Attendees:

Sub-group Members: Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Herb Waye, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Jeff Neuman, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller, Parminder Singh, Philip Corwin, Seun Ojedeji, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Wale Bakare (22)

Observers/Guests: Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong, Mark Carvell, Silvana Rivero, Taylor Bentley (4)

Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Meghan Healy, Nigel Hickson (6)

Apologies: Finn Petersen

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

Transcript

Recording

Agenda

Welcome
Expected Standards of Behavior
Proposed Questionnaire:
1. Possible Revisions to Preamble and Questions
2. Status of Question 4
3. Reporting to CCWG Plenary
“Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction” document)
AOB
Adjourn

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

1. Welcome

Greg Shatan: Welcome. Changes to SOIs? None. JN audio only.

2. Expected Standards of Behavior

Greg Shatan: (Review of standards of behaviour)

Mathieu Weill: Fully support Greg. Quoting the CCWG-A Charter : All participants are expected to abide by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.The co-chairs are empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the working group. Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances, this requirement may be bypassed. This restriction is subject to the right of appeal as outlined above.

David McAuley (RySG): thanks Greg

atthew shears: agree Greg - thanks

Philip Corwin: Thank you Mathieu for pointing out that the co-chairs possess disciplinary powers for repeated violations of the Standards as well as for disruptive behavior.

Wale Bakare: I am in strong support of the Standards of Behavior.

3. Proposed Questionnaire:

a. Possible Revisions to Preamble and Questions

Greg Shatan: Review of Preamble - review of three options in document.

CW: Preamble: I have no strong opinion, except that the preamble should be SHORT.

David McAuley: I have now reservations abut the questionnaire going out at all - given the discussions of the last few weeks has convinced me about this. We should stick to dispute resolution and contracts - especially given the questionnaire is not very professional.

Tatiana Tropina: I agree with David. I assume the questionnaire will go out anyway, but I fully agree with what he said. Especially because I did with legal questionnaires and I know how hard it is

Kavouss Arasteh: DM needs a glass of cold water but his statement does not help - we need to move forward with the questionnaire and decide on questions at this meeting.

Philip Corwin: I share David's concerns but am reserving judgment on whether the questionaire should be sent depending on how this meeting proceeds.

avri doria: While i do not agree with regard to the special problem with Q4, i totally agree on there being no aspect in which this is a professional questionnaire. Can support cancellation of the questionnaire.

David McAuley (RySG): +1 Phil - we must stick to facts and discard opinions

matthew shears: agree focus on facts and data

Tatiana Tropina: I garee that all the problems come from the Q4 and that it makes the whole exercise vulnerable and out of the group mandate. Although I am not supporting the idea of the questionnaire itself but I could have lived with 3 questions.

avri doria: I also do not think that Q4 is more an opinion question thatn 1-3 are. They all rely on opinion and perspective.

Tatiana Tropina: this group is already full of different opinions, we need facts.

Mathieu Weill: The way we frame the question is NEVER going to prevent respondents to provide opinions.

matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana

David McAuley (RySG): I also think even 1-3 could simply yield opinion

Steve DelBianco: The preamble is the basis to decide if we are going to seek opinions can be subjected to a campaign of opinion loading throuhg an orchestrated response campaign. If we do go forward with a questions we should only consider unique responses based on facts.

Greg Shatan: Have attempted to do this in option 7.

Seun Ojedeji: Even though i have concern about the excercise we are about to get into but so long as we are focusing on facts, i don't think we should be concerned about question 4 any more. and i actually think focusing on fact should be the same for all the questions.

Kavouss Arasteh: Coleagues, pls kindly do not use provocative terms in your statement like manipulating

Kavouss Arasteh: Milton. that is your and few others's views

Tatiana Tropina: but at least when we ask for facts we can stick to facts when we got responses

Philip Corwin: Agree that we cannot prevent opinions being submitted in response to any question, but we can agree in advance to discard any response that is not validated by facts and data.

Milton Mueler: It is emerging that the source of the problem is question 4. In response to DM I acknowledge his concern but this is not meant to be a professional survey - I repeat we need to disconnect the first 3 questions from Q4. What is preventing us from doing this.

