January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #74 - 05 January
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #74 - 5 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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') * Bruce Tonkin on audio only 2. Update from Chartering Organizations LS (15') * MWeil - The ccNSO statement on the third draft is being reviewed by the council and is expected soon. * JHammer SSAC- Nothing new. * AGreenberg ALAC - Nothing new * KDrazez gNSO - 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): The GAC has received members views on each Recommendation and is scheduling discussion calls over the next 2 weeks. * Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): In addition to Tom Dale's info: there has been also a preliminary GAC submission on a number of key recommendations. * Kavouss Arasteh: GAC reply was only preliminary and provisional * FIONA ASONGA (ASO): The ASO response was already sent in. Observing discussion should there be changes to the third draft in generating a final proposal. 3. Global Public Interest (GPI) TR (15') * CCWG advisors have been asked for opinion on GPI. * CCWG have asked the Board for rationale for mentioning GPI in its comments on the third draft. * The CCWG is obtaining this information to provide a rationale to the Board should a CCWG recommendation not meet the ICANN Board concerns. * KArasteh - There is only one reference to GPI in the ICANN Bylaws - therefore it is difficult to agree with the ICANN Board that it could reject a CCWG recommendation based on GPI given GPI is still undefined. * TRikert - The points you have made are good arguments when providing a rationale to the Board. * AGreenberg - Any attempt by the CCWG to define GPI is ill advised. * MHutty - Supports co-chairs letter to the ICANN Board. The CCWG should not attempt to define GPI. It is the responsibility of the Board to explain to the CCWG if they chose to use this argument. * TBen Jemaa - Not productive to tell the Board something is or is not against GPI. Best to ask them for a rationale. * BTonkin - the Board would produce a full rationale if it used the GPI argument. this being said it is hoped this would not be needed. 4. January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda MW (30') * MWeill - 2 calls per week, Tuesday and Thursday with well identified topics. Standardize approach to all recommendations to work with chartering orgs. and the Board. Participation by the ICANN Board - Board representatives will participate on all calls and there will be a weekly coordination call to minimize round-trips on any changes to recommendations. Continue with 2 reading per item. In rare cases there may be a need to poll the members as per the charter. * KArasteh - Everyone should agree on these methods. Tuesday and Thursday are too close for serious consideration. Formatting suggestion on working method. * MWeill - This is the point of presenting and discussing this today. The 2 reading approach will not have a second reading in the same week the first reading was taken. * MHutty - Method for developing changes to the proposal. Concerned about careful consideration. * MWeill - The documents for this call were distributed more than 24 hours. Providing documents in time will be a challenge and is the objective. * AGreenberg - Who will produce the documents? There is a level of opaqueness that is confusing. * MWeill - Work has been mostly been co-chairs at this point. Becky is prepping the mission document. Others can participate. * AGreenberg - ALAC has identified a number of red lines - how will discussion lead to resolutions. * MWeill - what are you proposing. * AGreenberg - May be best if those that have issues have a chance to discuss solutions. * MWeill - Our approach would seem to be consistent. Currently simply preparing the documents and properly presenting issues and possible fixes for simple issues. The summary of comments and issues should also assist in this. * ASullivan - Unclear what is being discussed. Some people seem unhappy with the number of meetings - alternatively we could use the mail list to work productively. Would appreciate understanding what the issues are - this needs to get done even if this is uncomfortable. * RMeijer - the more time we have the more time we take. We need to focus on the issues we have to work on. The question I have is how decisions will be taken given the topics we have to deal with will be difficult and may require an alternate methodology for decisions. * MWeill - In rare occasions members will be advised that there will be a poll to establish formal consensus if required. * TBen Jemaa - Agree with RM. Do not agree with adding calls of work parties - this will not be workable. The mailing list should be used between calls to discuss issues between calls. Consensus will not be easy to achieve and if necessary the charter says we can use polls. * MWeill - reasoning for the current Tuesday and Thursday is the requirement for prep and debriefs before and after each call of the CCWG. * KArasteh - As long as everyone agrees I can support. 