Attendees: 

Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (24)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brett Schaefer, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Ron da Silva, Seun Ojedeji, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale, Tracy Hackshaw   (39)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit  (4)

Staff:  Alain Durand, Alice Jansen, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Nigel Hickson, Tarek Kamel, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Mark Carvell

**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/p9exhp56rmu/

• The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-05jan16-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI (5’)

2. Update from Chartering Organizations (15’)

3. Global Public Interest (GPI) (15’)

4. January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda (30’)

5. Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 (45’)

6. Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation (30’)

7. Marrakech – ICANN 55 (15’)

8. A.O.B (10’) 

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

1.     Welcome, Roll Call, SoI MW (5’)

2.     Update from Chartering Organizations LS (15’)

3.    Global Public Interest (GPI) TR (15’)

4.     January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda MW (30’)

5.       Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 LS (45’)

• LS Document distributed with comments-markups for rec. 12.

6.     Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation TR (30’)

7.     Marrakech – ICANN 55 MW (15’)

8.       A.O.B LS (10’)

Action Items

Documents

Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (1/5/2016 12:12) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #74 on 5 January 2016 @ 19:00 UTC!  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 

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:32) Hi Brenda, Happy New Year! when the time comes can you do a dial out to my office? +54 11 4819 7979 thanks!

  Brenda Brewer: (12:34) Hi Olga!  Thank you, I will arrange for operator to call you.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:42) many thanks Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Dear Brenda, Dear Olga, Dear Tijani, Dear those who join later and last but not least

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Dear Co-Chair

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:50) Happy New Year

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:51) DEAR CO-CHAIRS

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:52) I have sent you many messages asking you to be so kind with every body and take a full democratic approach without any imposition what so ever.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:52) I hope the message has reached you with favourable consideration

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:53) Dear CO-cHAIR.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:54) For this meeting we exceptionally agree with 3 hours duration BUT WITH 20 mints of break for those who might have other necessary things to do including breathing fresh air

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:55) For the following meerting we could agree with the duration, frequency including deadline once agreement is reached 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:55) hi everyone!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:56) Hello all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:56) NO PRESURE .NO RUSH.NO HURRY

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (12:56) hello everyone! Happy new year!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (12:56) happy new year to all!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:56) let us for the first time dio someting in full tranquility

  nigel hickson: (12:57) Greetings one and all 

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:57) happy new year, and here's to it being the last one ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:57) (of CCWG WS1, I mean)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:57) happy new year! frohes neues jahr! feliz anyo nuevo!

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (12:58) Hi all and Happy New Year!

  Niels ten Oever: (12:58) Hello everyone, best wishes for the new year.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:58) Hello all :) NY greetings :)!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:58) Yes, happy new year to all

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:58) We need to have some sort of decipline not to ask for the floor more than two times for a given subject

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (12:58) Hello everyone! Happy new year! Feliz ano novo a todos!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (12:58) the last for CCWG WS 1 I hope as you said Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:58) Morning Ll from the antipodeas...  Happy 2016

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:58) Hello everyone !

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (12:58) Lots of static. Has Adobe added "sounds of the sea" to keep us calm?

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (12:59) hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (12:59) Jonathan -- interesting tactic, I hope it works

  Niels ten Oever: (12:59) a calming sound of silence on my end

  Chris Disspain: (13:00) Greetings All and Happy New Year

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:00) We need to work together without any kind of confrontation. HEALTHY  DISCUSSION

  Niels ten Oever: (13:00) and the soothing voice of Mathieu

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:00) best wishes for successful transition in 2016 :-)

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:00) Hello everyone and Happy New Year to all of you!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:00) "hello darkness my old friend"

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:01) Soothing ? I must change that right away

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:02) Greetings everyone, happy new year

  Markus Kummer: (13:02) Hi all

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (13:02) Happy New Year, all!

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:02) Hi All, Happy New Year to you

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (13:03) Hello everyone, and Happy New Year!!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:03) Happy New Year, all!

  Keith Drazek: (13:03) Call #73 seems so long ago. I think I was going into withdrawal.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:03) We will be breaking for 10 minutes after 75 minutes

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:04) Hello everyone, all the best for 2016! And let's make sure we finish this before it's over. Let's have less calls, less emails and more progress

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:04) Hi All, Happy New Year!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) 20 mints

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) I disagree with 10 mints

  Lousewies an der Laan: (13:04) Happy New Year to everyone from a beautiful snowed under Slovenia

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:04) That will be fixed real fast Kieth

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:04) Pls kiondly agree with 20 mints of break

  Holly J. Gregory: (13:05) I'm on adobe only for first half hour or so

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (13:05) Happy New Year all.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:05) Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) 10 - 5 should be fine as a break

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:06) Tks for the firstz consensus building on break

  cherine chalaby: (13:06) Hi everyone and Happy New Year

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) Perhaps we could see how we are doing at break time and decide whether to press on?

