Day 1 Meeting #55 PM Session (25 September)

Attendees:  

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eberhard Lisse, Jordan Carter, Mathieu Weill, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jorge Villa, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (23) 

Participants:   Allan MacGillivray, Akinbo Adebunmi, Amitra Choudhury, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Carlos Raul Gutiérrez, Christopher Wilkinson, David Cake, David Maher, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Fiona Alexander, Greg DiBiase, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kieren McCarthy, Larry Strickling, Marilia Maciel, Mark Carvell, Megan Richards, Michael Niebel, Mike Chartier, Nathalie Coupet, Niels ten Oever, Nigel Roberts, Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Qusai AlShatty, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Sabine Meyer, Selina, Seun Ojedeji, Snehashish Ghosh, Stephen Deerhake, Tapani Tarvainen, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Young-Eum Lee   (52)

Board Members:  Asha Hemrajani, Bruce Tonkin, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Fadi Chehadi, George Sadowski, Jonne Soininen, Kuo Wu, Markus Kummer, Mike Silber, Ram Mohan, Ray Plzak, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter  (15)

Advisors:  Jan Scholte, Ira Magaziner

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Greg Colvin, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit  (7)

Guests:  Adiel Akplogan, Ahmed Osama, Akram Atallah, Albert Daniels, Alex Deacon, Amirita, Ana, Anne-Rachel Inne, Ariel Liang, Bret Fausett, Carl H. Schrita, Carlton Samuels, Christopher Mondini, Chuck Motter, Claudio, Daniel Fink, David Conrad, David Olive, Dagezelle Wim, Dave King, David R Johnson, Dexter Gerig, Duncan Burns, Eduardo Diaz, Eleeza Agopian, Emily Pimentel, Emylle Varela, Gisella Gruber, Gordon Chillcott, Graham Schreiber, Heidi Ullrich, Jamie Hedlund, Jenifer Chung, Jim Prendergast, John Demco, John Jeffrey, John Poole, Jonathan Robinson, Joseph Wright, Joy Liddicoat, Justin, Kevin Espinola, Kevin Murphy, Karen Mulberry, Karine Perset, Karyn Menck, Kate Wallace, Konstantinos Komaitis, Lisa Pearlman, Louise, Mariano Mejía, Mary Uduma, M Ermert, Michele Neylon, Michelle Bright, Mohamed El Bashir, Mongi Marzoug, Naela Sarras, Ole Jacobsen, Patricio Poblete, Patrik Fältström, Philadel Yeo, Reg Levy, Rodrigo de la Parra, Rubens Kuhl, Sara Bockey, Scott Harlan, Sean Wilke, Tapani Tarvainen, Tarek Kamel, Taylor Bentley, Teres Elias, Theo Geurts, Vicky Risk, Wim Degezelle   (75)

Staff:  Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Laina Rahim, Marika Koning, Nancy Lupiano, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen

Apologies:  Paul Rosenzweig, Matthew Shears, Julie Hammer, Ken Salaets

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Transcript

• Transcript CCWG-Accountability Meeting - Day 1-EN.pdf 
  AM Session:  pages 1 - 131
  PM Session:  pages 132 - 285

Recording

• The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  
  Part 1:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8hyor3thud/   
  Part 2:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p91tasum8m0/

   

• The audio recording is available here:  
  Part 1:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-3-25sep15-en.mp3
  Part 2:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-4-25sep15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

•  

  • Community Forum

  • Affirmation of Commitments

  • Appeals Mechanisms

  • Principles

•  

  • Model and Voting

  • Stress Tests

  • Human Rights

Notes

Power to Remove Individual Board Director

- If an SO/AC plans to remove a Director, we suggest they make a public statement and provide a rationale. The Director person should be given the opportunity to respond. This would provide additional accountability: the community cannot secretly dismiss a person.

Feedback

- Board members would be able to appeal this decision. There needs to be a valid reason but it does not have to be justifiable i.e. a different mindset is not something you can prove in court.

- A Board member could use the IRP to challenge decision – e.g process was violated.

- We need something constructive and objective.

- We have compared it to notion of employment law. It will be arbitrary.  

- The details depend on how you do it. Each SO/AC can respond on simple majority. Does GNSO split its right in two? Contracting/non contracting. There needs to be clear explanation.

à The process is giving the Director a right to respond. It was intentioned that the cause for or motive were exposed. We need to get into level of details of how various SO/ACs make decisions. To get to that level of detail, we would first need to confirm that this is something all are comfortable working with.

- How does it affect the community forum? SO/AC initiates the process to remove a Board member appointed by SO/AC. Community forum is conveyed and Board member is in room to defend himself. What if community determines that SO/AC initiated the process is not in interest of community? Does this mean that SO/AC will continue irrespective of forum. What is for purpose of forum?
à It would be a matter of transparency to prevent secret discussions.

- Issues need to be clear. Document looks extremely complicated. Can we look at proposal and see how we can simplify?

à We will strive to simplicity

- According to the Charter, consensus should be among consensus of group.

- Board member must be given opportunity to be heard by members but you can’t delegate decision-making to a third party such as IRP. It will affect process.

- Support SO/AC removing own director but concerns about identifying causes (potential for ultimate liable suits). We need to have laundry list for why we are dismissing them just as we should have them for why we are appointing them.

- Due process is needed but don't see difference between this and public limited company.

- The Board has collegial responsibility to perform and to ensure safety of global interest in exercise of duties.

- A Board member has responsibility to act in public interest, not in the interest of one stakeholder. OK for the SO/AC to petition but what you are proposing is capture. It should be a community decision. You are creating two classes of citizens. Would the treatment be the same for NomCom members? This process should apply to all Board members – no distinction should be made.

- We need to be careful about what we want to do when dismissing board member.

On Community Forum

- Mutual accountability is important.

- More detail is needed on notion of public accountability forum i.e. concrete suggestions about areas that need formalized. How much formalization of that input should happen? Should the discussion be submitted in writing by a neutral rapporteur and be circulated to SO/AC. Open observation and participation in the community forum. Specificities about level of details is requirement. Note: Government representatives have requested a 90-day discussion but that would be slowing down processes.