Wale Bakare: The question 3 rely more on actual facts - experiences rather than opinions. We need to be focused on mechanisms of sourcing for data, as previously analysed by @Avri last week in the mailing list.

Tatiana Tropina: again, can live with 1-3. If the idea is to stick to factual analysis once we got answers

matthew shears: we should be ready to discount inputs that are not substantiated with fact

Steve DelBianco: @Phil -- agree, and furthermore we should consolidate responses so that we discard duplicates citing the very same facts and evidence.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: In historical context - Jurisdiction issue goes back a long way. Support MM re surveys. Finally supportoption 7 on Q4.

avri doria: the fact that 1&2 only collect facts from a single perspective and not a global perspective. You need question 4 to gather facts from the broader perspective.

Tatiana Tropina: Matthew, yes. This is the thing. And this shall be determined before the questionnaire is sent. That once the answers come back only those with factual substance would be analysed

Greg Shatan: Matthew, that is the goal of this discussion.

Philip Corwin: @Steve--and I agree with your point

Milton: Avri, yes, perhaps we need to discuss the broader perspective, as you know i support that. But the framing of the question is very controversial and it has stalled everything

Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with MM on first 3 questions. We will end up with a version of q4 one way or another - but would agree it could be done separately. Do not agree about the risk of a campaign. Jurisdiction thing in US is temporary. Do not agree that ICANN should incorporated in the US but this may take a long time - decades.

Parminder: David making two points which should be tken seperately - whether only choice of law (privae law) is in our mandate, and the more formal issue of whether q4 is properly worded to get appropriate info. lets not mix the two very different things.

Parminder: if indeed the mandate is under question - let us elave everything and first discuss and agree on it. It is truoblesome that we keep this keeps coming back - we cant work in ths manner. So, pl lets be first clear about mandate

Becky Burr: just want to note that I am on the call and will be replacing Erika Mann as backup Board Liaison.

Parminder: next, when milton says there is no opposition to question 1-3 to go out. No, I oppose it. Bec without q 4, it puts a question on the nature of remit/ mandate of CCWG

Jeff Neuman 2: on the other hand leaving the issue open will mean that we will be consistently having this debate and not be able to focus on the real substance of ICANN activities

matthew shears: agree Jeff

Wale Bakare: +1, to Jeff. We would continually looping

Greg Shatan: (reading Parminder chat posting given audio issues).

David McAuley: I still think we would need to use a professional survey taker to get valid input.

Milton: Again, this is not survey research, we are not quantifying percentages, or sampling a target population

Milton: we are asking for facts or incidents

Mathieu Weill: Situation is quite confusing to me. There seems to be consensus that we need facts. We have agreed to disagree on the mandate of the group. Reminder we are working for the community as agreed in WS1. There are significant expectations both internally and externally to ICANN and we cannot be seen to be trying to limit valid discussions. This is one of the first real tests of the post transition ICANN - we need facts to advance.

Milton: +1 Mathieu

Philip Corwin: Agree with Jeff, which is precisely why I advocated that, after spending two years and $14 million in legal fees to create an accountability structure that worked within the framework of CA law, we should have resolved the issue in WS1. Unfortunately the decision was made to kick the can down the road -- now this subgroup should be the end of the road. If US corporate jurisdiction ever creates a major problem I have no doubt that the iCANN community will recognize and address that.

Milton: so TT and DM we identified a wording problem in the first question and we fixed it.

Tatiana Tropina: Phil, yes absolutely, *but* this decision shall be based on facts and not just on opinions what is good and what is bad

Milton: Can you identify any specific way in which the phrasing of the questions would not produce useful data?

Mathieu Weill: Honestly, I've never seen a survey, even tailored by professionals, that "containeed' people within a given scope. If they want to speak up, they will, and that is the multistakeholder model isn't it ?

Kavouss Arasteh: about 10 days ago the PC proposal for Q4 had great deal of support - we should work on this basis - we cannot drop Q4 and need to move forward.

Milton: Kavouss, it is clear that Q4 has strong support but it also has strong opposition. So we are proposing to separate it from the other questions, not to dump it - it needs more work

Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu, sure! The point is that to unsure which info one gets when the answers come back.