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:06) Kavouss, I am not sure we all would like a 20 mins break. Not me, for one; won't be able to wake up afterwards

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) 10 - 15

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) Maybe we'll be just about done

  andrew sullivan: (13:06) (I am disguised as an optimist today)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:06) INDEED !    Ndrew

  Alan Greenberg: (13:07) Long wait to get on bridge

  Avri Doria: (13:07) not quite a whole year ahead

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:07) LEON

  Avri Doria: (13:07) 4 day, almost 5 already gone.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:07) are you n the phine yet Alan??

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:07) pls maintain the max 15 mints, if any one has any point

  Alan Greenberg: (13:07) Yes, just got on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:08) ok  you can update *phew*

  Keith Drazek: (13:08) For the Chartering Organization Update, I can report the GNSO Council has formed a working group to analyze the comments submitted by the GNSO SGs and Cs. This is intended to enable a clear and concise message to the CCWG on January 14 when the GNSO Council will meet and pass a resolution approving such a communication. There are several areas of concern across multiple GNSO organizations and the GNSO is working to synthesize these concerns to identify any red flags.

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (13:08) The GAC has received members views on each Recommendation and is scheduling discussion calls over the next 2 weeks.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:09) great Tom...

  Alan Greenberg: (13:09) @Cheryl, Not a hard task today...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:10) true  but I m having coffee, toast and vegimite ;-)

  andrew sullivan: (13:10) Suggestion to make calls shorter in future: make these updates as text to list, and then have only necessary Q&A on the call

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:10) In addition to Tom Dale's info: there has been also a preliminary GAC submission on a number of key recommendations

  andrew sullivan: (13:10) (The text on the list could be included as part of the minutes anyway)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:10) @Andrew: no further updates next time indeed

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:11) GAC reply was only preliminary and provisional

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:13) The ASO response was already sent in

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (13:13) +1 Izumi

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) what is the outcome of that independent study.However, it is only a view and not binding

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:17) Kavouss, we have circulated Jan Aart input, as well as Willie's. As you say, it's only views

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:17) They were very consistent with yours, actually

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) here is the preliminary GAC input: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00070.html

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:18) Yes , it is only a " Legal " View" unless it is agreed by the entire CCWG with consensus

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:18) the approach Thomas has just outlined makes lots of sense to me. In lieu of a call on the audio, this is my view.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) As mentioned in that preliminary input "The GAC intends to finalise its formal position on all 12 recommendations between7 and 22 January 2016 in accordance with the current published timeline, takinginto account submissions made during the public comment period and possiblefurther development of the recommendations in the final proposal.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:18) 2

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:19) +1 Thomas

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:20) this is all qite straight forward. We just need to couch some arguments in those terms in support of our views, if we continue to disagree with any commenter that cited the GPI as a reason for its disagreement.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:20) there is no need for legal advice, no need for an agreed definition of GPI, etc.

  andrew sullivan: (13:20) I like what Jordan is saying, yes

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) and I think what I have typed above is consistent with what Thomas said.

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:21) I feel like Andrew summarized this very well on the list.

  Greg Shatan: (13:21) Agree with you, Jordan.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) +1 Jonathan.

  Jonathan Zuck (ACT): (13:21) VERY ill advised

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) Andrew: your email was excellent.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:21) Guys, we don't need to define the term.

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) Agree with Andrew and Jonathan and Alan.  This is a massive red herring.

  andrew sullivan: (13:22) This is entire topic is a rathole with an infinite number of rats and an infinite amount of hole.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:22) I agree with Thomas and Jordan

  Keith Drazek: (13:22) Agreed. Fully support Thomas, Jordan and Andrew's points.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:23) CCWG should clearly explains that it does not agree such a general VETO type . For something which is undefineable one can not recourse to those in rejecting the Recommendation or part of Recommendation

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:23) here is why I think we should mention it: so that it is clear there are differing views about what the GPI is, and that the multistakeholder group preparing the recs does believe its recs are in the GPI

  Avri Doria: (13:23) no infinte numebr of rats, but an indefinately large number.  but if the Board is using it as criteria, we must understand what they mean by it and decide whether we agree with their definiton.  it is an elephant.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:23) then, any further criticism along those lines simply becomes a "debate about what is in the GPI" instead of a possibly dangerous "but the CCWG never considered the GPI! oh no!".