Feedback:

- Is it intended to make a clear mandate of what issues can come to community forum or is it for SO/AC to bring any issues?

à It would be a know body of people that would not meet unless a procedure was happening that required it to. Details to be fleshed out.

- Is this a standing process? Would this be a mandated process?

à No one has suggested so far that these powers should only be exercised in a timeframe that lets the discussion happen at an ICANN meeting.

- More detail is needed on funding and composition. Context around that needs to be fleshed out.

- Forum is a floor of discussion – it is not a decision-making body.

- Agree to a standing panel called when necessary. Each SO/AC could choose members by their own means of choosing. Would there be people selection from at large, similar to NomCom? What would the terms be? Would there be term limits?  Would this group function like a grand jury in that it returns indictments?

- The community forum falls within the discussion phase. If we were to move with CMSM – how could discussions in community forum include member group? How would those interplay and would there be obligations?

-.3 does not say it is a standing body and says that it would be open to participation of all community. There are open points that are being presumed. Idea of having preselected panel may not be the girth approach – they should be picked at the time.

- Goals of forum are to allow for conversation. We need a process. Put facts on table i.e. subsequent possibilities of interaction among all SO/ACs and open to participants/observers. It would be good for process to be facilitated by neutral body.

- Consider comments stressing that complexity is increasing. Let’s not forget we are here for the transition.

- We have three ICANN meetings a year and suggest using that structure in. How do you meet between ICANN public meetings?

- The forum will be a process. What are the consequences if GAC makes recommendations on public interest group that is a variation?

Conclusion:

- Let’s not discuss which model is preferable. The concept needs to be in place.

- Let’s avoid decisions being made in silos. Support for idea of there being discussion is important. There is an ongoing desire for detail and simplicity.

On Incorporation of Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN Bylaws & Jurisdiction

- AoC is a commitment ICANN made that should be brought into Bylaws.

- On ATRT: Whether ATRT should be able to handle Work stream 2 – to extent it is a requirement – it may not work – there will no obligation to implement information that flowed out of an ATRT.

Feedback:

- There is different between AoC language on jurisdiction and what article is. The key distinction is “remain” – article says it “is”. If we are not taking it in – we will need answer. That is a change.

à It cannot change without amendments to articles of incorporation. If word remain has special meaning, shall is all over bylaws. They have meaning. We had better put remain in every word.

- Support suggestion that 5-year cycle starts when results are presented.

- If ICANN were to move to another jurisdiction, it would take a lot more than changing one article in its article of incorporation and a line in its Bylaws. It would require a change in domicile/structure as well as redrafting. It is not easy. We only have a current statement of fact, not a commitment not to change. Friction to change would be extremely high.

- Incorporation has possibility to wind itself up. Don't see how can build in Bylaw. Guarantee is needed.  

- Shall means it is mandatory. 

Conclusion:

- We can feel positive about this. Community agreement.

On Appeals Mechanisms

Feedback:

- Board wanted to demonstrate that there were separate standards in the sense of costs and we want to draw a line to shoe there was a specific process for community-based use of arbitration rather than the singular use of arbitration.

- Would IRP be available if single member was attempting to impose an outcome inconsistent with bylaws obligations?

- ICANN suggestions mention a wish for a standard review that was in place pre-April 2013. Why? Clarification also needed on “consistently”. 

- Does it matter for a decision to be binding? Does it matter whether we are a membership organization and that the membership standing entity brough the IRp or can all that be handled by holdings and agreement to abide by arbitration?

à Shared responsibility for making decisions is relevant. Membership model allows shared responsibility for making decisions relevant to certain aspects that fall within the Board’s fiduciary obligations. It gives affirmative authority to the community with respect to making decisions. With respect to statutory membership powers, membership model has fewer questions about enforceability.

NTIA Remarks

Hard work is being put in this initiative. Nobody should get discouraged or be frustrated. This is the group that has come together to solve issues. You should polish off a couple of issues and practice techniques. As everybody matures, we will continue to help and support in anyway we can. We do not have a view that a particular approach is ok or not. We need to see thoroughness – it is not there yet. We need to think through a process that makes everybody rise to occasion.

à We are going to review our list of consensus/disagreement and obtain confirmation on requirements. This approach will help us bridge gaps. If we remove concerns – we will be making progress

On Appeals Mechanisms

Feedback:

- We have to come to a single agreement. Compromise will be needed – standards will need to be lowered. Board suggested that it should go to panel. There needs to be outcome associated with IRP.

à Details on how decisions would be reached and parameters around that need further work.

- Suggest you may want a different skillset for governance arbitration in respect to community powers. This could be under same heading as IRP but you might need to have a separate standing panel or alternatively a standing panel that has a split in different experiences that you might need for different types of arbitration.

- We could have the same process with different standing panels. We need different skill sets for arbitrator for governance staff or fiduciary duties rather than other issues brought in front of the IRP. Seeking the group’s agreement that we use the same process but establish two separate standing panels that would be called upon when a set of specific questions is asked.

- Uncertain MEM and IRP necessarily need different panel. Issues considered by the MEM and IRP sit along a spectrum. The distinction between MEM and IRP may be rather technical.

- Is it meant that the MEM issue group outcome will be submitted to that standing panel which is different from IRP?  I agree there should be two. Clarification needed on standard of review.

à The 2013 standard was a substantive standard of whether ICANN was abiding by its Bylaws or not, as opposed to the more procedural did ICANN have good faith? There are a lot of bells and whistles that would to be answered to revert to 2013 standard. Understanding that Board agreed the standard of review would be de novo. Prior to 2013, that was not the position ICANN legal had taken in independent reviews. It was the position IRP panels had felt was appropriate reading of language but that was under dispute. We would need to understand first. What does it mean to return to the 2013 standard? What does it mean with respect to the text of mission, commitments and core values? The standard we have proposed is not fundamentally different than the 2013 standard. The comment is also referring to an interim standard that adopts pieces including substance review piece.

- Diversity must apply. 

Action Items

Documents Presented

• ICANNCommunityForum-WP1WorkingDocument.pdf

• IRP Slide.pdf
  
  
  

Chat Transcript

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Enjoy lunch !

