CCWG ACCT Meeting #6 (13 January 2015)

Proposed Agenda: 

Action Items

Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8j0v2k2ntq/

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

>  Alice Jansen:Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability Call # 6 - 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

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi all

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Cheryl - thanks for joining!

>  Bart Boswinkel:Hello all

>  Chris Disspain:Greetings

>  Keith Drazek:Hello all.....

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Kieth

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Chris

>  Chris Disspain:should I be hearng something through adobe?

>  Chris Disspain:ah...just did

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Hello all

>  Jonathan Zuck:did anyone hear me?

>  Leon Sanchez:Hello everyone

>  Keith Drazek:No Jonathan

>  Keith Drazek:Are you on Adobe on phone?

>  Leon Sanchez:My apologies for not being able to speak but I'm in a

>flight somewhere in between Dallas and Mexico City

>  Rudi Daniel:Hi  a l l.

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Leon, that'll cost you :-)-O

>  Leon Sanchez:Don't know how long I will have connectivity as I will

>lose it as soon as I exit US airspace

>  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue):Good Morning all!

>  Leon Sanchez:@Eberhard yes but it's worth it  :D

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:God to hsave yoiu all be it 'somewhat muted' Leon

>  Bruce Tonkin:Good afternoon

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:Hello Cheryl.

>  Brenda Brewer:Olga Cavalli sends apologies

>  Leon Sanchez:Thanks @Cheryl :-)

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: do wish you could correct typos in AC chat of

>course ;-)

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:that's American continentS

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:I stand corrected ;-)

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):we need to be sure the legal advice reports

>to this group and is truly independent.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Agreed  @Robin

>  Leon Sanchez:I am listening @Mathieu :-)

>  Leon Sanchez:Thanks!

>  Keith Drazek:I would like to suggest that the CCWG could and should

>secure our own legal expert and not rely on ICANN staff to provide one

>for us. As Robin said, it really should be someone completely

>independent.  We can discuss further in Frankfurt if there's no time

>today.

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Keith : we are engaging with staff to

>see HOW to get that independent advice. This point is well taken

>  Keith Drazek:I think we need to discuss possible independent funding

>to secure such an expert. Perhaps a "passing of the hat" among CCWG members.

> Thanks Mathieu.

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Keith -

>let's get back to that point during AOB, please!

>  Alan Greenberg:Lost Avri?

>  Alan Greenberg:Hopefully will start tomorrow.

>  arasteh:pls advise to dial arrasteh pls advise to dial me up arrasteh

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh: Brenda is trying

>  Keith Drazek:@Thomas: I see above that Kavouss is requesting a

>dial-out.  Also, FYI, I did not participate in the CWG Transition

>session last weekend.

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, please see private chat regarding dialout

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Keith -

>this is being taken care of. Sorry re the weekend. My bad.

>  Keith Drazek:No problem!

>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I did but nit now @Alice

>  arasteh 2:GRACE

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I can page by page and scroll

>but the full page is not showing on screen and can not scroll within

>that

>  arasteh 2:MAY YOU PLS ADVISE TO DIAK ME UP

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, please see private chat

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:THat makes sense, Keith

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Cheryl - I will look into it - in the meantime -

>document is available here -

>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Scrolling seems to work for me.

>  Samantha Eisner:+1 to Keith

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Keith

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavousse, we are calling you at the number you

>provided...they tell us there is no room 835

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I had a green check up to +1 to

>Kieth earlier  but nte it here

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks Mathieu. I think the two sentences are

>complementary.

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Thomas. Something is committed to or not committed to.

>No need for the extra word

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):sure  just Committed will do...

>  Bruce Tonkin:I am not aware of any intent to cancel the AOC.

>  Bruce Tonkin:This document constitutes an Affirmation of Commitments

>(Affirmation) by the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") and

>the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a

>not-for-profit corporation. In recognition of the conclusion of the

>Joint Project Agreement and to institutionalize and memorialize the

>technical coordination of the Internet's domain name and addressing

>system (DNS)1, globally by a private sector led organization, the

>parties agree as

>follows:

>  arasteh 2:ANY OE COULD  KINDLY [LS ALERT gRACE TO CONNECT ME TO CALL

>BY DIALING THE NUMBER THAT I DID GIVE HER LAST NIGHT KAVOUSS

>  Bruce Tonkin:The heading of the AoC is not tied to IANA in any way.