Tatiana Tropina: I agree to separate the Q4 and send it separately after fine tuning.

Tatiana Tropina: I mean, I agree to disagree, I have concerns about questionnaire as a tool itself but I understand that we have to do something so I concur.

Kavouss Arasteh: Dear Tidjani,

Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that???

David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk

Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that???

David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk

Kavouss Arasteh: I can not agree to separate Q4 from the three other Qs

Greg Shatan: Quality of survey should not be a major issue. We should use the remainder of our time to understand how to resolve Q4 issue. We need to work to resolve this by our next meeting. Any comments on the preamble.

Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly do not promote to separate Q4 from tother questions

Mathieu Weill: @Kavouss, it is Greg, not Grec ;-)

Kavouss Arasteh: It would be misinterpreted by the crecipiants

Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu I think even Greg will agree that he is Grec now :-)

Parminder: Prefer alternative 2, can live with alt 1, but dont accept current text or alt 3

Kavouss Arasteh: Preamble should precise and short and questions should be a max of 10 lines each. Make this as short as possible.

Greg Shatan: Which version do you support?

Kavouss Arasteh: support the shortest version.

Parminder: to answer Greg, I dot support alt 3 bec it quotes the mandate selectively

Philip Corwin: Prefer alt 1 -- shorter is better

Parminder: Shorter and high level is best

Steve DelBianco: I prefer Alternative 1

Milton: Alternative 1 for me

Tatiana Tropina: Alternative 1 too

David McAuley (RySG): support alt 1, qualified by my remarks

Kavouss Arasteh: Generally Speaking, people responding may not pay a lot of attention to Preamble

Milton: right, Kavouss

Greg Shatan: (survey on preamble) CW JJS opposed 6 in support.

CW: Alternative 2 is OK if there are links to Final Report and Mandate

Kavouss Arasteh: i COULD AGREE WITH ALT 1

matthew shears: alt 1 is OK

Parminder: I had requested to add "implementation of policy" to alt i

Parminder: alt 2 for me is best

Kavouss Arasteh: cAN YOU TRY aLT 1 AGAIN

Seun Ojedeji: why try again @Kavouss?

Mary Uduma 2: Alt 1 for me

Tatiana Tropina: The check count for Alt 1 was confusing. I deleted my green check before Greg did a final count :-)

Milton: Let's do another check of support for Alternative 1

Parminder: Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here

Seun Ojedeji: Seun: Alt 1 prefered for preamble

Tatiana Tropina: yes please put alt 1 for final check

Parminder: I am fine with alt 1, but as Greg had amended on the elist

Tatiana Tropina: I support both! With or without addition. :-)

Greg Shatan: Preamble Alt 1 with the added text is preferred and I will put it on the list for preparation of our nest meeting.

Kavouss Arasteh: vERY GOOD

Kavouss Arasteh: it is done

Jeff Neuman 2: I need to see the full text befor making a determination

Greg Shatan: Discussing Question 1. Option 1 and 2 re Domain Name vs DNS.

Milton: Alt 1 now

CW: Q1: maintain DNS. that includes the root and addresses

CW: Q1 maintain Privacy.

Greg Shatan: Will post alternative 1 to the list as a final recommendation.

Kavouss Arasteh: I CAN NOT MANIPULATE CROSS COLOUR

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Greg, there was an audio cut, I missed some of your comments. I am against most alternatives, but am in favour of Alternative 7, the one you proposed.

Greg Shatan: we need to get to question 4 on our next call and I will post to the list on this. Good Call.Adjourned.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (1/6/2017 06:32) Good day all and welcome to Jurisdiction Meeting #15 on 6 January 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!

Kavouss Arasteh: (06:32) Dear Brenda

Kavouss Arasteh: (06:33) Happy New Yeer to you.

Brenda Brewer: (06:33) Thank you, Kavouss! Happy New Year to you too!!

Kavouss Arasteh: (06:33) I wish you and your family a joyful , perosprous and successful year 2017

Brenda Brewer: (06:34) Much appreciated!!

