May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

member organization and single membership structure
by Roelof Meijer July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 14:16 To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: member organization and single membership structure Dear co-chairs, all, Two points: 1) I stopped my participation in yesterday night’s (my time) CCWG call somewhere halfway agenda item “5. Legal advice”. Mainly because I think we’re wasting so much precious time with the discussion on and comparison of two models, of which one should have been written off sometime back. My earlier emails copied below should provide more information on my rationale, but should also serve as formal input into the process. 2) What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the point of the possibility (or not) of a single membership structure – an option mentioned by Sidley and Adler & Colving in their legal advice – several times by now without getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any serious effort to investigate this has led to a formal write-off. So, co-chairs: what is happening here or what have I missed? Best, Roelof On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Dear Jordan, all, I couldn’t attend the call, so I probably missed something. But how did we end up with the two law firms we hire stating: „On balance, “member” organization provides the clearest path for the ICANN community to exercise the mechanisms and powers under consideration. „ and our rapporteur concluding: "Following the CCWG meeting on 10 April, the rapporteur had assumed there would be clarity regarding the proposed mechanism. This has not occurred„ Best, Roelof On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Greg, Jordan, What I fail to understand is that -because we do not have the expertise „in house”- we hire two firms that are experts in this field, they give us their shared opinion and we do not follow that. It seems to me that this is one of those things that makes this whole process sometimes so slow and incredibly time consuming. Do not misunderstand me, I respect the legal experts we have in the CCWG. But we pay (ICANN pays, so the internet community pays) dearly for this advice, they are both renown firms that we took quite some time to select. Why not accept the outcome and move forward, spending our precious time on all the work that still has to be done? Best, Roelof On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Greg, Thanks for that. Still, if I look at the difference in "amount of boxes ticked" in the part „summary of desired powers” of the slide deck of 14 April prepared by counsel, I see no point in continuing to evaluate counsel’s advice re designators. Maybe you can help me out on another point though. In their memorandum/legal assessment of April 10, Sidley and Adler & Colvin mentioned the possibility of a „sole membership” structure. Meaning –as far as I understood it- that not every AC and every SO would become a member (and thus would have to become a legal entity), but the group of representatives of the SO’s and AC’s would form a single legal entity and would become ICANN’s sole member. I have sent several emails to this list suggesting we follow this up as one of the serious possibilities, without –as far as I am aware- any effect. Do you have any idea what happened to this particular part of counsel’s advice? Best, Roelof Groet, Roelof

17 43

Narratives related to UAs
by Mathieu Weill June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As discussed on this list and during our call today, it is important that we take into account the perception of incremental complexity brought about by the Unincorporated associations. In order to provide greater clarity about what it *MAY* look like, you will find attached a couple of short narratives to illustrate how the UAs would fit into our Icann environment and habits. These short stories are intended to illustrate how some of the interim proposals of the CCWG Accountability would play out. It is focused on aspects of the proposals which are currently raising questions or concerns. It does not constitute a formal group proposal, nor represents the group's view on a preferred implementation path. The tone is deliberately light, to facilitate reading and engage more readers. Apologies if it does not read as the usual working group report. People mentioned in the narratives have granted permission. Comments are welcome as well as proposed amendments to the various steps before sharing these to a wider audience. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

3 3

Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission
by Steve DelBianco June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