>However it may well make sense to include key provisions from the AoC

>into the bylaws to it is a commitment to the  public as a whole rather

>than just to one government.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Bruce:  agree

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks Bruce. I think the concern is that either party

>*could* terminate wtith 120 days notice, so there's a need to formalize

>it for the long term. And yes, agreed, that it could/should be a

>commitment to the public rather than to the USG alone.

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Kavouss, please refer to my text message and Brenda's

>private chats - we cannot reach you at the hotel room number you

>provided

>-

>  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Keith and Steve.

>  Keith Drazek:The AoC (or something like it) need to evolve in a

>post-NTIA world.

>  Samantha Eisner:A question of clarification to Steve - Isn't what

>we're putting into WS1 a discussion as to whether it is appropriate for

>the commitements within the AoC to be incorporated into the Bylaws if

>it is agreed that is the best way to address accountability issues, and

>not that WS1 must have as an outcome that the AoC is incorporated into

>the Bylaws?

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Sam -- I don't see it that way.   If it's

>in WS1 then we need to do it (or have it committed).  It's more than

>just talking about it.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):one could ask why folding AOC into the bylaws needs

>to wait for transtion.

>  James Bladel-GNSO:Not the AoC, but the Review Teams.

>  Bruce Tonkin:SOme of the material in the Aoc relates to various

>reviews.   There is a seciton in the bylaws for reviews so that is an

>example where some of the commitments in the AoC could be incorporated

>into the bylaws.

>  Samantha Eisner:@ Steve, it would be committed if that is the outcome

>of our discussions on WS1, but it might not be the outcome of WS1 if

>there are different solutions identified.  We are in agreement that if

>we agree it is necessary, it would be committed.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Actually Avri - I would hope that many if not all of the

>accountability imroovements recommended by this group shoudl be

>implemented regardless of whether there is a transtion of the NTIA

>stewardship.

>  Chris Disspain:Bruce + 1

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1 Bruce

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Bruce

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):gets a +++1 from me

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):the reason why i ask, is that one of the question

>some have is the Board ability to decide to accept the accountabilty

>changes.  doing things that can be done already may be an indicator.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:I made the changes to WS1 and WS2

>definitions. see

>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471

>  Bruce Tonkin:Well Avri - generally the board will be seeking communiyt

>input before making any changes - so it amounts to the same thing.   e.g

>The ARTR2 calls for updates to the indepdent review process,

>reconsideration process etc.   The Board agrees.   But do we form another

>group or do we leverage this group.

>  Bruce Tonkin:If jsut go out with new bylaws changes - we would just

>be accused on being top down rather than wiating for this group to recommend.

>  Keith Drazek:true! ;-)

>  Bruce Tonkin:Alst time we used a panel of expert advisors for updates

>from ATRT1 - but there was little communitu engagement in their work

>(preumably becuase most were busy on aspects of new gTLDs at the time).

>  Bruce Tonkin:This time we are using a cross-community working group.

>  Bruce Tonkin:One of challenges is that we haven;t had a chance to

>fully implement some of the ARTR2 work before we are again reviewing

>accountabiloity mechanisms.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):Burce, of course, and of course you would do

>community comment.  But some things that seem to have no objection,

>like the folding in of AOC committments might be less of an issue.  Of

>course things like repsonse to the ATRT recommendations themseves is

>another issue.  but it was just a middle of night thought, and may even

>be out of scope for the group.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i.e what the Board does to fix accountabilty

>pre-track 1 based on previous committments..

>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control

>  David McAuley (Registries):Steve, on new definitions in second para

>of

>WS1 ­ suggest ³would be implemented in a timely manner² ­ Bylaws Art.

>IV has for years required board to establish a standing IRP panel and

>it has yet to occur

>  Sivasubramanian M:The classification "directly affected parties" and

>"indirectly affected parties" does not clearly grade the degree to

>which each party is affected.  "Directly affected parties" are more

>appropriately renamed "stakeholders internal to ICANN" and most of

>"indirectly affected parties are stakeholders who are not direct

>PARTICIPANTS of the ICANN process.   ii 2 & 3 are, viewed in a certain

>way, the most directly affected parties.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@David -- we need to circulate that to

>chairs, who suggested that second paragraph and gave it a week of

>review by the CCWG

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:++1 Siva on that distinction

>  David McAuley (Registries):@Steve - fair enough

>  Sivasubramanian M:ii (1) is the most important class to which ICANN

>would have to be accountable to, leaving aside practical concerns

>related to how a process could be designed to be accountable to 7

>billion users, present and future.