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:23) And excellent post by Andrew indeed. It is consistent with the numbers community's stance to ICANN through ASO MoU and the new SLA

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:24) I agree it is a good starting point for the board to provide a rationale for why it feels its view is "in the global public interest".

  andrew sullivan: (13:24) @Jordan: I agree with that

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) I agree that it would be good to ask the board for explanation how exactly those recommendations harm public interest

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:24) I would like to know what the Board's logic is, too. But I wouldn't hold my breath for any marvellous insights.

  Avri Doria: (13:24) and to say that it is irrelevant when the Articles list it, is sort of silly.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) Thomas

  Avri Doria: (13:25) the elephant is real

  Keith Drazek: (13:25) We'd be better off working with the Board in a constructive manner to address whatever issues exist from its perspective, rather than diving into the rathole of attempted definition at this stage.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) especially ebcause ICANN just started discussion on public interest... so I don't think the board really can come up with any definition either

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:25) +1 KD

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:25) We have only 5 more mints to spend on this subject thus you needTO MAKE A SUMMARY

  andrew sullivan: (13:25) I don't think it's irrelevant.  I think it's impossible to sort out.  So pare down the objection to the concrete-- what we ust heard

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:25) I think we've moved beyond "definitions" of GPI

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) We need to deal with this in concrete terms -- what's the problem, what are the potential solutions.  If it's raining, you get a raincoat or an umbrella.  You don't try to define the clouds.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) I don't think asking the board for explanation is destructive manner. It will help to address their concerns

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:25) The rationale Jordan is explaining on the chat makes a lot of sense to me - makes it available for others to confirm the basis of judgement

  Avri Doria: (13:25) i disagree with the idea of cutting people off to meet some articficial time limit. 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:26) THOMAS DO YOU MEAN DIRECTION FROM US OR FROM TIJANII

  Keith Drazek: (13:26) And if at the end of the engagement process, there's a difference of opinion or perspective, the justification will be needed from the Board. Let's focus on the work rather than jumping to conclusions.

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) +1 Avri

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:26) Bruce: will you be replying to that note?

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:26) I think Tijani's suggestion makes sense, as it gives us the best chance to understand exactly where they are coming from with their concerns,

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:26) @Kavouss Thomas means from the CCWG

  Avri Doria: (13:26) it is not a definition we need but and understanding of the process for discovering it.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:26) @Keith, *YES* Let's work to fix perceived problems and not try to convince them that they are wrong.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:27) @Avri, exactly.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) Avri: I think it would be "nice to know" why teh Board used that criterion on its areas of concern. But I don't think it is an elephant.

  Avri Doria: (13:27) a 600 lb gorilla?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:27) it's just a label

  Avri Doria: (13:28) no, it is a real thing.  just becasue we do not understand or how to define it, does not mean it is not real.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:28) No rationale provided until after a board vote?  Is that what Bruce just said?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:28) Bruce: I find your response just now very troubling. It's essentially saying "we can't tell you why we draw this fundamental problem to your attention, even though we used the language."

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:28) rEFRENCE TO GPI should not be usedf as a vehicle to reject ther Rec.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:29) +1 to Jordan, I find it very troubling

  Avri Doria: (13:29) we do not solve this by defining the concept out of existence.  though ICANN declaring there is no such thing as the public interst would make for great headlines.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) in the absence of some info, we have to just treat teh Board's comments as Board's opinion

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:29) Agree with you Kavouss

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:29) I agree with Tijani and Bruce, we should maybe wait for the Board to pronounce itself finally

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (13:29) Board comment, page 2: "The suggestion that “global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission."

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:29) So troubling, I thought I misheard it!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:29) Without a rationale we cannot know how to address the concerns expressed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) Avri: no, we solve this problem by contending whether our recommendations are in teh GPI. A debate about "Are tehse recommendations in the GPI" is one that people can have a range of views on.

  Avri Doria: (13:29) the Board cannot define it for us.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:29) The only thing the CCWG has to avoid is being able to be accused of never having considered the GPI.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:30) Bruce

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) I don't think saying, "We don't know what this means," defines anything out of existence.  The basic problem is that the term is not a clear one, but what Bruce is saying is correct

  Avri Doria: (13:30) but are they deficiencies in and of themselves or becasue of the GPI

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) there are concrete things they have said

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) Focusing on concers means that we should understand rationale for bringing GPI issue re specific recommendations

  andrew sullivan: (13:30) let's focus on those and leave aside whether something is GPI or not

  Greg Shatan: (13:30) We are dragging the red herring back and forth in front of our path....

  Avri Doria: (13:31) as long as the Board uses the term, we MUST consider it.

