Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ifz90ml34/

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

Proposed Agenda

Session 1 - 08:00 – 10:00 UTC (time converter)

1. Recap of day 1 (5’)
2. Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals (20’)
3. Discussion of Sections 1 -> 5 (15’)
4. Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs) (15’)
5. Community Mechanisms (60’)
6. Next Steps (5’)

Notes

IN SUMMARY

Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals

ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion

ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list

Discussions of sections 1-5 

ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate

ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter

ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder

ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language 

ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to circulate this language on list for discussion

AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation 

Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)

AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess

ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process

Community Mechanisms 

ACTION ITEM: - Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options

AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period

ACTION ITEM:- Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2

- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion

- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms. 

- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical

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.

Josh Hoffeimer - Tijani Benjemaa - Barrack Otieno and Alice Munyua not on Adobe Connect at this time

Recap of Day 1

Revised mission core values and notion of Fundamental Bylaws are approved . We have conducted a first review on IRP enhancement - a second reading will be made today. We obtained approval of request for reconsideration. Community mechanisms, recall of Board, recall of individual Board members, reject budget/strategic plan, reject changes to ICANN Bylaws to be rediscussed. 

Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals

Current list available in the draft report includes: 

• Enhancements to ICANN's accountability based on law applicable to its action - 
• - Enhancements to Ombudsman role & function
• - Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests
• - Improvements to ICANN's budgeting and planning process that guarantee the ability for the community to have input, and for input to be given due cosnideration
• - Define security audits and certification requirements for ICANN's IT system

Feedback

- Consider alternative options for jurisdiction

- DIDP (as a follow up to day 1:  review of DIDIP recommended as it relates to IRP and reconsideration request. Suggestion for DIDP to be a broader review. 

--> This would be captured in "Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests"

- What kind of timeframe are we expecting? At what point will we get to these? Will we be waiting for implementation? 

--> WS1 we are working on items that need to be prior to translation. It will include adoption and implementation phase. We will have freed up time for group to dive into WS2. 

- They should be a review process put into this. We will be recommending substantial restructuring. We need to have checks and balance and this concept should be captured. 

--> Envisages Team exercising implementation oversight and if any issue is spotted, we can reconvene and work on that.

- We are putting all transparency off yet again. There is a problem with how much stuff ends up needing DIDP. You have to work to get things visible. It is a broader issue than just improving DIDP. Transparency philosophy of ICANN (methodology) should be an issue that is noted separately. Suggested language: 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.not sure classify is the right term, but it all that occurs to me at this point.

ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion

- What could be the link between WS2 and ATRT3? Consider diversity: how do we enhance diversity across ICANN's organization?

--> We have recommendation that relates to ATRT review - connection is made between our work and future reviews. 

ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list

Discussion of Sections 1 -> 5

Sections present work we are doing: introduction & background, methodology, summary of problem statement & definition, Accountability of existing accountability mechanisms, input gathered by community (short summary of work area 2 of input). Work area 1 and work area 2 outputs will be put into appendices. 

ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate

- Let's not spend too much on this. 

- 20 pages to get to substance might be too heavy 

- Assess whether could change order of sections

ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter

- Suggestion to leave as it is and to include a complete management abstract for community 

- We need to write report for readers

- Decision hard to make in absence of executive summary. Need to find recommendations quickly - have meat closer to the front

- Suggestion to have a placeholder for a glossary at end of report

ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder

- Edits on introduction and Background: "remains" 

ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language 

ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion 

- Avoid language that there is no accountability at ICANN

- Combine while there is a certain degree of accountability with enhancing

- Corporate reaches level of accountability that is satisfactory to community is absence of contract would be a good way to frame it.

- We are enhancing current accountability but also creating a new one and that needs to be clarified.

--> Introducing mechanism would enhance mechanism

- Language suggesed by Jordan "From this dialogue, the Enhancing ICANN accountability process was developed so ICANN can realise  a level of accountability to the global multistakeholder community that is satisfactory inthe abence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S Government. This contractual relationship has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organisation-wide accountability since 1998." 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to circulate this language on list for discussion

AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation 

Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)

In Istanbul: we agreed we would be seeking confirmation as much as possible on our proposals and try to have questions that are focused on getting feedback.

Questions would be standard about whether community agrees with the recommendation, agrees with list of requirements and ask how the community would recommend amending requirements. Asking for guidance on preferred options from community, stressing need to understand rational for prefering issues so that can use feedback. 

This section of the session is for us to get feedback on how to organize fitting questions into the report. It is a good way to open discussion on this. 

- We need to talk about status of report i.e. clarifyr on consensus. There are cases for which there are alternatives/options - community should pronounce in favor or against and could provide alternatives. How would we prepare these questions? It should be consistent with Charter. 

- In order to have proper evaluation, we need proper questions. 

- Asking clear-cut questions on specific parts of report. will enable us to have answers that focus on specific recommendations.

AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess

- When you raise questions to public, we specify focal points in a way that people who need clarification can seek these clarifications. Suggestion to have Rapporteurs, Cochairs to work on focal point and to have dedicated source available for the community.

ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process

Quick turnaround will be needed. 

- FAQs could also be useful. 