>  Sivasubramanian M:Thansk Steve

>  Sivasubramanian M:We could say that the ICANN is accountable to the

>Internet user, whose best interests are represented by Stakeholder

>representatives, represented within ICANN by Constituency A

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1 specious distinction

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Good point @Steve... the

>palletability  of this needs to be addresed a well

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Siva

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):In discussing stakeholders we need to remeber that

>the Netmundil and WSIS breakdowns are based on top level global

>breakdown.  Whereas the stakeholder within ICANN are the stakeholders

>as viewed by one component of the ecosystem.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):and while we may need to show how our stakeolder

>breakdonw maps to the top level perspective, they may not need to be

>identical to them.

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Sadly, indirectly affected is roughly

>equivalent to "pawns" and we need to remove that denigrating tone.

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Kavouss:

>The ICANN team is trying to dial out to you. Would you kindly only

>raise your hand once you are on audio and can speak? If you can speak

>now, you will certainly get a chance to speak. Thanks!

>  Sivasubramanian M:Same could be said of Registries, whose interests

>could best be served by a stakeholder group such as Registrants Group,

>which under the present ICANN organization could come under the gNSO or

>in a more elaborate structure could be a part of a different

>constituency or Advisory Committee

>  Keith Drazek:I think the terms "directly affected" and "Indirectly

>affected" parties came from the IANA Functions vis-a-vis the

>operational communities and is probably too narrow for overall ICANN

>accountability to the community.

>  Sivasubramanian M:sorry.. same could be said of Registrants...

>  Greg Shatan:How about "first class citizens" and "second class

>citizens"  :-)

>  Sivasubramanian M:that was a correction to the statement immediately

>preceding the correction

>  Sébastien (ALAC):NetMundial is not a good definition for ICANN

>  Greg Shatan:I joke, but it can look like this to the outside observer.

>The "European Framework for Quality Management" is not a foundational

>document for many of us, much less the rest of the world.

>  James Bladel-GNSO:WHile I generally agree that there should not be

>"classes" of affected users, it is worth pointing out that contracted

>parties have signed contracts with ICANN that gives them broad

>abilities to amend/change the terms of those agreements, even over our objections.

>So this should be acknowledged when dsicussing accountability of ICANN

>decisions.

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Greg : I fully appreciate that. We

>need to take that into account

>  Bruce Tonkin:It may make sense to have speicifc-subgroups of the

>global Itnernet user commuity that relates specifically to Internet identifiers.

>  Netmundial was not looking a any specific aspect to the Internet as

>far as I udnerstand it, whereas ICANN has a narrow defined mission

>(maybe not as narrow as some would like but still narrow in the content

>of the Internet).

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:The GNSO for example- wwas identifying staekhodler

>groups that are mostly directly affected by Internet identifiers.

>  Brenda Brewer:Please mute line if you are not speaking. Thank you.

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Avri

>  Sivasubramanian M:@ Bruce    The specific subgroups could be of two

>classes..  Users affected by DNS specific policies and programs and

>Users affected by policies and programs peripheral, but related to DNS

>  arasteh:PLS DIAL ME ARASTEH

>  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):@Mathieu: I am in my car and it is probably

>better that I avoid using the mike. I am unsure if you intend to be

>exhaustive with the lists of directly and indirectly affected parties

>and the processes/decisions they are affected by. But the specific

>manetions for ccTLDs are incomplete (to narrow) in my opinion.  Tree

>examples: 1)if ICANN deceides to sign the root, that decision causes

>pressure on a ccTLD by its stakeholders. 2)The introduction of new

>gTLDs has influence on the local market of many ccTLDs and thus on

>their market position 3) if ICANN agrees to a price change of .com

>domains by Verisign, that change might influence registrars' choices in

>the marketing of TLDs, also ccTLDs

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss.  we call the hotel, they do not know of your

>room number.  See private chat please.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:All the stakeholders are 'Affected parties'.

