CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review (4 April 2016 @ 18:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
Members: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon, Seun Ojedeji, Wanawith Ahkuputra (9)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, Harold Arcos, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Martin Boyle, Mike Chartier, Milton Mueller, Robin Gross, Rudi Vansnick, Sabine Meyer (15)
Legal Counsel: Rebecca Grapsas, Sharon Flanagan
Staff: Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Julie Hedlund, Kurt Rossler, Marika Konings, Mary Wong, Samantha Eisner, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green
Apologies: Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Jonathan Robinson
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Opening remarks
2. Presentation and discussion of CWG related ICANN bylaws
3. AOB
4. Closing remarks
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
- Short timeframe ahead -- 9 days before work needs to be complete
- Kavouss raised concern with budget.
2. Presentation and discussion of CWG related ICANN bylaws
- Review of questions on PTI, CSC, IFR
- IANA escalation processes will be included in PTI-ICANN contract.
- Concern from Chuck Gomes that, in Q13, consumers of the IANA naming functions, seems to broad
- The SCWG is subject to the Empowered Community
- Procurement processes are public
- Questions about PTI funding to be addressed on DT-O call on Tuesday
Action #1: All to review the questions and clarifications and provide responses on list by Friday at the latest.
Action #2: Avri, Donna, and Chuck (as DT leads) to review their sections of the Bylaws and provide initial responses to the questions
3. AOB
4. Closing remarks
Action Items
Action #1: All to review the questions and clarifications and provide responses on list by Friday at the latest.
Action #2: Avri, Donna, and Chuck (as DT leads) to review their sections of the Bylaws and provide initial responses to the questions
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p423ky5xvqs/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/cwg-iana-04apr16-en.mp3
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (4/4/2016 12:33) Welcome all to CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review Meeting on 4 April @ 18:00 UTC!
Kavouss Araste: (12:53) Hi Brenda
Kavouss Araste: (12:53) Hi Robin
Kavouss Araste: (12:54) Hi Lise
Lise Fuhr: (12:54) Hi Kavouss
Kavouss Araste: (12:56) There are five people 7persons who never reply to my greeting
Kavouss Araste: (12:56) But I respect all of these five persons
Kavouss Araste: (12:59) Hi Grec
Kavouss Araste: (12:59) sORRY, gREG
Kavouss Araste: (12:59) hI jORGE
Wanawit AHkuputra: (13:00) Hi Kavouss
Greg Shatan: (13:00) Hello, Kavouss! Hello, All!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:00) Hello all!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:00) Hi Kavouss!
Sabine Meyer: (13:01) hello everyone
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:01) Hallo Sabine!
Kavouss Araste: (13:01) jORGE, i HAVE ONE MEETING NOW AND ANOTHER AT MID NIGHT
Sabine Meyer: (13:01) gruezi Jorge? ;)
Lise Fuhr: (13:01) Hi all - we will start shortly - but I will wait a couple of minutes
Kavouss Araste: (13:02) gRUST gOT sABINE
Sabine Meyer: (13:02) Thank you and hello Kavouss
Milton: (13:04) Greetings
Grace Abuhamad: (13:10) Document is unsynced for you
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:10) I don't think I received the Bylaws. Who sent it and when?
Grace Abuhamad: (13:11) Mathieu Weill, yesterday
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:11) wouldn't the redline version be more useful?
Xavier: (13:11) Grüß Gott, is what I think Kavouss meant to Sabein. :-)
Xavier: (13:11) Sabine...
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:11) @Chuck, I just sent it to you.
Lise Fuhr: (13:11) @Jorge we will send out the redline version to CWG
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:12) Hi, sorry I'm late
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:12) @Lise: I meant to display it now on screen
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:12) Thanks Donna.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:13) Thanks to Allan as well.
Grace Abuhamad: (13:13) The redline is very hard to read. We can upload it if you prefer
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:13) what page of the on-screen text are we on?
Grace Abuhamad: (13:13) Page 83
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:13) thanks!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:15) Agree with points made by Kavouss so far
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:17) finally got my internet back up... NOW IN AC and audio
Milton: (13:17) We just have to carefully read it all very quickly, Kavouss
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:18) your comments are notedn Kavous, but most of us just need to get on with all this work and assist the legal drafting as best we caan from a time commitment POV
Milton: (13:18) My main concern is what happens if something needs to be fixed. Will we have time to do that?