  Hillary Jett:@All, we will need to refresh the Adobe Room during lunch. So please re-login when returning. Thank you!

  Theo Geurts:thanks

  Becky Burr:hello anyone - what time are we recommencing?

  Avri Doria:allegedly in a minute.

  Avri Doria:he he

  Jim Prendergast:"allegedly"  i like that

  Becky Burr:and are we on schedule?

  Avri Doria:well it is at least 3 minutes since the chair who give up our 2 minute meeting aren't at their dais yet.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:@Becky - no - but people drifting in room

  nigel hickson:Just time for a coffee

  Jeff Neuman:It looks like everyone is huddled in the corner of the room

  Jeff Neuman:The group is acting like it got a lot accomplished in the morning ;)

  Brenda Brewer:We will begin in 2 minutes!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Kia ora ano - hello again :)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Hello hello

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:It is like deja vu all over again.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Bravo Thomas, that needed to be said.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think Thomases suggested wbut without the IRP section is a good idea to flesh out in more detail.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:better messaging seems to be required on this removal of Directors issue  to make *clear* what the current proposal says or provides for...  IMO

  Carlton Samuels:Unless we change the construct of who the Board memebr is accountable once elected then there is a problem.

  Keith Drazek:There will only be one proposal.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:the process is NOT that competing proposals go to NTIA.  It simply isn't true.

  Seun Ojedeji:I think Thomas is missing the fact that the community forum by the current proposal have power on the decision of an AC/SO to remove individual board member

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:No there will not be 2 proposals

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:And th community shares those 17 years of experience with ICANN its not 1 vs the other.

  Keith Drazek:We need constructive suggestions on how to address the questions and concerns raised by the public comments.

  Jeff Neuman:17 years of experience with the NTIA as a backstop....0 years of experience withoutr

  Seun Ojedeji:Edit: I think Thomas is missing the fact that the community forum by the current proposal does not have power on the decision of an AC/SO to remove individual board member

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Seun it doesnt need it, in our proposal the ACSO has the right to remove its own Director. The suggestion is around transparency and accountability of why.

  Seun Ojedeji:James and if the other community think the reason(why) is not convincing enough then would the SO/AC stop the removal process?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:I'm fine with that style of rational Avri...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:That would be the point of the discussion. But many of us feel that the final right sits with the appointing SO/AC. But there can be a commmunity diolgue over it yes of course.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Our proposal says the GNSO is split and each house can remove their own director

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:yup

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Many of the questions Chris is asking are set out in the report already

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes this is clear already

  Chris Disspain:I know Jordan but some members of the ccwg don't appear to undertand

  Seun Ojedeji:@James you are getting to my question but not there yet. If after the community dialogue and the community have a view that the reason for the removal of the individual board director is not in the interest of the community then does the SO/AC that initiated the process stop?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:That would be up to the initiating SO/AC to decide Seun.

  Greg Shatan:Paragraph 407 of the Second Draft deals with much of this.  Suggest reading this, so we are not replowing old ground.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:CCWG proposal is that those who appoint, do the removing of individual board members.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hence as I said, it being a dialogue.

  Chris Disspain:James...and how would the SO or AC decode?

  Chris Disspain:decide

  Jeff Neuman:Chris can we leave that to WS2?

  Ray Plzak:@Robin, so the NomCom removes its appointees?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):because it has to reach the internal threshold specified, Chris - if it doesn't, the director stays in place

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Chris: Decide as per the proposal or after the addition of the community forum step?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Ray: no - the report sets out how nomcom directors would be dealt with

  Chris Disspain:Jeff....how can you agree 'in principle' to such an inportant change without knowing the detail..?

  Greg Shatan:The community does not make a determination, in our current proposal.

  Chris Disspain:Agree Greg

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Ray - see para 408-409 for how NomCom appointees would be removed.

  Greg Shatan:That is the right of the SO/AC.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@chris: it would be so helpful if you could, for instance, describe what kind of decision making you would find acceptable for the ccNSO for instance. or the gNSO ?

  Ray Plzak:I know what it says and I know what Robin is generalizing

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:For instance, would the gNSO existing supermajority threshold be appropriate ?

  Ray Plzak:There should be one common removal mechanism not several

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):The CCWG did not feel it was appropriate for the NomCom to be a group that would remove directors.

  Chris Disspain:Mathieu - thanks....I think there should be a higher than simple majority threshold but that would work for the ccnSO...I doubt it work for the gnso

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):the threshold the proposal suggests is applicable to all - 75%

  Ray Plzak:Jordan I did not say that, I said there needs to be one common mechanism

  Chris Disspain:but is that 75% across the gNSO?

  Seun Ojedeji:I think the Thomas has simply indicated that the community forum is just a waste of time. Since its just a observer status for everyone

  Chris Disspain:and is it 75% of th council or 75% of the 'members' of the SO/AC?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:agree Fiona we need to message the intentions of the model far more effectivly and certainly *simplify* !!

  Jeff Neuman:The GNSO has one director selected by the contracted parties (with approval of the Council) and one director selected by the non-contracted parties (with approval from the Council).

  Kavouss Arasteh:Why  we want to proceed with the Removal of the individual Director without cause?

  Chris Disspain:and will the same rules apply to council members of each SO/AC?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Seun: not many would agree with you that having to articulate arguments in public, rather than in the privacy of the SO or AC's own forums, is a waste of time.

  Chris Disspain:that would be a step forward in 'community' accountablity

  Jeff Neuman:I would argue that if a supermajority of the council is good enough for a "Consensus Policy" using the existing voting mechanisms, then it should be good enough for removal of a director

  Ray Plzak:removal without cause is removal by polictical whim

  Carlton Samuels:@Ray: That IS the problem!  All Board members are equal but some are more equal than others.  They are not equally protected.  Goes back to the question, in whose interest are they seated? The sending SO/AC or the corporation.  I believe they would have a right of petition under US/California law.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:The California legislature has provided a built-in means of accountability by allowing appointing parties to remove their directors.  I don't understand the rationale to remove this key accountability tool from the California legislature.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):"For the purposes of such a removal process, SO means the SO or for the case of the GNSO, the GNSO House that has the Bylaw right to appoint a director."

