CCWG IG Weekly Teleconference - 2014.3.17 - Adobe chat

  Leon Sanchez:hello everyone!

  Filiz Yilmaz:Hi everyone. I will have to leave earlier most probably. Apologies in advance.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QY2aBg

  Keith Drazek (RySG):We'll look at it on our own screens.

  Patrik Fältström:Thanks Olivir!

  Patrik Fältström:Sigh, Olivier!

  Bart Boswinekl:I'm sorry the DSSA WG was a cross-comunity group as well, including ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and particpants from SSAC and external people

  Patrik Fältström:Bart, yes. It was not my intention to claim (if I did) that this was the first CCWG. My point is more that IF we are going to do more PDPs in CCWG format instead of within the PDP of individual SO's, then for example we at SSAC need to change the process *WE* use.

  Filiz Yilmaz:Patrik, I understand your point and I agree with it too, but I am missing why we are to raise it here right now. Do you want this point to be reflected to the questions in the public session in Singapore?

  rafik:@patrik do you propose some chanegs to the question?

  Patrik Fältström:I think the question is fine! :-) Sorry, I started to respond to the question...

  Bart Boswinekl:@Patrick, I think there a tow fundaemnetal issues: clear mandate to a group from the participating SO/AC ( meaning buyin into the process) and defined role wiht the regard to the deliverable of the group

  Patrik Fältström:Q1: What should be its next priority after the NETmundial meeting has concluded?

  Patrik Fältström:I think that is enough

  Patrik Fältström:For the first

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:i would keep this question as the last question asked so we deal with questions chronologically

  Patrik Fältström:I claim the 2nd question (about IANA globalization) can be removed, as all of us at a public session probably will say "we support it"

  Filiz Yilmaz:Apologies, I need to drop off now. I will follow up through the minutes. See you soon.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Patrick: are you sure we all support it? I have heard some voices in ICANN that are not supporting it as much... or some that are saying YES BUT

  Alain Bidron:Agree with Olivier, and ICANN globalization is more than IANA

  Keith Drazek (RySG):On principle, I don't think too many are opposed to globalization of ICANN and/or IANA, but it depends a bit on what "globalization" means -- how are we defining the term? It also depends on the nature of the implementation as ICANN and/or IANA is "globalized."  So, I think YES BUT is a very appropriate reaction at this time. The devil is in the details.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Keith - and I would say I completely agree. When such a radical change comes up, there is potential for really bad decisions being made that might end up in catastrophe.

  Keith Drazek (RySG):Also, we the community should be determining the definition and implementation plans. We should not be waiting around for the staff to tell us.

  Greg Shatan:Given the NTIA announcement, whether we support the transition of the NTIA role to the global multistakeholder community is irrelevant. A very relevant question however is the CCWG role in this process.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Keith - do you have the feeling that at the moment it looks like Staff will define?

  Keith Drazek (RySG):@Olivier - Yes. The staff will fill any vacuum. The community needs to take ownership of the process.

  Oliver Sueme:Apologies, have to leave the call already.

  Avri Doria:OCL: simple observation indicaes that of course they are going to try and dominate the process.

  Alexandra Dans:What approach should we chose: option 1 (3 or 4 questions) or option 2 (list of questions distributed in advance)?

  Leon Sanchez:If I understood OLC well the second approach reffered to having all questions at the session and having participants answer them as they wish

  Keith Drazek (RySG):Perhaps we pick 3 key questions and also include the remaining list as a menu for possible discussion?

  Greg Shatan:On a drafting level, the questions are still fairly rough.  As OLC notes, they are redundant.  They also need to be cleaned up for grammar, syntax, some consistency, etc.

  Leon Sanchez:I like this last aproach

  Keith Drazek (RySG):I vote for #3

  Keith Drazek (RySG):(vote early, vote often!)

  David Maher (PIR):I vote for #3

  Alain Bidron:Approach 3 for me

  Aparna Sridhar:Approach 3 for me as well

  Leon Sanchez:I vote for #3

  Sarah Falvey - RYSG:Agree with #3

  Keith Drazek (RySG):Does anyone prefer #1 or #2? We need to wrap this up.

  Keith Drazek (RySG):While I agree that the morning session would be preferable, we're not getting it. That said, I think its worth pointing out to staff that the community process should take precedent over staff-driven process.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:So question to everyone here: how far do we insist for CCWG in morning?

  Keith Drazek (RySG):I think the temperature of the room is lukewarm.

  Avri Doria:Is this group the COMMUNITY?  wow!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:it is not a vote

  Keith Drazek (RySG):I think having the session is better than not having the session, regardless of timing. I agree with Marilyn about the conflicts and the preferred timing, but we should ensure we have a meeting at some time.

  Aparna Sridhar:I think you should push to get it moved to not at the same time of the name collision

  Aparna Sridhar:but not fanatical about morning

  Alain Bidron:Yes avoid conflict with name collision

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Baaah questions are ok.

  Keith Drazek (RySG):Thanks all

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:cannot hear Marilyn at all

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:much better now

  Leon Sanchez:thanks to everyone

  Leon Sanchez:safe travels