Sub-group Members:   Andreea Brambilla, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Ghislain de Salins, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Jeff Neuman, John Laprise, Kavouss Arasteh, Mark Carvell, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Milton Mueller, Parminder Singh, Philip Corwin, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Vidushi Marda, Wale Bakare   (26)

Observers/Guests:  Jonathan Zuck, Padma Venkataraman, Silvana Rivero,  (3)

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Megan Healy, Nigel Hickson, Veni Markovski   (5)

Apologies:  Becky Burr, Jorge Cancio, Matthew Shears, Seun Ojedeji 

 ** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

Transcript

• Word.doc
• PDF

Recording

• Adobe Connect Replay

• mp3 Replay

Agenda

1. Welcome

2. Proposed Questionnaire:

a. Options for Question 4

b. Confirm Revisions to Preamble and Questions

c. Conclude Discussion of Questionnaire

d. Reporting to CCWG Plenary 3. “Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction” document

4. AOB

5. Adjourn

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

1.  Welcome

Greg Shatan: (opening with 30 participants). No updates to SOIs.  No audio only.

2.  Proposed Questionnaire:

       a.  Options for Question 4

Greg Shatan: (proposals for Question 4 document - staff to prep DM proposal also).

Kavouss Arasteh: which version are we discussing? It is important for all of us to agree on something. DM text needs to include "mission".

Parminder: I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the last call and not new David's text.

Parminder: I dont agree with current David's text

Milton: I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4

Parminder: but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text

David McAuley: re my suggestion - I could support the GS reformulation of this. Still disagree we deal with JOI.

Milton: it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call

Brenda Brewer: Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here;  https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/IwkIBg

John Laprise: I support the McAuley Formulation

Vidushi Marda: Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first?

Steve DelBianco: I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg

Mathieu Weill: Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ?

Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text

Parminder: We should focus on the previously presented 7 versions and could support any of these except 7.

Steve DelBianco: Have not supported Q4 but in the spirit of compromise could agree to the reformulated DM question. If we cannot reach consensus on Q4 we should proceed to the plenary with the first 3 questions and advise we will continue to work on Q4.

Jonathan Zuck: Agree with SDB and like the simplicity of this version.

Parminder: Please put Seun’s modification on the screen, which had good support on the elist

Jonathan Zuck: Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances"

David McAuley (RySG): Steve makes a good point about consensus

Kavouss Arasteh: not constructive to work on 7 versions. Could work with DM version with MISSION included.

Milton: If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version

Parminder: Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here.

Milton: "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla"

David McAuley (RySG): +1 Milton, I could support Greg's reformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters

Philip Corwin: Agree with Jonathan Z's observation.

David McAuley (RySG): by adding Mission and leaving other reformulated wording we risk confusion again

Milton: simpler is better

Milton: agree with David on that

Kavouss Arasteh: why David

Parminder: this is the wording

Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

David McAuley (RySG): adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different -

Steve DelBianco: @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement.

Philip Corwin: "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication.

Kavouss Arasteh: re-insert MISSION in square brakets and send to the CCWG-Accountability plenary and they cand decide.

John Laprise: I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better.

Steve DelBianco: Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission.  It is about accountability mechanisms

Milton: Corwin is correct

Jonathan Zuck: we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again

Milton: Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountability mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that

John Laprise: @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic.

Parminder: strong objection to not showing my or Sheun's modifications to DM's text.

Kavouss Arasteh: Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY

Jonathan Zuck: @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it.

David McAuley: Re KA question - my concern is to avoid confusion by inserting mission.

Parminder: i also put them here , puttting again

Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

Jonathan Zuck: if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now

Milton: "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated?

Steve DelBianco: ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws.  It is over 700 words long.   I doubt anyone could quote it by memory.  Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question?

Parminder: seun's text that I amended was ""Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

Parminder: Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation

Kavouss Arasteh: Greg.

Milton: it does cover alt jurisdiction

Kavouss Arasteh: If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion

Milton: yes there is,

Philip Corwin: As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation.

Ghislain de Salins: what about the original objective of  Q4 about alternative jurisdiction in DM's proposal? (explanation it is there by GS)

Milton Mueler: Still want to separate Q4 but we seem to be making progress. DM proposal is very close to consensus

Farzaneh Badii: If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…

Tatiana Tropina: Milton, well said.

Brenda Brewer: On behalf of Seun Ojedeji:  Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity.

Wale Bakare: Absolutely

Vidushi Marda: I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get.

Parminder: Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up.

