:53) I'm using the step away to vote 'I don;t understnad the proposal well enough'

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:53) we do seem split.

  Greg Shatan: (11:54) I'm stepping away in confusion as well.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:54) please

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (11:54) I agre with Jordan I obkject to us polling this when people are highly confused

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:54) is the basis Avri's proposal on page 40?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:55) indeed, but only if wwe adopt a member or desingator model. that is not a foregone onclusion.  so my third is what happens if we do not adopt either of those models.

  Alan Greenberg: (11:55) Could we ask those who said no why they did so?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (11:56) and the removal and review cmmittee could also deal with the matter of casual vacancies that occur from time to time I suspect... but that is off topic  (useful but off topic)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:57) Kavouss: under the proposal: NO.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:57) Kavouss: under the proposal: NO.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:57) not im my proposal.  the action needs to be initiated by 3 ACSO, including at least i ac and 1 so.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:57) (to your 1 and 2)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:59) That's the whole idea tho Alan! The removal decision group is meant to be the same as the appointments group

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:59) that's the whole principle in the law here

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (11:59) if the nomcom is good enought to appoint, why not to recall.  is this an argument for changing the nomcom?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:59) +1 Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:59) esp since it is preceded by an SO/AC trigger

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:59) (if this is rushing, goodness me Sebastien ;) )

  jorge villa (ASO): (12:00) + Avri. the same nomcom can do both roles (select and remove)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:00) The same NomCom  (as Josh described in this call I can support

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:01) Jorge, my issue on that is that it is a comflict in interst and attention.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (12:01) @Jordan, yes now. In asking question to legal they need to answer on the flight

  Matthew Shears: (12:01) what happens if the process if triggered but does not result in a recall

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:02) @Matthew I guess that's a possible outcome in any case and maybe then the community could appeal via the IRP?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:02) I think the lawyers are utterly clear here

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:02) Matt, the person stay in.  just as if we call ai vote in GNSO NCPH for removal and the vote does not succeeed.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:02) +1 Jordan

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:04) but that orignal entity no longer eists.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:04) to me this seems like a flaw in the membership model

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:04) the idea of making the nomcom a UIA is very difficult for me to accept.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:04) I dont understand why the entity no loinger exists, surely its still 'nomcom' but with different members

  Greg Shatan: (12:04) @Avri, the entity exists, just not that particular instance, in my view.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:05) and this is indeed also another inistantiation of the same entity in that case.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:05) i think nomcom and the member/designator models are incompatible.

  Keith Drazek: (12:05) While the composition of the NomCom changes over time, isn't there typically overlap every year for continuity?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:05) Avri: we have clear legal advice that they are not.

  suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:06) Doesn't the composition of the NomCom change with some regularity?  Does that make a difference?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:06) (not incompatible)

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:06) well we need to make them UAs which makes no sense to me.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:06) Ok now I understand Avri

  jorge villa (ASO): (12:06) the nomcom is updated yearly

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:06) @suzanne, No. 

  suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:06) Thanks, Josh.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:08) ie. if we have a member model, the Josh's implementation works for me.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:08) i am just not assuming that is a forgone conclusion and am looking for a mechansims that would work even if we did not decide in the end on a member model.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:08) Is there a practical reason for the nomcom not to form as a UA or is it a procedural/method of work issue?

  Matthew Shears: (12:08) so solve this by having a separate part of the nomcom that comrpises other individuals who may have to be brought together to address recall issues

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:09) so the NC  will be 40+ people in number !

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:09) i assume if we go member, we will have to rewrite the nomc procedure anyway.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:09) If the Removal-SC on the NomCom is composed of the Chairs of the AC/s and SOs, I could live with this

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:09) as oppossed to using part of the 20+ that exist for the purpose!  still does NOT get my support Jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (12:09) Or if not the chair, some other person selected by the AC/SO

  Greg Shatan: (12:10) Avri is not choosing among the NomCom, it's a new set of people that EXCLUDES current NomCom members

  Greg Shatan: (12:10) Avri = Avri's proposal.  Not Avri herself.  :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:10) Exactly Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:11) that is hoiw I read it and that dies NIOT mao to what Jordan said