Kavouss Arasteh: (06:45) Dear Parminder. Dear Jean Jaques and dear all those joing soon.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (06:46) Hello All, I wish you good health, joy, and success in 2017!

Kavouss Arasteh: (06:46) A very happy New and prosperous , joyful and successful years for all of you

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (06:46) Thank you Kavouss, Brenda & All!

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (06:51) hello all

Parminder: (06:57) Thanks, and wishing all a great 2017!

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:00) Grec, have you received my private /personal message

Tatiana Tropina: (07:00) Hi all! My best wishes for 2017

David McAuley (RySG): (07:00) Hi Brenda, I am 4154

Brenda Brewer: (07:01) Thank you, David!

Greg Shatan: (07:02) Kavouss, yes I did.

matthew shears: (07:02) can someone confirm audio is working?

Milton Mueller: (07:02) welcome all

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (07:02) midnight Friday night here Greg but on a min morning will do :-)

Nigel Hickson: (07:02) good afternoon

Tatiana Tropina: (07:02) Matt Greg is speaking right now

Tatiana Tropina: (07:02) and I can hear him well so audio is on

CW: (07:02) Good morning/afternoon everyone Christopher Wilkinson (CW)

Mary Uduma: (07:03) go

Mary Uduma: (07:03) Good afternoon all. No audio.

Mathieu Weill: (07:04) Hello everyone

Brenda Brewer: (07:04) Mary, would you like a dial out for audio?

Mary Uduma: (07:05) Audio back. May be my device error.

Wale Bakare: (07:06) Good morning/afternoon/evening all

CW: (07:06) Supporting Exlpected Standards of Behaviour.

Mathieu Weill: (07:07) Fully support Greg. Quoting the CCWG-A Charter : All participants are expected to abide by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.The co-chairs are empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the working group. Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances, this requirement may be bypassed. This restriction is subject to the right of appeal as outlined above.

David McAuley (RySG): (07:07) thanks Greg

matthew shears: (07:07) agree Greg - thanks

Mary Uduma: (07:08) KK Greg.

Philip Corwin: (07:08) Thank you Mathieu for pointing out that the co-chairs possess disciplinary powers for repeated violations of the Standards as well as for disruptive behavior.

CW: (07:09) Preamble: I have no strong opinion, except that the preamble should be SHORT.

Parminder: (07:09) I prefer alternative 2, but can live with alternative 1. but ot the status text, or alternative 3

Herb Waye Ombuds: (07:10) Sorry for being late... time zone challenged... thought this was 1 my time,

Wale Bakare: (07:11) I am in strong support of the Standards of Behavior.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:12) I agree with David. I assume the questionnaire will go out anyway, but I fully agree with what he said. Especially because I did with legal questionnaires and I know how hard it is

Tatiana Tropina: (07:12) sorry, not did, dealt

David McAuley (RySG): (07:13) I trid to speal slowly, sory if I did not meet that gola

David McAuley (RySG): (07:13) speak, that is

Philip Corwin: (07:13) I share David's concerns but am reserving judgment on whether the questionaire should be sent depending on how this meeting proceeds.

avri doria: (07:13) While i do not agree with regard to the special problem with Q4, i totally agree on there being no aspect in which this is a professional questionnaire. Can support cancellation of the questionnaire.

matthew shears: (07:15) I also share some of David's concerns - I worry about the utility of the questionnaire as to fulfilling the mandate of this group

Milton: (07:15) Matt, all the problems stem from Q4

Philip Corwin: (07:15) Fully support Steve. We must stick to seeking facts and data, not opinions and speculation.

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:16) People are kindly to speak slowly and clearly in particular ly separating syllabus one from

avri doria: (07:16) I think the rule of only accepting unique repsonses would apply to all questions.

David McAuley (RySG): (07:16) +1 Phil - we must stick to facts and discard opinions

matthew shears: (07:16) agree focus on facts and data

Tatiana Tropina: (07:16) I garee that all the problems come from the Q4 and that it makes the whole exercise vulnerable and out of the group mandate. Although I am not supporting the idea of the questionnaire itself but I could have lived with 3 questions.

avri doria: (07:16) I also do not think that Q4 is more an opinion question thatn 1-3 are. They all rely on opinion and perspective.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:17) this group is already full of different opinions, we need facts.

