Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session 2 24 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session 2 24 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t6w4lxmgh/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1300-24apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 2 - 13:00 – 14:00 UTC (time converter)

1. Recap of session 1 (5’)
2. Section 6.7.1 - Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC (20’)
3. Section 6.7.2 - AoC Reviews - 2nd reading  (15’)
4. Section 6.8 - Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests - 2nd reading (15’)
5. Next Steps (5’)

Notes

NOTES (Notes have not been reviewed by CCWG-CoChairs yet) 

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Becky Burr - Josh Hoffeimer - Edward McNicholas on phone line only

Recap of session 1

We went through items listed under WS2 and the list was confirmed by the group along with a suggestion to add transparency and diversity. We have discussed sections 1-5 of report and have confirmed what is in the report in terms of substance. An amendment  to ICANN "remains" accountable was suggested by Robin. We are waiting for the suggested text to sent to group. Content of these sections was confirmed. 

There was a suggestion that we should reorganize report: it takes 25 pages before finding conclusions. Glossary will be added to the report. We need a good summary document to make it easier for community to read the documents.

The questions assembled for the public comment period will be to the point, clear and easy to understand to make sure we have answers that are reflective of the recommendations. We further discussed weighing options. Variations will be presented to community for comment. 

Models boil down to designators and members. More discussion is needed on liability i.e. liability risk of being sued if incorporated under California law and jurisdiction. Membership model is the reference for our work - it is getting substantial traction in our group. Designators will be reference in comment period. 

- Bylaws model will be among the models up for consideration. 

ACTION ITEM - Take on FAQs suggestion and publish the responses 

ACTION ITEM - Provide Sebastien with an answer on models

Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC

We have talked about incorporation of AoC into Bylaws as part of mission, core values conversation. The initiative to bring AoC reviews into Bylaws stems from ST #14 - without the IANA contract it presents opportunity for ICANN to walk away from AoC. WP1 determined which paragraphs would be appropriate to be migrated into Bylaws. We then turned to AoC reviews. We added comment that if successful - the document becomes unnecessary  The next ATRT could be triggered by the next Bylaws. 

On paragraph 7 - ICANN "commits" is appropriate in Affirmation but not in Bylaws

ACTION ITEM - Change commit into shall 

Mapping AoC into core values was covered yesterday. 8.b is ICANN's commitment to maintain not-for-profit under US jurisdiction. That is substantially covered by Bylaws article 18.1. Existing bylaw provision is being preserved and AoC brought into Bylaws to fill in gaps. We then need to turn to question of whether 18.1 article needs to be a fundamental Bylaw. Not-for-Profit is featured in articles of incorporation item 3. We should clarify whether veto does apply to articles of incorporation or possibly to give positive consent 

- Insertion of non-commercial financial impact: the is specified under general commitment and there is no added value. Searching for non commercial financial impact definition as concerns might be introducing something that might be ambiguous. With regards to #8, the articles of incorporation - unless made supermajority - can be changed as easily as Bylaws (not fundamental Bylaws). We need to justify why we are taking significant step. Articles of Incorporation are a statement of fact - bylaws are a statement about future. 

ACTION ITEM - Justify decisions we are taking with regards to AoC. 

- We need to make sure we don't get into wordsmithing. Non-commercial is something we need to be aware of.

- Our reliance upon articles to capture not-for-profit assumes we have power to block changes to articles. If we cannot control change, we need to migrate non-commercial article into Bylaws 

--> Articles amendments currently require 2/3 approval by directors, and if there are members, 2/3 of the members

- We don't need to refer to non-commercial otherwise commercial will be excluded from paragraph. "Will" perform is not acceptable, "Shall" is obligation. (or should) 

ACTION ITEM - Use brackets to highlight different options and move back to this later

- AoC 4 (impact assessment) & 7 (general transparency requirements) include important concepts for transparency. It is proposed that they be inserted into Bylaws

-ICANN is considered business club - it is opportunity for ICANN to show it has other impact than commercial. Suggestion to change "non commercial" to "non-financial"

Non-commercial is wider than non-financial. 

AGREEMENT - Change non-commercial to non-financial 

- All AoC are promoting SSR, transparency, multistakeholder. Section c is about particular jurisdiction. If it was more general it would be fundamental. But since under particular jurisdiction don't see how this is fundamental. 

