CCWG ACCT Meeting #17 (17 March)

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #17 17 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #17 17 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4t19cs5h04/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/icann-ccwg-acct-17mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 

2. Next stop: Istanbul

• • Tentative agenda, Xplane
  • Criteria to compare options
  • Expectations to have documents ready by March 20

3. Activity reports 

• • WP 1
  • WP 2
  • ST-WP
  • Legal Subteam 

4. Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul  

5. Public comment approach

6. A.O.B 

7. Closing remarks

Notes

All participants in the adobe connect room

Next stop: Istanbul

Link to information about the Istanbul 

https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/acctcrosscomm/pages/97715912/CCWG+ACCT+Face+to+Face+Meeting+23+-+24+March+2015

WP1 and WP2 will hold informal meetings on Sunday afternoon:

• • WP1: 16:00 - 17:30
  • WP2: 17:30 - 19:00 
  • followed by cocktails 

XPLANE will support the F2F meeting.

Following discussion in WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working on, document "comparing accountability 
mechanisms" sent to the CCWG list.  Purpose is to propose options, based on work we have been doing to date rather than introducing new ideas at this stage.

The spreadsheet is not proposed as a full tool to compare the qualities of one mechanisms against another.  If certain parameters are present for some mechanisms but not for other then will help us in the substance of discussions

Activity reports 

WP1 report Jordan Carter 

• Last WP1 call consider how to write mechanisms on the the bylaws,  the community veto and the updated template.  And the new mechanism of the community council.
• Question of jurisdiction keeps coming up, need to agree how to handle this or it may become a problem
• The existing SO/AC model is based on decisions based on their own democratic processes and own thresholds and aggregated across the collective SO/ACs.  Other suggestion is for the 
  creation of a community council mandated by the SO/AC, with either directed or independent vote.  And members discuss issues.  
• Questions being asked if each SO/AC should have the same weight in the decisions making process.
• There are difference between mandated and non-mandated decisions.
• with WP1 powers when talking about veto etc are very far from the usual policy making decisions of ICANN.  There should be high thresholds.  
• Currently working on a tool to test how voting behavior of different groups will impact the outcome. Some mechanisms may have a lower voting threshold than others.  

WP2 Becky Burr

• Core deliverables will be on the mission statement, community values.  Will be prepared for March 20 and distribution.
• Good discussion of independent review and expect good outcomes
• work stream on ombudsman and reconsideration have had a lower start and will be the focus of informal meeting on Sunday in Istanbul 

• The constitution" document, and about to what extent, if any, ICANN's mission statement should be allowed, and the evolution of the mission should be a very high bar.  Is there a need for 

• a constitutional court in addition to an independent review.   Group seems to be favoring and combination.  
• Discussion about access ti the  independent review and constitutional court  are accessible both from point of view of standing and cost (looser pays, frivolous claim)

• Mission statement core values: the group considers it important to ensure that there is no mission creep.   Should there be a specific statement outlining what ICANN is trying to achieve.  
  A vision statement might be useful, perhaps noting the security, stability, interoperability and resiliency of the Internet through coordinating the unique among and numbering  system.  

Stress Test Working Party 

• The test regarding GAC consensus advice and requirements of the bylaws for the Board to act in response.  Thomas Schneider's letter in response to co-chair's communication about the test.   

• All 25 stress tests have been drafted against the current mechanisms were have designed.  

• Tests 1 and 2, combined:

• Change if delegation authority for IANA rootzone ceases to function. This is a test is an attempt to cover the needs of the CWG.  The current contract held by NTIA could be revoked by 
  NTIA, and this provides leverage.  

• Test 11.  Compromise of credentials.  Regarding security breaches and ICANN's standards for security training, follow-through on required training.   To be able to enforce implementation of adopted security standards.  Not directly related to the transition.  

Legal sub-team

• Close to reaching agreement, had calls with a number of law firms.  Call tomorrow (18 March) to finalize agreement.  And hope to have representation from the external legal advisors
  present in Istanbul.  Further refinement of the scoping document is required.

• Will the legal firm be able to answer questions about international jurisdiction matters, or is this a matter for the CCWG expert advisors?
• Might ask the experts while in Istanbul why we are talk about jurisdiction.  CCWG colleagues might agree on  what the requirement for jurisdiction debate are.

Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul   

ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting  to be productive. 

Public comment approach

structure of public comment, using question format and allowing for free form replies.  Desire is to structure the public comment to the  format of WP1 WP2 and stress tests.  Asking questions 
about the approach, do you support or not. With a free form text field to allow comment to explain their answers.  

Anticipate large number of comments.  

Concern noted about the time line and that we will have a final proposal for WS1 by April 6.  We are proposing significant changes to ICANN's organizational structure. 
Need to receive legal advice.  
And then go to our communities for their views, and then may be ready for public comment.  The timeline will be an important discussion point for Istanbul.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting  to be productive. 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Alice Jansen: (3/17/2015 12:52) Welcome to call #17! 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

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (13:54) Hello everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (13:54) Welcome again!

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (13:55) Hello everyone!

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:58) Hello all

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:58) weirded sound ever

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:59) yes

  jorge cancio GAC: (13:59) hello everyone

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:00) Hello!

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (14:00) Hello everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:00) Hi...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:01) morning all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:01) I am only in AC room  waitng for dial out atm... just dropped off the CWG call

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:01) hello everyone

  Alan Greenberg: (14:01) And I am waiting for operator to get in.

  arasteh: (14:02) Good Evening Geneva Time to all Dear freinds

  Chris LaHatte: (14:03) hi

  Suzanne Radell: (14:04) Hi everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:04) Hi

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:04) hi all again, had to reboot computer

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:06) Hello all!

  jorge cancio GAC: (14:09) the list is interesting - another aspect to consider would be the interplay of the different accountability mechanisms and their impact on the functioning of ICANN and its ultimate goal of serving the global public interest

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:10) +1 @jorge

  Becky Burr: (14:11) hi all, i'm on but having to monitor a couple of other things

  Alan Greenberg: (14:12) Re Istanbul meeting, who is XPLAIN? There seems to be several companies with that name.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:12) Agree with Jorge. Was security against capture mentioned?

  Greg Shatan: (14:13) @Alan: http://www.xplane.com/

  Greg Shatan: (14:13) They drew the pictures in Singapore....

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:13) +1 Jordan including legality

  Alan Greenberg: (14:13) Ahh. Even MORE comapnies when you spell it that way!

  Greg Shatan: (14:14) Well, they got the .com URL so they must be the best.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:14) I also like how simplicity is taken into account

  Alan Greenberg: (14:14) ot questoning that. EXPLAIN in meeting notes pod at right.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:14) I have another question about this chart that just occurred to me: would be using this to test mechanisms (e.g. CCWG versus community council v supervisory board), or would we be instead testing specific powers (remove the board, approve the strat plan), or both?

  Alan Greenberg: (14:14) Rather XPLAIN

  Thomas Rickert: (14:16) Mathieu, you covered what I was about to say.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:17) Thanks Mathieu - I agree with you

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:17) Best aimed at the mechanisms per se

  Thomas Rickert: (14:19) Can you please mute your microphones when not speaking, please?

  Becky Burr: (14:20) Berry - I updated the chart this am for WP2, don't know if you picked that up

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (14:21) Good point, Jonathan.

  James Bladel-GNSO: (14:21) Or, if different mechansims cannot be used together or to address the same issue.

  Berry Cobb: (14:21) @Becky, I pulled a PDF about 1 hour ago, so your updates should be on there.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) +1 to Jonathan.  We should evaluate a package of mechansisms that complement each other.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:21) It might be time we start to develop a more realistic timeline.  Obviously we are not ready for workstream proposals going out for public comment after Istanbul.  We need to include time to obtain the legal advice on our possible mechanisms.  We also need to build time for community consultation based on the advice.  These are very complex issues and the priority must be to get it right, not fast.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:21) +1 Jonathan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:22) interrelationships between various powers and mechanisms is important

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:23) If we can multiuse a "mechanism" in a way that is efficent for several pwoers, that might be attractive

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:23) is that what you mean, Jonathan?