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (12:11) The queue will be closed after Alan.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:11) kicking out a board member should not be trivial

  Greg Shatan: (12:12) @CLO is it fair to say that the NomCom tries to cloister itself from the community when choosing candidates?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:12) in terms of the deliberations and details of the applicants  Yes @greg  but processes are open

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:13) +1 Kavouss

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:13) The proposal Josh articulated is a different way to approach the concern raised in Avri's proposal on page 40.  But it is different in that it's all NomCom - not a new entity

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:13) Thank you @Sharon

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:14) I don't understand why you'd want to entirely change the political balance inthe nomcom for the removal decision compared with the approval decision, Alan - we aren't suggesting that for any other appointing body

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:14) Exactly Sharon, could youself and josh maybe put that option into wiriting for the list?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:14) What's the logic for doing that in the NomCom?

  Greg Shatan: (12:14) @Jordan, you could have weighted voting....

  Olivier Muron GNSO/ISPCP: (12:14) present both proposals!!!!

  Becky Burr: (12:15) couldn't they be a sub-committee with limited powers?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:15) There already is weighted voting

  Greg Shatan: (12:15) Then why would Alan's proposal change the political balance?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:15) he suggests SO and AC chairs

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:15) entirely different to the composition of the NomCom

  Greg Shatan: (12:16) Perhaps we should use SG and Constituency chairs instead, at least for GNSO.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:16) @Jordan - needs to be NomCom because that is the entity with power to appoint (same  entity with power to appoint) must be the entity with power to remove. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:16) Nobody has articulated a reason to change the balance. Avri's proposal and the variations of it discussed have suggested the same balance.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:16) Sharon: I know

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:17) but the subcommittee model could be composed the same or differently

  Greg Shatan: (12:17) 85% would allow any large entity to block....

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:17) nobody's suggested logic I can see for why it should be differently.

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:17) 85% then would not be acievable if GAC does not vote?

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:17) achievable that is

  Greg Shatan: (12:18) @David, also a good point.

  Greg Shatan: (12:18) Unless abstentions don't count in the calculation at all.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:18) I would support Mathieu's proposal too

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:19) 85% enables 5 votes to block whatever abstention rules

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (12:19) I agree with Jordan for 75%

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:19) Against block voting - interests are too varied, even within an SO/AC

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (12:19) GNSO requires individualized votes, Jordan

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:19) Yes we need a solid explination for abstentions as the likelyhood is the GAC is will always abstain

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:19) Summary of my proposal:  The NomCom exists as the same legal entity that appoints and removes a bundle of directors..  It is organized in the same way that it has been today.  Inside the entity there are two sub-groups, one charged with appointing directors, and one charged with reviewing their perofrmance and possibly removing them, if needed.    We would assume the two sub-groups are organized in a consistent manner .

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:20) @Josh so that it doesn't get lost in the chat, could you please forward it to the mailing list?

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:20) Yeah I wouldnt agree with blog voting

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:20) @Leon: it's captured in my notes

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:20) Thanks Mathieu

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:21) Agree with individual votes and 75%

  Greg Shatan: (12:21) My issue with Josh's proposal is that the removal subgroup likely will have nothing to do.

  Greg Shatan: (12:21) It just seems odd.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:21) @Jordan are the notrs on the right reflective of your numbers?

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:21) *notes

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:21) @Greg. Most of the ICANN community is double booked anyway

  Greg Shatan: (12:22) Lobbying the SSAC and RSSAC could become an art form.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:22) 75% is 22/29

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:22) not 20/29

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:22) James: I don't know what you are asking...

