CCWG ACCT Meeting #47 (30 July)
Attendees:
Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (19)
Participants: Andrew Harris, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Carlos Raul, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Martin Boyle, Mike Chartier, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer (18)
Legal Counsel: Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Nancy McGlamery, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit (6)
Staff: Adam Peake, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Kim Carlson, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings, Mary Wong, Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Eberhard Lisse, Leon Sanchez, Matthew Shears, Keith Drazek
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4alqt134b6/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1700-30jul15-en.mp3
Proposed Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. Update on voting weights discussion per legal advice
3. Review of previous call (11:00 UTC)
4. Review of XPlane graphics
5. Procedural approach for calls today and for Public Comment
A. Freeze starts on Friday 31 July at 18:00 UTC
B. Publication on Monday 3 August
6. AOB
A. Webinars on 4 & 7 August
B. Call on 4 August cancelled (replaced by webinar)
7. Closing remarks
Documents
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
Reconvening after 4h break
On audio only:
· Samantha Eisner on audio only (member)
2. Update on voting weights discussion per legal advice
· Proposal to do 5x5 + 2x2 , giving SSAC and RSSAC only 2 votes each and not 5.
·Robin Gross will file dissenting opinion on this issue. Her proposal: ratio of 2 GNSO, 2 ccNSO, 2 ASO, 1 ALAC and liaison roles for the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC
·Support for the 5x5 + 2x2 voting model? Green Ticks: 16 (+2 from Tijani Ben Jemaa and Jonathan Zuck) Red Crosses: 2
· ---> moving forward with 5x5 + 2x2 voting model
3. Review of previous call (11:00 UTC)
Human rights:
· updated text (please see page 4, 2nd row, red text).
·Greg Shatan's text suggestion: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.”
·Can you accept the language in the document? Green ticks (yes): 12 Red Cross (no): 6 + Jonathan Zuck and Tijani
·recap: include in the report a statement that our group agrees that an additional commitment to human rights in WS1 is advisable and is currently investigating a proper language.
Questions:
1. Do you want to see some human rights language in that box with an 8 and with red text.
· Green ticks (yes): avri, CLO, David, Gary, Jordan, Jorge, Julie, Mathieu, Robin, Thomas (10)
· Red crosses (no): Tijani, Izumi, Arasteh, Greg, Jonathan, Par, Steve, Samantha (8)
2. If language is included, do you prefer what is written there suggested by Keith, or do you prefer Greg's alternative?
· Green Ticks (Keith): 8
· Red Crosses (Greg): 11
· If you do not tick anything, you indicate that you don't like either text
Greg Shatan's text suggestion: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.”
Do you agree that we mention the recongnition of the human rights in the bylaws at WS1 while the details would be worked out in WS2?
· Green (yes): arasteh, Jonathan, Mathieu, Par, Robin, Thomas, Martin, Avri (8)
· Red (no): greg, Sam, Sebastien, Becky, (4)
Exec Summary
new version circulated before this call
Updates include:
· WS1 definition included
· Language to clarify that powers are escalation path
· Added mention of IFR challenge (Sabine's point)
· Removed () around Human rights WS2 issue.
· Robin's language
Action (Sebastien): send comments in writing
Action (Christopher) send comments in writing
4. Review of XPlane graphics
led by Thomas
No objections
Stress Test #18
· GAC members opposed to reference to specific government opposition
· Not enough support for removing stress test #18 altogether
Action: Delete the last 2 sentences in paragraph of document
Action: consider Kavouss' language in second to last paragraph on page 1: The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish to consider, if necessary, to amend its consensus rule to something less than “in the absence of any formal objection” while still requiring ICANN to try “to find a mutually acceptable solution.”
Independent Review Process
Deadline 16:00 UTC on Friday
5. Procedural approach for calls today and for Public Comment
· Freeze starts on Friday 31 July at 18:00 UTC
· Minority Statements are due by Saturday at 12:00 UTC
· Publication on Monday 3 August
6. AOB
Webinars on 4 & 7 August
Link to the Webinar announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-30-en
4 August from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC
7 August from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC
Webinars will be interpreted in 5 UN languages plus PT
Call on 4 August cancelled (replaced by webinar)
7. Closing remarks
Bye!!