  Becky Burr: (14:24) Jordan, i think that is very possible, and it would be a useful product of our F2F

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:24) yes, Jordan, that's what I meant. thanks.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:25) @Jordan -- even if that's not what Jonathan is saying, I think you are exactly right

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:25) @Jonathan @Jordan : point taken thks

  Alan Greenberg: (14:25) Lot of background noise.

  Keith Drazek: (14:26) Please mute phones and computers when not speaking.

  Greg Shatan: (14:26) Also mute dishes and coughing.

  Beran Gillen-ALAC: (14:26) lol @Greg

  Berry Cobb: (14:27) This is the Google Docs link to the WP Status Doc. All should have read access to this.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaROrG8fIGVEdwuBv-GBKP3cG8UJGQUPKjFhrnE6pq0/edit#gid=344878877

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:31) thanks, berry.   that's easier to read

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:35) We should definitely, if we can, end up with one or at most two of these structures

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:35) There would be nothing worse than creating slightly different bodies or different voting weights for each of the powers

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:35) we know that the CWG has already made Larry nervous with complexity

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:35) we would be creating a nightmare

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:36) exactly

  Alan Greenberg: (14:36) I don't think it is an either or..

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:36) + Steve

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:37) Some powers might also go to existing mechanisms

  Matthew Shears: (14:37) perhaps certain powers lend themselves to certain structures/mechanisms so grouping may make sense

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:37) when it comes to Membership org, things like "removing the board" are statutorily set

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:37) Alan -- what is distinction between Community and Representatives of the Community?

  Keith Drazek: (14:38) Any membership or decision-making body MUST be rooted in the community structures and processes. No so-called member would be acting in a personal capacity.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:39) Weightings are very important.

  Matthew Shears: (14:39) + 1 Keith

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:39) Keith: i agree in the sense that we need to not have loose units. People can't be off random and must be connected with and accountable to their appointing bodies

  Becky Burr: (14:39) +1 Jordan

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:39) + 1 Keith

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:39)  single strucuture (Members, for instance) can have different weightings to exercise different powers. That's simpler than separate structures

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:40) but that isn't the same in my opinion as having a simple formulation of pre-cooked decisions that can't be discussed and finalised after the conversation.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:40) Steve, it may be that there is no differnece. If each AC/SO (or whatever) must ratify decisions of their delegates. But in that case, the time to make a decision ay have negative implications (such as for budget approval). For decisions such as removing a director or the entire Board, the optics are such that it would be really important to have it seen as a community decisiin and not that of a spamm group of individuals. Of course, legal options may limit us and we need clarity there.

  Phil Buckingham: (14:40) Kavouss . Very good point  re weighting . Keith +1  absolutely no  personal capacity

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:41) In other words, we need to work out whether we would break ICANN by putting big critical decisions in the hands of a collection of separate group decisions, rather than a collective process.

  Keith Drazek: (14:42) If the "membership" is rooted in the community groups and processes, it has built-in accountability and legitimacy.

  Keith Drazek: (14:42) Agree Jordan

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (14:42) Alan: okay, then we're not really disagreeing.  Any community structure must have rules to ensure it represents the opinion of its members.  Even if that takes weeks to reach a decision/vote

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:43) +1 Mathieu - this isn't cutting across existing policymaking of SOs and ACs etc and we do need to remember that.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:43) I agree with Jordan about collective decision

  Matthew Shears: (14:43) We should be lookiing as much as posisble at existing structures and if necesary tweaking the so as to be able to exerscise the powers we seek to enable

  Philip Corwin: (14:43) Apologies for late arrival/tied up on other matters

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:44) Matthew: the problem is the only cross-community structure that collectively debates ICANN_wide issues is the Board.

  Becky Burr: (14:44) "The public interest" suggests that there is only one and it is clear.  That is clearly not the case, and the public interest can only be discerned by consiidering the views of all relevant parties. I do not think that ACs have a greater claim on the public interest than SOs

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:44) +1 Matthew, make use of existing structure as much as possible

  Alan Greenberg: (14:44) @Steve, discussion is akin to the discussion of an AC/SO recalling their director. We always pick someone who we (the communal we) think will do a good job. We do not always get it right. Turfing the whole board is not something I would want to leave to the "person we chose last year and we hope they will do good stuff".

  jorge villa (ASO): (14:46) the best aspproach could be using the existing structure as starting point and transform the aspects that can really improve the organization

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:46) Agree with Becky that defining "public interest" leads to problems and that no SO/AC claims exclusivity in defining it. 