On this week's stress test team call, we looked at Chris Disspain’s hypothetical (at bottom). The team had difficulty identifying a scenario under which a California court would, as Chris suggested, "make binding decisions about interpretation of ICANN’s mission.” This was due in part to a misunderstanding embedded in Chris’ scenario. What we’ve done below is take Chris’ scenario and turn it into two scenarios that could happen under the Member powers described in the CCWG proposal. We don’t think either of these scenarios would result in the outcome Chris worried over. Stress Test version 1: Board refuses to follow community recommendation 1. An ATRT (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) recommends a new policy for implementation. 2. The ICANN board decides to reject the recommendation, saying it conflicts with ICANN’s limited Mission Statement in the amended bylaws. 3. Community Members vote to challenge the board’s decision with an IRP. An IRP panel of 3 international arbitrators (not a Court) finds that the ATRT recommendation does not conflict with “substantive limitations on the permissible scope of ICANN’s actions” (p.32). The IRP panel therefore cancels the board decision to reject the ATRT recommendation.(pp. 31-32 of proposal ) Our current proposal does not give Members the power to force ICANN board to accept and implement the ATRT recommendation. (p.32) 4. If the board refused to implementing the ATRT recommendation (see step 1), Members could vote to recall the board. Members could also vote to block the very next budget or strat plan if it did not include the ATRT recommendation. Stress Test version 2: Board follows community recommendation, but is reversed by IRP decision 1. An ATRT (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) recommends a new policy for implementation. 2. The ICANN board decides to accept the recommendation, believing that it does not conflict with ICANN’s limited Mission Statement in the amended bylaws. 3. An aggrieved party or Community Members vote to challenge the board’s decision with an IRP. An IRP panel of international arbitrators (not a Court) finds that the ATRT recommendation does conflict with “substantive limitations on the permissible scope of ICANN’s actions” (p.32). The IRP panel therefore cancels the board decision to accept and implement the ATRT recommendation.(pp. 31-32 of proposal ) 4. If the board ignored the IRP ruling and continued to implement its earlier decision, parties to the IRP could ask courts to enforce the IRP decision. Would that court re-litigate the IRP’s substantive decision interpreting the ICANN bylaws? That is not our expectation, since it is only "expected that judgements of the IRP Panel would be enforceable in the court of the US and other countries that accept international arbitration results” (p.34, emphasis added) 5. If the ICANN Board continued to ignore the IRP decision and court orders to enforce it, Members could vote to recall the board. Members could also vote to block the very next budget or strat plan if it included implementation of the ATRT recommendation. 21/05/2015 03:45, Chris Disspain wrote (link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00303…> and excerpt below): Second, I would like to use a step-by-step scenario to explain where my concerns lie. Under the CCWG’s currently proposed mechanisms: 1. The community, pursuant to powers defined in a “fundamental bylaw”, and through a vote of that meeting the required threshold for support, directs the Board to do X 2. The Board refuses to do X because it maintains that X is outside of the mission of ICANN 3. The community triggers escalation mechanisms 4. Escalation proceeds to binding arbitration (as defined by another fundamental bylaw) 5. The arbitrator finds in favour of the community and directs ICANN to do X 6. The Board refuses to act, citing, again, that it believes the action is outside of ICANN’s mission 7. After the necessary community votes etc., the community now heads to court. In the State of California. As I understand it, the role of the court in this scenario would be to determine whether the Board is acting in a way that is serving the public interest within ICANN’s mission. It would not be to decide whether, on balance, the community was ‘more right’ than the Board. Right now as a global multi-stakeholder body we decide the nuances of the meaning of ICANN’s mission and the way ICANN acts under that mission by using the multi-stakeholder process and by compromise and nuanced decision making. If we agree to the CCWG recommendations we will not be handing ultimate authority to the members but rather we will be handing ultimate authority to a state based American court and allowing it to make binding and precedent setting decisions about the interpretation of ICANN’s mission. Does the ICANN community really want the specific nuances of ICANN’s mission to be held up to scrutiny and have decisions made, at the highest level, through such a mechanism? Whilst that may give comfort to, for example, US members of the intellectual property community or US listed registries, it gives me no comfort whatsoever.

14 25

DOODLE / July Meeting
by Kimberly Carlson May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear All, In response to the request for a Doodle, please complete the attached Doodle Poll to schedule July's meeting to prepare for the second public comment proposal. Doodle: http://doodle.com/nvi62mfsa3h9ef38 Thank you. Regards, Kim Carlson