- Option between HQs and principles: HQs have more meaning than principles. Suggestion to seek HQs instead of having principles. Whether this paragraph would be fundamental and normal: if we put every thing from AoC into fundamental, could create sensitivies outside CCWG.

- Fundamental difference between paragraphs from AoC and this one relating to HQs location. We have among the community conflicting views about it. Consider more carefully 

- This does not need to be fundamental bylaws. Even if imported AoC reviews, it is already in bylaws that statement is a strong arm that had nothing to do with reviews itself. Let's not make it stronger than it already is. 

- 1) principal office & HQs - deferred to lawyers ; 2) import 8.b. into bylaws and giving it fundamental or standard protection. 

ACTION ITEM – Defer to lawyers on principal office or HQ

- Surprised b not brought into bylaws as fundamental (multistakehoder etc)

- 8b should be fundamental bylaw. this will be scrutinized.

- Reference it as normal Bylaw - alternative would be fundamental Bylaw

 - Lawyers have focused on governance documents. Empower the community to have more control. Cautionnary flags that recommendation or outcome that fundamental decision whether decision to be moved out of US could be decision of vote (2/3) - that would not be consistent with drivers. Recognize that this decision is momentus and avoid perception that jurisdictional shift could be engineered by specific group

RECAP: Confusion about what is being proposed. To be rediscussed.

ACTION ITEM - Second read 8.b proposal (fundamental or not)

AoC Reviews

Community has requested that reviews should be imported into Bylaws. Text has been proposed. First reading indicated overall agreement of what would look like. 

4 suggestions were made: 1) ability to sunset old review and create new ones; 2) community appoints its representatives; 3) access to internal documents; 4) timeframe; 5) Board shall consider approval and begin implementation. Requirements would apply to all reviews

ATRT2 recommended that there be an annual report. There have been yearly periodic reviews about progress to be made in implementing changes. Objective is to integrate ATRT requirement into a Bylaw statement.

- Diversity concerns: we need to find a way to have diversity in any new group created. 

--> Only diversity you can make is ask groups to consider diversity given that no prescribed methodology.

ACTION ITEM - Determine how we can insert diversity into text. Sébastien to provide draft text. 

AGREEMENT - This will be presented for public comment with note that diversity would need to be inserted into text.

Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests

6.8.1 is a reflection of ATRT recommendation:  force Board to respond to Adivsory Committee formal advice. 

Require consultation and mutually acceptable solutionfor GAC advice that is backed by consensus. 

AGREEMENT – No objections - reading complete

Next Steps 

ACTION ITEM - Defer recap to session 3

Action Items

Recap of session 1

ACTION ITEM - Take on FAQs suggestion and publish the responses 

ACTION ITEM - Provide Sebastien with an answer on models

Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC

ACTION ITEM - Change commit into shall 

ACTION ITEM - Justify decisions we are taking with regards to AoC. 

ACTION ITEM - Use brackets to highlight different options and move back to this later

ACTION ITEM – Defer to lawyers on principal office or HQ

AGREEMENT - Change non-commercial to non-financial 

ACTION ITEM - Second read 8.b proposal (fundamental or not)

AoC Reviews

ACTION ITEM - Determine how we can insert diversity into text. Sébastien to provide draft text. 

AGREEMENT - This will be presented for public comment with note that diversity would need to be inserted into text.

Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests

AGREEMENT – No objections - reading complete

Next Steps

ACTION ITEM - Defer recap to session 3

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/24/2015 07:38) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Day 2 Session 2 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 

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:56) Good afternoon!

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:56) Hello again!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:56) evening :-)

  ARASTEH: (07:56) m va Droud Be hameh= Hi to everybody

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:57) Hello, hello. Fancy meeting you here

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:57) LOL

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:57) sorry that was me

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:57) someone needs to mute

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:58) So we meet again.... Hello !

  ARASTEH: (07:58) Salam va Doroud be Hameh= Hi every body

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:58) indeed we do @Mathieu

  akinbo@nira.org.ng: (07:58) Welcome All!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:58) oooh, I'm getting the saxophone holding music!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:59) nice  I love the Sax

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:59) we are getting the typist

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:59) Hi everyone

  Brenda Brewer: (08:00) Please mute your lines when not speaking!