Community Mechanisms 

Seeking further comments on whether want to go with option 1 or option 2 - composition of community representation: Two options : 1) 5 to 2 .; 2) 4 to 2 - for public comment i.e. 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO  ALAC GAC 5 votes. RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, : 4 votes. At-Large, GAC SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes  

Feedback:

- Need a degree of flexibility 

- Bridge gap between 4 GNSO, 1 for Nominating Committee appointees - GNSO could have 5 match to its own structure easily. There is traction for 5. Should we have 5 vs. 2 or should we have 3 SOs vs lower number of votes. The suggestion to give both ALAC and GAC only 2. 

- We should not have long discussion. We have explained logic of the choices. The difference between is whether ALAC and GAC should have opportunity for same representation as 3 SOs. Support option 1.

- There is more traction for what we call option 1. Recollection that more traction for options for SOs - ALAC - GAC to have equal footing with less for SSAC and RSSAC. 

- ALAC wont approve report that goes with option 2. There are 5 regions. Rational for 4 is that 4 SGs and that disenfranchized some of appointees. 

- Let's retain both options.

- The 2 options presented might not be the best 2. There was suggestions for equal footing yesterday. 

- Establish whether there is sufficient traction for alternatives. Option 1 gets central traction. Could narrow it down to 1 if clear preference. We could highlight preference and provide different options as needed. 

- CCWG discussed two options. During discussions some dregree of preference was expressed for option 1. There might be other options coming from community. We cannot eliminate options at this stage. 

- There is no real specialized expertise needed for level. If go with option and not talk about others, it is superficial. We need legal experts Better to present multiple options as long as clarify which option got traction and why. 

- We need to have clarity on various options on table. 

- Option 1 - call is the "central option" we are considering. This got a little more traction. We used it to test thresholds but not closing door for other options. 

- We have no one from SSAC/RSSAC - have we reached out to them? SSAC is not chartering organization because they do not have bandwidth but has strong interest in it. Need to pass this by them.

ACTION ITEM – Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options

"Central option" not acceptable.

RECAP: We will not be ruling out further options but for reference of work will flag the central option. This will give the community the chance to have altenatives to evaluate. 

IRP and approving budget/strategy plans would be viable through different means. Set of questions has been posed to lawyers. On Unicorporated associations, one of most important answers on set of questions would be ability to sue and be sued and obligation of paying for legal costs. 

-  What of liability?

--> They could still be sued today and in future. Bylaws should have plain and clear statements. 

- If challenging ICANN decisions, how can you ensure ICANN support if your are being sued? 

- 2 facets: 1) give community assurance that covered by ICANN; 2) what is the likelyhood of being sued? Need to convey that there are risks already that we are clarifying in Bylaws 

- What do we want out of this discussion?

--> Have in report that we have traction for either models: designator or member - Aim is to have sense of signaling that we do have more traction for one of the models. 

- Membership model could achieve objectives - designators model even if supplemented by contract could not work 

- Likelyhood of being used: unincorporated associations not having assets and not easy to find and attach to lawsuit, will make it less likely to being sued. Certain degree of risk today - as individual covered by ICANN. It does not increase individual liability. 

- Designators vs. membership may well address some issues. We seem to undestand designator solution may not give us all options/powers we need. Community has to be made aware of issues that were raised. 

-  People can act as partnership - partnership does not present itself as entity. Individuals are still liable. 

- Membership and designators cant be on equal footing - can't be opaque. Support membership. We are developing preference. We have to reference designators model but should clarify preference. 

- Unclear whether incorporation should be done under California law alone. 

--> Delaware would be default because of its flexibility. California gets you to unincorporated associations and you can rely on what exists in chartering but these are details that can be worked on once we have clarification on mechanism. 

--> California has good framework for unincorporated association

- Have questions that have come up about membership model been addressed?

--> Paramount importance is to be able to exhert as much control as possible over Board. The member model is by far the stronger model. What sort of power should have community over budget/strategic plan? The decision rests on how much power you want to reserve to community. Downsides on legal and geopolitical sides: members do have greater statutory rights and we would have to look at how organize bylaws. We would want to take steps to preserve flexibility. Members have rights that need to recognized. Designators powers are limited.

--> We often base decisions on whether should be membership or designator based - California is one of strongest states in members' rights. 

- What if we decide membership is a mistake - can we switch to another model? 

--> California code provides for 45 days notice. If orgaznization wants to convert to designator structure, we would have to get members'  consent to give up statutory rights. 

AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period. 

- Legal analysis may be different in other states and jurisdictions. Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law. 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

Next Steps

- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2

- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion

- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms. 

- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/24/2015 02:34) Welcome to the CCWG ACCT Day 2 Session 1 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 

  arasteh: (02:50) Hi brenda

  arasteh: (02:51) I WAS DIALED BUT INTERRUPTED

  Brenda Brewer: (02:51) Good Day Kavouss!

  arasteh: (02:51) MAY THE OPERATOR DIAL ME AGAIN

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (02:51) greetings!

  Adam Peake: (02:52) yes

  Brenda Brewer: (02:52) i do believe you are still connected Kavouss.

  Adam Peake: (02:52) good morning

  arasteh: (02:52) bRENDA

  arasteh: (02:52) i AM RECONNECTED

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (02:52) Hello everyone!

  arasteh: (02:52) tKS AGAIN

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (02:54) Hi everyone!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (02:55) Hello everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (02:55) Hello everyone!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (02:58) hello everybody!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:58) Hi all

  arasteh: (02:59) WHO IS NOT TIRED

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (02:59) good eve

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (02:59) hello all!

