Content Comparison

Transcript

Recording

• Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2rb1csbaq3/
• MP3 recording is available here: 

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda review.

2. AOC reviews in the Bylaws - the proposed language around document transparency (to confirm for CCWG) 

3. Community Power - introductory text (new text to review, to approve or issues for CCWG)

4. Fundamental Bylaws - Stress test 18 text (new text to review, to approve or issues for CCWG)

5. Community Model - ICANN Community Assembly (new text to review, identify any tweaks)

6. Community Power - Reject Budget / Plans (revised text to review, approve or issues for CCWG)

7. Community Model - Voting Weights in the Community Mechanism (revised text to review, approve or issues for CCWG)

To deal appropriately with the following items will depend on whether the lawyers have come back with their marked up drafts. If they have not, we will have no choice but to deal with these items at the meeting on 28 July.

8. Community Model - overall description 

9. Community Power - removal of individual ICANN Directors 

10. Community Power - recall of the entire ICANN Board 

11. Fundamental Bylaws (not separately attached - unless lawyers come through, as per #4 above)

12. Community Power - Standard Bylaws

13. Agreement of Agenda for Meeting #22 on 28 July

14. Any Other Business

Notes

No notes recorded

Chat transcript

  Kimberly Carlson: (7/27/2015 09:03) Welcome to WP1 Meeting #21 on 27 July!  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 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:56) hi all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:56) hi all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:57) quick, let's vote!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:57) *grin*

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:59) Hi all!

  Leon Sanchez: (13:01) hello everyone

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:01) oneminute or so

  Thomas Rickert: (13:02) Hi all!

  Edward Morris: (13:02) Hi Thomas

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:04) Hello, all.

  Becky Burr: (13:06) Hello there

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:06) Becky, hi!

  Mathieu Weill: (13:07) Hi all

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:07) Yay, us.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:10) Great job Steve !

  Leon Sanchez: (13:10) Indeed Steve!

  arasteh: (13:10) hi every body 0400 seoup time

  Mathieu Weill: (13:11) I don't think so Jordan

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:11) I see they commented on 5B 2, 3 and 4, but not on this.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:13) 5ame here

  Avri Doria: (13:13) sprry i am late. were are we?

  Mathieu Weill: (13:14) Agenda item 3 Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:16) Kavouss, that is very early

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:21) From Articles of Incorporation: 9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:22) The Sole Member is the only statutoryMember, i.e., the Community Mechanism will be the sole statutory Member, so I strongly doubt that one would look behind the statutory Member to the individual votes.  But let's see what the lawyers say.  Of course, they may respond with a question -- "So, what do you want it to be?"

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:22) Probably not.

  Robin Gross: (13:28) that sounds like a good solution, Jordan.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:29) I'm wondering why we wouldn't want the Community Mechanism to amend bylaws without Board approval.   75% seems like a high enough threshhold

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:29) My view: because we haven't really discussed it / thought it through.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:32) Agree with tha approach Jordan ! Leon has just certified that request to Lawyers

  Robin Gross: (13:34) this explanation on Member statutory powers will help us to explain to the community *why* we shouldn't be concerned about creating lots of derivative lawsuits

  Edward Morris: (13:35) Agree Steve re. bylaws amendment powers

  arasteh: (13:35) THE COMMIUNITY SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO INITIATE CHANGE  TO  BYLAWS .In all type of democratic sytem the possibility existsc

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:36) Kavouss: it's whether it's a direct right or not

  Mathieu Weill: (13:36) I have a suggestion regarding the naming : avoid acronyms !

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:36) @Kavouss and Jordan -- it's what the voting threshhold should be.   We cannot remove this direct right

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:37) Did Willie Currie describe that as an Accountability Rounddtable?

  Mathieu Weill: (13:38) Willie called it the Mutual Accountability Roundtable

  Robin Gross: (13:40) I liked "forum" because that is what we need - a forum for discussion and deliberation.

  Matthew Shears: (13:40) agreed - ICANN Accountability Forum

  Mathieu Weill: (13:40) Some feared confusion with the Public forum

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:41) actually, that's quite nice: ICAF? ICANN Community Accountabiity Forum?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:41) Prelude Vehicle could be conf calls and emails among AC/SO leaders.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:42) that's what this is, essentially - it just makes sure that some part of those exchanges happens in public

  Mathieu Weill: (13:42) Alternate is Community Assembly. No need for Icann here ?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:42) For WS1, we could rely upon our proven CCWG mechanisms.  Then create a more formal and permanent forum and/or structure as part of WS2

  Matthew Shears: (13:42) we don't need two entities - just one that meets annually unless and as appropriate the community decide to exercise its powers and a discussions before doing so is needed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:43) what' the second entity???

  Alan Greenberg: (13:43) @Steve, +1

  Matthew Shears: (13:43) ICA and PAF

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:43) nobody has suggested the PAF be an entity

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:43) have they?

  Keith Drazek: (13:43) I don't believe so.

  Keith Drazek: (13:44) Apologies for joining late in Adobe. I've been on the phone from the begiining.

  Matthew Shears: (13:47) I guess my point is that we don't need an assembly and a forum

  Matthew Shears: (13:47) even if one is a part of por the vehicle for the other - its confusing

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:47) Community Vehicle Assembly Forum -- where we all get together and build a car.

  Matthew Shears: (13:48) :)

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:48) Uh, oh I left out the mechanism, hope we don't crash.

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (13:49) I agree -- let's pull up a level.

  Matthew Shears: (13:49) yep

  Mathieu Weill: (13:50) Confirming that Lawyers have NOT seen this paper yet

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (13:53) I am utterly opposed to a line item veto as a matter of an enforceable power for the community

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:54) Did the lawyers tell us we could not do line item veto because the Board has fiduciary duty for budgets?