> Let's leave it at that.  And we can indicate next to each Affected

>Party the means by which they are affected

>  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):That's fine, Mathieu

>  J:Affected and Inflicted?  ;)

>  David McAuley (Registries):+1 @Steve

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:WA4 current document is at

>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414333/20150108%20CC

>WG%

>20Accountability%20-%20Scenarios%20%20-WS4coord-MWE-SDB2.pdf?version=1&

>mod

>ificationDate=1421127922000&api=v2

>  Sivasubramanian M:ICANN needs to be accountable to both the gTLD

>registrants and ccTLD Registrants (among others), equally between ccTLD

>Registrants and gTLD registrants, without discrimination.  But this

>presupposes that ICANN has an almost equal degree of responsibility

>over both gTLD policies and ccTLD policies and programs. That is to

>say, in order for ICANN to treat ccTLDs on par with gTLDs in matters of

>Accountability, ccTLDs have to  offer to come a little more under ICANN

>fold

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:The CCWG Charter says this: Review of

>possible solutions for each Work Stream including stress tests against

>identified contingencies. The CCWG-Accountability should consider the

>following methodology for stress testsanalysis of potential weaknesses

>and risks analysis existing remedies and their robustnessdefinition of

>additional remedies or modification of existing remediesdescription how

>the proposed solutions would mitigate the risk of contingencies or

>protect the organization against such contingenciesCCWG-Accountability

>must structure its work to ensure that stress tests can be (i) designed

>(ii) carried out and (iii) its results being analyzed timely before the

>transition.

>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control

>  Bruce Tonkin:There are some standard methodolgies for discussig risk.

>Usually you can rate likelihood in say 5 levels - ie no likely, may

>happen, moderate etc.,

>  Keith Drazek:I think it's premature to start assigning probabilities

>and using those to cull the list at this early stage.

>  J:But Bruce this isn't risk assesment. We only need to do that if

>there are unintended consequences to redress mechanism

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Yes Bruce  even the work that

>DSSA WG did a few years back  we used similar "risk values'" for things

>  Bruce Tonkin:Likewise can talk about consequences - usually 5 levels

>of conseauence - from miinor up tto catastrohic - Ie the end of the Internet.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):That also  @Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:The Board and staff use likelihood and consequence and

>this are represented in about 5 colours - with Red being bad etc.

>  Keith Drazek:We should be identifying potential areas of weakness and

>developing stress tests to demonstrate to NTIA and the world that ICANN

>is in fact ready (under the new accountability reforms and structures)

>to take on this responsibility.

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Thomas.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Usually the likliehood versus consequence analysis is used

>to prioritize mitigation etc.   So I would assume you don't want a list

>of a 100 possible risks - but would be useful to identify top 10 and

>use these for discussions.

>  Greg Shatan:+1 to Bruce

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@bruce -- I am saying numerical

>probabilities and costs of consequence are not essential to make this

>exercise useful.

>  Bruce Tonkin:"J" - what is your full name for the record

>  Keith Drazek:Cast a wide net now, then we'll get down to the details

>after we've developed the list.

>  J:Jonathan Zuck, sorry

>  Vrikson Acosta:Good morning, afetrnoon or night. Finally, I could

>connect

>  Bruce Tonkin:Thanks Jonathan.

>  David McAuley (Registries):Do we even have a basis for truncating

>stress tests under consideration ­ preference , for now at least,

>should be on side of inclusion, not exclusion ­ who would have

>foreseen, for instance, that ICANN Board would not establish a standing

>IRP panel when Art. IV of bylaws said they would?

>  Greg Shatan:Jonathan -- too tired to type your whole name?

>  arasteh:mathieu

>  arasteh:I am not connected .

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh we are well aware, are trying

>everything to call you, without success

>  arasteh:However, I have provided substantial and intensive draftinh

>on your text

>  arasteh:Why it was not discussed z

>  Sivasubramanian M:The stress tests are more relevant and probable are

>internal stresses that are not listed as part of the scenarios at all.

>For example, what happens if ALAC and GNSO does not see eye to eye? 

>What happens if ccTLDs and gTLDs strongly disagree? What happens if

>ccTLDs that are not part of ICANN oppose ccTLD policies and programs?