  Greg Shatan: (12:22) Some people would love a committee appointment where they don't actually have to do anything.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:22) @Jordan sorry you were saying 75% with individual voting, notes on the right say 80% with individual voting

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:23) 80 means a single group and ONE other of the 24 votes would block. so I think it is too stringent.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:23) I am ok with 75%  with the note oin abstentions  being sorted of course

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:23) that's why I support 75% as our first pitch.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:24) yes, so the notes on the right aren't accurate

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:24) Yes the 75% seems appropriate. Can we get the notes clorrected

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:24) I also think while talking so where I got to at the end of what I was saying might not be what I said earlier on. Apologies.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:24) I'd rather we propose the 75%

  Alan Greenberg: (12:25) With abstentions not counting, you need an additional rule that there can be no decision if there are too many abstentions. Without this additional caveat, you couldhave removal decisions with a VERY small number of Yes notes

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:25) @Greg: we are no longer talking of nomcom

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:25) Greg raises a different point

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:25) Notes  to NIT reflect the discussion correctly  staff please fix

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:25) Good point, Alan.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:25) it's an important one

  Alan Greenberg: (12:26) If we are going back to the NomCom removal discussion, I am taking a break!

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:26) @Alice can we get the notes on the right corrected to reflect the 75% in the last and 3rd from last paragraphs

  Greg Shatan: (12:26) @Jordan, thank you for making something out of my attempt at a question....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:27) the pre letters  seems a good way to go though all along  IMO

  arasteh: (12:27) 75% tabled as refernce threshold and 80% AS AN ALTERNATIVE ( implicitly less preferred 9 but put both to public comment

  Matthew Shears: (12:27) agree Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:29) That's where the pre-resignation letters come in, Yes.

  arasteh: (12:29) Jordan you as one supporter of /5% do you agree with my proposal

  arasteh: (12:30) 75%

  Becky Burr: (12:30) stepping away briefly

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:30) yeah I am happy for us to reference the 80

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:30) must be almost break time

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:30) *ridiculously excited*

  Samantha Eisner: (12:30) If the recall of the Board would/could impair the performance of the IANA function, should the operating communities that are not "represented" through current SO/ACs have a voice in a full Board recall mechanism?  Are there other parts of the global community that should be identified?  These may be some questions for consideration during the public comment period

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:31) @Sam: IANA operations are under a different Board now... ;-)

  Alan Greenberg: (12:31) @SAm, *ANY* action against the Board MUST ensure the continued operation of IANA

  Alan Greenberg: (12:31) If we cannot do that, this whole exercise is a loss.

  Brenda Brewer: (12:32) 5 Minute break.  Please stand by.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:32) The likelyhood is IANA will be under the PTI and this will contiune regardless of the status of the ICANN board

  Matthew Shears: (12:34) that should be the case James

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:35) And is in fact another plus to moving the IANA into an affiliate

  Samantha Eisner: (12:35) But that's only for the naming-related functions, as I understand it

  Matthew Shears: (12:35) PTI needs to be insulated against the impact of ICANN Board recalls etc. - its continuity is paramount

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:36) No PTI will operate the IANA as a whole, RIR and IETF contracts may remain with ICANN or move to the PTI

  Matthew Shears: (12:36) agree - I would assume that the other communities would prefer that their operations not be impacted

  Matthew Shears: (12:36) which points to the need to empower the PTI Board

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:37) +1 Matthew

  Brenda Brewer: (12:37) recordinga re going

  Matthew Shears: (12:39) what page are we on now please?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:39) It relates to content on page 80

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:39) of the PDF

  Matthew Shears: (12:39) thanks

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:39) thanks as well

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:40) for a frozen document, it certainly generates a lot of heat...just sayin'

  Matthew Shears: (12:40) + 1 Alan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:40) +1

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (12:40) Ensuring diversity is very important

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:40) even when wide awake, i need to see the words.

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (12:40) Improve diversity in all its aspects at all levels of the organization

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:40) there's gonna be a "next time"?

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (12:41) Avri: Institute a culture of default transparency at ICANN, including guidelines for when it is acceptable to classify information, requirements for logging decisions to classify information and procedure for de-classifying information.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:42) ah i see, a framework of actually DOING it. :)

  Matthew Shears: (12:42) have not sen anything in core values as to Avri's point as noted above

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:43) Basically a records management policy for ICANN

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:44) In WS2, we should also look at ICANN's "whistle blower" program, which it lists among its accountability features.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:44) Matthew: this was proposed Core Value 1 including WP1 additions - 1.        Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that decisions are made in the global public interest and are accountable, transparent, and respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of ICANN.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:44) the T word is in there :-)

  Matthew Shears: (12:44) yes, but not specific to Avri's point

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:45) Can we be clear that the list of WS2 issues isn't exhaustive/complete in the report?