Action Items
Action (Sebastien): send comments in writing
Action (Christopher) send comments in writing
Action: Delete the last 2 sentences in paragraph of document
Action: consider Kavouss' language in second to last paragraph on page 1: The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish to consider, if necessary, to amend its consensus rule to something less than “in the absence of any formal objection” while still requiring ICANN to try “to find a mutually acceptable solution.”
Chat Transcript
Kimberly Carlson: (7/30/2015 08:53) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #47 on 30 July! 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
Kimberly Carlson: (10:51) Hello Kavouss
arasteh: (10:51) Hi everybody
arasteh: (10:52) Hi Grace
arasteh: (10:52) Hi Brenda
arasteh: (10:52) HinKim
arasteh: (10:52) Hi everybody
Brenda Brewer: (10:52) HI Kavouss...we are calling you now!
arasteh: (10:52) Okn
Grace Abuhamad: (10:53) Hi Kavouss
arasteh: (10:53) It is 02h00 SEOUL
Kimberly Carlson: (10:53) Ouch!
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (10:53) hi grace can you dial out to me +54 11 4819 7979 thanks
Kimberly Carlson: (10:54) Olga we'll let the operator know
arasteh: (10:54) This CCWG call at this time really is a chalenge
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (10:54) thanks Kimberly
arasteh: (10:54) Olga
arasteh: (10:55) did you read my mail about the GAC STRONG VIEWS ON THGAT STRING THAT AVRI REFERRED
Holly Gregory (sidley): (10:55) Greetings all.
Rsoemary Fei: (10:56) Good morning (again), all.
arasteh: (10:57) Hio Holly
arasteh: (10:57) Hi Rosenary
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:57) Hello
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:57) hi all
Rsoemary Fei: (10:57) Hi, Kavouss.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:57) Hi all
Farzaneh Badii: (10:58) Hi
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (10:59) no Kavouss I missed it , can you resend please?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:59) Hello again
arasteh: (10:59) Geeting to all CCWG fithful and devoted members
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (11:00) Hi all!
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (11:00) Good evening from London!
Becky Burr: (11:00) Hello again all!
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:00) hi everybody!
Greg Shatan: (11:00) Hello all from rainy, hot and humid New York.
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (11:00) Hello again
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (11:01) i need a dial out!
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (11:02) im in the call thanks
arasteh: (11:02) Mathieu
arasteh: (11:03) Pls note thgat we should stop back and foirth on voting weight
David McAuley (RySG): (11:03) Mathieu that was Sam
arasteh: (11:03) WE have discussed that many times
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (11:03) I'm in both Adobe and on the phone
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:03) Hel-lo.
James Bladel: (11:03) Sorry for joining late.
arasteh: (11:04) 29 weigthing was the one that we agree pending the announcement of three ACs wether they will or not join in future
Grace Abuhamad: (11:04) ok Malcolm we will update
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:06) hello Jordan! still alive or undead by now?
arasteh: (11:06) YES THOMAS
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:06) I am not sure, Sabine
Alan Greenberg: (11:06) Thomas: "Thank you very much Leon". Clearly co-chairs are interchangeable.
arasteh: (11:07) I agree to that these individual experts appointed by ICANN SHALL not have the same weigth as those represented by the community and thus no blocking shouyld occur because of this no of weight
Malcolm Hutty: (11:08) Sorry
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:08) Along with some cool noises.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:09) the ratio of 2 GNSO, 2 ccNSO, 2 ASO, 1 ALAC and liaison roles for the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:09) @Jordan all I hope for is this not being the afterlife
David McAuley (RySG): (11:09) My colleague Keith, who cannot be on this call, made a suggestion to the list supporting 5x5, 2x2 for the next public comment period (with further discussion needed). The RySG supported this during public comment period #1. This seems like a very sensible suggestion and I would like to note Keith’s point if we take a “sense of the room” tally. Keith and I are both long-standing participants in CCWG, and Keith is also ICG liaison.