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan whats the purpose of articulating aruguement when the decision is still in the hands of the appointing SO/AC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Mutualism in Community Accountabiity along with tht of ICANN / its Board is an essential plan IMO Chris...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Seun: I will assume you're joking iwth that question?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):holding decisionmakers to account in public is an absolutely standard and important part of transparency and accountability

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:So dialogue is esentially unneeded unless the ALAC or another community group has the decision making power over another Seun???

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan well a lot of what we have in the ccwg seem to be a joke as well, so maybe I am

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wow

  Ray Plzak:Jordan no argument with that statement. I fully support it. I fully support removal of individual members

  Chris Disspain:It is Interesting to remove a Council member appointed by the nominating committee - requires cause:GNSO Council member selected by the Nominating Committee may be removed for cause: i) stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all members of the applicable House to which the Nominating Committee appointee is assigned; or ii) stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all members of each House in the case of the non-voting Nominating Committee appointee (see Section 3(8) of this Article). Such removal shall be subject to reversal by the ICANN Board on appeal by the affected GNSO Council member.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan it seem you are getting me wrong (or intentionally not appreciating my point) I am not against the public process. I am however saying that some level of +1 from the other community should confirm removal and it should not be the decision of the appointing SO/AC alone.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):I am disagreeing with you about the value of a public process. Whatever the decision process, I think a public discussion has value. You have said it's a waste of time. Both perspectives are legitimate ones to debate.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan IMO if the decision is still in the hands of the initiator then i don't see the main value other than FYI to community forum.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):and it's OK for us to disagree about that, Seun ;-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:this is turning into a repeat of this morning with a small minority trying to roll back the reforms we had consensus on months ago (and still do). 

  Seun Ojedeji:By the way, I don't even think I like this idea of putting board member in front of the community when the particular board member knows that his/her accusser still makes the decision. So whats the point, I expect most of them would resign before it gets to that stage

  Carlton Samuels:@Alan: As I read the law that obtains here, the Board member has justiciable rights that cannot be negated purely on the basis than an SO/AC  selected them. Once they on the Board there is another set of fealties that comes into play.

  Chris Disspain:I agree in part Robin.....if we concetrated on the discussing the detail we might actually get sonewhere

  Greg Shatan:Robin, I agree.  And we need to get to the comments.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:same pleas over and over....

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Capture?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:someone tell the California legislature they enable "capture" by providing for board recall in the law...

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Repeat my support for Kavouss - and also the facility for the member to defend his/her record and performance as Board member.

  Carlton Samuels:@Cherine: +1. Once they are named to the Board they belong to the same class.  They are - or should be! - equally protected, IMHO.

  Greg Shatan:I had my hand up, but i lost connectivity.

  Greg Shatan:So I guess I will be silenced by the vagaries of technology.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Greg, that was after I closed the queue. Sorry, my closing of queues was ignored many many times this morning. Need to be firm on this now.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Greg, type it in here - at least it is on the record.

  Carlton Samuels:@Greg S: :-).  I always make that point that a remote does not give me the same rights and privileges.

  Greg Shatan:By the logic just offered, having one SO/AC appoint a director is also a form of capture.

  Keith Drazek:One of the concerns raised about the power to remove an individual Board member is the potential risk of turning the Board into a parliament, etc. While I prefer the proposed method of allowing an SO or AC or NomCom to remove its appointed member, I could live with a requirement that a second organization in some way "second" the removal petition. I  think that would alleviate the concern about creating parliamentary pressures.

  Grace Abuhamad:You can download the document here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/97715774/ICANNCommunityForum-WP1WorkingDocument.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443207995000&api=v2

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Keith, how are those concerns alleviated?  I'm not sure I understand how.

  Greg Shatan:There should be a more discreet process of discussion between a board member and their appointee before getting to the more public process.  Again, we are failing to consider escalation/resolution opportunities before we get to the endpoint Powers.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Greg: is there no such discussion taking place on a regular basis ? If not, that might be a first useful step

  Greg Shatan:The community forum offers the SO/AC to hear and consider the concerns of the community, and allows the community to come to understand how the situation arose with the director  This is hardly useless.  It may change the way the SO/AC would vote, or how their vote is viewed in the community.

  Greg Shatan:We do have regular discussions with our appointed Board members.  I was talking about an "irregular" discussion that would be triggered by mounting concern in the SO/AC.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:that would have to be informal then.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:this needs more work Chris  agreed...

  Steve Crocker:Greg, once you bring a director to account in a public forum, you're conducting a trial.  The accusation has already been made.

  Steve Crocker:What's the threshold for conducting a trial?

  ebw:one problem with "NomCom to remove its appointed member" is which NomCom? the no longer existing one which selected the volunteer from that year's pool of volunteers?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):am trying to take notes of this in tracked changes on the google doc - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWwOPzM/edit?usp=sharing

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If the community is deciding to potentially exercise a power, a huge step for the community, I think funding would be the least of the problem. Something to be clarified yes but certianly not a factor for deciding its structure or composition.

  Edward Morris:I'm with Robin. I'm quite confused as to why we just don't follow California Corporations Code §7222(b)(2) which allows, nee requires, that a Board member elected by a particular class is / can only be removed by that class. But I guess we can just keep reinventing the wheel.

  ebw:additionally, modulo the filtering that takes place within each NomCom, composed in part by AC and SO appointees, and also appointees by the IAB, the point of the NomCom is not representation but diversity. So non-representivity of an appointee is a given.

  Wolfgang2:Is the new proposed forum  needed to move forward with the transition?

  Avri Doria:aren't all of these implementation issues?

  Greg Shatan:I agree with Robin and Ed.  Those who think it should be different from the default of the California Code should justify that deviation.

  Seun Ojedeji:On one hand the community forum sounds like a group of select people and on the other hand it sounds like something similar to the public forum

  Greg Shatan:Wolfgang, only if you want to give the multistakeholder community a chance to discuss and consider the issues before the SO/ACs.