Mathieu Weill: (07:17) The way we frame the question is NEVER going to prevent respondents to provide opinions.

matthew shears: (07:17) + 1 Tatiana

David McAuley (RySG): (07:17) I also think even 1-3 could simply yield opinion

Wale Bakare: (07:17) As provided by Avri in the mailing list last week.

Seun Ojedeji: (07:17) Even though i have concern about the excercise we are about to get into but so long as we are focusing on facts, i don't think we should be concerned about question 4 any more. and i actually think focusing on fact should be the same for all the questions.

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:18) Coleagues, pls kindly do not use provocative terms in your statement like manipulating

David McAuley (RySG): (07:18) yes

Seun Ojedeji: (07:18) apparently it seems we are now treating questions and not preamble

Tijani BEN JEMAA: (07:19) Greg, can you please speak louder or closer to the mike

Tatiana Tropina: (07:19) david, sure about yielding opinions. I just finished a big project based on questionnaire sent to the best law practitioners. Asking for laws and facts. 80% were opinions

Tijani BEN JEMAA: (07:19) I hear you very low

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:19) Milton. that is your and few others's views

Tatiana Tropina: (07:19) but at least when we ask for facts we can stick to facts when we got responses

Philip Corwin: (07:19) Agree that we cannot prevent opinions being submitted in response to any question, but we can agree in advance to discard any response that is not validated by facts and data.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:20) Questionnaire is even harder to manage than survey.

Wale Bakare: (07:20) The question 3 rely more on actual facts - experiences rather than opinions. We need to be focused on mechanisms of sourcing for data, as previously analysed by @Avri last week in the mailing list.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:20) again, can live with 1-3. If the idea is to stick to factual analysis once we got answers

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:21) Grec, pls seriously consider my suggestions made in my off list message before I iontervene

Wale Bakare: (07:21) *relies*

matthew shears: (07:21) we should be ready to discount inputs that are not substantiated with fact

Steve DelBianco: (07:21) @Phil -- agree, and furthermore we should consolidate responses so that we discard duplicates citing the very same facts and evidence

matthew shears: (07:22) Are we clear as to what will be done with the imputs and what the output will be and how it will inform our work?

Philip Corwin: (07:22) I certainly hope we can resolve the questionaire issue todaywith finality so we can move on with our work.

Milton: (07:22) you sounds fine, Jean-Jacques

avri doria: (07:22) the fact that 1&2 only collect facts from a single perspective and not a global perspective. You need question 4 to gather facts from the broader perspective.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:22) Matthew, yes. This is the thing. And this shall be determined before the questionnaire is sent. That once the answers come back only those with factual substance would be analysed

Greg Shatan: (07:22) Matthew, that is the goal of this discussion.

Philip Corwin: (07:22) @Steve--and I agree with your point

David McAuley (RySG): (07:23) lost JJ

Milton: (07:23) Avri, yes, perhaps we need to discuss the broader perspective, as you know i support that. But the framing of the question is very controversial and it has stalled everything

David McAuley (RySG): (07:23) now back

avri doria: (07:24) i think the effort has been stalled by taking the narrower perspective, which would give a skewed picture.

David McAuley (RySG): (07:25) bad feedback/noise

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:25) very bad audio

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (07:25) @Parminder, terrible audio!

David McAuley (RySG): (07:25) cannot understand

Philip Corwin: (07:25) cannot make out what he is saying

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:25) unworkable audio

Tijani BEN JEMAA: (07:25) Parmendar, I don't hear you

Milton: (07:25) we can hear you but there is a buzz and distortion

Jeff Neuman 2: (07:25) I think the mic may be turned up too loud

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:25) Bad audio

CW: (07:25) @Parminder: please post summary in Chat. Background interference too much.

Parminder: (07:26) ok, bring me back in the queue

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (07:26) @Parminder, try comint OUT of the satellite... ;-)

Parminder: (07:26) will try after the next speaker

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:26) Parminder, pls put yr points in the chat

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:26) CW speak more softly

Parminder: (07:28) David making two points which should be tken seperately - whether only choice of law (privae law) is in our mandate, and the more formal issue of whether q4 is properly worded to get appropriate info. lets not mix the two very different things.

