27 February 2014
- Mary Wong
The first meeting of the new Cross-Community Working Group Drafting Team (CWG-DT) is scheduled for Thursday 27 February, 2100 UTC.
Agenda:
- Roll Call/Updates to Membership List & SOIs
- Discuss draft Charter
- Next Steps
Document for Review:
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-20140227-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-ccwg-27feb14-en.pdf
Attendees
Mike O’Connor - ISP
John Berard – BC co-chair
Chuck Gomes - RySG
Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC
Alberto Soto – NCUC
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Becky Burr – ccNSO co-chair
Evan Leibovitch – ALAC
ICANN Staff
Julie Hedlund
Mary Wong
Bart Boswinkel
Nathalie Peregrine
Terri Agnew
Absent apologies
None
Adobe Chat transcript:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) on Thursday 27 February 2014
Bart Boswinkel:Good evening
Mary Wong:Hello early birds!
Alberto Soto:Good evening
Mary Wong:Welcome, Alberto.
Alberto Soto:ThanksMary
Alan Greenberg:On bridge now.
Mike O'Connor:me
Mary Wong:@Alan, :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and past ones have as well Alan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there is often need to go out to seek input, support or in principle agreement between at least SO and AC leadership right back at beginning existing framework(s) guidelines and SOP's is a huge help
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:differences will always need to be accommodated
Alan Greenberg:Over my involvement in ICANN, I have seen VERY few groups where the (large) number of participants was a problem!
John Berard:Vertical Integration?
Alan Greenberg:That's the one!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary Wong:If it helps, in this instance the foundational documents already exist (GNSO initial draft, ccNSO response, staff paper).
Alan Greenberg:Becky, for most groups, too many GNSO volunteers is not a problem. Perhaps sadly.
Mike O'Connor:what about the NRO, are we expecting a participant from there?
Terri Agnew:Evan Leibovitch has joined
Mike O'Connor:yes
Mary Wong:@Mikey, we'll invite all SO/ACs - but note that since the charter now says "each participating SO and AC" so it envisages that maybe not all SOs or ACs will participate.
Mike O'Connor:ah
Mike O'Connor:that works
Becky Burr (Neustar):i have no problem with a minimum of 2
Bart Boswinkel:Please note the differnce between members and observers all are particpants
Mary Wong:Following from my earlier comment in chat about having the foundational documents already in hand, the point there was that there therefore may not be a need for a large WG to develop the final principles.
Becky Burr (Neustar):minimum of 2, maximum of 5, subject to reconsideration in the event of over-subscription
Chuck Gomes:I am comfortable with a min of 2 and max of 4 if we are talking about voting members only.
Becky Burr (Neustar):yes
Mike O'Connor:minimum of 2, no max, subject to reconsideration in the event of over-subscription
Mary Wong:@Alan, what Cheryl and Becky said.
Evan Leibovitch:hi all. just lurking.
Chuck Gomes:Great question Alan
Mary Wong:@Becky and all, we can rephrase that sentence to say maximum of [ ] voting members; we can also tighten up the language referring to Participants (which are Members plus Observers), Members (who vote), and Observers (who do not).
Evan Leibovitch:"Community/Constituency members" > "Community/Constituency leaders or representatives"
Alan Greenberg:Do we have to ask Cheryl to leave because she is not an AC member?
Evan Leibovitch:not the same
Evan Leibovitch:The AC/SO can designate liaisons who are not actual councillors or Committee members.
Alan Greenberg:But if RSSAC says we do not want to participate in THIS group, isbn't that their call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Alan Membership in a Representation al sence can be Confirmed and here I did not read currently sitting/serving Council Member
Chuck Gomes:@ mikey: no max on voting members?
Mary Wong:@Alan, yes. The numbers we are discussing here are only for "participating SOs and ACs", not "all SOs and ACs".
Alan Greenberg:@CLO, I was quoting the words on the screen "Members of..."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:btw I'm as happy with 2-5 as 1-4 or any other couplet
Mike O'Connor:@chuck -- i'm used to WGs that mostly get to consensus - so if one person is really concerned, we fix it. not as familiar w/voting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:AGREED Concensus is key to best outcomes here and I believe in following Principals to be developed yes but we also need a 'vote mechanism' to utalise as required
Becky Burr (Neustar):could we chat briefly about the consensus issue tho
Mike O'Connor:yup - agreed
John Berard:Becky, you should talk to Thomas Rickert about the IGO/INGO WG!
Alberto Soto:I think: Consensus is that everyone has the same opinion. If there is a single dissent, there is no consensus. The opposite, dissent: when no one agrees with the proposition. Between the two extremes: some agree and some do not.And here we can speak of majority and minorityThen maybe, we should talk about percentages of approval and disapproval
Becky Burr (Neustar):but we are NOT drafting policy, just making recommendations to our respective groups
Becky Burr (Neustar):but there is no provision for blocking here - we are only seeking to act by consensus
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree Chuck there is a risk of a chilling effect if we have a lack of understanding (agreed understanding)
Evan Leibovitch:I was in the IGO WG. The problem is that there was an inability to have a category of "consensus AGAINST" a proposal given to the WG
Mike O'Connor:i'm ok with dropping 3rd one too
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:works for me with the first 2 sure
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but think we need the 'classes
Mary Wong:Got it.
Mike O'Connor:@beck does getting rid of that work for you?
Mary Wong:So basically there will be Full Consensus (ie unanimity); Convergence (small minority disagrees); and No Consensus (i.e. disagreement).
Mike O'Connor:trivia question: who came up with these tiers first?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but keep divergence or just 'ignore that option?
Mike O'Connor:no, just the work that's coming up
Becky Burr (Neustar):actually, i am very confused about why we need a rigid characterization at all. we are just seeking to act with consensus and in the event we don't have it, we would just describe it (e.g., x members of the working group support this issue, y members hate it)
Mary Wong:@Mikey, the answer to your question lies in the deliberations of the GNSO Improvements group - prob one of the Sub Teams ....
Mike O'Connor:Ram Mohan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the wg that developed the GNSO Guidelines proposed them in that process then of course the usual reviews happened Mikey
Mike O'Connor:in an earlier Wg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup Mary. we could list the ST. but that is too granular IMO
Mike O'Connor:back on topic - i'm ok with full-consensus operating method for the upcoming WG - we DO want strong support for the outcome
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:non contributory SO/AC's may want to know the degree of such support ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:must be UTC Mary yes
Mary Wong:The Singapore office needs more decor :)
Evan Leibovitch:Statues... to tear down during the revolution
Mary Wong:Thanks, everyone.