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:45) Jordan, I think that the request is to have that made more granular and defined.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:45) Matthew: indeed not quite comprehensive, that's why I support this going into WS2

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:45) +1

  Matthew Shears: (12:45) I support as well

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (12:45) As Avri and I noted in previous call, our proposed AoC Rviews will include this Transparency enhancement: To facilitate transparency and openness in ICANN's deliberations and operations, the review teams shall have access to ICANN internal documents, and the draft output of the review will be published for public comment. The review team will consider such public comment and amend the review as it deems appropriate before issuing its final report and forwarding the recommendations to the Board. 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:45) yes  works for WS2  IMO

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:46) I.E. can we ask a specific question of the community: "What other matters would you like addressed in WS2?"

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:46) Good idea, Jordan

  Matthew Shears: (12:46) + 1 Jordan

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:46) +3? Jordan

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (12:46) +1 Jordan

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (12:47) I support Avri's proposal

  Keith Drazek: (12:47) I agree with Robin's proposal about the staff whistleblower policy/process.

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:47) The review of Whistle blower program was also recommended by ATRT2

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:47) @Jordan: yes that would be the kind of specific

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:47) question

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:47) As long as we are not locking ourselves into ONLY doing the things listed in this first Public Comment doc, I think we should agree with the additions and then move on

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:47) I would see this request as sepeate to the AoC reviews

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:47) agree @Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:48) we should also ask the community for suggestions about what we are fogetting and need to add to WS2.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:48) +1 Jordan. It wouldn't be very "accountable" of us to solicit comments on a locked document ;)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:48) Frozen, Jonathan ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (12:48) good point Robin

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:48) oh i did not mean it hurt.  i think it being in ATRT afforded it .

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:49) it's an important difference Jordan

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:51) Do we have any legal input of the difference between 'Headquarted' and 'Principal Office for the transcation of business' as they are different things

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (12:52) Articles amendment provisions currently refer to members.  Designators coudl also be given right to vote on any amendments.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:52) @James: principal office is more "legal" was the feedback

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:53) Does it preculde ICANN being headquartered elsewhere? As you can technically be headquarted in a PO Box in Zug in CH but you couldnt operate 'a procipal office for the transcation of business'

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (12:54) "The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 SHOULD KEEP ITS CURRENT STATUS OR be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”. IN THE LATTER CASE, ANY CHANGES TO IT  would require positive approval by Members/Designators.  "

  Matthew Shears: (12:54) + 1 James - need to account for that "ambiguiuty"

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:54) Thanbks Matt I think its important

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (12:54) Thanks, Pedro

  Greg Shatan: (12:55) I suggest that it say "headquarters and principal office" to avoid doubt.\

  Matthew Shears: (12:55) + 1 Greg

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:55) usual bylaws speak of a registered office in the state of incorporation for service of process.  Typical for flexibility re location of headquarters

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:56) In the end this whole issue is about the political and organisational decision to remain based in the united states

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:56) Holly thats what I wpould want, flexibility in location for HQ while maintaining a strong language for location of incorporation

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:57) So if CA leaves the union we are in trouble?

  Alan Greenberg: (12:57) These Bylaws are specific to the California-incorporated ICANN. If we move where we are incorporated, there would be spanking new Bylaws.

  Matthew Shears: (12:57) or falls off the map

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (12:57) and that's imminent, right, Avri?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:57) Legal term is "principal place of business".  Headquarters/principal office aren't really legal concepts (suggests where management sits)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:58) @Avri : a new stress test ?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (12:58) some say it left the real US a long time ago.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:58) @Avri or if Ventura county annexes where ICANN is

  Alan Greenberg: (12:58) That is it a california corp in articles is a statement of fact, not intent.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (12:58) @sharon perfect that exactly what I wanted to know

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:59) @alan - precisely

  Keith Drazek: (12:59) lol Avri

  Greg Shatan: (12:59) Am I chopped liver.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:00) I hereby ring the "1 hour left" bell

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:01) Is there a dehydration of ICANN staff stress test given they're in CA?