  Chris Disspain:Completely agree Steve

  Keith Drazek:@Avri, I think they are implementation issues. But NTIA has said they need more detail to be able to properly assess the CCWG proposal, or whatever comes next following the public comments. I think the requirement for implementation detail has become more important for the next version.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:I also thought a main purpose of the community forum was to have a community-wide conversation on a topic where the various silos are able to talk to each other - answer each other's points.

  Keith Drazek:+1 Jordan, Robin, Steve, etc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:All good points  Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh:We wish to have confirmatioin from the Board that they do not expilictly oppose to that as CCWG believes that the Forum is is useful enviroment to analyse the issue which will be submitted for decision making

  Kavouss Arasteh: For the sake of time perhaps the Board may reconsider its position to agree with the concept of Forum

  Steve Crocker:Within the Board, we take conflicts of interests VERY seirously.  If a Board member is conflicted, has the appearance of conflict, or has the potential for conflict, the Board member stands back (recuses himself or herself) from voting and stands back from discussion unless specifically invited because rest of the Board wants that director's knowledge on the partiycular issue.  What conflict of interest rules will be in place within each of the SOs and ACs when these votes are taken?

  Bruce Tonkin:@Kavouss - I see no problem with the Board supporting the concept of a forum to share information prior to the formation of an MEM issue group for example.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):@Greg - 6.3 not 7.3

  Chris Disspain:No need to apologise that the group included you Greg :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I dont know Chris I think that may have been the beggining of the end for us all.

  Greg Shatan:If we aare going to discuss these issues without explicit reference to the text of the Second Draft and without reference to our 94 comments, the risks of reopening old questions, mis-remembering our decisions and failing to consider the views of the community are rather large.

  Bruce Tonkin:The key requirement for any "public" forum - is the ability to ensure sufficient participation and transparency of what is discussed.   The ICANn public cofumrs at the ICANN meetings fulfil this role.   We also need better ways of running focvussed forums using online tools.   e.g a time-boxed 7 day period in tiwtter style exchanges - ie allow people to shares ideas in short messages on a topic

  Kavouss Arasteh:In thde fORUM, not only the SOs and ACs participating but also any interested party can participate .Forum will contribute to the concept of inclussiveness and openess of ICANN

  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed @Kavouss

  Seun Ojedeji:Maybe a different term should be used for the selected members of the community forum and the community forum activity itself. It seem the forum will have only selected people in the discussion yet it seem not

  Kavouss Arasteh:The Forum will not necessirily be a physical gathering as it could be a virtual meeting as well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:I agree with you on this way forward re tools  etc.,  Bruce

  Kavouss Arasteh:I strongly suggest to end this discussion as from the order of priority and importance it is a secondary issue.Let us conscentrate on some critical issue such as the type of MEMBER

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):the idea of the Community Forum is necessary in any of the possible implementation models under discussion

  Bruce Tonkin:I think the key is we need to work out how to set up and operate an event within 7 days noticve and ensure broad participation.   I think we need to continue to refine our onlien tools and test running some of these tools on specific topics between ICANN public meetings.   Get people to be cofrotable and experienced with a particilar tool.   Much like we are not experienced using this Adobe chat tool.  

  Bruce Tonkin:Any of tehse communiyt pwoers where we want to over-rule a budget, remove aq direcvtor etc - all require effective coordination tools that work globally.

  Chris Disspain:So, Jordan what you've just said may be fine but it DOES change the balance of power because of the status of GAC advice...

  Bruce Tonkin:Aand can operate with minimal set-up time - ie the tools must exist prior to needing to use them in ernest.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would rather strive for clarity than simplicity.

  Bruce Tonkin:@Greg - those two concepts are often linked though

  Christopher Wilkinson:Greg: Currently we have neither simplicty nor clarity. CW

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would rather achieve simplicity through clarity.  I think we have a fair amount of both, but we need to improve.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Reference to actual comments and I see the Second Draft on screen.  Be still my heart.

  Becky Burr:agree - the reviews are stated as reviews in the AOC.  all of the commitments are in fact included

  Grace Abuhamad:The 2nd draft report is posted here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/9AzTBQ

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Chris, sorry didn't see chat - what changes balance of power due to GAC advice? In respect of the Forum idea?

  KMc:Link to Board suggested language for Whois?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Thank you for noting that the IPC (and/or other constituencies from the Commercial Stakeholder Group) is likely to be marginalized (and has in fact been marginalized) in that process.

  Chris Disspain:the treatment of their public policy advice jordan...if it's given to the Board there is a by law under which it must be dealt  - no such by law exists or is contempaltaed re the Forum or the subsequnt vote in the Sos and Acs

  Christopher Wilkinson:Umm ... the present IAG.WHOIS is trying to entrench the existing Whois policy and implementation!!! CW

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Informative review and summary on comments on Section 9.

  Alan Greenberg:For the record, I did participate in the discussion on review cycles, but disagreed with the inflexible 5 year cycle.

  KMc:Anyone have a link to Board suggested language for Whois review?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:"ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service, subject to applicable laws, and working with the community to explore structural changes to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as well as consider safeguards for protecting data.This Review includes a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws, regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory Service policy requirements.The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promotes consumer trust, and safeguards data.The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review recommendations have been completed, and the extent to which implementation has had the intended effect.This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the Board took action on previous review recomme

  KMc:tks

  KMc:"every five years, measured from the date the Board took action on previous review recommendations." - odd wording?

  Jeff Neuman:I completely agree with the Board on opposing the additions that were made to the Consumer Trust Review dealing with new gTLDs

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Good point, Chris.  One is a promise, the other is a statement of fact.

  Jeff Neuman:I had assumed the AoC was just incorporated word for word

  Jeff Neuman:so, shame on me for not reading the language

  Bruce Tonkin:Here is the link Kieran:  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005119.html

  Jeff Neuman:But I agree with the Board that that extra language has the effect of preventing competition and could have a chilling effect on new gTLDs IF the community cannot come to a consensus on all of the recommendations

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):ah Chris yes. Got you.