Farzaneh Badii: I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more .

Jonathan Zuck: agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation

David McAuley (RySG): Milron cutting out now

Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Milton.

Parminder: need to put up Sheun and my versions.

Milton: Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes

Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi sent the formulations  to the email. Brenda can you put it up ?

Kavouss Arasteh: lets put the DM version in front of people and get the co-chair to respond to FB.

Parminder: why are you not putting up that text.

Mathieu Weill: I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress

Milton: As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement

(Staff) displaying Sean and Parminder.

Milton: Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho

John Laprise: Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only.

David McAuley (RySG): My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future

John Laprise: Agreed

John Laprise: too

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy

Steve DelBianco: Stick with David's original, I'd say

Parminder: The future should be logically deductible form "facts"

Jeff Neuman: Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three

Parminder: that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work

Steve DelBianco: I would not support speculation about future facts

Philip Corwin: Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant.

Herb Waye Ombuds: Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all.

Jeff Neuman: David's language

Jeff Neuman: and these 2

Jonathan Zuck: the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): argh. should sayo

Jonathan Zuck: David's original

Philip Corwin: Past is prologue

Tatiana Tropina: David's

Greg Shatan: Polling - DM original version (12 pro). Object to DM's original version (3). Going to Seun's option (4+, 11-). Last Parminder version (3+, 11-). DM modified version (2+, 8-)

Philip Corwin: NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission.

Mathieu Weill: Important to identifiy any *objection*

Milton: just added my check a bit late

Steve DelBianco: Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks.  We got to 13

Steve DelBianco: If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions

Parminder: Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2

David McAuley (RySG): I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first

Milton: if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal

Mary Uduma: we are actually arguing on trivals.

avri doria: we should not use such poll to determine things.  if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related.

Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @Parminder fixed.

Mathieu Weill: Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal

David McAuley (RySG): in other words I strongly support my original proposal

Parminder: thanks

Vidushi Marda: Unsure what we are voting on

Tatiana Tropina: yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok

Philip Corwin: I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative

John Laprise: +1Tatiana

Jonathan Zuck: Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Phil me a

Parminder: I agree with Avri's process objection

Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also

Kavouss Arasteh: we have our result from the polling and this should be reported to the plenary.

Jeff Neuman: I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself.  That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary

Milton: It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus

Mathieu Weill: This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting.

Milton: Mathieu is right

Greg Shatan: We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus?

Kavouss Arasteh: This is done.

Parminder: I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations.

avri doria: consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such

Farzaneh Badii: what is enough?

Tatiana Tropina: Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)?

Steve DelBianco: If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions

Parminder: I do not think there is consensus

David McAuley (RySG): i hear beeping

Mathieu Weill: Can we mute Nigel line

Philip Corwin: Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question.

Kavouss Arasteh: cannot qualify that consensus.

avri doria: Philip, I would noot agree with that.

Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version

avri doria: i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors

John Laprise: agreed, so motioned...

Philip Corwin: @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll

Greg Shatan: We will go forward with the 4 questions which include DM's original version.

Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus

Steve DelBianco: If some do not agree this is not consensus on 4 then we go ahead with 3 questions.

Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus

avri doria: we have no consensus for sending just 3

Milton: yes we do

Vidushi Marda: +1 avri

Parminder: But no consensus on 1-3 either

Mary Uduma: I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward.

Mathieu Weill: Not necessary to reopen the debate - this is a good compromise position and thank everyone.

Steve DelBianco: Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3

John Laprise: Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4

Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu + 1

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we had 1-3  well supported earlier

Milton: +1 Mathieu

Jeff Neuman: @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection. 

Philip Corwin: On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3

avri doria: i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus

Farzaneh Badii: so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out?

Wale Bakare: We have consensus on all Qs.

Mary Uduma: @Parminder, not so on 1-3

Farzaneh Badii: YES!

Tatiana Tropina: wow what a day

Farzaneh Badii: SUCCESS

Kavouss Arasteh: Appreciation to GS for the effort to get us here. Leave it as is. Still need to answer FB's question.

Greg Shatan: will deal with this on the list. Adjourned.

Documents Presented

• Jurisdiction Meeting 16 Alt Q.pdf
• CCWG-Accountability Draft of Preamble and Questions 1-3.pdf
• Question 4 McAuley and Combination Alternatives.pdf
• Influence of Existing Jurisdictions for Disputes on Policy and Accountability as of Jan 10 2017.pdf

Chat Transcript

 Brenda Brewer: (1/10/2017 06:31) Good day all and welcome to Jurisdiction Subgroup call #16 on 10 January 2017 @ 13:00 UTC!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:42) Dear Brenda,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:43) Good  very early morning

  Brenda Brewer: (06:50) Good Day, Kavouss!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:55) hello all

  Vidushi Marda: (06:57) hello all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:57) hello all

  Mathieu Weill: (06:58) Hello !

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:58) Bonjour M. Président.e

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:59) C,est non que tu assist aussi

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:59) Bon

  Wale Bakare: (06:59) Hello all

  Mathieu Weill: (06:59) :-)

  Wale Bakare: (06:59) Good morning/afternoon/evening

  Greg Shatan: (06:59) Hello, all.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (06:59) Greg,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:00) Pls read my last two e-mails

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:00) Hi Brenda, I am 4154

  Ghislain de Salins - GAC France: (07:00) Hello all

  Brenda Brewer: (07:01) Thank you David!

  Nigel Hickson: (07:02) good afternoon

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:02) OH nigel , really good afternoon to you

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:04) Dear All, pls kindly speak slowly by separating any syllabus from other

  Vidushi Marda: (07:06) It would be helpful to have Sean and Parminder's reformulations as well.

  Vidushi Marda: (07:06) Is that possible?

  John Laprise: (07:06) Good morning all

  Steve DelBianco: (07:07) I will speak slowly, Kavouss, but we do have some urgency on this call to determine whether we have a consensus about Q4.   If we do not, we should present the 3 consensus questions to the CCWG tomorrow.

  Parminder: (07:08) I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the lsat call and not new David's text

  Parminder: (07:09) i dont agree with current David's text

  Milton: (07:09) I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4

  Parminder: (07:10) but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text

  Milton: (07:10) it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call

  Brenda Brewer: (07:10) Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here;  https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/IwkIBg

  John Laprise: (07:10) I support the McAuley Formulation

  Vidushi Marda: (07:11) Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first?

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:11) much better connection this time for Parminder

  Steve DelBianco: (07:12) I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg

  Mathieu Weill: (07:12) Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:13) Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:13) Mathisu + 1 with my suggestion

  Parminder: (07:14) Please put seuns modifation on the screen, which had good support on the elist

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:15) Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances"

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:15) Steve makes a good point about consensus

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:15) agree

  Philip Corwin: (07:15) +1 agree with Steve's view as just expressed

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:17) oh host left!

  Mathieu Weill: (07:17) We don't need a host, this is a bottom up meeting !

  Milton: (07:17) If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version

  Parminder: (07:18) Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here

  Milton: (07:18) "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla"

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:18) +1 Milton, I could support Greg's ereformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters

  Philip Corwin: (07:18) Agree with Jonathan Z's observation.

  Vidushi Marda: (07:18) can staff put the various reformulations of David's text here?

  Vidushi Marda: (07:19) Seans, Parminder's.

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:19) by adding Misiion and leavinbg other reformultaed wording we risk confusion again

  Milton: (07:19) simpler is better

  Milton: (07:19) agree with David on that

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:19) why David

  Parminder: (07:19) this is the wording

  Parminder: (07:19) "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:20) adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different -

  Steve DelBianco: (07:20) @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement.

  Philip Corwin: (07:21) "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication.

  John Laprise: (07:21) I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better.

  Steve DelBianco: (07:21) Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission.  It is about accountability mechanisms

  Milton: (07:21) Corwin is correct

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:22) we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again

  Milton: (07:22) Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountabiity mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that

  John Laprise: (07:23) @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic.

  Milton: (07:23) Zuck: we know what the mission is now

  John Laprise: (07:23) It's purely a survey instrument problem.

  Vidushi Marda: (07:23) +1. I've asked twice already

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:24) Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:24) @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it.

  Parminder: (07:24) i also put them here , puttting again

  Parminder: (07:24) "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:25) if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now

  Milton: (07:25) "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated?

  Steve DelBianco: (07:26) ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws.  It is over 700 words long.   I doubt anyone could quote it by memory.  Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question?

  Parminder: (07:26) seun's text that I amended was ""Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

  Parminder: (07:26) Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:26) Greg.

  Milton: (07:27) it does cover alt jurisdction

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:27) If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion

  Milton: (07:27) yes there is,

  Philip Corwin: (07:27) As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation.

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…

  Vidushi Marda: (07:29) greg please share the alternatives. I've shared it on the list.

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:29) Milton, well said.

  Brenda Brewer: (07:29) On behalf of Seun Ojedeji:  Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity.