  ARASTEH: (08:00) Bon jour Mathieu

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:00) aaand purpled myself.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (08:00) hi everyone

  Alan Greenberg: (08:00) Very heavy-handed typing!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:00) typist neds to mute

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:00) hunt and pecking

  ARASTEH: (08:00) Je pense que vous 3 sont contents que vos options préférées ont etes adoptes

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:01) @Kavouss: we're happy when things move... and we get closer to the end of the marathon

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:01) hello again :)

  Brenda Brewer: (08:01) yes, recording are started!

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:01) Thomas you might ask typist to mute

  ARASTEH: (08:02) You did a pre coordination with other two co chairs nbefore the meeting to push for those options

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:02) Thank you

  Greg Shatan: (08:02) Hello, all. Apologies for missing the overnight (for me) meeting.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:03) @Kavouss: we prepare, and try and be professional while serving the group

  ARASTEH: (08:04) Yes I knew that but you did it in an hidden manner and step by step principle

  ARASTEH: (08:04) I discovered that immediately

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:04) Hello, everybody

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:04) We are being clever by mistake maybe. We aren't that elaborate

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:05) :D

  ARASTEH: (08:05) tions

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:05) Just to be clear, Jordan already proposed the edited text (so my understanding is that you aren't waiting on me to send text).

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:09) when do we see the next text reflecting this understanding?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:09) @Robin: session 3

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:10) quick turnaround - thanks!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:11) @Robin: I meant for the text you and Jordan proposed, was that right ?

  Greg Shatan: (08:11) In CWG, we prepared a separate FAQ, and edited it after the Webinars.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:11) actually, I meant the text about the options we are proposing.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:11) that's smart to do it after the webinar

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:12) @Robin: so not yet sure, working on it

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:12) ok - you've got the text Jordan pasted in the chat a few hours ago to edit the "remains" language?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:14) he started the review so I assume he had

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:18) Bylaws Article XVIII Section 1: OFFICES    The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (08:18) @Sébastien - we do not yet have the "status quo" model Avri mentioned earlier today in the updated report yet, but will do so! I hope that answers the question.

  Matthew Shears: (08:19) AoC 3 and 8 have been largely taken over into the core values; 4 and 7 could be moved into article III on transparency in the bylaws

  Sébastien (ALAC): (08:19) @Thomas, Thanks and OK

  Avri Doria: (08:20) Thomas, not so much a status quo, but the theory some have argued that at least for WS1, sufificnet change can be achieved by manipulation of the bylaws (adding all the stuff we are adding) - that is pretty far from status quo.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:20) "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION   3. This Corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes. "

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (08:21) @Avri - that was just a shorthand for your suggestion. Your points are well understood.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:21) Legally, the community can be given the same or even a stronger power to block changes to Articles of Incorporation

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:22) page 44, everyone

  Matthew Shears: (08:22) Greg is correct - the clause between commas could  be removed as a whole

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:23) note that this wording appears after "including".   S

  jorge villa (ASO): (08:23) Which will be the definitions of reasonable ana adequate to know which one could be the correct

  Avri Doria: (08:23) i thought the Sec of state got invovled in change of articles

  Avri Doria: (08:23) of CA

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:24) I dont recall that Avri, but they can

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:24) here is a link to ICANN Articles of Inc.  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:25) In 4, can we replace "noncommercial" with "nonfinancial" to remain parity in the text

  Greg Shatan: (08:25) I am concerned about concepts, not about wordsmithing. Yet.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:26) Articles amendments currently require 2/3 approval by directors, and if there are members, 2/3 of the members

  Greg Shatan: (08:26) Agree with Steve generally.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:27) Yes, can be changed!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:27) +1 Steve

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:27) @Ingrid : so can be aligned on Fundamental Bylaws ?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (08:27) @Ingrid, Is there a difference between changing the AoI and the bylaws?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:28) Ingrid: are you saying, Members get statutory right to Approve change to Articles? 

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (08:28) +1 Ingrid, and if the company has Designators, then we would specify that the designators must approve changes to the articles, and identify specific bylaws requiring their approval as well.

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (08:29) To eliminate ICANN's status as a public benefit corporation would also have a likely adverse consequence on ICANN's tax-exempt status.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:29) I did say "Shall" as replacement of "Commit to"

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:29) First, member approval is already required in Articles, with a 2/3 majority.  This could be changed.  In addition, as a matter of corporate law, members are required to approve Articles amendments.