  Jeff Neuman:Again, I wrongly assumed the AoC language was incorporated word for word (just as was stated to Steve Crocker when he opposed the language on WHOIS)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Making the Article 18 question "Fundamental" will be very helpful at the point of Congressional hearings.  The entire proposed enforceability mechansim depends on the CA law and jurisdiction structure.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Bbut it's actually meaningless

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):I agree with Alan on this - if you decided to move ICANN, you'd set up a new entity elsewhere

  Chris Disspain:Greg...it's not about making it fundamental is it? It's about the change of wording

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Chris, exactly.

  Greg Shatan:Remain isn't all over the place now.  We shall see whether we get stuck or not....

  Chris Disspain:Steve....the key is that it is IN the AoC....I'm not pushing this but I do think we need to be aware that we are not importing all of the committments from the AoC

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:I am commenting from the perspective that we have arrived at a certain point through a Community multistakeholder process - don't see how that suddently gets changed given what Steve has said about the public comment period.  "fundamental" defines the thresshold for changing and so provides additional strength to the notion that location and jurisdiction will not change.  This is indeed a potential weakness vis a vis Congressional hearings but it is the result of the multistakeholder process.  Cannot just change this to an absolute commitment now without additional public comment requested on this specific issue.  That may be a wise course of action.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Isn't the point that the commitment in the AOC is just that, a commitment? Putting it in the bylaws doesn't make it more of a commitment because of the entity change that would be invovled in abrogating that commitment...

  Chris Disspain:Jordan...factually you are correct...my point was raised as a political one to stress that it MAY get picked up

  Chris Disspain:and no amount of fact are going o beat down a policitcal point taen for sel-serving poilitical reasons

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Chris - your point regarding the fact that there is a difference between AOC and CCWG- ACCT recommendation is absolutely correct. It WILL get picked up and you can bet that notes are being taken down.  In fact, it seems likely NTIA will have to point out this difference and justify it as part of the certification process.

  Christopher Wilkinson:@ James Gannon+KMc: That text does not take into account that the existing policy does not respect apliccable laws. CW

  Louise:Did people talk about creating a budget for - oh,  here it is: funding for the panel.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:CW: I didint write it =)

  Louise:The Sole Member should be funded out of ICANN's budget.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes a little

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Chris - yea, I've been trying to think about how one could make a stronger commitment

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Chris - did you have thoughts about that mutual accountability stuff? SO/AC chairs and councils same powers as for the Board? IRP to enforce SOs and ACs following their own rules?

  Bruce Tonkin:@Chris - I am coming to the view it would be simpler to merge the MEM into the IRP process.

  Chris Disspain:Fiine with me Bruce provided the lawyers have no issues

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:I for one would be interested in seeing if some blending can get us to a 'best of breed' "model @Bruce/@chris

  Chris Disspain:@ Jordan...yes that's certainly worth discussing...also power to remove councillors etc

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):those concrete suggestions are easier to get head around than the general notion I think -- thing is, is it WS1? Does it deliver the framework that needs to be in place or committed to prior to transition?

  Chris Disspain:good question

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Heading for midnight here in Dublin, will catch up with all you fine folks tomorrow.

  Becky Burr:for example, the funding question seems to be very concrete. 

  Chris Disspain:which funding question Becky?

  David McAuley (RySG):Useful appeals discussion, thank you Becky et al

  Becky Burr:because no good deed goes unpunished.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Well said Larry we are making history  we forget that at times,  but we also need to make progress!

  Becky Burr:When considering whether or not we are making progress it is important to keep in mind that we are still digesting the very substantive set of comments that we received.  we cannot reach consensus until we understand the community input fully.

  Becky Burr:we need to understand gaps in order to bridge them

  Bruce Tonkin:I think you might want to get smaller groups of people that have differing views in the public comment process to see if compromises can be found.   Today is more about sharing reasoning for the CCWG proposal and some of the comments -.   DOesn't seem to be a great deal of discussion of the brad set of public comments received on some topics.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Alan -- the outcome would be IRP overturning the panel decision.  So they would have to do-over

  Becky Burr:agree Alan

  Becky Burr:not if the panel is fundamentally onstitutional

  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, perhaps that is what we want to do, but that was not at all even implied in what we wrote (based on my memory). And since conflicting results are generally VERY clear, I am not sure we need an IRP to simply decide that there is a conflict. Either the IRP decides on the "correct outcome", or we keep IRP out of it and follow the Board's advice to use a new panel.

  Keith Drazek:Agreed we need to focus on the public comments and evaluate them on their merits and fully understand the gaps. At some point after that, we'll need to understand all the "red lines" to manage and avoid the deal-killers through compromise.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Core Value 6 could be the standard of review for an IRP to challenge inconsistent expert decisions: 6. Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently, neutrally, objectively, and fairly,without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment;

  Becky Burr:you can have different standing panels but i am not at all convinced that it makes sense.  the critical issue - both for constitutional/goverance issues and for fiduciary issues is "is ICANN acting within its Mission"

  Becky Burr:MEM and IRP do NOT need different panels IMHO -

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):I don't agree that the model is the central question. Models are easy. The question is whether the community or the board have the last say and on what. If we truly had consensus on that, the model would write itself.

  Becky Burr:i think Chris' comment went to fiduciary vs. constitutional issues

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Agree with Jonathan.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jonathan and in your opinion who should have the last say? putting the question in ICANN context

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):In MY opinion, there should be a few instances in which the community should have the last word. But at the moment, I am not trying to argue my point of view. I'm trying to say that this discussion of models is a COMPLETE distraction. the real issue is community powers

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Power flows from the bottom-up, so the community should ultimately drive.

  Avri Doria:Jonathan & Robin, that is what the discussion between the 2 models is all about.  Can we mitigate the circumstances where the Board has the last say well enough?  can the Board mitigate the circumstances where the rest of the community has the last say.  We are afrid they will change the bylaws after all is said and done.  and today at lunch i heard that the Board is afraind the community will change the bylaws after all is said and done.  ooops.

  Keith Drazek:@Sean: Shared authority, checks and balances, and distribution of power have been strongly supported themes throughout the work of the CCWG. We need to find an appropriate balance and do so in a way that is not overly complex (per Larry's comments).