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT - Chairs and Advisors - 29 May
by Kimberly Carlson May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors Meeting - 29 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777352 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period. ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms. Notes We will reiterate main changes that are considered interim proposals of the CCWG-ACCT. We will then open the floor for comments. Our proposal is based on an empowered community. We suggest incorporating principles that are in the AoC into Bylaws. Fundamental Bylaws would require prior approval from community before being changed. Our proposal reinforces the independent appeals mechanisms: IRP --> panel of 7 members, binding decisions on ICANN, enhanced accessibility/standing, decision will review merits of case. Instead of creating new layer of accountability above ICANN, we are spreading powers to have balanced powers between legislative, executive and judiciary. Reference model provides creation of a group of 29 representatives from different groups of ICANN (SO/ACs) and provides enforceability of its decision should the Board refuse a decision. The current reference proposal would be for SO/AC to each create an unincorporated association that would become a member of ICANN. This would not be an open membership. We are adding a touch of legal to the current SO/ACs in order to provide the right balance in terms of legal powers that would create enforceability of model. The proposal has a balance of influence in the empowered community that includes all SO/ACs various options. All of them provide for representation of governements. We are aware this may create concerns for governements to participate in this voting mechanism. Feedback - Are you expecting a collective position from advisors or do we have the right to comment individually? --> We welcome and encourage individual submissions through the official channel. If there is a common view, that can be emphasized as well. Both options are open. - Jan has submitted comments. This is to highlight comment #2 - how do you maximize correlation between the ICANN community and the evolving wider stakeholder community. The draft is arguing for participation to reflect diversity but there is nothing concrete being suggested. Functional diversity is being perceived but it is not clear how gender and geographical diversity is being represented. Also, how will SO/ACs be held into account? Work Stream 2 are going to be kept alive after transition: have you talked about this more explicitely i.e. CCWG to be maintained post transition? --> Your comments were not discussed with group before we published the draft report. Point raised on diversity is going to be an item for discussion after the public comment period. In terms of process, we have two work streams - we are focused on stream 1 and have started highlighting stream 2 issues. Our group might extend post transition - we are not expecting everything to be closed by transition. - What of accountability of how groups are selected? We can find ourselves in regression. It is important that we be more specific: groups need to demonstrate that their own mechanisms for governance and membership are sufficient. We need to be more specific with regards to transparency: what does organization need to do to make sure Bylaws changes are widely disseminated for instance? Inherent principle that this entity exists for public interest should be a principle that cannot be changed. ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period. - Has the working group discussed whether to include a commitment towards freedom of expression? One of accountability issues in the question of who is accountable to is to do with with accountability, democratic standards. Has this been discussed for inclusion in the revised bylaws? Some people are arguing for UA but there is also an argument that Chairs SO/ACs could assume that membership. --> We are ensuring ICANN is not used as a mean to restrict freedom of expression. UAs is an ongoing discussion. --> We have aspects in our draft that should raise quality of accountability: e.g. how many votes should be. 1 vote per world region. Some of parameters we have put in report were based on inclusiveness. Another example: cost of IRP. What level of details would you recommend we put into the set of recommendations for work stream 1? Our issue is two-fold: 1) we need to focus on narrow task of dealing with work stream 1; 2) our charter is not broad enough for us to make recommendations on the decision-making, membership processes. Could you clarify what aspects you deem essential? - Who has competence to make recommendations on proces if not the CCWG? --> We can hardly prescribe how SO/ACs should constitute themselves other than giving principles that they should be inclusive, diverse etc. - Roberto agrees with Jan - at essence of points: is accountability internal or related to external body? It needs to be clearly identified. Whenever you have external accountability (self defined international), what are the values from which you have mandate? You derive out of that freedom of expression. --> Take internal accountability issue into account. That might be an opportunity. - An explicit acknowledgment in report and a commitment to deal with it in work stream 2 would be welcome. INGO accountability charter addresses issue in detail for instance. --> This is something we need to discuss as a group. We need to make sure we are talking about same problem statement with regards to external/internal. ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability. ---> We have recently had some discussion about enforceability. It is my understanding we are tasked with improving architecture which includes robust mechanisms. Do you have any guidance on this? - DoC may be handing over stewardship but legal, judiciary accountability still remains, not-for-profit legislation. There is still judiciary accountability for ICANN. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period. ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum. The comment period will end on June 3. F2F meeting on June 19. We will discuss with community on date that will follow. The second comment period will be organized. We may turn to you when drafting second round of proposals especially if confronted with diverging views. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms.

1 0

proposed F2F meeting of CCWG
by Adam Peake May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Hi everyone, The co-chairs suggest we hold a face-to-face meeting to prepare the second public comment proposal. The expected launch of the second public comment is 31 July (for 40 days). We suggest the face-to-face meeting should be held with the target arrival date 20 July, meeting 21-22 July. This is close to the Buenos Aires meeting, more travel will be a significant commitment for you all, but this face-to-face is felt necessary to prepare the next public comment period. Location: suggest a European hub city. We would prefer diversity of a new location, but given the short time available to make the necessary reservations, and to make travel as easy as possible for the majority of CCWG colleagues, a location in Europe seems the best option at this time. Usual travel support will be provided for CCWG appointed members and liaisons. Remote access will be available for those who cannot attend. Apologies, the recommended dates overlap with IETF#93, July 19-24, 2015. Thank you. Adam