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:29) Timing note - 30 minutes left in the call

Parminder: (07:29) if indeed the mandate is under question - let us elave everything and first discuss and agree on it. It is truoblesome that we keep this keeps coming back - we cant work in ths manner. So, pl lets be first clear about mandate

Becky Burr: (07:30) just want to note that I am on the call and will be replacing Erika Mann as backup Board Liaison.

Mathieu Weill: (07:30) Welcome Becky !

Parminder: (07:31) next, when milton says there is no opposition to question 1-3 to go out. No, I oppose it. Bec without q 4, it puts a question on the nature of remit/ mandate of CCWG

Greg Shatan: (07:31) Welcome, Becky!

Parminder: (07:31) it is fine, i dont need to talk

Jeff Neuman 2: (07:31) on the other hand leaving the issue open will mean that we will be consistently having this debate and not be able to focus on the real substance of ICANN activities

matthew shears: (07:32) agree Jeff

Wale Bakare: (07:32) +1, to Jeff. We would continually looping

David McAuley (RySG): (07:34) very low Mathieu

Milton: (07:34) Again, this is not survey research, we are not quantifying percentages, or sampling a target population

Milton: (07:34) we are asking for facts or incidents

Milton: (07:35) +1 Mathieu

Tatiana Tropina: (07:36) it's not a survey but what David says applies to questionnaire even more than to survey...

Philip Corwin: (07:36) Agree with Jeff, which is precisely why I advocated that, after spending two years and $14 million in legal fees to create an accountability structure that worked within the framework of CA law, we should have resolved the issue in WS1. Unfortunately the decision was made to kick the can down the road -- now this subgroup should be the end of the road. If US corporate jurisdiction ever creates a major problem I have no doubt that the iCANN community will recognize and address that.

Milton: (07:37) so TT and DM we identified a wording problem in the first question and we fixed it.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:37) Phil, yes absolutely, *but* this decision shall be based on facts and not just on opinions what is good and what is bad

Milton: (07:37) Can you identify any specific way in which the phrasing of the questions would not produce useful data?

Tatiana Tropina: (07:38) Milton I am fine as long as question 1-3 would be sent out while we make it clear that we we take facts from the answers

Milton: (07:38) there is, by the way, no such thing as a professional survey designer on the issue of ICANN's jurisdiction

Mathieu Weill: (07:38) Honestly, I've never seen a survey, even tailored by professionals, that "containeed' people within a given scope. If they want to speak up, they will, and that is the multistakeholder model isn't it ?

Milton: (07:40) Kavouss, it is clear that Q4 has strong support but it also has strong opposition. So we are proposing to separate it from the other questions, not to dump it - it needs more work

Tatiana Tropina: (07:40) Mathieu, sure! The point is that to unsure which info one gets when the answers come back.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:40) I agree to separate the Q4 and send it separately after fine tuning.

Tatiana Tropina: (07:41) I mean, I agree to disagree, I have concerns about questionnaire as a tool itself but I understand that we have to do something so I concur.

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) Dear Tidjani,

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) Why we should separate that???

David McAuley (RySG): (07:42) Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:43) I can not agree to separate Q4 from the three other Qs

Seun Ojedeji: (07:44) I am yet to understand the advantage of seperating question 4 (especially if we agree with the wording of question 4)

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Grec,

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Pls kindly do not promote to separate Q4 from tother questions

Mathieu Weill: (07:45) @Kavouss, it is Greg, not Grec ;-)

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:45) It would be misinterpreted by the crecipiants

Tatiana Tropina: (07:45) Mathieu I think even Greg will agree that he is Grec now :-)

Parminder: (07:45) Prefer alternative 2, can live with alt 1, but dont accept current text or alt 3

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:46) time check - 15 minutes left in the call

Parminder: (07:48) to answer Greg, I dot support alt 3 bec it quotes the mandate selectively