>(all the above on matter pertainining to IANA as well as ICANN, leaving

>ICANN in a weaker position to handle IANA ).  And what happens if there

>is an escalated conflict between ICANN Board and Staff?  These are the

>tests that we could safely go over and debate, so as to strengthen the

>organization within like a firmly standing fortress capabale of

>handling any external threats

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh : I did mention them on the

>list adn tried to respond to you.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Yes Avri - I think it is more of an exercise in

>priortising the risks that you wnat to do a deep dive with respect to a

>stress test.   I ran a full scenario analysis.

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):risks could be simply categorized into "high"

>or "med" "low risk levels etc.

>  Keith Drazek:This is a great topic for discussion in Frankfurt.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Yes - agreed Robin.     The leel of risk is usually done

>as a combination of likelihood and consequence.

>  Greg Shatan:Very likely/likely/unlikely/remote is another scale to use.

> Numerical probabilities is a red herring.

>  Jonathan Zuck:Agree

>  Keith Drazek:In addition to Eric Breuner WIlliams, who else has been

>leading this effort?

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I agree @Kieth

>  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Greg - no need for numerical probability.

>  Keith Drazek:Do we need additional volunteers?

>  Bruce Tonkin:As Avri has pointed it the assemssemtn of likelihood is

>usually subjective.   Consquence can be a bit more defined usually.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):and we do have access to the

>tools  that DSSA - WG published  that might be of some use...

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:even if you came up with precentage

>probability, it's VERY difficult to assess cost of consequence in order

>to finish the equation (probability x cost )

>  Bruce Tonkin:Jacks Khawaja on ICANN staff could probabkly provide a

>tempalte that the Baord and staff use - to help assess risks if that is

>of benefit to the group.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I think that could be useful

>Bruce

>  Samantha Eisner:I can see what templates Jacks may have

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Pragmatic, for sure.    We are not promising

>to come up with accountability mechanisms to prevent/address EVERY

>single stress test.

>  arasteh:grace

>  James Bladel-GNSO:I participate but am woefully behind on Area 4

>mailing list.

>  arasteh:Pls kindly advise what is the problem

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):list at

>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP4+-+Transi

>tio

>n+Implications

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:The WA4 list is at

>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413864

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):worng one from me

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i get my list confused between cwg and ccwg - hae

>bnoth opne in my browser

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:You have to Join the WA4 list in order to

>send emails to that list.

>  Adam Peake:Mr. Arasteh, ICANN staff have been trying to connect you

>since the start  of the call.  Aplogies for the difficulties.  Could

>you see the provate chat requests from Alice Jansen and Brenda Brewer. 

>Thank you

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i think it is safer to speak of likelyhood measure

>than Probabilty proper.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Indeed @Avri

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:'top' contingencies are those with the

>most damaging consequences, I would think

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):who?

>  Sébastien (ALAC):Eric is on the call

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Yes Eric IS on the call

>  Keith Drazek:Is Eric in Adobe?

>  Greg Shatan:He is in Adobe Connect.

>  Keith Drazek:Perhaps we can put it out to the list?

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):He is listed in the AC Room

>@Kieth

>  Keith Drazek:Sorry it was old.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Ahh  he is now typing  Good :-)

>  Rudi Daniel:+1 No decision on first call

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):OK, I'll type

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:+1 @Keith -- to the whole list, not just

>the

>WA4 list

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):my  browser has been stuck, i choose to

>continue

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I just want to confirm about the process  of the

>stress test list

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):OK   that is settled then can we

>move on soon?

>  Vrikson Acosta:Should local rcountries egulations be taken into

>account for WS4 new proposal of bylaws?

>  Vrikson Acosta:Or just US laws?

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):it may be obvisous to others but would it be a

>fair understanding to assume we will work on the stress test list to

>see what needs to be tested before the stewardship transition, and some 

>which can be worked on the long term?

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Vrikson : if you can provide clarity

>about consequence, it is eligible

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavousse has joined the phone line

>  Brenda Brewer:Julia Wolman joins the phone line

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I sent the chat question

>  Samantha Eisner:What if some of the contingencies do not necessarily

>impact accountability issues, and are more general risks to the

>organization?

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):audio is not working

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I sent my question on the chat

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@samantha, that is an issue, some of the

>candidate scenarios may not present accountability issues, but more

>general corporate governence, or other issues.

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):Athina will ask the question on my behalf

>  Roelof Meijer:All, I am sorry but have to go and join another meeting.

>See you in Frankfurt

>  David McAuley (Registries):@Samantha, @Eric  ­ can you give an

>example of a contingency that involves to general operation rather than

>accountability to help us think that through

>  Keith Drazek:Seem that stress tests *could* be divided into WS1 and

>WS2

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Thank you for this clarification. Makes sense

>to me

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@david, please send the query to the WS4

>list or to me tomorrow.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I have t leave in a minute to

>travel to an offsite meeting Sorry I will see some of you in Frankfurt

>next week...

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Safe travels Cheryl.

>  David McAuley (Registries):Thanks @Eric - I plan to join WA4 in the

>morning

>  Samantha Eisner:@David, given the different facets of accountability,

>many items touch on facets of accountability, but depending on how

>broad the workload is, issues such as a Domain Industry Financial

>Crisis might be more difficult to move into the rubric of

>accountability.  Would ICANN's reserve fund management and budgeting

>work be sufficient mitigation to address this contingency.  (as an

>example, but not suggesting that htere are no accountability facets to

>how ICANN manages its funds. (example off the top of my head)

>  Keith Drazek:When is the next WA4 meeting?

>  David McAuley (Registries):Thnaks @Sam

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Samantha,

>would it be possible for you to provide input to the individual items

>on the list of contingencies so we can be sure to have all the info /

>documents / previous work that ICANN has done on these?

>  Samantha Eisner:@Thomas, I can work through the list to do that

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Great!

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Thanks!

>  Keith Drazek:sounds like a constructive exercise to me.

>  Greg Shatan:Thank you, Alan!

>  Alice Jansen:Please mute your line if not speaking!

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Guess I could do a 'pitch' on

>post-transition vision

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Alan....we need to discuss if/how/when the IANA

>Transition track and the ICANN Accountability WS1 track may sync up

>  Keith Drazek:or "must" sync up perhaps

>  Greg Shatan:Keith -- I don't think it's an if.  I  agree with your

>"must," however.

>  Keith Drazek:how/when/must then!

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1

>  Sivasubramanian M:Stress Tests that require solutions from Community:

>(RFP4)

>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QVC12Q-NuB35pyaBirUDF85DBR_oFHkEYC5

>vbW

>u04go/edit#

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@siv, thanks

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Siva -- some interesting scenarios in

>there.   Around 40, actually.

>  Sivasubramanian M:More are needed. But some of these scearios could

>be deleted, and discussions on those specific scenarios could be

>internal and without much publicity

>  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Eric and Steve

>  Keith Drazek:It's the CWG Transition Group that is making the

>connection with the CCWG Accountability

>  Keith Drazek:and vice versa

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):i'll look at them in my morning (12 hours

>from now)

>  Keith Drazek:not really the ICG

>  Vrikson Acosta:Good luck for the one of you going to Frankfurt next

>week. I will join online

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):ICG call tomorrow?

>  Keith Drazek:yes at 2000 hrs if I'm not mistaken

>  Keith Drazek:UTC

>  Greg Shatan:The division of labor on accountability between the CWG

>and CCWG is clear from looking at both groups' charters.

>  Greg Shatan:Legal advicd should not require "passing the hat." But it

>is a good expression of frustration....

>  Keith Drazek:Let's discuss the legal advisor in Frankfurt. Thanks

>Thomas.

>  Rudi Daniel:thx all..

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:I'll have any lawyer disbarred who

>will not give us the advice required by the instructions!

>  Sivasubramanian M:@ Alan /Keith Clashes with 21 UTC RFP 3B meeting

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Why are we allowing speakers who

>do not have the floor interrupt the chair in mid sentence, repeatedly?

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Not acceptable to me, and I demand

>AGAIN we lay down some cvil discourse now!!!!

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you all

>  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue):Thx all. See most of you in Frankfurt.

>  Alice Jansen:Thank you for joining this call!

>  Sivasubramanian M:Bye

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks all

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Thanks all!

>  David McAuley (Registries):thanks

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):thanks, bye

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Bye everyone