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:+++ to that Kieth

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):Yes, @Avri but using the "models" as a proxy for this discussion is a distraction. This is really a stress test discussion on which we need to acheive consensus on desired outcome. References to complexity, too much change, etc. are all a function of a desire NOT to have the conversation we need to have.

  Avri Doria:to my mind that question is the key to much of the difference.  unfortuanltey noone has come up with the model where we have to do that together - from a statuatory peerspective.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay i agree ith you on the methodology we are using but again one could argue that determining which model to follow will largely answer the question of who has the last say. Either way i agree we are not attacking the main issue yet.

  Avri Doria:oh, i am all for discussing the nitty gritty instead of the fluff.

  Bruce Tonkin:Yes @Becky - we were just trying to find some quick changes that could be implemented un bylaws language now - while we further refine the IRP process.   We do still need to set a clear time period - e.g 90 days to procuded the final IRP processes.   ie have it ready by Marrakech.

  Greg Shatan:Why am I hearing the Monty Python theme song in my head?

  Becky Burr:agree Bruce  simple bylaws drafting

  Avri Doria:Greg, me too

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC):it's worse than "fluff" Becy. It's tanamount to obfuscation. There are like 3 real questions here but no one wants to have those discussions.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Well Jonathan  lets  suggest starting "those discussions" after the break perhaps

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Disagree that no progress has been made. Disagree that Chairs are not properly conducting the meeting.  Chairs have pointed out the limits within which we must operate.

  Alice Jansen:We will be back at at 16:10 local time.

  Louise:Did everyone read Phil Corwin's summary of the need of today's meeting? http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Empire_Strikes_Back_09_2015.pdf

  Louise:Did anyone?

  nigel hickson:yes I did!

  David McAuley (RySG):sou8nds ok here remote Becky

  Louise:Thank you.

  Louise:Becky - sounds good!

  Niels ten Oever:Can audio be enabled so I can connect audio in the browser? Now there is only the option to call in

  Louise:May I ask, are ICANN board members present at this meeting?

  David McAuley (RySG):Niels, did you check speaker volume in the speaker pull-down at upper left of Adobe screen

  David McAuley (RySG):and, BTW, no audio now as break still going on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Were back ON!

  Niels ten Oever:@David, I meant mic connect, not speaker (speaker has been great all day)

  David McAuley (RySG):not sure - I usually call in

  KMc:Louise - I think almost of the ICANN Board members are in the room

  Louise:Thank you, @KM.

  Steve Crocker:Becky speaks knowledgeably about ICM's XXX application because she represented them.

  Seun Ojedeji:....and i thought their being in the room would have been an opportunity to get some clear direction on areas of disagrement. Talk about using 1 stone to kill 2 birds but it seem the stone has been missing all birds so far

  ebw:xxx was a sponsored (2005 round) application.

  Louise:@ Seun Ojedeji, lol. I don't see Fadi Chehade on the list . . .

  ebw:the committment made to the sponsoring organization, reflected in its sponsored-form of application to icann, can be more specific (or onerous) than the general contract for a non-sponsored application where no third-party sponsoring organization is responsible for policy.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:I agree with Becky and have concern that ICANN's mission could be expanded via contract compliance issues.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Louise he was around, I think he just steped out

  Louise:But ICANN's MIssion Statement includes fostering competition.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Agree with concerns expressed by Greg to a large extent - the proposed wording on "content/service regulation" is problematic

  Becky Burr:WAIT - for purposes of this discussion, we need to stipulate that anything within the picket fence is consistent with icann's mission

  Greg Shatan:Actually, I am concerned that the Bylaw proposal could be interpreted (wrongly) to limit enforcement of these contracts.  The "consequences" of Stress Tests 29 and 30 state that strong enforcement is regulation and thus invalid.  This is a dangerous and incorrect conclusion.

  Greg Shatan:Can we assume that everyone knows what the "picket fence" is?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I would not presume that - are PICs within the picket fence?

  Rafael Perez Galindo:Good question

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:PICs are part of the contractual obligation, are they not?  ICANN's role in the PIC DRP goes way beyond "limited technical mission".

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Becky: could you clarify whether the PICs are part of the "picket fence"? and if not, what effect the new proposed wording would have on such PICs?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Greg -- the scenario and Consequences were stated by the public commenters.   The ST team did all the analysis of existing and proposed mechanisms.

  Alan Greenberg:PICs are contractual obligations but not within the picket fence.

  Brett Schaefer:What is the definition of the public interest again?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Red card Brett ! ;-)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Alan @Becky: if they are contractual, but not "picket fence", what impact would the new proposed wording have on PICs?

  Greg Shatan:@Steve, it seems odd that the consequences were taken at face value.  I have no problem with the scenarios being adopted as proposed.  But the "consequences" imply a level of analysis that should have been done by the CCWG.

  Becky Burr:PICS may or may not be within the picket fence - but they are voluntary offered by new gTLD applicants and, as such, i do not think that they are regulations - they are affirmative features

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:Brett, everyone's project and goals are in the public interest, naturally

  Louise:Sorry, I can't get through.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):Can you type your feedback Louise?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC):we can read it out loud

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Becky -- even if a PIC were within mission, what about an IRP challenge saying the PIC was not the result of consensus policy?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):+1 Alan

  Louise:Thanx = hang on.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):good question Steve

  Louise:ICANN's mission statement includes, "Introduce and promote competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial." If ICANN can intervene to limit or expand a Registrar's business in the interest of ,  promoting competition, why would it hold back from enforcing some principles in the RAA? ICANN's mission and its distancing itself from enforcement is fundamentally flawed.

  Louise:ICANN has way too much power, which it uses selectively to benefit its insiders. That is why, the need for accountability. I didn't invent it.

  Louise:If ICANN has nothing to hide, it should welcome the Sole Membership Model (SMM).

  Louise:Sorry! Someone else please read my comment.

  Louise:The, "mute," was on!

  Louise:How do I lower my hand?

  James Bladel:I agree with Alan.