  Brett Schaefer: (13:31) Based on the lack of a definition, the CCWG should just disregard the Boards use of GPI as a serious objection. If they have a concrete problem fine, but this is not a productive discussion otherwise.

  andrew sullivan: (13:31) @Greg and over ourselves.  Ewwww

  Greg Shatan: (13:31) Agree with Andrew 100%

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) @Avri yes and this is troubling because we can't be sure what is the ratiionale for using this term

  Avri Doria: (13:31) disagree with Brett 100%

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:31) the phrase is just a triggering phrase in teh sense of the Board's resolution about how it will deal with the CCWG's recommendations, not a canonical statement of any sort.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:31) The Board may not be in favour of a REC. WITH GOOD  VALID RESONS but not use GPI for that VETO

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:31) I agree with Brett

  Edward Morris: (13:31) Agree with Brett

  Avri Doria: (13:32) refusing to deal with it is tantamount to burying out collective heads.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) Agree Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:32) Being unwilling to provide a rationale implies the board is not participating in good faith in this process.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:32) +1 Robin

  Brenda Brewer: (13:32) scrolling is now available

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) Robin - we have provided a rationale for each of our comments - and happy to

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:32) @Brett: no, that won't help us at all

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:32) happto work with the CCWG to address.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:32) Avri: if the Board won't explain why it thinks the GPI is involved in those objections, we just have to deal with the objections they raise on the merits, and consider the rationale they DO present.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:33) @Jordan: yes, agreed

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:33) I just treat their use of the GPI as a code, that says, "This is a concern that might trigger our process as set out in our Oct '14 resolution." nothing more nothing less.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:33) As Matheie has stated - we will participation along with other members that have raised cocnerns on particular recommendations.   WE will explain the rationale for our concerns, and we wil work with the CCWG to find solutions that work for all of us

  Avri Doria: (13:33) can someone define acting in good faith for me.  we acuse them of using an undefined term but using an undefined term of our own.  without knowing their intentions we cannot define good faith.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:33) I think it would have been helpful if that had been stated more clearly, but we are where we are.

  Bruce Tonkin: (13:34) Avri - I think our intentions are the same as yours.   ENduring that we have a stable system of unique identifiers

  Greg Shatan: (13:34) @Tatiana, it is because the purpose of ICANN, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, is " the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST in the operational stability of the Internet." (Emphasis added) See Section 3: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en.

  Avri Doria: (13:35) Bruce i think they are too.  i did not fdefine them as being bad faith otherrs did.  i wnat their definition of such a term.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:35) As several have said for some time now, the phrase "global public interest" is carte blanche for the board to over ride the bottom-up consensus of the community.

  Avri Doria: (13:35) i disagree with the statement as well.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:35) @Greg, believe it or not but I recently leanr how to read and I even read this article :) it still doesn't make clear how some things like transparency can be against GPI ;)

  Avri Doria: (13:36) i agree that that they appear to maybe have a flawed notion of the GPI.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:36) Yes, agree again with Robin. It looks like carte blanche to me, and especially because ICANN just started the process of defining GPI

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:37) but I do agree that we have to work in constructive way and solve the issues board raised

  Greg Shatan: (13:37) @Tatian, not questioning your considerable skills.  Just saying that it is being cited for its totemic significance as the ultimate responsibility of the Board, and not because these are GPI problems vs. some other kind of problems.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:37) GPI is the means by which board-staff trump the bottom-up policy processes that are required in ICANN's bylaws.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:37) @Greg, yes, but what torubles me is that board has this totemic thing which is not defined and as a lawyer I don't like tabula rasa

  Avri Doria: (13:37) the GPI needs to be defined in the bottomup process.  that i agree with.

  Avri Doria: (13:38) but wee are not fighting the way they defined it, we are arguing against the good faith in using the concept.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:38) But how it can be used as an argument if it's not defined? This makes my brain exploding. I acgree with those who say that we shall just stop operating this term

  Avri Doria: (13:39) how can you use the concept of goood or bad faither without defining it.

  Avri Doria: (13:39) ..  good or bad faith ...

  andrew sullivan: (13:39) The idea that we could ever complete the sweater named "GPI" while cats unwind the other end of the wool strikes me as a new way of demonstrating futility, perhaps

  Avri Doria: (13:39) i have not seen proper and orderly definiton of most concept we use in these discussions.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:39) 3 hours is too long.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:39) 2 per week are too many

  Avri Doria: (13:40) 3 X 2 seems in the GPI to me

  Avri Doria: (13:40) (hides)

  Keith Drazek: (13:40) I can handle 2 calls a week at 3 hours each, as needed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:40) If we try to define GPI, we will be wrong.  If we don't define it, the board uses it as carte blanche to over-ride bottom-up process.  It is a double-edged sword for us.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:40) Tuesday/Thursday is only 48 hours, so Mathieu's promise to submit material 72 hours before, doesn't work.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:40) Important point: in spite of two calls per topic we should be aware that position by chartering orgs are (as I understand) still developing, so there should be room for final adjustments, right?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:41) robin+ 1

  andrew sullivan: (13:41) @Robin: hence the line I have been taking: point out how poorly defined GPI is, and concentrate on the specific

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:41) Robin, the best we can do is to offer information on why GPI is not affected.