Carlos Raul: (11:12) hard to understand
CLO: (11:12) I seriously doubt you wanna uld get sign off as a CO from ALAC under this 'suggestion' from Robyn
arasteh: (11:15) Olga +1
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (11:15) +1 Olga
arasteh: (11:15) Alan+ 1
CLO: (11:15) to say the LEAST. Alan
James Bladel: (11:15) Just for my understanding: We are proposing converting governments in to voting members of the Community?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:15) yep.....
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:16) James : we are leaving the door open if they chose to join
David McAuley (RySG): (11:16) also getting echo, adio issues, though minor ones
David McAuley (RySG): (11:16) audio, that is
Alan Greenberg: (11:16) James, we are not proposing that. It was proposedabout 9 months ago.
Becky Burr: (11:16) @James - GAC has not reached consensus on whether or not it wants to vote
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:16) the open door policy seems sensible for the time being
arasteh: (11:16) We are treatingf governments equally like any other communitry in exercising their rights in regard with the ICANN Activities
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:17) Kavouss: yep we are.
arasteh: (11:17) I do not thus understand the argument of SOME PEOPLE
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:18) Five each for ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC, GAC
Hillary Jett: (11:18) All, a reminder, if you are not speaking can you please mute your lines?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:18) Two each for RSSAC and SSAC
arasteh: (11:18) Jordan + 1
arasteh: (11:18) 5 for GAC
David McAuley (RySG): (11:18) Thomas, Keith asked me to note his support for 5x5, 2x2
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:19) sixteen greens, two reds
Avri Doria: (11:19) so it does not matter what model other than 5x5 2x2 we support. we got red cross.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:19) you're right, Avri
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (11:19) SSAC can comment in response to 2nd draft should they so choose.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:20) Note: In the board composition model, It is the ratio of 2 GNSO, 2 ccNSO, 2 ASO, 1 ALAC, and liaison roles for the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC that I'm seeking (rather than actual votes). So it would probably make most sense for the number of actual votes to come out as 4 GNSO, 4 ccNSO, 4 ASO, 2 ALAC, and liaison roles for the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC.
Alan Greenberg: (11:21) @Robin, for clarity, what does a Liaison mean in this context?
arasteh: (11:21) Robin
Holly Gregory (sidley): (11:21) how did the IRP doc circulate. We have not seen
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:22) there are no liaison roles in a vote counting mechanism
Sébastien (ALAC): (11:22) I would liek to talk about the executive summary
Grace Abuhamad: (11:22) one minute please Holly and we will update our Wiki page
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:22) the liaising would have to happen through the ICANN community forum or such like
Grace Abuhamad: (11:22) it was circulated to WP2. Lawyers are not on that list
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:22) it means to remain in an advisory role (rather than voting).
Becky Burr: (11:24) apologies Holly - it is a mark up from the Initial Draft Report reflecting modified checklist
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:24) Please remove your ticks
Grace Abuhamad: (11:24) This page is now updated with latest IRP doc
Grace Abuhamad: (11:24) https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/9AzTBQ
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:24) and crosses
Becky Burr: (11:24) can we put up the language Brenda
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:24) Don't random tick or cross.
Grace Abuhamad: (11:24) Becky do you want IRP language? or Mission?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (11:24) Mission
arasteh: (11:24) pls put the text o/n the scr een
Becky Burr: (11:24) Mission - that has the new language on HR
Grace Abuhamad: (11:25) doe
Grace Abuhamad: (11:25) done
Becky Burr: (11:25) commitment 8
Greg Shatan: (11:25) "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.”