Lise Fuhr: (13:18) @Milton and Kavouss - yes there is time built in to fix any issues
Harold Arcos: (13:18) Apologies for late connection
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:18) I think it would be helpful if staff controlled the scrolling.
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:18) What page are we on?
Grace Abuhamad: (13:19) 17.1 is on page 86 in your Adobe room
Milton: (13:19) disagree Chuck, I want to control my own scrolling
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:19) thx Grace
Milton: (13:19) we are on page 83-84, Article 17
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:19) What's the distinction between a primary and direct customer?
Grace Abuhamad: (13:20) 17.2 starts on page 87 in your AC room navigation
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:20) Incorrect
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:20) As long as I am clear where we are at, I can live with that.
Lise Fuhr: (13:20) @Donna that is the question - the CWG wrote both
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:20) I think it is the direct customers. Primary could imply that there were other customers: I'm not sure there are
Grace Abuhamad: (13:21) Do you want the questions displayed on screen or the Bylaws?
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:22) @Grace, I would find that helpful
Milton: (13:22) wanted to make a point about (c)
Grace Abuhamad: (13:22) Any objection to having the questions & clarifications document on screen instead of the Bylaws
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:23) Good idea
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:23) We're on #9
Grace Abuhamad: (13:24) I'm uploading the questions document
Marika Konings: (13:26) As a general point, should the references be to ccNSO and GNSO or ccNSO Council and GNSO Council? This was also an issue flagged during the last CWG-Stewardship meeting.
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (13:27) For the ccNSO it should be ccNSO Council
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:27) @Kavouss +1
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:27) I suspect that it should also be GNSO Council instead of GNSO.
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:27) @Marika, I agree this is something we need to make clear. I think in most instances it will be Council.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:28) I do not think the level of detail is excessive.
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (13:28) We have used the ccNSO Council/GSNO Council formulation where we are talking about voting that is required (e.g., supermajority) but use ccNSO/GNSO in other places, consistent with the rest of ICANN's Bylaws. Those organizations would act through the Council so don't need to specify that otherwise
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:28) agree Greg That is my recollection as well
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:28) @Greg, that was the intent and should be made clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:29) good point re new group but yes te change could be made at a later time
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:30) @Rebecca--it would be good to understand where it doesn't need to be made clear, but is assumed consistent with bylaws.
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (13:30) For example, 17.3 that says the ccNSO or GNSO or CSC can request a review of the CSC charter
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (13:31) Thanks Rebecca. Clear enough for me
Milton: (13:32) someone needs to mute their mic, some pretty rough noises coming through
Grace Abuhamad: (13:32) Thanks Milton. We're on it
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:35) @ Sharon: Please identify the question on the screen each time.
Grace Abuhamad: (13:36) #14
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:36) Thanks Sharon & Grace.
Greg Shatan: (13:36) Old hand. Sorry.
Milton: (13:37) I have a question about the consultation right of ICANN. I don't see why it is needed
Milton: (13:38) it undermines the autonomy of PTI
Milton: (13:39) ICANN could participate in the public comment period if it thought things were going in a direction that was not right
Kavouss Araste: (13:42) I see no difficulty to consult ICAN at all
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:46) Regarding question 13, 'consumers of the IANA naming functions seem way too broad to me.
Greg Shatan: (13:47) Second sentence of 18.9(a) appears to be missing some words.
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (13:48) @Greg: Thanks
Milton: (13:51) On question 17, does that mean the IFRT cannot recommend a new IANA FO?
Milton: (13:54) Absolutely correct, SCWG must be subject to EC
Milton: (13:54) Otherwise accountability fails
Alan Greenberg: (13:55) How could it not be unless there was an explicit carveout?
Kavouss Araste: (13:56) Question 19, the answer is yes
Alan Greenberg: (13:57) That presume that the procurement processes are public. Are they?
Kavouss Araste: (13:58) Answer to Q 22 IS no
Christopher Wilkinson: (14:00) I am not comfortable with the idea that a new FO would increase fees. Please set out that response in writing for more careflul revies. CW
Kavouss Araste: (14:00) Q20 ,the answer is no as we need to have some latitude
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:01) Some experience w/ RFPs should suffice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:01) agree Chuck
Alan Greenberg: (14:02) Hands up
Alan Greenberg: (14:03) On RFP experts, it would make no sense to select people from all of those communities, but restrict it to only RFP specialists.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:03) Agree w/ 22.