10 13

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, besides that Tijani and (more so) I have in the past expressed concern about the pace, and hence the quality of our deliberations previously, I am now in the enjoyable position of being able to inquire through the Co-Chairs, when Tijani will start figuring out the rationale behind these "decisions" ostensibly made by the Co-Chairs. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On May 28, 2015, at 21:42, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > > Will it be productive with half of the members?????? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > [...] p > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de > Kavouss Arasteh > Envoyé : jeudi 28 mai 2015 15:37 > À : Dr Eberhard W Lisse > Cc : Lisse Eberhard; Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG > > Dear Co-Chair > We need to have at least half if the members plus Liaisons > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 28 May 2015, at 12:03, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: >> >> Adam, >> >> I suggest Windhoek :-)-O but if it has to be Europe, Amsterdam, >> London, Brussels and Paris in that order would come to mind. >> >> >> The proposed week is much too early and this is caused by the >> failing methodology of the Co-Chairs subordinating quality of work >> to their self imposed, absolutely unnecessary deadline. >> >> So I object. >> >> But as I will be ignored as usual, can we have it we at least have >> it a week later and arrange it with the arrival date on Sunday so >> one can depart Tuesday evening? >> >> The below proposed schedule will destroy a full week of work (for >> those of us who have to work for a living). >> >> el >> >>> On 2015-05-28 10:25 , Adam Peake wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> The co-chairs suggest we hold a face-to-face meeting to prepare >>> the second public comment proposal. The expected launch of the >>> second public comment is 31 July (for 40 days). We suggest the >>> face-to-face meeting should be held with the target arrival date >>> 20 July, meeting 21-22 July. >>> >>> This is close to the Buenos Aires meeting, more travel will be a >>> significant commitment for you all, but this face-to-face is felt >>> necessary to prepare the next public comment period. >>> >>> Location: suggest a European hub city. We would prefer diversity >>> of a new location, but given the short time available to make the >>> necessary reservations, and to make travel as easy as possible for >>> the majority of CCWG colleagues, a location in Europe seems the >>> best option at this time. >>> >>> Usual travel support will be provided for CCWG appointed members >>> and liaisons. >>> >>> Remote access will be available for those who cannot attend. >>> >>> Apologies, the recommended dates overlap with IETF#93, July 19-24, >>> 2015. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Adam >>> [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG
by Adebunmi AKINBO May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Adams, Kindly consider the idea of an ICANN Doodle Page. With an icann.doodle.org, we can pick a date reference from the mails and location. Its time that we walk the work with actions that show accountability. If the number of attendance counts, its key to ask ourselves why those that the charter qualify for the support from ICANN should not be at the meeting. It needs questioning. Kindly consider the advice, please. -Akinbo. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > Not for me > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de > Kavouss Arasteh > Envoyé : jeudi 28 mai 2015 15:38 > À : Adam Peake > Cc : Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG > > Dear All > 21-22 July is ok for me > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 28 May 2015, at 11:25, Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > The co-chairs suggest we hold a face-to-face meeting to prepare the > second > > public comment proposal. The expected launch of the second public > comment > > is 31 July (for 40 days). We suggest the face-to-face meeting should be > > held with the target arrival date 20 July, meeting 21-22 July. > > > > This is close to the Buenos Aires meeting, more travel will be a > > significant commitment for you all, but this face-to-face is felt > > necessary to prepare the next public comment period. > > > > Location: suggest a European hub city. We would prefer diversity of a > new > > location, but given the short time available to make the necessary > > reservations, and to make travel as easy as possible for the majority of > > CCWG colleagues, a location in Europe seems the best option at this time. > > > > Usual travel support will be provided for CCWG appointed members and > > liaisons. > > > > Remote access will be available for those who cannot attend. > > > > Apologies, the recommended dates overlap with IETF#93, July 19-24, 2015. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > -- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng *Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo(a)nira.org.ng <akinbo(a)yips.org.ng> @niraworks *Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo(a)dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica *National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/> *President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo(a)yips.org.ng *The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ *National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG
by Roelof Meijer May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

I will be on holiday during that period, ending 31st July. As I will be in remote areas, remote participation will not be an option (weird how contradictory that sounds, by the way...) Cheers, Roelof On 28-05-15 11:25, "Adam Peake" <adam.peake(a)icann.org> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >The co-chairs suggest we hold a face-to-face meeting to prepare the second >public comment proposal. The expected launch of the second public comment >is 31 July (for 40 days). We suggest the face-to-face meeting should be >held with the target arrival date 20 July, meeting 21-22 July. > >This is close to the Buenos Aires meeting, more travel will be a >significant commitment for you all, but this face-to-face is felt >necessary to prepare the next public comment period. > >Location: suggest a European hub city. We would prefer diversity of a new >location, but given the short time available to make the necessary >reservations, and to make travel as easy as possible for the majority of >CCWG colleagues, a location in Europe seems the best option at this time. > >Usual travel support will be provided for CCWG appointed members and >liaisons. > >Remote access will be available for those who cannot attend. > >Apologies, the recommended dates overlap with IETF#93, July 19-24, 2015. > >Thank you. > >Adam

1 0

call with CCWG advisors, Friday 29 May, 13:00-14:00 UTC
by Adam Peake May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Hi everyone, We have just finalized arrangements for a call with the CCWG advisors and co-chairs, an opportunity for the advisors to discuss and ask any questions about the proposal. You might have seen Jan and Willie have submitted comments http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m ay15/, we expect others, and some of the group will join us in Buenos Aires. Apologies for the short notice, the call will be tomorrow, Friday 29 May at 13:00 UTC for one hour. The call will be open to CCWG participants, like any normal CCWG call. Calendar invitations will be sent soon. Best, Adam

1 0