  James Bladel:The scenarios we are discussing are typically predicated by some sort of emergency/unusual event.  ANd we need a clear message from the community.  Not ambiguous consensus tests. 

  Wolfgang2:With a voting scheme you trigger fights for vote, lobbying and something else. You open a new field for conflicts and controversies.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Louse  there is a pull down menu near the icon of a raised hand that should give you the lower i or clear status ption

  Keith Drazek:Consensus may not be workable in every instance, but not having an agreed-to definition of consensus shouldn't be the reason to discard it. Define it and everyone then understands the threshold.

  Suzanne Woolf:And if the ACs don't want to vote?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:failing that we can ask staff to lower it for you

  Suzanne Woolf:Is that a "no" or simply subtracted from the base?

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:+1 Kieran

  Suzanne Woolf:agreed it's not something we'll decide here today

  Jan Scholte:@hosts/staff. Maybe it is my link, but getting very little audio on my remote

  Louise:James, Is, Sole Member Model off the table?

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Dear all, maybe this is a good time to confirm -In response to a relevant request of our last meeting- that the ASO would like to have voting rights

  Louise:Thanx, @ Cheryl Langdon-Orr!

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Good to know, Athina. 

  Keith Drazek:Thanks Athina!

  Louise:@ James Bladel, Is, Sole Member Model off the table?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):we should be as flexible as possible with the way each SO/AC  wishes to express its decision - maybe some might prefer voting (with split voting) and maybe some others could prefer to decide by consensus en only act through a resolution/advice

  Keith Drazek:Agree Jorge

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:@Jorge -- if any AC/SO wants to have split votes, then all AC/SO would have that capability.  But any AC/SO could vote all of its votes one way or the other.

  James Bladel:@Louise - Not to my knowledge, no.

  James Bladel:The GNSO would be a challenge.

  Young eum Lee 2:granular is needed

  Bruce Tonkin:Just to put my comments into the chat.   For initiation of an arbitration process - you could simple have a minimum of one SO and AC to initaite a proceedeing.   SOs and ACs can combine to form an MEM Issue group if they wish.

  Gordon Chillcott:More granular

  Young eum Lee 2:can we also have a feel of the online participants?

  Edward Morris:For the GNSO it definitely needs to be more granular.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Thomas: leave it to the SO/AC to decide

  Bruce Tonkin:For bylaws changes - just one vote per SO and AC and work out the number that are needed for a bylaw change verus a fundamental bylaw change.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):we do not need a one size fits all solution...

  KMc:I think the vast majority of those saying yes, more granular, were in the GNSO

  James Bladel:Agree with Robin.

  Louise:@ James Bladel. Thank you for answering. I think you hold powerful sway in ICANN's dealings, and I notice you participate in committees.

  Edward Morris:As do I, James.

  Wolfgang2:Remember WCIT:  It is always dangerous to measure the temparature of the room

  James Bladel:@Louise - "Participate" is a strong word, but I follow as many groups as am able.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Robin: double-dipping applies to all SO/AC which would participate in these powers

  Edward Morris:Jorge, how?

  Seun Ojedeji:@Robin Is there any organisation within ICANN setup to excercise powers?

  James Bladel:@Jorge - How so?  No other SO/AC has the same level of deference as the GAC.

  Louise:It was sideways commendation.

  Michele Neylon:+1 James

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Someone mentioned the notion or worry of the small group of deciders - I think it was Kieran - just to be clear, the community mech doesn't create that - it has decisions being made in each SO or AC according to their processes, and aggregated for the Mechanism to act. there's no meeting, no body of people, etc.

  Suzanne Woolf:@Seun it seems to me that groups that are responsible for policy and PDPs of various sorts have a fundamentally different role to ACs, whose advice can actually be discarded.

  Young eum Lee 2:I agree with Robin with regard to the change in balance b/w ACs and SOs.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:FYI, Chris -- the GNSO Supermajority is 66%.   It's in the ICANN Bylaws now

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Well, any of the participating SO/AC would add to their present functions the new participation in the new powers

  James Bladel:I don't understand.  The GNSO votes, the Board votes...

  Louise:Hi, Michele Neylon.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Seems to me the consensus test is the hardest one - it makes so much sense for policymaking and ensuring that everyone is together on what the substantive outputs of the organisation are. It's harder to see that's the right approach in dealing with problem situations - particularly ones caused by a lack of consensus. If we apply a consensus requirement to tools that are about solving those problems, we are probably tying ourselves up in knots?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):[just thinking aloud]

  James Bladel:@Jordan - This has been my experience with consensus tests.   It can be vague or even allow Chair(s) to make the call.

  Michele Neylon:Agree with James - a lot of the time the Chair has to make the call

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):Seun - do you think the same should apply to the election of directors too?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur):i.e. should it be the same for appointent as for removal?

  Seun Ojedeji:@Suzanne well the point is that this is overall ICANN accountability not on policy neither is it on advices. Each SO/AC represents specific stakeholder group. Certainly if the board refuses to implement names policy then GNSO should have strong powers to repell but we are not talking about policy here.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks for that, Avri...

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:+1 Avri

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Avri as well

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]:+1 Avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Hear hear Alan ;-)

  James Bladel:Not entirely accurate, Alan.  The GNSO -creates- policy.  The Board approves because the contracts change.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]:exactly, James - the GNSO was set up EXPLICITYLY to make policy recommendations.  That is the GNSO's raison d'etre - not an extra bite at the apple like the ACs get in this proposal.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC AP-Regional Member:Hey James  been a long day  so I'm allowing some slight slack on the accuracy of statements  were all making atm :-)

  Seun Ojedeji:@James well policies are normally not active until board approves is that correct? If yes then saying GNSO recommends/proposes policies is in order

  Suzanne Woolf:@seun no we're not explicitly talking about policy but we;re talking about input the organization is required to act on vs. input that's advisory. I'm agreeing with Robin about this. SSAC and RSSAC expressed some reluctance to exercise votes in the belief that structuring themselves to be good for that would make them less good for generating specialized advice that ICANN is free to decline.

  Bruce Tonkin:@Suzanne - let each SO and AC determine its own way of reaching consensus