  Brenda Brewer: (02:59) REMINDER:  please mute your line when not speaking.  Thank you!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (02:59) dutifully

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (02:59) dutifully *6'ed myself :)

  David McAuley (RySG): (02:59) Good  morning all

  Jordan Carter: (03:00) Good "Day 2" everyone

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC 2: (03:01) Hello everyone

  Brenda Brewer: (03:01) Barrack Otieno and Alice Munyua on phone lines only

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (03:02) Hello again, all!

  Jordan Carter: (03:03) hi Roelof!

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:03) hi all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:06) DIDP reform generally (not just as relates to IRP and ReconRequest)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:07) @Robin: this is indeed how it is proposed in doc (page 80)

  Jordan Carter: (03:11) an Avri Audio Issue

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:11) next week?

  Jordan Carter: (03:11) The week after next.

  Jordan Carter: (03:11) Or more seriously, as per our consolidated WS1/WS2 schedule

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:12) I would think implementation of WS1 is most importanbt

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:12) If Public comment 1 is favourable, we'd probably start WS2 seriously over the summer

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (03:12) you mean when we're attending sponsored conferences with free beer, Mathieu=

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:12) Northern hemisphere summer you mean, Mathieu :-)

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:12) Hi, Mathieu, you have a rather optmistic day ;-)

  Jordan Carter: (03:12) we probably only need to manage oversight of implementation of WS1 while we are working on WS2 proposals

  Jordan Carter: (03:13) we don't actually have to DO the implementation.

  Jordan Carter: (03:13) hey

  Jordan Carter: (03:13) Alan's comments suggest to me another AOC style review, as well as the placeholder for IANA review - a review of ICANN accountability generally in 2019/20.

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:15) Agree we don’t do implementation but implementation needs attention, e.g. the prior bylaw to appoint a standing IRP panel simply sat there – I would think we need to ensure implementation takes place before we turn to ws2

  Jordan Carter: (03:15) To me, that role is perfectly summed up by "oversight"

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (03:15) regarding Transparency, in work stream 1 we do have this for the AoC reviews being brought into the bylaws:  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.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:15) Fair point : I'm a nothern hemisphere optimist

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:15) good point - institute a culture of transparency at ICANN

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:16) @Alice: 'alternative options for jurisdiction' is missing from the WS2 list in the note

  arasteh: (03:16) tHOMAS

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:16) Agree with you @Avri  (no suprises I know ;-)

  Jordan Carter: (03:16) is it a core value?

  arasteh: (03:16) pLS IDENTIFY ON WHICH PAGE YOU ARE?

  Jordan Carter: (03:16) Page 79 of the PDF in the window, Kavouss

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:17) page 80 in print

  Jordan Carter: (03:17) beg pardon, David is right - 80 in the PDF

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (03:18) we have new bylaws versions of the AoC reviews, including the ATRT.   So ATRT #3 coudld be done under the new rules.

  Matthew Shears: (03:19) 2 other broad transparency elements from the AoC are being recommended for insertion into the bylaws section transparency - see doc on screen pages 45 and 46

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:20) Yes Steve but my question was more any link between ATRT3 and WS2

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:21) Or even "murge"

  Avri Doria: (03:22) Something like:  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.not sure classify is the right term, but it all that occurs to me at this point.

  Samantha Eisner: (03:24) I recommend considering that much of this background material be placed toward the end? it's a lot to get through for readers who are not being asked to actually comment on this part.

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:24) +1, thanks to staff in these hectic days

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:24) that looks good to me, Avri.  Documents do get "classified" as "confidential" and "trade secrets" and "attorney-client" info, etc. in DIDP denials I've seen.

  Jordan Carter: (03:25) and that does not at all criticise the work that has gone into this.

  Jordan Carter: (03:25) I have suggested in the past that the explanatory of process material does go behind the substance

  Jordan Carter: (03:25) so +1 to Samantha

  Jordan Carter: (03:26) we'd need to think about how to do it yes - just about readability and accessibility for the community

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:26) I like the suggestion Samantha

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:26) I can see your point Samantha and Jordan, however I would think that there will always be people interested in this

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:27) I agree with Thomas's suggestion

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:27) Maybe an exec summary of background, linking to more detailed in the later sections

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:28) Yes I am also OK with Thomas's suggestion

  Jordan Carter: (03:28) there is a section for an Exec Summary

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:28) good point, as is Alan's

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:28) +1 Alan

  Samantha Eisner: (03:29) my sense is we get 5 pages to grab attention and tell people why to move further. the executive summary will be key to presenting an 80 page document.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:29) agree @Sam

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (03:30) Yes an executive summary is key

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:30) Just wanted to comment that, Kavouss

  Alan Greenberg: (03:30) @Sam +!00

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:30) Yes, I support a glossary

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:30) a glossary makes sense to me

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (03:30) Exec Summary is where we sell the 'sizzle' -- before we show the steak

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (03:30) +1 Kavouss

  Jordan Carter: (03:30) ideally ICANN could get this professionally proofed and acronym-sorted

  Chris LaHatte: (03:30) +1000 Sam!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:30) I would be surprised that someone  would need a glossary on acronyms :P

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:31) I guess it would be good to have a "earlier/later" diagram at the beginning of the doc, perhaps in the executive summary section, showing the institutional changes proposed and mapping them to the present structures

  Jordan Carter: (03:31) (i.e. "glossarised" if that's a word)

  Alan Greenberg: (03:31) You cannot underestimate the level of work that some people will put into "discovering" what we are proposing.