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:25) sounds like a starting point
David McAuley (RySG): (11:26) I'm lost, what page is new language on
Grace Abuhamad: (11:26) Page 4
David McAuley (RySG): (11:26) thanks Mathieu
Holly Gregory (sidley): (11:27) could someone put the relevant page on screen?
arasteh: (11:27) Grec +1
Grace Abuhamad: (11:27) It's an unsynced document @Holly. Page 4 2nd row, in red
David McAuley (RySG): (11:28) thanks Grace
arasteh: (11:28) PLS be mindful of those which invoked and incite some section of the society b
arasteh: (11:28) I agree with Grec Proposal
Carlos Raul: (11:29) hardly
Samantha Eisner: (11:29) I register my same concern that I flagged earlier today - the Bylaws are a key governance document of the organization. We should not be putting new langauge and new concepts into teh Bylaws at the last minute, particularly where we have agreement that we still need details. There are high possibiliites of unintended consequences
Becky Burr: (11:29) I think Greg's language is significantly broader than the language we discussed this morning
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:30) This proposal is for a public comment report.
Farzaneh Badii: (11:30) be careful of what? we cannot mention human rights?
Mary Wong: (11:30) Sorry, but pleaes clarify - the language in black and in red seems identical at the moment?
Carlos Raul: (11:30) fundamental human rights, full stop is what I heard
David McAuley (RySG): (11:31) Keith's proposal was: Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information.
Farzaneh Badii: (11:31) United Nations is not the world!
Avri Doria: (11:31) not that we not single out free expression a free flow of information.
Christopher Wilkinson: (11:31) @co-chairs: I withdraw my comment in the previous call in favour of an improvement. CW
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:31) @Greg - great drafting on this point!
arasteh: (11:31) pls stop Grec proposal after fundamental rights and not futher expand this
Samantha Eisner: (11:32) We have different understandings of what we mean by human rights, or how inserting language on human rights as a core value in the Bylaws could make ICANN susceptible to IRPs based on how people allege ICANN follows or does not follow a particular human rights
arasteh: (11:33) Mathieu
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:33) I think Greg's wording is a good basis for generating a good debate during the public comment period
arasteh: (11:33) It is perfect. It is high level and covering the issue in a smooth and clear manner
Greg Shatan: (11:33) Please note that IPC has continuing concerns even with this language. But this is sufficient to allow IPC not to consider the highest level of dissent.
Becky Burr: (11:34) I agree with Sam's concern about exposing ICANN too much
Greg Shatan: (11:34) Someone violated James's right of free expression.
arasteh: (11:34) Once again
Samantha Eisner: (11:34) Got it, James
Becky Burr: (11:34) "fundamental human rights" is very broad and each country decides how to apply
arasteh: (11:35) Pls put full stop after " Rights"
Avri Doria: (11:35) i would hope there was ntohing in the RA or the RAA that contravenes internationally agreed human rights, i.e. the Internationa bill of rights, udhr, iccpr & icescr.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:35) I think ICANN would absolutely have to rexamine RA and RAA if this language is added because Board mus uphold on all its operations.
James Bladel: (11:35) Thanks Sam. I'm looking specifically at RAA Sec. 6.1 "Special Amendments"
James Bladel: (11:36) @Avri - probably not. But neither would I want to open up those agreements to the universe of human rights issues. Espeically if that is not our intention.
arasteh: (11:36) We do not agree to put any thing after "Rights"
David McAuley (RySG): (11:36) I take it sense of room will be red language on page 4 and Greg's language
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:37) Creep is intended vI think
Samantha Eisner: (11:37) Avri, there is nothing in the agreement that contravenes such rights. But I understand James' question to be more about does this open up the ability for human rights to serve as a basis for driving new provisions into the contracts that are already in force
Greg Shatan: (11:37) Becky: That's why "internationally recognized" was added. We also considered "universally recognized." or a reference to International Treaties.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:37) there are a little over two months until we have to finalise the paper
James Bladel: (11:38) Sam - thanks. That's it.
arasteh: (11:38) Mthieu
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:38) can we ge tthe advice we need to know exactly how to do this properly without bad effects between now and then?
arasteh: (11:38) If there is noi agreement
Avri Doria: (11:38) i do not think there are any intended consequences. and i stil think we need ws2 work to fully understand what the implicatosn are. for example we have not yet committed to human right impact assesments..