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:29) not in #4 Steve

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:30) I see that "will" in #4 and we will change that to Shall

  Greg Shatan: (08:30) @Ingrid, thanks for the clarification.  That is the same threshold for (non-fundamental) bylaws.  ARTICLE XIX: AMENDMENTSExcept as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of ICANN may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws adopted only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board.

  Greg Shatan: (08:30) I took enough time the first time. :-)

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:31) Harder to change Articles:  By corporate law, members need to be approved.  And need to be filed by Secretary of State to become effective.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:32) @Greg, agreed, currently same threshhold, could be changed (and designator rights to sign off could be given in Articles, as Josh mentions)

  Greg Shatan: (08:32) That's slightly better.

  ARASTEH: (08:33) robin +1

  Greg Shatan: (08:33) Good enough for public comment.

  Greg Shatan: (08:34) That is exactly the problem.

  Samantha Eisner: (08:34) whether it's non-commercial, non-financial, or another word, we need to make sure that it's measurable and implementable for inclusion within the required analyses.

  ARASTEH: (08:34) Tijani

  David McAuley (RySG): (08:34) agree Mathieu

  ARASTEH: (08:34)  but we have problem with non comercial

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:34) Am I wrong to think the opposite: "financial" is wider than "commercial"?

  Edward Morris: (08:35) I agree with you Roelof which is why I support the change. NC would have been fine as well.

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (08:36) +1 Athina

  jorge villa (ASO): (08:37) +1 Athina.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:38) @Lawyers : can you clarify what votes would be needed if Icann intended to move its HQ out of California ?

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:38) I believe "principlal office" is a legal term of art, "headquarters" is not

  Greg Shatan: (08:39) Using Google to search "analysis of non-commercial impact" or "analysis of non-financial impact." Zero hits.

  Keith Drazek: (08:40) +1 Kavouss. Another reason for making it fundamental is that all the accountability mechanisms we're developing assume California law. if that's ever to change (which should be possible) it should require substantaial support from the community, following an analysis  and redesign of the  accountability strucures.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:41) +1 Keith

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:41) @Mathieu: currently Bylaws Article XVIII requires principal office in Los Angeles.  Currently, would be changed by regular bylaws amendment process (2/3 vote of board)

  jorge villa (ASO): (08:42) As you should remember, one of the weakness of ICANN in the global politics context is its engagement with the USG. This politic pressure (maximized around NetMundial) was the trigger for the NTIA announcement because the world leaders are seeing this theme as a way to break definitively this engagement and to consider ICANN as "a true" international organization. Until now, almost anybody is worried about to move ICANN from the US, but include this will trigger the discussion around of it with unknown consequences. I agree to include in the bylaws the text in 8a) but not 8b).

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:42) adding to Ingrid, we are designing a community power to block changes proposed by the board

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:42) indeed Jorge, agree with this suggestion

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:43) If it is already specified that ICANN should be in the US we should not repeat it to pleasure Congress - are we captured:-)

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (08:43) +1 Steve and Ingrid.  We could certainly provide in the bylaws that member consent is required for a change to this or any other provision of the bylaws.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:43) @Jorge and Athina -- are you suggesting we REMOVE current bylaws article 18??

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:43) @Steve: Agreed, power for community to need to approve any bylaws change is being discussed

  Keith Drazek: (08:44) California law is the foundation for ALL of these accountability reforms and mechanisms.  Shouldn't then the Calfornia HQ be a fundamental bylaw?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:44) agree to it *not* being a Fundimental Bylaw  OK  with Standard

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:44) you are right Steve, sorry for the misunderstanding. my suggestion is to leave it as it is, just not make it fundamental. so 8a fundamental,8b not.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:45) I thought I said 4 and 7

  Matthew Shears: (08:45) 4 and 7 is correct

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:46) 3 and 8 go to Core Values, which will be 'Fundamental'

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:46) @Keith: I had closed the queue ? A new argument to bring forward ?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (08:46) my namesake jorge villa made some relevant observations - do we want to maintain this kind of debate forever?

  Keith Drazek: (08:46) Apologies Mathieu, I made my points here in chat.

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (08:47) +1 Kavous

  Matthew Shears: (08:48) is it possible to make Article 18.1 a fundamental bylaw and let AoC 8b lapse?