  Greg Shatan: (13:01) I have the same issue as Kavouss.  WHat is the point of the second sentence?

  Matthew Shears: (13:01) I agree that some wordsmithing is needed in the second sentence

  Alan Greenberg: (13:01) I love it when a non-native English speaker corrects our grammar!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:01) :-)

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:01) agreed.  Drop positive

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:01) drop positive

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (13:02) alan, many non english speaker speak it better than the natives.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:02) I think this should just remain a normal bylaw

  Greg Shatan: (13:03) Can we cross reference to a description of the difference between the Fundamental Bylaws and the other Bylaws.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:03) cross-ref a good idea

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:03) (to 6.3)

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:03) agree @Greg

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (13:03) I agree with Greg that this distinction should be crystal clear in the text.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:07) evolution of reviews is critical

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (13:10) The language will be worked on with the lawyers and you can then check whether you think it is clear enough, Greg and Suz

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (13:11) Thanks, Thomas

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:14) they aren't limiting.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:15) "particular" I think makes that clear

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:15) may I move that we move on?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:15) I second that motion!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:15) seconded

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:16) Every one minute and six seconds of discussion on this call takes up an hour of person-time, give or take

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:16) there's a scary factoid

  arasteh: (13:17) Thomas UNDERSTANG +1

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:17) So over 420 man hours on calls today =)

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:18) Yes thanks Steve for remembering!

  arasteh: (13:18) Thomas

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:18) person hours

  arasteh: (13:18) may you proceed with yr proposa

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:18) apologies bad choice of prnouns

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:18) What share of person hours are spent reading / writing humourous comments on chat ?

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:19) @that scales with the number of person hours spent on icann calls, logarythmically

  arasteh: (13:19) manhours is gender balance ansd need not to be replaced by personhours

  Matthew Shears: (13:23) indeed there is a periodic review antincpated - every 5 years

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:24) let's do it

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:25) And repeating self-review in each review team

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:26) Good to go IMHO

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:26) remember this is for public consultation

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:27) when do we go over section 9 in the draft on implementation and timing?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:28) Robin, do you mean the blank stuff on page 81 in the PDF? The answer is, in the next agenda item

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:28) yes, and thank you.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:30) Is someone utilising sonar to locate mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:31) I personally think the IANA functions review needs to be more highly protected than these general AoC based reviews

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:31) I can't see why anyone would want to muck around with the AoC ones, but I can see why they would wtih the IANA functions stuff...

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:31) Jordan -- did the draft list of Fundamental bylaws include all these AoC reviews?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:32) No, it did not

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:32) May I assume and have a clear confirmation that IANA Function Review only covers the names functions, as it mentions the CWG?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:32) this is our current list

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:32) a)     The mission / fundamental commitments / core valuesb)     The independent review processc)     The manner in which Fundamental Bylaws can be amendedd)     The powers set out in section 6.6 of this report

  Becky Burr: (13:33) we can't put everything in the fundamental bylaws

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:33) and we don't need to

  Greg Shatan: (13:33) In our earlier discussion, we were told AoC #4 is not being put in a Fundamental Bylaw.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:33) the AoC reviews ported into the bylaws help ICANN and help the community, it would be bizarre if anyone wanted to break them or remove them - and the community will have th epower to block their removal anyhow.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:34) Agree, Kavouss.  Let's leave all these periodic reviews in 'regular' bylaws

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:34) Greg: correct. Confirm.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:34) Not intended to be protected.

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:34) +1 Steve D

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (13:35) of course, we could just put the IFR as a fundmental., eve if the others aren't.  Though I erpsonally think the AOC like reviews should be fundmental in orderfor them to have the same wieght as a the AOC

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:35) That is correct. CWG model contemplates accountability on IANA Review Function recommendatins

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:36) @Avri - my sense is that is what CWG was contemplating.

  Matthew Shears: (13:36) I agree

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:36) +1 Avri and Sharon

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:37) exactly

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (13:37) My mistake was that I thought they got this automatically by inclusion in the AOC-Like reviews.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:38) I think we meet the CWG scorecard requirements and I vote we should move on.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:38) If the CWG wants their review protected as fundamental I see no reason for us to debate that, we should just do it.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:38) I think we've discussed this discussion near unto death.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:38) +1 Jordan

  Matthew Shears: (13:38) ad hoc reviews are important as they are driven by community input and shlould not have to wait for 5 years if somehting is going very wrong

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:39) if something is going wrong, the review will happen sooner right?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:39) yes

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:39) yes Jordan

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (13:39) Sounds about right. 