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:38) alongside agreeing to put it in, in the current PC report?
arasteh: (11:38) bdelete paragreaph 8
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:38) U.S. Convention also respects fundamental rights of authors.
Avri Doria: (11:38) i thinnk those IDRs, if there were any, would be seen as frivolous.
Avri Doria: (11:39) i mean irps.
arasteh: (11:39) Mathieu
arasteh: (11:39) This a super sensitive and delicate issue
arasteh: (11:39) Pls stop after " Rights"
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:40) so is it Keith's language or Greg's language we are voting on?
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:40) Sorry - I mean United Nations - U.N. Convention - not US Convention. There is an article regardingk respecting rights of authors as a fundamental human right.
Avri Doria: (11:40) they are both the same
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:40) yes
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:40) what if I can live with either Keith or Greg's language.
Christopher Wilkinson: (11:40) Actually there is nothing in red on my screen. I believe that I am following the discussion notwithstandng. CW
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:40) what is being voted?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:40) so tick for the language
Avri Doria: (11:40) black and red are the same
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:40) or red for no
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:41) yes, we have all noticed that
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:41) let's vote for both separately or against each other
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:41) they are precisely identical
Becky Burr: (11:41) sorry - the right and left are the same in this case. It is proposed to add to Initial Draft Report language
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:41) I can't vote on this.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:41) i have 12 and 6
Avri Doria: (11:42) i can accept both formulations as lnog as it is in the bylaws. the shorter one is better to my mind..
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:42) 12/7
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:42) anyone can use this function
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:42) we have a number of NCSG members who are not on this call but support human rights inclusion.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:42) "Attendee Status View"
James Bladel: (11:42) Now it's 12/5
Carlos Raul: (11:42) @robin but some are only participants
Carlos Raul: (11:42) not members
arasteh: (11:43) ThomaS
arasteh: (11:43) mATHIEU
arasteh: (11:43) lEON
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:43) 13/8
arasteh: (11:43) we can not porceed with such divergence of view
jorge villa (ASO): (11:43) As I can understand, we are voting for the writing not for the respect of human rights. That's right?
Greg Shatan: (11:43) Why aren't we supporting any other human rights?
arasteh: (11:43) There is NO CONSENSUS
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:43) can we vote on Greg's language?
Carlos Raul: (11:44) can articipants also vote? or only members?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:44) 14/8
Grace Abuhamad: (11:44) anycone can participate in straw poll
arasteh: (11:44) CANCEL PARA 8
Carlos Raul: (11:44) txs grace
arasteh: (11:44) Vote foir that
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:44) Please read Greg's draft again and vote on yhat
Megan Richards 2: (11:45) could the lawyers check whether this wording limits the provisions that already exist in the articles of incorporation ?
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:46) this is an unclear vote call
David McAuley (RySG): (11:46) Mathieu the however formulated language is hard to assess
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (11:46) there is a window
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:46) the question is some language
David McAuley (RySG): (11:46) "the text" needs definition in poll
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:46) isn't it?
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:47) Please conduct poll baSED on Greg's draft
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (11:47) NON SPECIFIC so far
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (11:47) "the" text, or "any" text on HR?
Greg Shatan: (11:47) "Any" text.
CLO: (11:47) any
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:47) can we please vote on Greg's language?
arasteh: (11:47) Thomas
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:47) agree with Thomas
arasteh: (11:47) Specific language is
jorge villa (ASO): (11:48) @Rosemary I asked the same thing previously but no answer
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:48) Greg's suggested text was: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.”
arasteh: (11:48) deletion of paragraPH 8
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:48) Thanks Steve!
arasteh: (11:48) Thomas Rickert + 1
Avri Doria: (11:48) ok ia mguess i am back to full dissent
Grace Abuhamad: (11:48) We've clarified the question. please resubmit your poll answer
Greg Shatan: (11:48) core commitments = Core Values of the ICANN Bylaws?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:48) I'm also back to dissent if we are changing this based on this poll.
Christopher Wilkinson: (11:48) I thought we were voting on the text that ends with "... human rights."