  Chris LaHatte 2: (14:46) +1Alan

  Phil Buckingham: (14:46) + Jordan  .  distinguish whether the power has a financial  impact or not   ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:46) Alan, Steve: yep, I agree with your last point Alan. So we need to work out a way to get the right level of dialogue and representativeness to make sure the SOs and ACs are doing this work, without forbidding the possibility of dialogue among the SOs and ACs being unable to affect the outcome.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:47) I could very easily create the CCWG template on the same basis as our very own CCWG-ACCT. It would save time :-)

  Matthew Shears: (14:48) Evolving what we know so as to be able to effecively empower the community to use the powers we are seeking

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (14:49) @Jordan  that would be useful to aid discussion and anlysis I think

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:50) @Jordan support your proposal to create the extra template

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:50) it's there to be created - just no drafters yet

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:51) but these mechanisms aren't for "gTLD decisions"

  Phil Buckingham: (14:51)  @ matthieu - we did this on Vertical Integration WG  re secret poll  vote  - not consensus 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:51) the powers only relate to whole-of-ICANN things (at least in respect of WP1)

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:51) that is my understanding, Jordan.

  Becky Burr: (14:51) ccNSO has triage committee that decides whether or how important an issue is to the group

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:53) +1 Jordan, Robin,  that is my understanding as well, powers relates only to whole-of-ICANN things

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:54) @Alan, it'd be great if you came up with the kind of decisions you were thinking about ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (14:54) Pleasure is all ours :)

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:54) issues like gtld delegations would be delt with in Recon Requests and IRPs.

  Alan Greenberg: (14:54) MAthieu, with respect to my last intervention, or earlier ones?

  Becky Burr: (14:54) i'm here but speakers dont seem to be working

  Becky Burr: (14:55) will go back to open line

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:55) @Alan, yes, last one

  Alan Greenberg: (14:55) ok

  Thomas Rickert: (14:56) please mute your lines when not speaking

  Alan Greenberg: (15:02) @Mathieu, there are differening scenarios depending on which AC/SO we are talking about. As an example, all though I cannot speak on behalf of the SSAC, it is conceivable that on any given issue, they could decide that this is not an issue that will affect the stability or security of the DNS, and therefore they may choose to not participate in a decision.  The same could be said that a Bylaw achange affecting the cc community (negatively in their opinion) where several other parts of ICANN does not want to get involved either for or against the change.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:03) I understand your point Alan, but we would need a couple of examples of such decisions to check whether they fit woth the powers as we discuss them.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:05) and we would also need to understand whether, in exercising whole of community powers, it's appropriate for a segment of the community not to record a choice

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:06) But once again, it depends what decision we are talking about

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:07) @Jordan in the situation where a Community componant /segment does not record a chaoice (or abstaines)  do we allow or require then to give cause or reasin for that??

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:08) Depends on the decision - that might work perfectly Cheryl :)

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:09) That sounds like a reasonable option Cheryl

  Matthew Shears: (15:10) full transparency would argue that we should note dissenting and non-choice reasons

  Alan Greenberg: (15:12) @Jordan, requiring a choice does not really solve the entire problem. Just as in many cases, an abstention counts as a no, a formal no wuld likely be the result of requiring an answer. And that may lead to the inability to exercise the powers we are carefully creating.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:13) +! Matthew.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:13) @Becky : vague input, but I'll give a try

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:13) Markus mic volume seems too high

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (15:16) +2 Markus

  Markus Kummer: (15:17) @Leon: my apologies of my mic volume...

  Becky Burr: (15:17) i am going back on mute now

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:17) @Markus no problem!

  Thomas Rickert: (15:17) thanks becky

  David McAuley (GNSO): (15:17) Nice summary becky

  Thomas Rickert: (15:17) and your team!

  Thomas Rickert: (15:17) You are making great progress with WP2

  Thomas Rickert: (15:18) Sorry for not mentioning that on the audio!

  Alice Jansen: (15:18) Thomas Schneider's letter can be found at https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/display/acctcrosscomm/Letter+to+CCWG-Accountability+CoChairs

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (15:21)  Mathieu, I don't believe I have access to the mic, so will type my intervention.  I'm glad you mentioned that Thomas' letter clearly indicates that the views therein do not represent the views of the entirety of the GAC.  For your information, I will be submitting USG views to the GAC and CCWG lists in the near term.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:22) We look forwaed to that @Suzanne

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:22) GAC only gives advice on Public Policy to the Board, nothing else.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (15:22) The GAC chair's view is his personal view and CCWG is not the right place to be discussing/qualifying  what consensus means for the GAC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:23) Indeed @Alice it is not, 

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:23) + 1 Alice

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:23) This stress test doesn't deal with how GAC operates.  It only deals with how unanimous vice is treated.

  Keith Drazek: (15:24) The question isn't about dictacting the GAC's operating principles., including thresholds for consensus. That is up to the GAC. However, the ICANN Board's response to GAC statements, etc. is very much a concern for ICANN's accountability.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:24) Exactly @Robin 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:24) and YES Kieth that is the essential point..

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:25) So should we ask GAC for a formal GAC response on this and how long it would take to give that response?

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (15:25) perharps what is required is clarity on the stress test being proposed.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:25) +1 steve

  Keith Drazek: (15:25) +1 Steve well said

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:25) +1 Steve

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:26) +1 Steve

  James Bladel-GNSO: (15:26) Agree with Steve.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:26) +1 Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:26) No GAC response is necessary, but GAC views are always welcome

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:27) well, if there is a formal GAC position (not response), that would be helpful to know -- or even whether such a response is possible

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:27) and if it was possible, it would be useful for us to understand the timeframe for such a thing :)

  Keith Drazek: (15:28) The entire community requires more predictability in how the ICANN Board reacts to GAC advice.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:28) I see no reason to change or remove the ST#18  it in my view is just fine to 'run through'

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (15:28) The stress test no 18 seems reasonable - we need more dialog

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:28) BUT  I will ask the St-WP  in our call later today at 2200 hrs UTC  their opinion formally

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:29) I din't understand Jordan.  None of these stress tests require a written repsonse from the parties mentioned in the Stress Tests.  It is the CCWG and CWG that use stress tests to evaluate our proposed mecnahisms

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:30) exactly!

  Greg Shatan: (15:31) I think the point of the dialogue is to clear up misunderstandings that the GAC may have about the meaning of the Stress Test.  I don't know if we need a formal GAC response, except that it would be nice to know if misunderstandings have been cleared up.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:31) see page 3 of the document on the screen

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:32) Steve - I agree - but in the end since the GAC is a chartering organisation, if they are going to take a collective position in response to a proposal (because I am more focused on the proposal that resolves the stress test, not so much on applying the test itself), then we need to know about that position and view

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:34) indeed all this work now is just *Preparatory*  until Accountability Mechanism proposals have been received, discussed and agreed upon...

  Brenda Brewer: (15:37) Please note:  STRESS TESTS call is scheduled for 18 March 11:00 UTC..

  Matthew Shears: (15:37) is there a wp2 call this week?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (15:37) I have heard NTIA say "don't send us two proposals.   We expect one proposal"

  Matthew Shears: (15:38) that's right Steve - one only

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:38) yep

  Phil Buckingham: (15:38)  Steve + 1

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (15:39) Cheryl, is your next call today or tomorrow, as per Brenda's input on the chat?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:39) @Avri thast would be great to do the mappingecxercise

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:40) MY apologies  ire the ST-WP tome  it *IS*  1100 UTC   (the 22 is my local time ;-(

  Samantha Eisner: (15:40) Strickling's coment as I understand it is that across the three operational communities that are customers of the IANA functions, he is expecting the ICG to deliver one unified proposal - he will not accept competing proposals within the ICG remit.  He has also clarified that the NTIA will only consider the proposal derived through the ICG once the NTIA receives teh CCWG proposal

  Keith Drazek: (15:40) +1 We need to ensure that if any stress tests need to be shared or transferred between the 2 groups, we will need to make that happen sooner rather than later.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:40) Indeed @Kieth