3 hours is too long. There is no requirement to finish in January, we need to take the time required. We need to negotiate with each other to identify a workable solution. Let us remember there will never be perfection. Re TBJ - * MWeill - we will need good summaries of the discussions after each call promptly. We will maintain the 3 hours but hopefully we will not need all the time. * IOkutani - Supports proposed methodology. Question - how will information be shared prior to calls? Trying to coordinate any changes with the ASO to ensure they can support. will the options be distributed prior to the calls? * MWeill - There will be at least one week between a first and second reading which will provide time for the various communities to consider the options. * MWeill - presenting proposed agenda for next meetings. Comments welcome now or on the list if there are concerns given there is still some flexibility. For this Thursday material will be introduced on all the topics. This would conclude this section. 5. Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 LS (45') * LS Document distributed with comments-markups for rec. 12. Meetings Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw> https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw * KArasteh - How should we handle the Board concerns. * LS - BTonkin can comment on this. * BTonkin - Proposed approach is heading in the right direction of the Board considering the WS2 recommendations would need to meet the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations. Bylaw could be generalized - maybe not refer to CCWG - to give flexibility - chartering orgs may wish to break out the WS2 work into specific working groups so expertise can be allocated as needed. * LSanchez - Re KA comments - all comments will be considered, if there are substantial changes then there would be a need for a supplementary recommendation. * LSanchez - given BTonkin thinks this is a good way forward. * MHutty - there has been no discussion and no way to have it approved by the CCWG. * LSanchez - this was not the intent - This is a proposal to the CCWG which would address the Board concerns. * MHutty - How are we going to proceed? * LSanchez - We propose to use to 4 key points listed at the top of the document. However we can go through the document para by para if the group so wishes. * KArasteh - Need concrete suggestions from the Board which can be considered by the CCWG. * MWeill - Comments in the word document are the comments from the public consultation. The edits are suggestions to clarify and resolve certain of the issues. One of these is that WS2 recommendations have the same requirements as the CCWG recommendations. * MHutty - If we are going to change from CCWG to something else it should be clear that participation should still be open. * LSanchez - does not see obstacles wrt. * Lsanchez - 15 minute break. * BREAK at 25 past the hour - return at 20 to. * Return. * LSanchez - Next step discuss timeframe modifications. Original proposal was for the end of 2016. * LSanchez - Discuss proposed changes on list. No objections. * LSanchez - timeline - propose to change to mid-2017. Comments? * KArasteh - Propose to say start in 2016 and continue in 2017. * Niels ten Oever - Link bet rec. 6 and rec 12 especially considering ALAC comment on rec. 6. Uncertain how to resolve. * LSanchez - there are many interrelations with rec. 12. As to the ALAC comment this is a point for discussion. * AGReenberg - Clarification about a timeline in a bylaw which would be the issue. Timeline are tricky and it would seem unrealistic to try and identify specific end dates. * SDelBianco - top of page 2 the Goal for the CCWG would be to finalize recommendations for WS2 by the end of 2016. Current recommendation only notes that the Board consider the recommendations vs accept them. * LSanchez - There is no need to have the recommendations implemented by the end - * CDispain - WS2 recommendations would be under the new accountability rules. * LSanchez - timeframe is required but should be more of a target than a hard deadline. Any objections to this approach. Target should be flexible per the needs of the participants - no objections and there will be a second reading of this at another meeting next week. * LSanchez - Expansion of Ombudsman role. This was required but not included in any detail. * MWeill - need a volunteer to craft a few paras regarding the expansion of the Ombudsman role. Call for volunteers. * LSanchez - BBurr volunteers. No sound from Avri Doria. Expecting the draft for circulation in the next few days. * LSanchez completes this section. 6. Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation TR (30') Annotated rec. 4 document = <https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw> https://community.icann.org/x/_ItlAw * TRickert - We are only dealing with mitigation of removing ind. Board directors at this point. The issue is that someone who begins such action could be sued by the Director for doing so. Could the inclusion of pre-service letters by Directors address the concern. Would also like to ensure the Board has no concerns regarding the implementation guidelines. * AGreenberg - Suing is not the issue - indemnification is the issue. All the concepts are there they just need to be adjusted. * TRickert - We can work on the language. * TBenJemaa - Same comment as with AG. Agrees with the concept but not the exact wording. There is no mention that there will be a reason for a recall - the rules states that