CLO: (11:49) see the new poll language
Avri Doria: (11:49) i hav to go teach now. i cannot beleive you are iunwidning this. i am very distressed and will file a dissenting view if we remove the langauge.
jorge cancio (GAC): (11:49) +1 to robin
Carlos Raul: (11:49) agree with Robin
Christopher Wilkinson: (11:49) @Robin +1
David McAuley (RySG): (11:50) Would it be feasible for pro and con members to get together and submit issue after proposal (as soon as possible) that would allow for a full statement about issue – proposal could state this is coming
Carlos Raul: (11:50) this is very strange....
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:50) agree with Robin
Avri Doria: (11:50) please add a plus one for me on language in the bylaws that includes human rights. Greg's is better.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:50) we have the language before us.
Carlos Raul: (11:50) I also have to leave in 10 minutes
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:50) why hold up the vote?
Carlos Raul: (11:50) support GREG
arasteh: (11:50) Robiun
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:50) This is inappropriate.
Avri Doria: (11:51) but i accept Keith's. I will diesstn and recommend rejection of the proposal if we do not include human rights in the bylaws.
James Bladel: (11:51) Agree with Robin - why wouldn't we proceed with Greg's language?
Carlos Raul: (11:51) +1 @ Robin +1 @ james +1 Gregs text
Carlos Raul: (11:51) why are we changing the flow?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:51) We had a 16-4 vote this morning supporting Keith's compromise. Greg came up with language to address the concerns of those 4. This is unacceptable to game the process this way.
James Bladel: (11:52) Who is gaming this? It just seems fragmented & confused.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:52) agree with James and Robin and Avri as to straw poll on Greg's language
Carlos Raul: (11:52) +1 @ james
arasteh: (11:52) the alphabet ofd voting is that the amendment should be put t
arasteh: (11:52) to vote
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:53) Lets give the co-chairs and staff a few minutes to frame the HR question, okay?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:54) that was Holly's proposal :)
Holly Gregory (sidley): (11:54) These powers are intended to provide recourse as part of an escalationpath in case of substantial disagreement between the Board and the community. They do notinterfere with the day-to-day operations of ICANN. Suggest change in last sentence to "They are not intended to interfere" ...
James Bladel: (11:55) I have to drop at the top of hte hour. Apologies.
Holly Gregory (sidley): (11:55) +1 Sabine!
Holly Gregory (sidley): (11:56) On page 2 it reads "These powers are intended to provide recourse as part of an escalationpath in case of substantial disagreement between the Board and the community. They do notinterfere with the day-to-day operations of ICANN. Suggest change in last sentence to "They are not intended to interfere" ...
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:56) I had an issue with taht part too, but without providing a specific suggestion.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: (11:58) sorry but i must board a plane. good luck all! Anne
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (11:58) have a safe flight!
Holly Gregory (sidley): (12:00) Just lost audio
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (12:00) Kavous is so soft
Greg Shatan: (12:01) That's a first....
Carlos Raul: (12:03) :)
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (12:03) Extra "the" in the intro text, near end.
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (12:03) That's on Slide 2
Roel Uleners (XPLANE): (12:05) WIll fix. Thank you, Rosemary
Christopher Wilkinson: (12:10) A general point: 'significant concern' and the 'trigger' must be _MOTIVIATED_
Julie Hammer (SSAC): (12:10) It would be helpful if Slide 13 made it clear that SO/ACs can join the discussion whether they have votes in the CMSM or not.
CLO: (12:11) good point Julie
Greg Shatan: (12:12) I see 7 ticks.
Greg Shatan: (12:12) And no fleas.
Greg Shatan: (12:12) Is there still a question whether the IRP meets the CWG's needs?