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:40) Sounds good Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:40) Actually, I don't think we should warp the "incorporate AOC reviews" thing to include this new IANA review in our report - I think we should have a separate subsection for it and get it nice and clear and stand alone, to prevent confusion.

  Matthew Shears: (13:41) I agree Jordan - its a bit aples and an orange

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:41) sure understood

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:41) thanks for this clarification

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:41) If the community wanted to do a review AT ANY TIME, any AC could advise the board to do the review. If board decides NOT to follow that advice, we can challenge that decision with REconsideration or IRP

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:42) OK thanks Avir

  Matthew Shears: (13:42) + 1 Avri

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:42) +1 Steve

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:43) If CWG hasn't specified the details of the IANA Function Review, we will just have a placeholder

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (13:44) Steve, i think that is right, some of the detail of the IFR were left as questions for comment.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:44) How many days of PC again

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:45) 30 days

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:45) thanls leon, 30 days

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:45) Monday 4 May to Wednesday 3 June

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:45) and we will have a 2nd public comment period, right?  In July?

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:46) Thanks Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:46) I believe we will have to have calls next week to review the new content we have agreed to be created during these intensive calls next week and in that process any remaining substance issues are done

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:46) I think that's what Leon has just said

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:46) so by the end (1 May) it's just editing / small issues

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:46) yup

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:47) @Robin: that is the plan, unlesss everyone approves by acclamation. till many points to develop

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:47) Merci

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:47) Given the level where we are at now Robin, yes a second public comment is going to be non-optional.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:47) *Someone* just watched the Da Vinci Code :)

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:47) Probably

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:48) I support us scheduling two meetings next week

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:48) even if we don't need the second one it's better to schedule it and drop than the other way around

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (13:48) +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (13:48) agreed

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:48) sounds reasonable

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:48) seems inevitable

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:48) works for me

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (13:48) Tue & Thur

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:48) Thursday evening GMT after 5pm =)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:48) Just a 6 hour call, nothing long...

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:48) ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:48) sixteen hours

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:49) of course, Kavouss

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:49) we will know at the end of the first meeting on Tuesday if we need the further slot.

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:49) I need some time to actually earn some money to feed my family and pay my rent =)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:49) We just need to schedule it and get it in the diaries ASAP

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (13:49) exacty 

  James Gannon[GNSO-NCSG]: (13:50) ok gotta run sorry guys bye!

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:50) At least there should juust be one doc to look at

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (13:50) bye James

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:50) we will for sure have just the one doc

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:51) it is going to be the frozen-unfrozen-refrozen doc

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:51) that sounds like a recipe for botulism...

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:51) that's unhealthy Mathieu

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:51) @Mathieu alright as long as it doesn't melt in the process!

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:51) if the CWG is doing 28 days

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:51) can we do 28 days too?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:52) Mon 4 May to Mon 1 Jun?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:52) gives us two days back.... ;)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:52) but at which cost?

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:52) 28 days is neat four weeks

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:53) amazing how good we are at match after 6 hours

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:53) math

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:53) Sabine: I don't know - from my relative newcomer hat, the difference between 28 and 30 days is much smaller than the end-point problem

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:53) (the time between end of public comment and the presentation in BA)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:53) I'd prefer to stick to 30 days because we need outside input

  Greg Shatan: (13:53) I would support a 28 day period to minimize slippage.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:53) I'm with Robin on this one.

  Samantha Eisner: (13:53) Yes, we could go to 28 days if needed, if there is approval from 2 global leaders (whcih is already needed to go to 30 days from 40 anyway)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:54) My mind is exploding at the notion that two days will make the slightest difference

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:54) but at this point in time I do not claim this is in any way, shape or form a reasoned opinion :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:54) but if it's a big deal for some, we should keep it?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:55) there's some green ticks

  Berry Cobb: (13:55) 28 Days = 1 June close of PC, 30 days = 3 June PC close

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:56) Wednesday 3 June

  Becky Burr: (13:56) @Sam - what is a "global leader"?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:56) just in time for EuroDIG...