Milton: (14:03) Yes, true majority
Kavouss Araste: (14:03) what is true majority?
Milton: (14:04) Majority of all members, not just those present
Alan Greenberg: (14:05) Not a term previously used in the Bylaws. Presume it will be defined.
Kavouss Araste: (14:05) How the views of those who are not present are sought?!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:07) Sharon on 1st read that is OK as a high level statement. leaving us to Imlpementation , But we will need allocation as oppossed to just Budgetting for... DOOES "allocation' in this text sstand strng enough?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:08) YUP alloction would have had to be made pre receivership..
Greg Shatan: (14:08) I think "true majority" was just being used as an informal term to mean a majority of all members. This is a common concept in corporate governance. It is used, e.g., in the California Corp. Code relating to Public Benefit Corporations. I don't believe there is a single formally-recognized "term of art" for this concept.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:08) Sharon that is helpull comment re seperation then, we will need to discuss this in DTO tomorrow I guess Chuck
Milton: (14:09) Yes, too much time, including approval of ICANN board to create a SCWG
Greg Shatan: (14:11) That's my understanding as well.
Samantha Eisner: (14:11) Within ICANN, we did not understnad that divestiture would mean that ICANN would be taken out of the contracting role with the divested entity
Alan Greenberg: (14:13) ICANN stays the Names steward under separation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:13) thx Shaaron
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (14:14) Agree with Alan. That is also my understanding of our proposal
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:14) @Samantha: it isn't is it? It is the stewart. If ICANN goes bust, though, who is the new stewart?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:15) Disagree with Kavouss.
Greg Shatan: (14:15) Disagree, that's kind of the whole point of the "divestiture" scenario (or at least one version of it) -- taking ICANN out of the chain (or dealing with an ICANN that can no longer function in the chain). I don't think any scenario is off the table.
Kavouss Araste: (14:15) Disagree with chuck
Milton: (14:16) Agree with Greg.
Greg Shatan: (14:16) My disagreement was not with Chuck or Kavouss, but rather with Sam and Alan. P.S. Worlds collide -- Milton and I agree...
Milton: (14:16) Taking ICANN out of the chain is EXTREMELY unlikely, the so-called nuclear option, but it has always been there, just as NTIA could replace ICANN as steward
Christopher Wilkinson: (14:17) Do not agree with Greg's interpretation. CW
Samantha Eisner: (14:17) @ Maarten, I don't have the answer of whether ICANN goes bust. But a divestiture when ICANN is still in operation was never understood by ICANN to mean that ICANN is removed from the contracting role
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:18) OK so Kavous you and Chuck can agree to disagree then
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (14:18) @Sam, and not understood by me
Greg Shatan: (14:18) I think ICANN the community had exactly that understanding. ICANN the corporation, might be different...
Milton: (14:18) so Kavouss does not agree with the use of the chat to express disagreement or agreement?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:18) you cn both reman uncnvinced... BUT we have the Bylaws to focus on and do the drafts reflect our originl intentions
Milton: (14:19) :-)
Greg Shatan: (14:19) The basic reason for a "divestiture" would be a loss of faith in ICANN for some reason. Automatiically keeping ICANN in the contracting role would defeat that. It's not impossible that ICANN would remain in the contracting role, but not a foregone conclusion either.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:20) We agree on consensus.
Christopher Wilkinson: (14:21) Consensus is greater than simple majority.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:22) Read 22: IF CONSENSUS CANNOT BE REACHED.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:25) @Sam: nor by me
Kavouss Araste: (14:25) Then pls read the " ICG Consensus Building " doc.
Lise Fuhr: (14:25) Sorry lost audio again
Lise Fuhr: (14:26) 2 min
Brenda Brewer: (14:26) Lise's line has disconnected.
Milton: (14:26) It's a wrap
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (14:26) bye all
Sabine Meyer: (14:26) bye everyone!
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:27) bye all
Harold Arcos: (14:27) bye thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:27) bye all
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:27) Goodbye from London!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:27) bye all!