Philip Corwin: (07:48) Prefer alt 1 -- shorter is better

Parminder: (07:48) Shorter and high level is best

Steve DelBianco: (07:48) I prefer Alternative 1

Milton: (07:49) Alternative 1 for me

Tatiana Tropina: (07:49) Alternative 1 too

David McAuley (RySG): (07:49) support alt 1, qualified by my remarks

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:49) Generally Speaking, people responding may not pay a lot of attention to Preamble

Milton: (07:49) right, Kavouss

CW: (07:50) Alternative 2 is OK if there are links to Final Report and Mandate

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:50) i COULD AGREE WITH ALT 1

matthew shears: (07:50) alt 1 is OK

Parminder: (07:50) I had requested to add "implementation of policy" to alt i

Parminder: (07:51) alt 2 for me is best

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:52) cAN YOU TRY aLT 1 AGAIN

Seun Ojedeji: (07:52) why try again @Kavouss?

Mary Uduma 2: (07:52) Alt 1 for me

Tatiana Tropina: (07:52) The check count for Alt 1 was confusing. I deleted my green check before Greg did a final count :-)

Milton: (07:53) Let's do another check of support for Alternative 1

Parminder: (07:53) Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here

Seun Ojedeji: (07:53) Seun: Alt 1 prefered for preamble

Tatiana Tropina: (07:53) yes please put alt 1 for final check

Parminder: (07:53) I am fine with alt 1, but as Greg had amended on the elist

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (07:55) Time check: 5 minutes left in the call

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:55) CAN YOU REPEAT

Tatiana Tropina: (07:55) I support both! With or without addition. :-)

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:56) vERY GOOD

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:56) it is done

Jeff Neuman 2: (07:56) I need to see the full text befor making a determination

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:57) Agree

Philip Corwin: (07:57) Support alt 1, indifferent whether policy operation referenced so long as we are agreed that we require facts and data not opinions and speculation.

Seun Ojedeji: (07:57) Welll we've been discussing question 4 on the list, not sure further discussions will help unlelss the lead specifically coordinate the discussions on the list

Milton: (07:57) I thought we had already agreed to make that change

Becky Burr: (07:57) staff, could you add me to the calendar/invite list for these calls please?

Brenda Brewer: (07:57) Yes, Becky.

Milton: (07:57) Alt 1 now

CW: (07:57) Q1: maintain DNS. that includes the root and addresses

CW: (07:58) Q1 maintain Privacy.

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:58) I CAN NOT MANIPULATE CROSS COLOUR

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (07:59) Greg, there was an audio cut, I missed some of your comments. I am against most alternatives, but am in favour of Alternative 7, the one you proposed.

Jeff Neuman 2: (07:59) I like Alt 2 better but could live with 1. I am just not sure what someone means when they say has the jurisdiction of ICANN affected your privacy

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (07:59) @Greg: it was about Q4.

Seun Ojedeji: (07:59) @CW not sure how far we can go by including addresses as that scope would be different IMO

Kavouss Arasteh: (07:59) Grec.

David McAuley (RySG): (08:00) Thanks Greg, staff, and all

Seun Ojedeji: (08:00) @Kavous Grec=Greg

matthew shears: (08:00) the lack of wholhearted support for the various alternatives is worrying

Kavouss Arasteh: (08:00) Q4 shall not be separated from other three questions

Becky Burr: (08:00) CW- does ICANN have authority with respect to recursive/authoritative server services, DDoS mitigation, etc?

Milton: (08:00) CAn I call you Gref?

Bernard Turcotte support staff: (08:00) bye all

Milton: (08:01) Grief is better

Steve DelBianco: (08:01) thanks, Grec

Tatiana Tropina: (08:01) bye all!

Herb Waye Ombuds: (08:01) Cheers everyone

Seun Ojedeji: (08:01) thanks bye

CW: (08:01) The effect of Juridsiction document needs some references to authoriship. Who is I, who is You.

avri doria: (08:01) Bye.

Becky Burr: (08:01) bye

Nigel Hickson: (08:01) Thanks; have good weekends

CW: (08:01) B'ye CW

Wale Bakare: (08:01) Thanks bye all!

Enhancing ICANN Accountability - Work Stream 2

Jurisdiction Meeting #15 (6 January @ 13:00 UTC)

Analytics

Recording

Agenda

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript