WP1 Meeting #2 (25 February)

Transcript

Transcript WP1 Meeting #2 25 FEB.doc

Transcript WP1 Meeting #2 25 FEB.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p739scyqcny/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-25feb15-en.mp3

Notes

1. Report of activities given on  CCWG call - Roelof and Steve walked CCWG through the work conducted. 

Feedback on AoC reviews merged into Bylaws:

- Balance (gender and geographic) and diversity baked into Bylaws 

- Headcount but believe It should not be limited to one per SO/AC 

- Sam and Sebastien recommended separate document 

- Kavouss suggested division of Bylaw 

-> Concerns about complications this might create. 

--

Removing Selectors from review process is a sticky point. Need to be prescriptive about Review Team composition to preserve balance and diversity - More robust description of composition is needed. Everyone should have opportunity to participate in these RTs. 

Agreement that it is not simple a copy and paste - refinement is needed.

--

Restructuring Bylaws is a far bigger task - 

Need to open it up to SGs for diversity

--

Issues of representation are complex - GNSO is a mini multistakeholder group 

--

CCWG Meeting confirmed for 23-24 March to be held in Istanbul - rapporteurs will help design agenda 

2. Review of Drafts

Section 2 - Non-Triggered Accountability Mechanisms with regard to the AoC and related reviews

Note on ATRT review: provision added on termination of review (as deemed necessary), access to documentation, frequency of reviews (5 years as opposed to 3 years)

--

Concerns about termination - potential loophole? It is counter to what we are trying to achieve. 

--

Objective is to empower community 

--

Note on SSR review: Similar to ATRT - Chair of Board not a member. 

--

Consider AoC as a whole into account (public interest etc) 

Note that in Senate Hearing, ICANN CEO said ICANN jurisdiction must remain in the USA. 

---

Roelof walked WP1 through his template Section 1.A Black Changes to ICANN's Bylaws

Questions need our attention 

Belief that geographical and gender diversity not something we should go explicitly after - not necessary to go into Bylaws - others disagree.

Feedback on composition needed. 

---

Roelof walked WP1 through his template for  Section 1.B Board or Management Action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation 

---

Roelof walked WP1 through his template for Section 1 C Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget 

Independent review needs to have a standard of review - this mechanism is a veto for budget/strat plan - this demands a super majority rather than a simple majority. It would be extraordinary to block budget.

Clarify that independent advice from expert. 

We would lose multistakeholderism if allow simple majorities - should avoid them unless there is a very good reason.

Roelof will change language of draft to super majority.

---

Volunteers

Wp1-3A - Jordan

ACTION ITEM: Jordan will contact Keith Drazek to get update on 5

Wp1-6 - no need to focus on this now (WS) 

--

A.O.B 

- Wp2 will have a meeting prior to CCWG meeting in Istanbul on 22 March

Potential WP 1 dinner on 22 March 

- Senate Hearing - recording to be shared - comments invited. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Jordan will contact Keith Drazek to get update on 5

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen 3: (2/25/2015 11:04) Welcome to WP1 call #2 - This call is being recorded. Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN expected the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large): (14:58) morning, all

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:00) Is there audio or should I dial in?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:01) hi all, Jordan here

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:01) I'm dialing in as well....

  Matthew Shears: (15:03) Hello

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:04) not hearing you so well, Jordan.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:04) MUch better.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:05) In advance of?

  Alice Jansen 8: (15:06) please mute your line if not speaking

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:10) agree as well as conservative on WS1

  vrikson: (15:13) Hello everyone. Sotty I couldn't attend yesterday's meeting

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:16) agree

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:18) but the participation/voting distinction still applies. these groups hardly ever vote

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:18) +1 Greg

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:20) +1 Greg

  Matthew Shears: (15:23) okee dokee

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:29) what would determine the periodicity of the reviews. would it be possible for the community to "call" for an ATRT review?

  Matthew Shears: (15:29) I like that idea Jonathan

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:29) Presumably through some of the other mechanisms we are talking about?

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (15:30) Steve et al: great work in my opinion!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:32) we can't have the sunset of the the only review team that has the ability to create review teams!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:33) great the way it's written

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:34) there's no need for the ATRT to be a huge deal each time. there could be mini ones with a small agenda

  Matthew Shears: (15:34) Steve's done a great job

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:34) Ok the way it's written.  Could be clearer, but I can live with this.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:36) yes, SSR2 is supposed to start in 2015

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:38) there's some public interest stuff in the bylaws now, no?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:41) in today's US Senate hearing, ICANN CEO said 'ICANN jurisdiction must remain in the USA.  We will stand by this.'

  Matthew Shears: (15:41) yes he did

  Matthew Shears: (15:42) welcome more thoughts on how and wheher we integrate more of these AoC commitments into th bylaws

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:48) sounds aspirational. I don't htink it will happen organically but I don't think it hsould happen legally

  Markus Kummer: (15:48) I tend to disagree - diversity is important as an aspirational objective!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (15:50) I think each stakeholder group should strive for diversity.  But stakeholder representation is what is important.  We should not require any kind of diversity measured across stakeholder groups..