  Wale Bakare: (07:29) Absolutely

  Vidushi Marda: (07:29) I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get.

  Parminder: (07:30) Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up.

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:30) I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more .

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:30) agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:30) Milron cutting out now

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:30) Agree with Milton.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:30) audio

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:30) Milton

  Wale Bakare: (07:30) All other reformulations can be gathered, and work on later

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:31) yes

  Milton: (07:31) yes on an off

  Wale Bakare: (07:31) yes

  Milton: (07:31) Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:31) Vidushi sent the formulations  to the email. Brenda can you put it up ?

  Parminder: (07:32) Greg, as chair pl do response to what I am asking. thanks.

  Mathieu Weill: (07:32) I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress

  Milton: (07:32) As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement

  Vidushi Marda: (07:33) Greg - I've sent you a word document.

  Vidushi Marda: (07:33) I've sent it on the list.

  Parminder: (07:33) once again, this is my text

  Parminder: (07:34) "Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific laws."

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:34) time check 30 minutes left in call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:34) Greg,

  Parminder: (07:34) thanks staff, greg

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:34) Pls kindly reply to Farzaneh question

  Wale Bakare: (07:34) @Milton, agreed.

  Jeff Neuman: (07:35) Now it would be good to see David's text side by side with these.

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:35) still like David's better. I don't mean to split hairs Milton but instances suggests soething which has happened as opposed to people theories about the future. We need to get info we don't already have. We have plenty of theories already.

  Wale Bakare: (07:35) As long as that's being done here and put this, especially Q4 to conclusion

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:36) +1 @Jonathan

  Jeff Neuman: (07:36) I agree with @Zuck

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:36) I am for David's version

  Milton: (07:36) Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho

  John Laprise: (07:36) Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only.

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:37) My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future

  John Laprise: (07:37) Agreed

  John Laprise: (07:37) too

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:37) Policy

  Steve DelBianco: (07:37) Stick with David's original, I'd say

  Parminder: (07:37) The future should be logically deductible form "facts"

  Jeff Neuman: (07:37) Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three

  Parminder: (07:38) that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work

  Steve DelBianco: (07:38) I would not support speculation about future facts

  Philip Corwin: (07:38) Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant.

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (07:38) Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all.

  Jeff Neuman: (07:38) David's language

  Jeff Neuman: (07:38) and these 2

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:38) the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:38) argh. should sayo

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:38) David's original

  Philip Corwin: (07:38) Past is prologue

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:38) David's

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:38) say Poll

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:39) Greg, pls go ahead with my suggestion

  Wale Bakare: (07:39) David + the 2 as alternatives

  Philip Corwin: (07:39) NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission.

  Mathieu Weill: (07:39) Important to identifiy any *objection*

  Milton: (07:40) just added my check a bit late

  Steve DelBianco: (07:40) Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks.  We got to 13

  John Laprise: (07:40) Dedeuctibiity is never something you want to lay on the shoulders of a survey taker

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:40) Really only 12 checks? It looked like there was more

  Milton: (07:40) mine was late

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:41) a perfect example of why we need to keep a survey simple ;)

  Jeff Neuman: (07:41) Avri had check up initially

  avri doria: (07:42) but then i decided i did not like the oppostion formaulation so decided to abstain

  Mary Uduma: (07:43) Abstained as all seem same to me save for grammar

  Parminder: (07:44) three actually

  Parminder: (07:44) greg, my option has three support

  Milton: (07:44) Mary, you're right the differences are trivial in terms of meaning, but the original one is clearer and simpler

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:44) oh wow Mary are you saying we are arguing over nothing ?:)

  Milton: (07:45) :-)

  Vidushi Marda: (07:45) Hahahaha

  Jeff Neuman: (07:45) I proposed it

  Steve DelBianco: (07:45) If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions

  Parminder: (07:45) Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2

  Parminder: (07:45) vidushi, kavouss and mine

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:45) I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first

  Milton: (07:45) if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal

  Mary Uduma: (07:45) we are actually arguing on trivals.

  avri doria: (07:45) we should not use such poll to determine things.  if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:46) @Parminder fixed.