  Avri Doria: (13:41) We have the define the bottom-up process that defines our understanding of the GPI if the Board is going to base decsions based on the Articles requirements to consider the GPI

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:42) I suggest that we take MONDAY AND tHURSDAY AS THE DAYS ON WHICH WE HAVE THE CALLS

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) Thomas, but how we know that it's not affected if we don't know what GPI is :(

  Greg Shatan: (13:42) I am reminded of the words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said he could not define hard-core pornography, but "I know it when I see it."

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) (hides)

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:42) I think this plan is worth supporting, it may prove more productive than F2F weekends.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) @Greg yes exactly

  Avri Doria: (13:42) i have already scheduled my month around the meeting schedule that was announced.  NOT monday, please.  Not Wednesday please.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (13:42) Naughty Greg?

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:42) Well, it often happens that you do not know what something is, but you know what it isn't.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) No please no Mondays

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:43) Thomas, that feels too "defensive" of us.  It is the board who is making the claim, it is the board with the burden to make the case.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) Mondays are hard as they are already

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:43) I agree with those that saying before proceeding further we NEED to clarify the GPI and make it clear that it could not be used as a carte balnche or veto for itemsd that Board does not like it

  Becky Burr: (13:43) i will be distributing information about the range of positions in advance of the call (as early as possible - at least 24 hours).  And yes, i definitely think we are having a discussion

  Greg Shatan: (13:44) The full quote is more scholarly (or at least more lawyerly, in the positive sense): "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) I can't stop agreeing with Robin. Start saying how it's not affecting GPI = defensive position and not constructive in pursuing our goals

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:44) Robin: I agree in principle, and that is why we have asked the Board to explain. Bruce has explained tonight that the Board likely won't explain its use.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:44) @greg +1

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) "We can neither confirm nor deny that there is GPI"

  Becky Burr: (13:45) I am not secretely preparing text, but trying as hard as possible to focus discussion in order to identify solutions

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:45) since we don't have time to sort out an agreed GPI and time to come to agreement necessarily about all recommendations, we should just make a civil case about our recs if we have to, in order to make sure there is no doubt we have considred the issue.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (13:45) I hope we can agree we cannot and should not ignore the Board's concerns with respect to GPI. We should therefore speak to it.

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:45) +1 becky - and that has helped our work all along

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:45) If text is being worked on on the Mission, I would like to volunteer to join that effort

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:45) Becky, that is

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:45) sorry Tatiana but GPI exists.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) @Megan I am not questioning it's existence

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:46) I do NOT support one on one negotiations of the sort Alan is proposing.

  Avri Doria: (13:46) Tatiana, so are you saying something exists that cannot be defined?

  Becky Burr: (13:47) Please everyone refer also to the documents on Mission (comparisons) that I have sent out in the past several weeks

  Avri Doria: (13:47) or just that it is too hard for ICANN's bottom up multstakeholder processes?

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) @Avri, let's say - I very much up in definining GPI in a MS bottom-up manner. I am against using GPI as a sword, carte blanche, ect

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:47) but I DO support helping to provide prep material along the lines Mathieu is talking, and I think / suppose that the WPs in their usual guise will work on what the outcome of the CCWG plenary discussion comes up with

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:47) Jordan, especially not by the Co-Chair8s)

  andrew sullivan: (13:47) @avri: I fear you are too close to phil. of language now :)

  Avri Doria: (13:47) i am against using anything as sword, except maybe swords.

  Greg Shatan: (13:47) We can wrap our concerns in GPI, but the pragmatic approach is to deal with specific concerns and specific solutions.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) I am for GPI and against using it as it has been used.

  Keith Drazek: (13:47) +1 Jordan

  Avri Doria: (13:48) Tatian, this i agree with

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) very reluctantly +1 to Greg

  Avri Doria: (13:48) Tatiana ...

  Greg Shatan: (13:49) @Tatiana, agreed.  It's one small step away from a parent saying "because I said so."

  Malcolm Hutty: (13:49) If work was done to develop proposals by mailing list and then we ratify in meetings I would be much more comfortable

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) @Greg oh that's a great description of what's going on

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:50) I suggest two call per week on Monday and Thusday, each call 150 mints with 10 mints break, We need to have a summary of each call subject by subject prepared by CO-Chair with the assistance of the secretariat, we should envisage that we may need to work in February , we need to have a well documented procedure on how the comments are considered and included in a consolidated doc.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:50) yes, Greg and Tatiana!

  Avri Doria: (13:50) how much time will we spend arguing about time?

  Keith Drazek: (13:50) The immediate challenge is for the CCWG to gain a common understanding of where conflicts exist following the lasta public comment period. I understood that was the work at hand. I didn't think anyone was suggesting the Co-Chairs alone develop solutions in a vacucm. Hope that helps.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:50) @Avri, I have the same concerns....

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:51) maybe we can all respond to prep material on the list when circulated, with our proposal as to how things should be resolved.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:51) +1 Keith

  Le-Marie Thompson: (13:51) @Avri the majority of the time

  andrew sullivan: (13:51) What Jordan said.  (That's what I was trying to say, less concisely)

  Greg Shatan: (13:51) The Tuesday/Thursday meetings next week at 1-4 am EST are really troublesome, in terms of not falling asleep at day job.  One night call in a week is harsh; two is basically unmanageable.

  Avri Doria: (13:51) i thin kour 3 hr meetings can be shorter if we all come prepared and talk as little as necessary, then maybe we can end our work for each meeting early.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) oh we have human rights next week, in the night then (early morning here)

  cherine chalaby: (13:52) Bruce+1 The best outcome  is for the CCWG and the Board to work together and find a mutually acceptable solution so that there will be no need for the Board to vote against any of the recommendations.  The Board provided a rational for its concerns and some proposed solutions.  However the Board is not wedded to these solutions and is very happy to consider alternatives.  Board memebers will participate  and engage in all the CCWG calls and will report back to the Board. The Board will hold weekly calls to provide timely feedback.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (13:52) +1 Avri!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:53) cherine: I guess many of us feel that that improperly elevates teh Board as a stakeholder in this process. We aren't meant to be negotiating an acceptable solution with the Board. We are meant to be finalising a proposal based on multistakeholder processes, where teh Board is one of the stakeholders.

  Niels ten Oever: (13:53) @tatiana not early morning, 1 PM, right?

  Aarti Bhavana: (13:53) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:54) We should aim to understand the Board's concerns, ALAC concerns, all the key concerns, and make changes as required, and put up a final report. Not negotiate a "lowest common denominator" proposal.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:54) +1 Jordan

  Avri Doria: (13:54) i suggest we give our chairs the ability to control this forced march as they think is needed.

  andrew sullivan: (13:54) +1 to Avri

  Niels ten Oever: (13:55) +1 Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck: (13:55) agree with both Jordan and Avri

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:55) let's keep the proposed programme as suggested by Mathieu.

  Greg Shatan: (13:55) @Tatiana, I think those 2 calls may violate Articles 5, 12 and 24 of the UDHR.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:55) by "changes as required" I mean to improve the proposal, not to weaken or compromise it to the point it basically doesn't work. :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:56) I don't agree with Kavouss on this point: I think we do need to hurry.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) @Greg, what, UDHR again :D

  Greg Shatan: (13:56) Calls next week are 06:00-0900 UTC = 1-4 am in Eastern US/Canada.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (13:56) I understand that three hours is the time blocked but not time to be filled. let's try to finish much faster and be as efficient and effective as possible

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:56) and I think we need to negotiate among our CCWG to come to a consensus insofar as we can, but not do a bilateral Board/CCWG discussion.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) +1 to Megan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:57) This schedule is brutal and not necessary.

  Niels ten Oever: (13:57) @Greg - but we get more of 18,19,27

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (13:57) +1 Megan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:57) Indeed Megan

  andrew sullivan: (13:57) @Robin: why not necessary?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (13:58) I believe it is necessary.

  Keith Drazek: (13:58) The longer we have, the longer we'll take. At some point, this crunch will be required.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) I think it is necessary to do our best, be it 2 hours or 3 hours

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:58) What about Tuesday and Friday?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:58) We have been at "crunch time" for many months.  All because we are afraid of the Republicans taking over  the White House.

  andrew sullivan: (13:59) @Robin: No, we are afraid that there'll be a new administration, which is guaranteed

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (13:59) If there were a need for two calls perally soeaking. week, hypotheci

  Avri Doria: (13:59) maybe we should have extra calls for those who want to argue about the work process. and use these plenary calls for the substnative issues.

  andrew sullivan: (13:59) @Avri: I _love_ that idea

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:59) @Avri, yes.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:00) +100 Avri

  Phil Buckingham: (14:00) sorry I am late . I have other commitments to clients

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:00) yes, lat's make it even less participatory

  Keith Drazek: (14:00) Agree Avri

  Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (14:01) We need to ensure that there is sufficient balance for community members from all timezones to participate in calls, to ensure that we uphold the efforts to ensure the process is fully inclusive to all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:01) long arcane debates about process aren't why most people are here - we are probably most inclusive if we focus our time on the issues that matter. which is to say, the issues.

  Keith Drazek: (14:01) Some amongst us have only ever contributed on process with no constructive input on substance. Just sayin'....

  andrew sullivan: (14:01) I have a feature request for Adobe: trophy status, so we can give Avri the "best process idea" trophy :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:02) trophy :-)

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (14:02) Some of us are quite civil, but quite liberal with the truth. Just sayin'....

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:05) Second that feature request Andrew (and Avri's idea)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:06) There were public comments calling for more transparency on board discussions as part of WS2 transparency reforms.  I don't see that on this summary.  How do we fix that ommission?

  mike chartier: (14:07) So here's GPI again ;)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) @Robin: we can mention that, maybe an oversight.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:07) Thanks - it would probably be good for us to have some time to go through the materials.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:07) I had not realized this was mentioned in several comments

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:08) One of the comments was the NCSG comment.  :-)

  Avri Doria: (14:09) i think we might just need a WS2 comment on completion of all ATRT items that were previously agreed to.  my favorite are transparency and whistleblowing.

  Avri Doria: (14:09) .. on timely and effective completion ...

  matthew shears: (14:09) so does this doc on teh screen reflect all the comments that were made in the publc comment on this section?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:10) @Matthew : most significant comments, not 100% of comments

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:10) @Mathieu, but we will have summary of all comment, won't we?

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:10) because it feels a bit misleading

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:10) Yes, it's going to be delivered by Jan 7

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) Thanks.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:11) which comments count as "signficant"?

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) There will be all comments, positive and negative, right?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Chartering orgs, or repeated comments... and the Board

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Yes Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:11) Thanks

  Edward Morris: (14:12) Do we have a guaranhtee of support by independent counsel during WS2?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:12) please define guarantee ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12)  Leon, How would CCWG take these comments into account.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) Leon at 80 mints rfrom the start we need to have Pause

  Edward Morris: (14:13) Has the Board indicated that ICANN will continue to provide the CCWG access to independent counsel throughout WS2 in a manner equivalent to that we've had during WS1?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:14) Would need to review the latest letter but it was "committing similar support"

  Brett Schaefer: (14:14) Small issue, but the human rights bullets on page 6 are inconsistent. Bullets 2, 4, and 5 all include a caveat of “if nay” or “if at all” but the first bullet does not. I would like to see “if any” added to the first bullet to be consistent: “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw.”

  Edward Morris: (14:15) Thanks Mathieu.. As you are more aware than I this is a very important requirement going ahead.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:15) Yes and was mentioned by several commeents (and also in the doc provided)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:16) Agree with Malcolm 100%

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:17) @Malcolm.   I  have certainly not made any statement against open participation - in fact I encourage it in any working group.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) Malcolm + 1

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) We need to examine the comments, discuss them and agree or not with them

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:18) that is how I interpreted that Bruce

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:18) I question whether public comments revealed that "a reviw of staff accountability should not be pursued."  Was this document drafted by staff?  Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:19) @Cheryl - how did yo interpret what I said just to be clear?

  Greg Shatan: (14:19) Which paragraphs exactly are being referred to as "paragraph-by-paragraph"?  Those in the interim Bylaw?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:19) yes Greg

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair, ALAC): (14:19) page 8 of the document on screen

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (14:20) Good evening::With respect to discussing issues on the CCWG mailing list, I would be happy to do so, but in practice only so few members or participants are active on the List; also there are very few substantive postings about outstanding issues. Indeed, most of the substantive issues have already been adequately addressed  in previous years.In fact many members and participants are usually silent on the List. Thus there is no sense in which the current mailing List debates correspond to the Communty's opinions. Also, some members and participants will have to compromise on a final position. Absent a CCWG consensus soon, the issues will eventually go up to the Board, the Chartering organisations and CWG-transition.CW

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:20) There are some concrete proposals but for example I would never agree with concrete proposal on human rights

  andrew sullivan: (14:20) Without wishing to point fingers, I'll note that someone at the beginning of this chat suggested that people limit themselves to 2 interventions/call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:21) RTatiana, for HUMAN RIGHTs YES

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:21) that the proposal dor WS@ TOPICS WAS TO "SPLIT TO STREAM*s*   for WG (open as usual with a good breadth od AC/SO commitment should run to their own timeline  but that this was not a limitation to participaation at all...