  Alan Greenberg: (13:54) Yes, improved process is  of major importance but a more targetted way of the community protesting COULD be a vital part of the package.

  Thomas Rickert: (13:54) I do not like line item veto either. I guess many in the community are afraid of that. However, keeping the budget veto as a "big stick" here and put on our list for WS 2 the development of more refined mechanisms might be a way to take away a lot of concerns. Great suggestion!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:55) we'll spiral out of control if we get into those details on this call

  Alan Greenberg: (13:55) I said "like item veto or whatever:" it might take a very different form.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:56) All I was suggesting is a reference to more refinement to overall process in WS2

  Keith Drazek: (13:56) I agree we shold avoid a line item veto or anything resembling it. Particularly in WS1.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:57) For the record, I would not want to see a generalized line item veto and did not mean to imply I did.

  Mathieu Weill: (13:57) LAwyers review include consistency review

  Mathieu Weill: (13:58) And staff & co chairs will definitely do (sigh)

  Mathieu Weill: (13:59) We've had review fromlawyers on 5A

  Mathieu Weill: (13:59) Some rewording, but no big issue spotted

  Alan Greenberg: (14:02) My personal view is I would be delighted if all ACs were listed in the Bylaws (with full number of votes).

  Matthew Shears: (14:02) I think that we should list all SO/ACs for completeness otherwise we should explain why they are not listed

  Thomas Rickert: (14:04) Robin, I think we have discussed this since Frankfurt and there seems to be overwhelming support for the current proposal.

  Thomas Rickert: (14:05) I have presented to the GNSO Council numerous times and there was no objection to this.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:05) How can it be premature since the numbers have been on the table since *february*?

  Alan Greenberg: (14:07) @Julie  :-)

  Robin Gross: (14:09) we don't have consensus on this proposal, however

  Edward Morris: (14:09) Correct Robin. SSAC, NCSG...it needs to be noted.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:10) Julie did not object did you Julie ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:11) we can just mention the list. no problem wit that.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:11) I can't support the idea of an appointed advisory committee like SSAc having the same number of votes here as a whole SO.

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:12) My personal view is that voting weights within the community should be equal.  I think that would also be general SSAC view, if SSAc chose to join th CM.

  Mathieu Weill: (14:12) Thanks Julie, I think that's useful clarification

  Alan Greenberg: (14:13) @Jordan, ten let's suggest that the SSAC request a change to no longer being appointed by the Board. The Board currently exercises no control. It is a rubber stamp.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:13) It isn't a community that is being represented in ICANN

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:13) it's different to all of the other SOs and ACs

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:14) SSAC doesnt "represent" or give a foothold for the security industry in ICANN

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:14) its a specialist advisory group appointed to advise the ICANN system on security and stability issues

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:17) otoh the practical simplicity of 5 each is definitely appealing.

  Robin Gross: (14:17) There was some opposition to the 5 votes in public comments.  Those should be considered.  Should I make a list of those comments?

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:19) SSAC does "represent" the importance of security and stability in the system.  I guess the issue is, if they get the vote, what happens if there is an issue that has absolutely no security and stability dimension?

  Avri Doria: (14:19) personaly i support retaining the 5 vote parity across all ACSO.  i welcome SSAC's postion. and support then retaining the possiblity of opting to have equal vote at a time of their choosing.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:21) you mean, changing to a five vote parity

  Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (14:21) it's a change to our previous proposal

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:22) +1 Kavouss

  Edward Morris: (14:23) +2 Kavrouss

  Julie Hammer (SSAC): (14:23) Thanks, Jordan.  That is an excellent proposal.

  Robin Gross: (14:24) audio?

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:24) seems fine

  Robin Gross: (14:24) its back

  Keith Drazek: (14:24) fine on the phone

  Leon Sanchez: (14:24) fine here too

  Thomas Rickert: (14:25) fine

  Leon Sanchez: (14:27) We would happily request so Jordan

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:27) audio solid here

  Mathieu Weill: (14:27) We have already Leon ;-)

  Mathieu Weill: (14:27) The table ?

  Leon Sanchez: (14:27) agree, just saying

  arasteh: (14:31) Mathieu

  Mathieu Weill: (14:33) yes Kavouss

  arasteh: (14:33) GAC atvICANN 53 just discussed the previous models 9 designbator, Membership Model and its assiciated uninciorprated association and thus did not makea choice where it wasnted toi bea member at that stage until the whole issue clear,

  Mathieu Weill: (14:38) That is perfectly clear to us Kavouss.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:40) nope

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:44) At the point GAC might decide to vote, we may need to adjust the Supermajority vote counts.

  Thomas Rickert: (14:45) Kavouss, I mentioned earlier in this call that the system would be sufficiently open.

  Robin Gross: (14:45) The ACs should remain advisory and not have votes in addition to that power.

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:46) Kavouss, thank you for being so consistently engaged, even at significant personal inconvenience and discomfort.

  Thomas Rickert: (14:46) +1 Greg

  Mathieu Weill: (14:49) That's perfect ! Great idea to have a summary

  Avri Doria: (14:50) i will be teacing during tomorrow's WP1, may be able to make the last bit ot the call.

  Kimberly Carlson: (14:51) 12:00 UTC

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:52) we have 8 minutes to spare!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:52) bye all

  Keith Drazek: (14:52) Thanks to Jordan for all his excellent work leading this group.

  Robin Gross: (14:52) indeed, Keith!

  Mathieu Weill: (14:52) Amazing work Jordan !

  Matthew Shears: (14:52) yes, excellent Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:52) thanks

  Avri Doria: (14:53) thanks for all the hard work

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:53) Huzzah!

  Greg Shatan (IPC): (14:53) Bye all.

  Leon Sanchez: (14:53) thanks everyone