Becky Burr: (12:13) needs to reflect ASO decision not to utilize IRP
arasteh: (12:13) Thomas
Hillary Jett: (12:13) @Greg, this slide has not been fully developed. We are still working on finishing it, we just wanted to have something to provide for today's call
Greg Shatan: (12:13) Hillary: Check.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:14) Tick
arasteh: (12:14) PLS spell out CMSM when APPEARS FIRST
Sébastien (ALAC): (12:15) the same for all the accronisms
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:15) Kavouss, I think all of that will happen in the proof reading :-)
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:15) Note: the quoted text at top is frm ICANN's present Articles of Incorporation, not the Bylaws.
Becky Burr: (12:16) it is in the revised Mission, Commitments & Core Values Steve
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:16) So if we have no lingo here (here = core commitments), it's still in the founding document
Becky Burr: (12:16) yes Jordan
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:16) both places, then. Belts AND Suspenders. Question is, does that include UN Declaration of Human Rights? I think so
Becky Burr: (12:17) yes, i've circulated Jack Goldsmith's analysis
David McAuley (RySG): (12:17) thank you for interim work on framing questions
Greg Shatan: (12:19) Nought crosses.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:19) it seems confusing to pose the question on Keith's language as a "negative" vote with "do you support removing" the language.
Greg Shatan: (12:19) or should that be "now't crosses"? WIth apologies to any Lancashiremen....
Becky Burr: (12:21) that's percentages
Greg Shatan: (12:21) This is why "survey experts" get paid the big bucks.
David McAuley (RySG): (12:21) Keith, obviously, would support his language
David McAuley (RySG): (12:21) and he is not on call but asked me to note that
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:22) @David would keith support Greg's language?
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:22) no it is not
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:22) these polls are not very transparent. we can't see how our colleagues are voting.
Becky Burr: (12:23) anyway this is not voting
Farzaneh Badii: (12:23) because wevoted against the language not the value of hugman rights!
Holly Gregory (sidley): (12:23) I think some people thought the first proposal was simply to delete language and not have any language
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:24) Why wasn't Keth's language stated in a positive way? Given the language barriers, it seems easy for people to be confused and think a YES vote is for the language they see on the screen.
Greg Shatan: (12:25) Maybe we should have a rank order poll?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:25) I object to the framing of these polls and the weight that is being assigned. Very arbitrary.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:25) I wish we could have tested which of the two languages was preferred, and then do an up or down - that preferred language or nothing
Greg Shatan: (12:26) Agree with Jordan.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:26) i think that's what we did but it was unclear
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:26) That would have been fair, Jordan. What we did was not fair.
Greg Shatan: (12:26) Or we could use digital archery to make our decision.
Alan Greenberg: (12:26) Every time a WG resorts to adobe polling, we seem to descend to chaos (just a historical perspective!)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:26) I'm not voting on the 3rd item because these polls are rigged.
Christopher Wilkinson: (12:27) The word 'towards' is unnecessarily weak.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:27) why are we voting in secret? we should see how our representatives are voting.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:27) GOsh, I am glad we haven't used this polling before
Becky Burr: (12:27) just shows the value of a consensus based approach
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:27) @Jordan, yep poll design is pretty critical
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:28) it's a fun feature of adobe connecct though !
Malcolm Hutty: (12:28) If we're going to say something, I don't see how we're going to do better than Keith's option. It is the most clear and specific we are likely to get
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:28) I will file a minority report if human rights are being left out.
Alan Greenberg: (12:28) @Jonathan, you have a curious definition of "fun"
Greg Shatan: (12:29) My preferred option "won," and yet I'm unhappy.
CLO: (12:29) it was to assist ease in counting and clarity of questions after the earlier debarcle @robyn but for the record I voted. No , Yes , yes
Greg Shatan: (12:29) I think this shows why voting and consensus are antithetical concepts.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:29) No one is happy with what just happened.
Greg Shatan: (12:30) To achieve consensus, sometimes you have to accept a little "no".
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (12:30) as the AC froze me out at the pivotal moment: how are we moving forward?
Greg Shatan: (12:30) But in a vote, you will tend to move back to your corner.
David McAuley (RySG): (12:30) Gre, wasn't outcome to go to option 3?
David McAuley (RySG): (12:30) Greg, that is
Avri Doria: (12:31) this is quite outrageous.