  Chris LaHatte: (03:31) index

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:31) I like Sam's suggestion

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:31) So true @Alan!

  Jordan Carter: (03:32) Robin's point is fair and I agree with it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:32) I also like the propsal @jorge made re a diagram... visuals  will also assit...

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:32) before/after diagrams are very informative

  arasteh: (03:32) WHICH PèARAGRAPH

  Jordan Carter: (03:32) In the sense that this language makes it look like this is just a residual task caused by the transition

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:33) A lot of this depends on time to put final draft together and release May 1 – will translations be contemporaneous or follow?

  Jordan Carter: (03:33) page 6

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:33) and we have professionals who may easily assist us in making such before/after diagrams

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:33) xplane?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:33) Xplane sounds like a great idea

  Jordan Carter: (03:34) Let me try my take on Robin's point: this is a project to improve ICANN acocuntability so that the corporation achieves a level of accountability to the community that is satisfactory

  Jordan Carter: (03:34) in the absence of its historical contractual relationship etc...

  Farzaneh Badii: (03:35) I agree jordan

  Jordan Carter: (03:35) it just broadens out the purpose and nature of our work and more accurately characterises it, which is implicit in the title of the "ENHANCING" ICANN Accountability process.. :-)

  Matthew Shears: (03:35) agree

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:35) agree as well

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:36) +1 Jordan

  arasteh: (03:36) Enhance cover the improvem,ent as well as new

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:36) Good text suggestion Jordan. I think it captures it well.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:37) @leon: could you take the before/after idea up, por favor?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:37) great to get ahead in the translation   YES !

  Chris LaHatte: (03:37) I like enhance, it's less of a challenge

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:37) @Jorge will do. Cuenta con ello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:37) I also think 'enhance' works

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:38) great... political personnel will be thankful ;-)

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (03:38) +1 Jorge

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (03:39) +1 Jorge

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (03:39) +1 Jorge

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (03:40) I'd say brevity is key. if that's to be achieved via visualization, great. if it's more confusing than helpful I'd prefer a text-based approach.

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:41) I may have missed it but questions might ask if there is a need for an amendment then please suggest  it

  Jordan Carter: (03:41) The final text for the end of that first para I have proposed to the staff is: "From this dialogue, the Enhancing ICANN accountability process was developed so ICANN can realise  a level of accountability to the global multistakeholder community that is satisfactory inthe abence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S> Government. This contractual relationship has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organisation-wide accountability since 1998."

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:42) Thanks Jordan, looks good

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:42) thanks, Jordan!  You saved me the work!

  Jordan Carter: (03:45) I try

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (03:46) Good text, I agree

  Matthew Shears: (03:46) yes nice Jordan

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (03:47) agree

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (03:49) we can have a public q&a website

  Samantha Eisner: (03:49) to Kavouss,

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (03:49) community members can ask questions, we answer them and the answers are available for everyone

  Samantha Eisner: (03:49) to kavouss' point, maybe some sort of faq?

  Samantha Eisner: (03:50) +1 to Thomas

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (03:51) Yes, FAQ would be helpful. BTW, I support Jordan's suggested text earlier. for first para

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:51) That meets community expectations in a PC  in my view @Thomas

  arasteh: (03:52) Mathieu

  Alice Jansen: (03:52) please mute your lines

  Alice Jansen: (03:52) Typing in background

  arasteh: (03:53) I suggest we agree to the two options and not reopen the discussion to modify them or to add third optioons

  Alan Greenberg: (03:53) TYPIST, PLEASE MUTE!

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:53) Please find my suggest text to be included in WS2 "Improve diversity in all its aspects at all levels of the organization"

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:53) Thaks for consideration

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:53) please explain options

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (03:54) does anyone else have sound going in and out.  or is that a local phenomenon only i am expereincing?

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:54) @Avri I have too

  David McAuley (RySG): (03:54) other than typist my audio has been fine Avri

  Farzaneh Badii: (03:54) min is fine too

  Farzaneh Badii: (03:55) *mine

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:55) thanks, thomas

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (03:55) Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC - 2

  Jordan Carter: (03:55) has the revised tracked changes text for this been circulated?

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (03:56) i still we shouild have a full equal footin option as well.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:56) @Avri +1

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (03:57) i.e 5 each for each ACSO.  lets gather community opinion on the full range. of possiblities.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (03:57) @Avri: my recollection is that what is now option 1, was the equal footing option

  jorge cancio (GAC): (03:57) the theme of geo-regions is a bit tricky, be careful

  Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (03:57) Roelof, restringting the SSAC and RSSAC to only 2 becasue they are less importnat is not equal footing.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:58) a nominating committee appointees represent an interest equal to a stakeholder group?  I don't think so.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (03:58) No, it isn't and I did not mean to suggest that. I'm confused though : o

  Jordan Carter: (03:58) the "order" of these options has changed around a few times.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:59) if SSAC and RSSAC are all board appointees, do we really need them in this equation?

  Sébastien (ALAC): (03:59) @Robin RSSAC are not Board appointes

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (03:59) I believe Jonathan Zuck also proposed that RRSAC and SSAC receive zero votes.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (03:59) @Robin : RSSAC is root servers, so not appointed by Board

  jorge villa (ASO): (04:00) the second option is better for two reasons: 1- it help to match correctly the geographical  organization of the internet world (in five regions) 2- the final count of votes is an odd number (in the first option the total of votes was even)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:00) thanks for the clarification on RSSAC.  I had thought earlier today it was said they were.

  Vrikson Acosta: (04:00) Yes Jordan, we can hear you fime

  Avri Doria: (04:00) SSAC nominates these to the Board, they are appointed by them just as other SOAC (except for GAC) have their structures approved by the Board.  And I think the the Root Server operators are who they are becasue they operate the Root Servers, a key componet in this discussion.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:01) @Jordan: I am not sute there's indeed more traction for option 1

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:01) @Mathieu, Robin, the RSSAC members are appointed by the Board

  Alice Jansen: (04:01) Please mute - typing in background again

  arasteh: (04:01) with due respect to each individual preferernce, perhaps we should avoid to opt a sort of internal preference

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:02) This is a recent change

  Avri Doria: (04:02) I tink Stabilty and Security is pretty criticial to the operation of ICANN

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:02) @Sam: ha, ok, my mistake (and weird)

  Jordan Carter: (04:02) Avri: nobody would think otherwise, it's a core value. This is who should have power to hold the overall organisation to account.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:02) But it's important to recall that for both the RSSAC and the SSAC, the Board appointment is essentially a ratification of recommendations that are made by the SSAC and RSSAC leadership

  Jordan Carter: (04:02) Samantha: so it's self-selecting, in essence?

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:02) the Board does not independently identify candidates to those positions

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:02) I think this observation is fair. I also support adding the rationale that Jorge Villa has put on, as the reason for option 1) (the odd number)

  Jordan Carter: (04:03) Roelof: so we are on the same side

  Jordan Carter: (04:03) and that's what I heard most support for

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:03) @Jordan, yes RSSAC and SSAC are essentially self selecting, but the Board just ratifies

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:03) I don't know if I'm just confused and seeing things wrong but it looks like to me, the options on the document on the screen, and on the righthand notes are inconsistent

  Jordan Carter: (04:03) Samantha: to me that's another argument based on practice in favour of Option 1.

  Jordan Carter: (04:04) Izumi: it is not just you. They are labelled in opposite directions.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:04) The note says option 1) for 4:2 while the doc says 5:2 for option 1)

  Jordan Carter: (04:04) I suggest that we focus on what is in the Adobe Room, AND that the notes be corrected

  Jordan Carter: (04:04) otherwise we are just inviting confusion

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:04) that is confusing : I support the observation that there is more support for option 1) based on the document

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:04) That's a good point, Alan, the 5 vs 4 based on regions. Thnx for that

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:05) yes Jordan thanks for clarifyging and good to know I'm not terribly confused :)

  Jordan Carter: (04:05) It would be great if staff could change those option labels around

  Jordan Carter: (04:05) in the notes pane to our right

  Jordan Carter: (04:05) so that the labelling is consistent

  Avri Doria: (04:06) if we are suggesting options, i still suggest we offer 3 option that includes equal footing and see what the community viewpoint is.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:06) Robin the 5th vote could be split between the SG's  so = 5 +1/4 vote each SG in GNSO;  but forthose of us with regional balance the 5 works for that as well...

  Avri Doria: (04:06) offer a full range of possiblity and see where the community stands.

  Alan Greenberg: (04:06) I beleive that there was stronger support for ALL being given the same weighting of 5 vs the current option 2

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:07) CLO, that would be fine with me - to divide the GNSO's vote into quarter votes

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:07) Agree w/Kavouss, no clear preference - show options and ask for input

  Jordan Carter: (04:07) Staff have now changed the notes in the pane so the labels are the same

  Jordan Carter: (04:07) thank goodness.

  Jordan Carter: (04:07) and thank you, staff

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:07) I am strongly in favor of option ! displayed in the Adobe room (the document, not the notes)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:07) thank Alice you mean ?

  Seun Ojedeji: (04:07) A pool?

  Jordan Carter: (04:07) the notes have been changed

  Jordan Carter: (04:08) so they label same as document

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:08) how do we signal we want several options in the document?

  Avri Doria: (04:08) how do i vote for the inclusion of 3 options?

  Avri Doria: (04:09) sorry, not vote, but contribute to the tempterature.

  arasteh: (04:09) AVRI +1

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:09) prefer to show options plainly with req for input

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:09) ok - thanks, Leon.

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (04:09) David - I guess we need to find out whether there is any substantive traction for Option 2

  Jordan Carter: (04:09) I prefer to show the option that has massive support, and to do those with other proposals the kindness of mentioning their other options.

  Jordan Carter: (04:09) but I do not agree with showing them as if they were equal.

  Avri Doria: (04:10) Jordan i am fine doing that.

  Jordan Carter: (04:10) they clearly aren't equal in terms of support in this CCWG...

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:10) I think Alan is right

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:10) I used cross THomas but it does not quite fit

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:10) +1 Jordan and we need an option to serve as reference for our examples when we discuss thresholds

  Avri Doria: (04:10) i.e if we indicate option 1 is prefere but two other possibiites had support. 

  Avri Doria: (04:11) might be a good time for one of the poll things, or do we not do those in this group?

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (04:11) agreed Thomas

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:11) agree Thomas's idea to stimulate discussion

  Jordan Carter: (04:11) I'd have the table showing the prefrred option, and then next paragraph suggests other options discussed included, and sub-bullets set them out

  Seun Ojedeji: (04:11) To me it seems like it will be option 1 and others (being variants of option 2)

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:11) I agree wit this approach Thomas, provide preference and share other options as well

  Jordan Carter: (04:11) then everyone sees the options, but the document conveys the weight of the CCWG's opinion on the question.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:13) that works for me  @avri

  Avri Doria: (04:13) Jordan, i agree, once we are sure we know the actual weight in the group.

  Jordan Carter: (04:13) I thought we just tested it?

  Avri Doria: (04:14) i am going to reboot.  i keep losing sound.  i do not think green ticks on a proposal that is skewed is not really testing.

  Jordan Carter: (04:14) it was a binary preference choice between two options

  Seun Ojedeji: (04:15) I think i will also agree with the approach suggested. Perhaps also giving the community the opportunity to suggest other configurations with their rationale

  Jordan Carter: (04:15) I take it for granted we will be asking a question about the composition

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (04:15) I agree with this suggestion Kavous and Roelof

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:16) so do I, Athina.

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (04:17) +1 Roelof and Kavouss

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:17) @Avri: suggest you reboot your device before rebooting yourself ; )

  Jordan Carter: (04:17) in the end, whichever form, the numbers and the suggestions are all going to be there

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:17) I agree as well.  I think that that getting to rationale around different mechanisms as well is important as we get to the stress testing at the end, particularly the stress test of capture by any particular community or entity

  Jordan Carter: (04:17) is this at the point where we can move on?

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (04:18) Alan, we had that discussion earlier and agreed we would proceed with our recommendations

  Jordan Carter: (04:18) [Nobody has suggested we don't represent all of them, have they?]

  Jordan Carter: (04:18) We owe it to the community to show where the huge preponderance of support is

  Jordan Carter: (04:18) We also owe it to the community to enable a meaningful debate

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:18) Fair enough Kavouss :-)

  Jordan Carter: (04:18) so if that's one table with two others described, or one table with three and the explanation following, does it really matter?

  arasteh: (04:19) lEON

  Jordan Carter: (04:19) my view would be ..... mostly, not.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:19) Yes, of course, Jordan. I do not think we differ there

  Alan Greenberg: (04:19) @Thomas, I can support putting out options AND a preference, but it should be soliciting input. Two options along tends to imply it WILL be one or the other.

  Jordan Carter: (04:20) Alan: we can have text to make it clear

  arasteh: (04:20) pLS LABEL IT "reference Oprti"n " and not "Central Oprttion

  Jordan Carter: (04:20) the whole pitch of the report needs to be to solicit / elicit quality input

  Jordan Carter: (04:20) Reference option would be fine w me

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:20) for me too

  arasteh: (04:21) Leon

  arasteh: (04:21) I and Jordan suggestion " Reference Option " instead of " Central  option "

  arasteh: (04:22) Pls discicuss it

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:22) @reference option: +1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:22) @Kavouss; it's ok, we take this onboard : reference

  arasteh: (04:22) Tks

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (04:23) @ICANN Staff.  I don't think this is the correct memo.  We sent a revised draft within the last couple days.  It has the 1 page summary chart of the powers

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (04:24) Plus the full chart.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:24) Morning all, better late than never =)

  Jordan Carter: (04:25) Alan: I think ICANN should do that anyway, personally.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (04:25) @Alan, agreed.  The bylaws should include an indemnity and hold harmless provision

  Avri Doria: (04:25) when i was gnso chair, i was pretty certian that if i had been sued, ICANN would have giggled in glee.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:26) ditto Avri  me also

  Avri Doria: (04:26) but i carry my own insurance.

  Michael Clark (sidley): (04:26) The level of indemnification can be provided in the ICANN bylaws.  If it is not sufficient, it can be enhanced.

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:26) what page Leon

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:27) What are the limitations on indemnification and hold harmless? Is there a requirement for a nexus to the work at hand?  Wht if it were for their intentional acts?  I don't know that a blanket indemnity is really maintaining accountability throughout the commmunity

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:27) page 3 but not of the one in the screen

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:27) I just circulated it on th elist

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:27) ok thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:27) In the future @Michael  I trust it will be

  Greg Colvin: (04:28) California law allows directors, officers, and any agents of the nonprofit corporation (which includes those serving on constituent bodies, can be indemnified by the corporation (ICANN).

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:28) @Sam, aren't there "usual" qualifications to indeminifation clauses?

  Greg Colvin: (04:29) Volunteer leaders also can be covered by the organization's insurance.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:30) Indeed @Alan!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:30) yes they CAN be  and should be  but atm we are not @Greg

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (04:30) @David, we just posted a short memo answering these unincorporated association questions.  I don't think it has beenfully distributed yet, but if you are on the list serve for the legal subteam you will have it in your inbox.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:31) The memo is now on screen

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:31) one of the benefits of an unicorp Assoc is that this can perhaps be better sorted ...

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:31) Thanks Josh

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:31) Thanks Leon, that helps

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:31) leon distributed the memo to the whole list as well

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:32) about 50min ago.

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:32) Agree w/Thomas

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:32) hard to hear you Kavous

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:32) Thanks Sabine

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:33) it is also important to remember to not only consider California law, but how other nations will treat actions by an unincorporated association.  Today, ICANN, corp. is liable.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:33) but in the future, those indidividuals could be liable.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:34) +1 Kavouss

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:35) I think my confusion on the liability issue is where, if any, where we draw the line for indemnification for participation in governance activities related to ICANN and where indemnification would be sought for activities within the unincorporated associations that do not feed into the broader ICANN governance activities

  Jordan Carter: (04:36) ICANN would still be the desirable target

  Jordan Carter: (04:36) unless it decides to spray the new GTLD billions around these unincorporated associations :)

  Jordan Carter: (04:37) sorry, millions.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:37) no, its a question, not statement

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:37) And how far indemnification can be carried for those that exlicitly do not have a fiduciary obligation to the organization and are expected to act in their own interest

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (04:38) @Sam - I think you are right indemnification needs to be specified to relate to the work relating to the their mandate within ICANN. IOW, if one unincorporated chose to also operate a business trading goods, that would not be covered :-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:38) what if it's sponsored beer, though.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:38) :)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:38) I agree with Thomas, btw.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:39) I can threaten now

  Jordan Carter: (04:39) People also probably underestimate the risk they face now.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:39) Agreed people can still be threated at the moment as individuals for decision they make can they not?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:40) Josh explicityly said there's no incremental increase in liability

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:41) This amy be an awareness issue rather than a legal one?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:41) so there's LESS incremental liability

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:41) assuming the jurisdiction recognizes those protections

  Alan Greenberg: (04:41) @Josh, I thought I made it clear that there are liabilities today which should be addressed.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (04:42) @Alan, yes, I think w agree.  Even today the protections against liability should probably be enhanced

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:42) Yes

  Greg Colvin: (04:42) Calif law does provide statutory immunity from suit for the participants in an unincorporated association, but the entity does need to take a minor, simple step, like a 2-page articles of association, that they are entitled to such protection.

  Alan Greenberg: (04:42) @Leon, we agree.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (04:42) Thanks Alan

  Alan Greenberg: (04:42) Oops - wrong chat.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:42) There may be some value in understanding some examples of where people are seeing risks of being sued, and using those particular examples to determine the proper scope of a community-funded indemnification clause.  This is all at a very theoretical level

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:42) +1 Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (04:42) I can support thsat @Jordan

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:42) Yes, we should be clear about what can be done for each model

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:43) and also show preference

  Alan Greenberg: (04:43) @Jordan, I agree.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (04:43) so I agree with Jordan

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:43) cant hear Josh

  Jordan Carter: (04:44) David - can you now?

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:44) yes, sorry

  Michael Clark (sidley): (04:45) Agree with Josh.  California actually has a pretty good law relating to unincorporated associations.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (04:46) It is not the question sorry

  Sébastien (ALAC): (04:46) Can we incorporate one member outside of US?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:47) Sebastian, he answered thet yes it may be a possibility but adds potential complexity

  Sébastien (ALAC): (04:48) But it add also beter diversity and maybe othre advantages

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (04:48) thank you Josh, so I understand that you will need to double check that

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:48) Agree @James but I heard complexity was vis-a-vis insurance, ICANN could still indemnify

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:48) I thought though the answer on un-incorporated associations was yes, from anywhere

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:49) I would think that its something that should be taken to the ist to see if there is support for it and if so possibly ask legal counsel to look into the possibilities?

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:50) @Jonathan, IMO, I see that a membership model may give a clean structural path forward, but I think that we haven't done the non-legal work of asking the questions of "how does this really look at ICANN", such as balance of power, or balancing the extent of structural change today against the benefits that could come through other models

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:50) @Sam; your question is unclear to me. What is extent of structural change referring to ?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:50) How much clearer do we want it: "the member model is by far the stronger model than the designator model"

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:50) @David If n-incorporated I would think that the jurisdiction of the 'member' would have to support and have strong experience in unincorporated associations, for example my understanding is Ireland has unincorporated associatoins but the legal protections for them are quite weak

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (04:51) I agree with James, we need to ask legal counsel to look into these possibilities

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:51) Whether the incremental changes that could be achieved through other models are sufficient enough, for example

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:51) @Sam, this is all going to be upheaval, giving powers to the community but thta is our task.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (04:51) If the membership model is so attractive WHY ICANN was created as a no member organization?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:51) and it's clear that the incremental chnages are NOT enough

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:51) James, Athina, yes - we should take up on legal sub-team to eexplore further

  Alan Greenberg: (04:52) @Seb, the membership model that was looked at at the start is a very different one., so the reason may not be important.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:52) @Sebastien: to much power to the community. Different timeframe and the US holding the leash

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:53) I'm not fighting for or against a membership organization - I just have the sense that we haven't really assessed what it means across the community to make that shift

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:53) Sebastien, when ICANN Created NTIA provided accountability presumably

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:53) And ICANN has evolved a lot since its incorporation, companies restructure due to eveolution from time to time its not unheard of

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:53) @Sebastsien: this is not at all the member model that was considered early, but we need to understand that the work "member" raises memories

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:53) no matter the amount of change, I feel like the question "how does this really look at ICANN" just on a practical level is a question worth asking.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (04:53) what impact could it have for the GAC?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:53) Agree, Sabine.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:54) @Jorge An important question for sure.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:54) is there any going back once we make the shift to a membership model?  are we stuck there?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (04:54) we have advisors and legal counsel who could have a look at that, couldn't they?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:54) @Robin I suppose it would be a fundamental bylaw change ;-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:55) I mean, what if we decide it was a mistake, are we stuck?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:55) well, the very first legal advice by Adler & Colvin adresses that somewhat.

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (04:55) +1 Jorge, important question for the GAC and governments

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:55) @Jorge I think much of the question would be from the GAC side, i the GAC can agree to organise themself in such a way.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:55) @Jorge: their response is : GAC can create a uninc. association

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:55) No legal barrier

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:55) @Jorge with strong legal input of course

  jorge cancio (GAC): (04:56) it is not only a legal question, but also (and more importanty) a political - and the 7 advisors can give an assessment on that

  Samantha Eisner 2: (04:56) There are ways to bind ICANN, through this process, to smake some of the incremental changes today and require a shift to a membership model later - after an opportunity for full community vetting because of the magnitude of change - such as the way we'd bind ICANN to consider WS2 efforts

  Alan Greenberg: (04:57) The POWER of members may also be a downside if we beleive that ICANN organization is evolving and might not be optimal as it is now.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:57) @Sam The issue is that the community appears to have a strong push to do this now rather than later.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:57) Yes

  jorge cancio (GAC): (04:57) you "can" do many things, a different thing is whether it is realistic to expect some actors to do such ithings in the real world

  Sébastien (ALAC): (04:57) Agree Alan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (04:57) The membership model may work for the ICANN bubble, but I worry that it will be rejected by those outside of the ICANN bubble and risks losing all the accountability work

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (04:58) @Jorge; I know, this is a question for the stakeholders, inc. GAC

  Jordan Carter: (04:58) Robin, on what basis?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (04:58) We WANT to be stuck there

  David McAuley (RySG): (04:58) if we cannot countenance change then we are stuck in designator

  jorge cancio (GAC): (04:59) I think the advisors could help with a more pragmatic point of view, beyond just assessing whether something is legally feasible

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (04:59) All, I have to go to another meeting, so signing off. Look forward to "see" you all again in a few hours!

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (04:59) tot ziens, Roelof :)

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (05:00) Bis später, Sabine

  Jordan Carter: (05:00) We aren't proposing to convert ICANN into "members for everything". It's for these accountability tools. People will not have to join in order to do *anything* they do in ICANN today, as I understand it.

  Alan Greenberg: (05:00) We can make a switch back IF WE ARE WILLING TO PUT UP WITH ANOTHER CCWG PROCESS LIKE THIS!

  Sébastien (ALAC): (05:00) We leave US Robin

  Alan Greenberg: (05:00) Who is lining up to join?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:00) Does that consent need to be unanimous?

  Jordan Carter: (05:00) Alan: we could just play all the audio backwards.

  Alan Greenberg: (05:00) @Jordan, Touche!

  Jordan Carter: (05:01) or send the emails in reverse order? ;)

  Alan Greenberg: (05:01) Best idea I have heard all week!  Will is say "ICANN is Dead"?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (05:01) @Jordan, correct.  The "members" would be for specific voting purposes and to select directors

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:02) ICANN is dead, long live ICANN?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (05:02) @Jordan (contd), individuals do not have to become "members" in order to get involved

  Alan Greenberg: (05:02) Or long live NNACI

  Jordan Carter: (05:03) Alan: NNACI, closely related to Gnocci.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:03) will that go into the glossary, Alan?

  Jordan Carter: (05:03) Josh: thanks, very important to keep that in mind.

  Matthew Shears: (05:03) @ Josh - it will be very important that your two points are made absolutely clear in the public comment

  Alan Greenberg: (05:03) Which works well, because I am hungry.

  Avri Doria: (05:03) Requeim for the bylaws solution.  Hope the borader community accepts what we are about to propose.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:03) @Bi-Sodium Chloride?

  Alan Greenberg: (05:04) We are apparently at the "giddy" phase of exhaustion.

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:04) or just the "hungry" phase.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:04) +1 Sabine, Breakfast is calling

  Avri Doria: (05:04) is the bylaw model also being included among the list of alternatives not taken?

  jorge cancio (GAC): (05:05) legal advice only won't do... we shouldn't ignore that

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (05:05) @Avria, not sure what model you refer to? 

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:05) that's true, Jorge.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (05:06) @Jorge I agree but I also believe that political issues will surely show in public comment and then we can have more clarity

  David McAuley (RySG): (05:06) Thanks co-chairs, staff, and all

  Avri Doria: (05:06) the model whee we just ammend the bylaws we currently have to get as much as they can give without taking on either Designator or Membership.

  Jordan Carter: (05:06) 13H UTC

  Jordan Carter: (05:06) I won't be on that one

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:06) Thank you

  Jordan Carter: (05:06) I'll see you at 1600 UTC tho

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:06) Bye!

  Matthew Shears: (05:06) are we sure that the current membership model works with the second version of the CWG proposal?

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (05:06) thank you all :)

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (05:06) thanks all!

  jorge cancio (GAC): (05:06) bye, thanks

  Jordan Carter: (05:06) byeeeeee all

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (05:06) Thanks all. Good call in deed!