  ARASTEH: (08:49) Mathieu

  Keith Drazek: (08:49) This is exactly my concern Josh.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:49) but wouldn't it be subject to review by the community?

  Avri Doria: (08:50) in other words, if the Board did not want to move, but the member did we could anyway.  perhaps that is a significant point.

  ARASTEH: (08:50) I made a proposal pls look at that?

  Chris LaHatte: (08:50) must leave for another meeting sorry

  Avri Doria: (08:50) is it the case that making it fundamental makes it easier  for the members to decide to move it.

  Avri Doria: (08:52) i.e. does the fuamanetal knife cut both ways?

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (08:52) Page 48, section 6.7.2

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:54) Articles amendments by law need to be approved by Board and members.  Bylaws have different options, but any listed sections can be set up to require approval by both Board and members

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (08:57) @avri, No, not really.  Moving the jurisdiction would require new filings, but also, of course, is a corporate transaction requiring management by the Board of the process.  My point is that I believe the decision to consider a move should require both the approval of the Board and the member community.  If it is a "mere" bylaws provision than the Board could change it without member approval.  With the proper wording, including it in the fundamental bylaws or articles would require member approval as well.

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (08:58) Josh +1

  Samantha Eisner: (08:59) @Avri, do I read that correctly as a requirement for 2 reports? When looking at improvements to accountability, and the second a report on the implementation of recommendations.  Could the first more be about reporting on the metrics on accountability and transparency?

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:59) @Josh: But in the case of a "mere" bylaw, community would be able to reject change to it, right? According to power in chapter 6.6.3.

  ARASTEH: (09:00) Mathieu

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (09:00) Would that not be for WS2?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:00) On jurisdiction an so on there is a simple question pending since conf call of March 31st, which could help to have a better informed understanding: "On jurisdiction I'd like to remind that there is a question which as I understand will be posed to our legal advisors on common practice regarding provisions included usually, if any, on jurisdiction issues in Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation (and the current situation in the case of ICANN)? "

  Sébastien (ALAC): (09:00) Yes

  Samantha Eisner: (09:00) I've also noted some concerns previously about the text on a blanket access to documents, but no objection to public comments. there are potential legal issues (employment, contractor trade secrets, etc). another place where the implementation details are important.

  ARASTEH: (09:01) Pls seriously take my proposal for 8B being as refernce in Normal Bylaws and alternatively in Fund. Bylaws

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:01) perhaps counsel could take note of it and try to come up with a specific answer, thanks

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:01) @Kavouss: yes, very seriously Kavouss

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:02) @Jorge, good point. Hasn't been answered yet.

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (09:02) I beleive we need to have a team somewhere that looks at the issue of diversity

  ARASTEH: (09:02) Alan +1

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:02) the primary interest is self-selection (not imposed diversity quotas)

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (09:03) @Robin so how do we achieve that with self -selection?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:03) we take that concern in our own deliberations

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:03) I  agree Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:03) we take that concern seriously in our own deliberations

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (09:03) We are eating into the IANA Webinar

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (09:04) All, I will soon have to drop out of this meeting. And I have to apologize for not being able to make or next call at 16.00UTC. Have a fruitful discussion, I will possibly miss you all ; )

  Keith Drazek: (09:04) possibly?? ;-)

  Avri Doria: (09:04) we can encourage diversity by requiring that is selcting its particpants, no more than 1 from each region.  do not gurantee complete diveristy spread, but affords the possibly.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:04) We'll miss you CERTAINLY Roelof !

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:04) I am sure that co-chairs will take note of the question.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:04) I am in that cal as well Alan  why aren't you ;-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:05) just as surely as Roelof will miss us, Jorge :)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:05) @Jorge: noted the question, but I am not sure how that would help us in that instance ?

  Ingrid Mittermaier (Adler Colvin): (09:06) I need to sign off

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:06) I would not object formally, but

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:06) you know: the GAC has still to discuss it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:06) Thanks all bye for now...

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:06) so, it is just part of the for public comment doc

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:06) Thx all!

  Becky Burr: (09:07) possibly Roelof?

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:07) bye

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (09:07) thank you all :)

  David McAuley (RySG): (09:07) Thanks

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (09:07) Thanks!

  Greg Shatan: (09:07) Thanks all.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (09:07) bye