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:31) Just to clarify: definition of consensus in the GAC Operating <principles stems from a 2011 reform.
David McAuley (RySG): (12:31) We should get pro and con people together to work on a statement to follow proposal - and suggest way forward, happy to volunteer
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:31) The framing of these questions would be an interesting subject for "how to game the system" to kill human rights.
Greg Shatan: (12:31) It was. Which is what I personally support. But I'm not sure it achieves our larger goals.
David McAuley (RySG): (12:32) ok, I see
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:32) before 2011 if my recollection is right, there was only a mention of consensu without any further definition
CLO: (12:32) that is what it says
CLO: (12:32) leave it to the GAC
Becky Burr: (12:32) that's what this does Jorge
Becky Burr: (12:32) however you define consensus in the GAC
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:33) the gac can do whatever it wants
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:33) HR supporters were not able to be on this call and HR is out of the report? What a rigged system.
Mary Wong: (12:33) The GAC Operating Principles were last amended in October 2011, at the Dakar meeting.
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:33) it is NOT an issue of GAC. It is about what ICANN has to do in response to GAC.
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:33) it's not Steve, it's a significant majority of the ccwg
Greg Shatan: (12:33) GAC can vote as it wants. But it shouldn't expect the Board to give the same level of deference to a majority vote as to current consensus.
CLO: (12:33) we have a ST- WP
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:33) just giving some background
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:34) +1 Olga
Becky Burr: (12:34) yes, the GAC has full authority to make decisions however it likes
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:35) The U.S. does not interpet this stress test as dictating to the GAC; rather, it is directed to the Board's response to less than consensus GAC advice. The long standing practice of the GAC has been consensus-based public policy advice, which was formalizedin response to the ATRT recommendation that the GAC clearly state how it arrives at its policy advice
CLO: (12:35) exactly Suzanne
Becky Burr: (12:35) all other groups operate by consensus, in any case
Philip Corwin: (12:35) This is not about interfering with GAC internal procedures. It is about what deference the Board would owe to GAC advice rendered by mere majority vote. Failing to address this effectively opens up the possibility of governmental dominance of ICANN in the future.
Greg Shatan: (12:36) On HR, we should have voted for what we can live with, not for what we wanted.
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:38) Just to state once again that GAC is still trying to reach a common position on this topic
CLO: (12:38) suggest a rephrase
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:38) @Olga -- can you suggest a phrase that you would prefer?
Becky Burr: (12:38) yes greg, although i'm not sure we would have come out in a different place
Jordan Carter (.nz, rapporteur): (12:38) "It is noted that during a discussion in finalising this Report, representatieves from....
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:38) We were attempting to note your Dissent, which was what I thought you asked for this morning
David McAuley (RySG): (12:38) The three named countries "among others"?
Greg Shatan: (12:39) Eliminating the stress test itself means not acknowledging the issue.
arasteh: (12:39) Olga +1
Becky Burr: (12:39) this has no impact on how the GAC does its work
CLO: (12:39) AT-18 can not just suddenly be deleted ans we have had that clear from NTIA in Paris
CLO: (12:40) AT should read ST
CLO: (12:40) exactly Jordan
Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:40) +1 Jordan
Becky Burr: (12:40) +1 Jordan
Malcolm Hutty: (12:41) We cannot remove any stress tests: stress tests are our tool for understanding what others will think. Removing them does not persuade anyone, it just blinds us to the fact that we will not gain consensus support from the wider community
CLO: (12:41) exactly Malcolm
Greg Shatan: (12:41) What if we change the word "The" at the beginning of j. to "All".?
Becky Burr: (12:42) correct, and if we remove this language we fail stress test 18
CLO: (12:42) yup
Malcolm Hutty: (12:42) well said Jordan
Megan Richards: (12:42) is there another way of looking at this? that is by indicating different considerations by the ICANN board of advice from GAC depending on whether advice is consensus, simple majority or large majority. This becomes quite complicated of course but is it a way out ?
jorge cancio (GAC): (12:42) I dn't think we are talking about binary options