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:56) can we also clarify that we expect the 2nd public comment period to happen?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:57) It is in the current timeline

  Samantha Eisner: (13:57) There are a group of execs at ICANN that are the Global Leadership team. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:57) I believe that we should set out in that implementation and next steps section that a second PC will be conducted.

  Samantha Eisner: (13:57) CEO and some of his direct reports, basically

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:57) Mathieu, it is listed "if needed" and I think we agree it will be needed.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:57) the notion that what we have here is the only public engagement we would do is clearly nonsense

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:58) nicely landed on time Co-Chairs

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:58) It is apparent that between these marathon sessions our co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have been busy a turning around summaries and docs – well done

  Keith Drazek: (13:58) +1

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (13:58) couldn't agree more.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) Indeed.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (13:58) Agree!!!!!!!!!!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:58) (blushing)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (13:58) absolutely!!

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (13:58) (thanks) :D

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (13:59) Thank you so much to our co chairs

  Keith Drazek: (13:59) +1 to Kavouss' remarks

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (13:59) many many thanks!!!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:59) most grateful Kavouss. Thanks to all

  Becky Burr: (13:59) good work all around

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (13:59) Agree very much, thank you!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:59) It's an honor

  Greg Shatan: (13:59) +1 million

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:59) +1 Kavouss as well

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:59) Indeed

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:59) + 1 Greg (Kavous)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:00) I'd like to add thanks to the ICANN staff who've been involved here

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:00) Thanks  to everyone !

  Alan Greenberg: (14:00) Yes indeed.

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (14:00) Thanks everyone

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:00) same here and glad to be a part of this group working in good vibes, respecting different views

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:00) ICANN staff did a remarkable job!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:00) Yes staff have been fantatic...

  Olivier Muron GNSO/ISPCP: (14:00) +1 Kavous

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:00) and kets not forget our laywers, who are probably not so used to middle of the night calls in their regualr work lives.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:01) + 1 jordan many  thanks to ICANN staff

  Becky Burr: (14:01) and Steve and Cheryl too!  Non-stressful stress testing

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:01) Yes ICANN staff has been amazing

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:01) thnks to all.

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:01) Thanks lawyers - great help (to continue)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:01) YES THE LAWYERS!

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (14:01) Has he taken a breath?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:01) Naaa we don't count  we just stress test

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:01) and thank you Kavouss for expessing eveyone of us in this

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:01) in keeping the notes and certainly thanks to the lawyers

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:01) but is Kavous the oldest?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:01) Indeed Athina

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:01) Thanks for your intervention Kavouss

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:02) Avri: at our next physical meeting we should do a line up in age order

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:02) panting, rather

  Becky Burr: (14:02) yeah, but no cocktails

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:02) Thanks to everyone! It's an incredible team we work with and nothing would be possible without the hard work and good will of all of you

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (14:02) OTOH we can't follow the progress of your scar, Thomas :)

  Becky Burr: (14:02) I'm not lining up in age order thank you very much

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:02) true  Sabine

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (14:02) Concur completely with all of the positive sentiments regarding our co-chairs, team leads, staff and outside counsel

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:03) A big thank you to Staff too, wonderful work!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:03) and the lawyers!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:03) Thank you all!  We have come a long way.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:03) byeeeeeeeeeeee

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:03) Thanks guys!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegion Member: (14:03) Bye all Thanks you

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (14:03) thanks everyone! bye!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:03) Thank you all and have a nice weekend!

  Greg Shatan: (14:03) Bye all!

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (14:03) bye y'all

  Matthew Shears: (14:03) thanks

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:03) clap clap clap

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (14:03) Thanks to the Lawyers bye

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:03) +1 Thomas, thanks you all !

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:03) Bye and thank you so much

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:03) thanks all!!

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (14:03) Thanks to all.

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:03) Bye bye thanks all

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:03) thanks a lot everyone

  Finn Petersen: (14:03) Bye -bye