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:41) That is my understanding too Samantha

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:42) +1 Keith

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (15:42) That reflects my understaning as well @Samantha

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:43) Me too

  Phil Buckingham: (15:48) Outstanding job  Steve + CLO

  Keith Drazek: (15:48) Apologies for continuing the discussion or process, but Kavouss and Steve are both correct. The CCWG Accountability and CWG Transition are currently working on separate tracks and will deliver separate proposals. The CWG Transition will feed its proposal into the ICG where a single proposal will be collated (with numbering and protocol parameters) for delivery to ICANN Board and NTIA. The CCWG Accountability is developing a proposal for WS1 that will be delivered to the ICANN Board. Ideally, both CWG and CCWG will continue working together to ensure the two tracks converge and are complementary. Ultimately, NTIA will need a single SOLUTION to assess and act upon, but I 'm fairly certain the two tracks will deliver independent proposals.

  Keith Drazek: (15:49) Bottom line, both ICG/CWG and CCWG WS1 must be complete and complementary before any transition can take place.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:50) where can one get a current draft?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:51) PDF

  Matthew Shears: (15:51)  + 1 Keith

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (15:53) Unfotunately I have to run, duty calls...

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:55) I would expect the legal jurisdictional questions to go to both the expert advisors and also the independent legal advisors

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:55) agree, Thomas

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:55) @Robin: absolutely right

  Matthew Shears: (15:55) AoC article 8 includes specific reference to jurisdiction - there have been calls for this to be brought into the bylaws

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:56) happy to bring those reasonings to the list and to Istanbul

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:56) The President and CEO of ICANN has promised the U.S. congress things about location.

  jorge cancio GAC: (15:56) good point of Robin

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:57) Good idea re taking to the list.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:57) To start that discussion it might help to give some ideas from co-chairs about what the content of each of those sessions might be

  Matthew Shears: (15:58) timeline is a good item for upfront discussion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:58) here's one thing we definitely have to decide at IST - our timetable forward and whether we think that we can manage with one Public Comment period as currently set out or not

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (15:58) Apologies to all for needing to sign off now.  Ciao, Suz

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:59) and if not, how we interact with ICANN in Buenos Aires

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:59) Bye Suz!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:59) timeline and next steps is on our list, I can confirm

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:59) We need more than one 20 day public comment period for workstream 1.  We are talking about re-organizing the corporation.  That's a big deal and needs more engagement than one single bite at the apple.

  Matthew Shears: (16:00) +1 Robin

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (16:00) If we conclude we are talking about reorganising the corp, as opposed to tweaking things, then we def will have to do more than one round.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:01) we are not delivering our final proposal on the timeline proposed by staff.  It is simply not possible.

  Matthew Shears: (16:01) by ICANN BA we will also need to construct a narrative as to prpogress made - expectations going forward

  Brenda Brewer: (16:02) Robin please mute your Adobe line

  Brenda Brewer: (16:02) that is great!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (16:04) The issue is the expectations set up with the Community about what we will be asking them and what comes next

  Alan Greenberg: (16:04) Need to leave. bye all.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (16:04) that is we will need to be able to *say* in our April paper that this ISN'T the only consultation, if that is what we conclude in Istanbul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (16:04) bye Alan

  James Bladel-GNSO: (16:04) Sorry folks, need to drop the call.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (16:05) Need to leave as well. Bye.

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (16:05) Thank you and bye.

  Keith Drazek: (16:07) Definitely curious about the discussions of the Expert Advisors. Aren't they supposed to be responding to the CCWG rather than coming up with their own "plans"?

  Matthew Shears: (16:07) + 1 Keith

  David McAuley (GNSO): (16:07) Good point keith

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:07) yes

  Thomas Rickert: (16:07) thanks all and bye!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegion Member: (16:08) Thanks all safe traves and see some of you in Istanbul

  Markus Kummer: (16:08) Thanks and bye! See you in Istanbul.

  Matthew Shears: (16:08) thanks all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (16:08) thanks all, bye

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (16:08) Thnx Mathieu, see you all

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (16:08) thanks all

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (16:08) bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:08) thanks, all.  bye.