  Mathieu Weill: (07:46) Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:46) in other words I strongly support my original proposal

  Parminder: (07:46) thanks

  Vidushi Marda: (07:46) Unsure what we are voting on

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:46) yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok

  Philip Corwin: (07:47) I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative

  John Laprise: (07:47) +1Tatiana

  Jonathan Zuck: (07:47) Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:47) Greg, I voted against but nothing personal :-)

  John Laprise: (07:47) +1 Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:47) yes Phil me a

  Parminder: (07:47) I agree with Avri's process objection

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (07:47) Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:47) also

  Parminder: (07:48) sorry, hand not up

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:48) time check - 12 minutes left in call

  Wale Bakare: (07:49) @Farzaneh, not about argument as it appears but on the face of it's a rewording exercise here.

  Jeff Neuman: (07:50) I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself.  That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary

  Milton: (07:50) It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus

  Mathieu Weill: (07:50) This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting

  Milton: (07:50) Mathieu is right

  Parminder: (07:51) I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations.

  avri doria: (07:53) consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:53) what is enough?

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:53) Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)?

  Steve DelBianco: (07:54) If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions

  avri doria: (07:54) more than 1 less than many

  Milton: (07:54) I don't see any turtles

  Wale Bakare: (07:54) Thanks, Farzaneh. I wanted to ask

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:54) oh I hear a beep. does everyone hear a beep?

  Parminder: (07:54) I do not think there is consensus

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:54) i hear beeping

  Mathieu Weill: (07:54) Can we mute Nigel line

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:54) I do hear a beep

  Vidushi Marda: (07:54) We must keep question 4.

  avri doria: (07:54) using the ancient counting method, 1, 2, 3, ah many

  Milton: (07:54) yes the beep is God reminding us to get on with it

  Philip Corwin: (07:55) Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question.

  avri doria: (07:55) Philip, I would noot agree with that.

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:55) Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version

  avri doria: (07:56) i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors

  John Laprise: (07:56) agreed, so motioned...

  Philip Corwin: (07:56) @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll

  Milton: (07:57) noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus

  avri doria: (07:57) we have no consensus for sending just 3

  Milton: (07:57) yes we do

  Vidushi Marda: (07:57) +1 avri

  Parminder: (07:57) But no consensus on 1-3 either

  Mary Uduma: (07:57) I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward.

  Jeff Neuman: (07:58) @parminder - what is your basis for that assessment'

  Milton: (07:58) wrong Parminder.

  Parminder: (07:58) I state objection, thanks

  Steve DelBianco: (07:58) Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3

  John Laprise: (07:58) Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4

  Kavouss Arasteh: (07:58) Mathieu + 1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:58) we had 1-3  well supported earlier

  Milton: (07:58) +1 Mathieu

  Jeff Neuman: (07:58) @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection.  

  Philip Corwin: (07:58) On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3

  avri doria: (07:58) i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:59) so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out?

  Wale Bakare: (07:59) We have consensus on all Qs.

  Mary Uduma: (07:59) @Parminder, not so on 1-3

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:59) YES!

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:59) wow what a day

  Farzaneh Badii: (07:59) SUCCESS

  Mathieu Weill: (07:59) Indeed !

  John Laprise: (07:59) Woohoo!

  David McAuley (RySG): (07:59) Thanks Greg for multitasking on several fronts on this call, thanks staff and all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:59) :-)

  Tatiana Tropina: (07:59) David, thanks to you :-)

  Mary Uduma: (08:00) Kudos to the Chair.

  Tatiana Tropina: (08:00) and kudos to Greg as usual

  Jonathan Zuck: (08:00) Yeah, yeah. We need Greg on the IPC call now  ;)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:00) thx a

  Mathieu Weill: (08:01) Greg is ours now Jonathan, we won't release him !

  Milton: (08:01) Time to stop talking ;-)

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:01) Thx and bye - time to move on :)

  Wale Bakare: (08:01) Thanks to Greg, and everyone who has contributed thus far. Cheerio!

  Milton: (08:01) I move to adjourn

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:01) thx all and bye for now

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (08:01) Well dne Greg and everyone: the questionnaire will elicit valuable facts and documented experience. I can't wait!

  Farzaneh Badii: (08:01) Bye

  Mathieu Weill: (08:01) Seconded Milton

  Milton: (08:02) Thanks to David for his carefully crafted compromise proposal that moved things forward

  Milton: (08:02) I am outta here

  Milton: (08:02) bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:02) indeed!

  Tatiana Tropina: (08:02) thanks a lot all - so happy it got moved forward - congrats. Bye!

  Vidushi Marda: (08:02) thanks all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:02) BYE

  Wale Bakare: (08:03) Bye now. See you later

  Andreea Brambilla: (08:03) Thanks everyone, great work

  Mary Uduma: (08:03) Bye

  avri doria: (08:03) bye