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:21) @@Edward - I expect that the Baord will contiue to make external legal counsel available  for the work stream 2 work.   One area that we do need to discuss at some point though is a budget for the ongoing work for the rest of the year.  We want to ensure there is a balance between fuinding across all policy development initiatives.

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:21) Well, I just wanted to say that there are concrete proposals from the board which we have to discuss.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:21)  Sorry that my Caps  was on for part of that...  NO intention t shout at you Bruce  ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:21) andrew: to be fair, he did suggest "per issue"

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:22) Thanks for clarifying @Cheryl.

  andrew sullivan: (14:22) Perhaps I have been too optimistic returning from a break.

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:23) Agree Malcolm.  

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:23) I thought all corss-communkty working groups had that practice.

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:24) I am not ware that any corss-community working group has ever been closed.

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) If it's clear that it is to be a CCWG (even if not this CCWG) that should follow.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:24) yes Leon

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) I prefer 10 mins

  andrew sullivan: (14:24) Are we supposed to hang up, or just get coffee?

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) let's discuss the break length for 15 minuites first!

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) If it is some other type of group, then all characteristics are up for grabs.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:24) 10 too

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) but whatever

  Greg Shatan: (14:24) 12.5 minutes

  Keith Drazek: (14:24) 15 minutes. Let's go....

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:24) just decide adn tell us

  Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad and Tobago): (14:24) ok

  Bruce Tonkin: (14:24) My comment was to give flexibnility to chartyering orgnaizxations to spin off separate corss-commuiyt working groups if they wished.   It is not a requirement - just making sure that bylwas language offer flexibility to the community.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:24) 15 min is ok

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) :-)

  Niels ten Oever: (14:24) 11;5 ?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:25) 12.5 surely Nils

  Avri Doria: (14:25) those who want to argue about whether it is 20 minutes could do so during the break.

  Greg Shatan: (14:25) A real 15 minutes.  I know that Leon likes to gavel us in promptly, anyway.

  nigel hickson: (14:25) finding coffee in Geneva....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:25) indeed they do unless  specified in charter not to a did the old retired SSSCWG  WHICH WAS LIMITED TO SELECTED Membership  due to atre of its work

  Brenda Brewer: (14:25) 15 Minute Break starting now.

  Megan Richards, European Commission: (14:31) coffee at this time in Geneva Nigel ? we are on evening drinks :-)

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:41) well done leon, starting back on time

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (14:41) Back

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:41) Leon, that is

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:43) I thought we were going to have the staff summary of comments on 24-25 December.  Without it, it is hard to make recommendations for amendments.

  andrew sullivan: (14:43) please proceed

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:44) Robin, it was planned for Jan 7. (call #72/73)

  andrew sullivan: (14:44) (i.e no objection)

  Niels ten Oever: (14:44) ping

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:44) faint life signal

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:44) is it artificial life ?

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:44) no objection

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:45) Mathieu, I didn't realize it had slipped until 7 Jan.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:45) 90 comments you know

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:45) ;-)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:46) that schedule sounds generous

  Avri Doria: (14:48) the only reason for deadlines is becasue they make it easier to know when you are slipping.  i like Kavouss' idea

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:48) Agree with Niels that this might be the issue, may be we can come back to Rec 12 after addressing Rec 6? ALAC concerns is impotant because there a conditional "no" and the condition is a deadline

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:49) This proposed timframe seems workable.

  Chris Disspain: (14:49) I may be missing somethig but why do we need to have a 'time frame'?

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) and certainly why does it need to be in the by-laws

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:50) @Chris : some comments said they wanted a clear timeframe for WS2. That's the reason for this discussion

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:50) I think it is important that we don't force ourselves to stop at that point however.  We might not be done yet.

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) ah..understood Mathieu...

  andrew sullivan: (14:50) I suggest that we adopt whatever targets we like.

  Chris Disspain: (14:50) so, persoanlly, I dont agree with those comments

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:50) I think we needed timeframe to be sure that some critical issues will be addressed in a reasonable time frame

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:50) We need to have some overall time frame an d target date

  andrew sullivan: (14:50) and write them down with all the authority that implies

  Keith Drazek: (14:50) I tend to agree with Alan here...no need to hard-code a timeline into a bylaw. I think intitiation of a process can be made concrete, but an end point is inadvisable.

  Chris Disspain: (14:51) targets and time frames are important BUT do  not need to go into formal documents like by-laws

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:51) How about a goal of carrying out WS2 with the same level of dispatch that was exhibited in WS1?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:51) Chris, just a provocative : woudl Icann support and pay for staff, lawyers, etc. forever ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:51) ANY DATE WOULD BE taget date