  Matthew Shears: (15:51) each stakeholder group should aspire to and hopefully deliver on diversity

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (15:52) To that end, we need more support for outreach and engagement by stakeholder groups or benefiting stakeholder groups.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:52) Markus, getting enough folks to participate is already a challenge. I too believe it's a good aspiration but we shouldn't create an artificial burden on an already burdened system. We will always strive to make the community more diverse but mandating  organizational diversity will create a mess.

  Young-eum Lee: (15:52) Generally, I agree. However, If we consider that the representatives of each of the SO's and AC's usually end up in an overwhelming majority of the members from certain regions, we should make sure that regional diversity is taken into consideration before confirming the final composition of the members.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:54) it's easier to argue for big groups and full diversity when it's a recommendatory power or mechanism e.g. the ATRT

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:54) harder when it's a deicisonmaking forum. But I agree it's definitely an ideal we want to work towards.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:54) Well done, Roelof!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:55) Actually, the only way this template makes any sense is when you apply it to an actual proposed mechanism.  

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:55) Steve - yep. That's where we will I think end up.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:56) I agree Steve about the template - and +1 on well done Roelof

  Matthew Shears: (15:56) this is excellent work Roelof

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:56) good to know this Jordan - thanks for the confirmation

  Markus Kummer: (15:57) +1 -- well done Roelof!

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:57) Can anyone else not see the document on the screen?

  Brenda Brewer: (15:57) I see it Jordan.

  Alice Jansen 8: (15:58) Jordan, you may want to try rejoining the Adobe Connect room

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:58) ok

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:58) we are supposed to be looking at 1B, right?

  Alice Jansen 8: (15:59) we were - now moving on to 1C

  Alice Jansen 8: (15:59) Jordan, can you see the doc now?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:59) I just had a grey thing instead of a doc, Steve, so now having rejoined it looks fine

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:00) I think the budget is once per year, at a specified time.  So that's process driven, and therefore triggered.  I think

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:00) non-triggered

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:00) part of a normal process

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:01) I confess this trigerred/non-triggered is a mystery

  Matthew Shears: (16:01) triggered - event driven; non-triggered - proces driven?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:01) not that mysterious. does it happen automatically or does it need to be initiated, right?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:02) yep that thing. We made some initial allocations of these on our scope powers doc in the table on p2 - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-17DuxWJJuUk6QAelcz7X4L3KiyQ2XcEqapHVj9ir38/edit?usp=sharing

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:12) I agree with Steve - these are community decisions.

  Matthew Shears: (16:12) + 1 Steve

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:13) Don't agree that we need independent advice or review.   It's our budget and we should be able to veto it

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:16) agree

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:16) ICANN is supposed to be a "bottom-up" organization - that means these decisions needs to be hands of community members.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:16) I agree Greg

  Matthew Shears: (16:16) agree Greg

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:16) A super majority would be hard to get but tta's the point. It should be used very rarely

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:16) Roeloff -- I checked the inventory of suggestions, and nobody suggested referring a budget to independent experts or IRP

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:17) Those issues should not go to an IRP.  There is no rationale for sending them outside of the community for a decision of the community.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:19) Sure: Supermajority for blocking. Going back to earlier point about triggered and non-triggered

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:19) I do prefer to have more clarify : "non-triggered" is a mechanism that is part of a regular process,before the final decision is made."Triggered" is a mechanism that goes off after a decision is made, inorder to amend this decision.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:19) is this a fair understanding?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:20) Glad that Jordan is minding the clock, but it's time well-spent for us to have SUBSTANTIVE discussions like this one

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (16:22) +1 Steve and thnx for your input

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:22) Jordan -- I have language for the ICANN byalws to require consensus for GAC advice.   Will send to you

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:24) Thanks, Roelof

  Matthew Shears: (16:25) what's happening on Wednesday of that week?  could we meet then?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:25) I propose a sunday evening dinner meeitng of this WP.  Please vote in Adobe!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:26) welcome cocktail is not helpful for us to get our work done

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:26) I like this idea of dinner Steve - while I still don't know my schedule yet

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO): (16:26) Good for bonding though ; )

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:27) If we're done, let's help Becky!

  Matthew Shears: (16:29) absolutely Steve!  yes there were many steers in the haring

  Edward Morris: (16:29) Exactly the way I read the hearing Steve.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:29) Indeed. We need to empower congress with good stress tests and intended mechanisms

  Matthew Shears: (16:30) need a clear escalation path

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:30) yes, and one that isn't just pretty impressive but unusual because the steps are too big

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (16:30) 3 minutes exactly! Great job Steve!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (16:31) I watched most of the hearing but I would love to discuss it more with you, Steve.  You do a great job of breaking these things down.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:31) THanks everyone

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (16:31) Thx!

  Matthew Shears: (16:31) thanks all!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (16:31) and I'll go back and check the rest on my DVR.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:31) Thanks, Jordan and all!

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:31) Indeed very helpful  summary Steve

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:31) thanks all

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:31) See ya everyone!

  Markus Kummer: (16:31) Thanks and bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (16:31) Bye all.

  vrikson: (16:31) bye everyone :)