there will a rationale given to remove the director. Remove no reason association with suing. * TRickert - let us not wordsmith, this goes to implementation phase. Volunteers should work with the lawyers to finalize the text and bring it back next week. * KArasteh - Are all Board comments being considered. * TRickert - they will be but not today. * AGreenberg - It would be useful to know under California law if this is a valid concept. * TRickert - Lawyers implementing this would never draft this if it was not feasible. * BTonkin - Removing a director requires a due process (escalation), Board has required a written a rationale so any issues could be addressed. Protections are necessary but statements have to be factual. Statements need to be factual. * TRickert - There is a requirement to publish a reason for the removal which should meet this requirement. Lawyers should provide the director to protect themselves from unreasonable accusations (murderer, swindler etc.). the way forward is to certify the lawyers to help with the wordsmithing so the text can be considered at a future meeting. * MHutty - Protection are needed. Wild accusations would be unprecedented given this is a community position vs individual. * TRickert - this closes this issue. The new text will be presented for discussion by the CCWG. 7. Marrakech - ICANN 55 MW (15') * MWeill - ICANN has rejected the option for a Friday meeting prior to ICANN 55. TSwineheart to comment. * TSwineheart - This is the first meeting under the new strategy and adding days would not align this. * MWeill - this requires us to revise the planning for the Maraketch meeting. Comments? * MWeill - re GShattan chat question - what is the ICANN option? MWeill - ICANN will free up time during the meeting. * SBacholet - As a Chair of the working group referred to by TS should not be used to not allow this. * KArasteh - Changing dates requires people to change tickets which will imply penalties. Please provide additional warning to avoid this. * AGreenberg - SB said most of what I wanted to say. Using this as the basis for not supporting this is poor. Scheduling sessions during the ICANN meeting does not consider that many people have other work to do during the week. * ASullivan - Trying to understand if using the meeting policy is useful. * TSwineheart - useful feedback, the work required for ICANN 55 would better accommodated during the meeting. As the CCWG moves into WS2 this is a different phase and looking at how to integrate this into the standard ICANN meetings. This not about not wanting to support or being supportive it is about better integration. * MWeill - this will require further discussion on ICANN 55 and forward. Who is responsible for making these decisions and has ok'ed the change. * TSwineheart - We will be happy to consider in the context of the evolution. * MWeill - The question has not been answered. The CCWG is responsible for making its work plans - who is responsible for the decision to meet those requests? * TSwineheart - this is a cross -organization group that considers this. I will take it back and get back to the co-chairs. * MWeill - We will need an answer in the next 24 to 48 hours. * TBenJemaa - This is a decision of the CCWG and not of the staff or the Board - this is not about the new meeting strategy. If not possible let us ask why. * SBacholet - there is a discrepancy between the CCWG and ICANN. * KArasteh - CCWG has to be very clear if it needs an additional 1 day meeting then make the request to the Board. We need a dedicated 1 day meeting. and get an answer within one week. * JCarter - The new meeting strategy should not be the basis for this considering the other work we all have to do. this should not be an endless process and ICANN should reconsider. * BTonkin - There are two types of meetings - phone and face to face. The face to face is a much richer experience. I would encourage staff to make a room available for this during the meeting. Is there a way to resolve this during the week - as a last resort we can look at the Friday if required. * RMeijer - Understand Bruce's point, we have has Friday meetings before and attendance was never a problem. Doing this work is exceptional, this is like expecting us to do CCWG during office hours. So it is strange that given the CCWG is responsible for its schedule that ICANN should not respond accordingly. * MWeill - There will be a need for significant face to face in ICANN 55 for completing WS1 and starting work on WS2. We will continue to work with ICANN and advise the CCWG of the results. The discussion is not completed. * BTonkin - I will commit to work with staff to try and make the Friday meeting happen. * TSwineheart - This has been very useful and helps us move forward in a constructive fashion. * This completes this item. 8. A.O.B LS (10') * LSanchez - Any other AOB * TRickert - The question is do we wish to get our own legal input on how the risk can be mitigated with respect to human rights. This could be a way to bridge the gap with the Board on HR. * TBenJemaa - There are other comments than the Board with respect to HR. All of these have to be considered. * Niels ten Oever - we have done this work with our lawyers and found there to be no risk. But if this helps move this forward it should be done. * LSanchez - we will develop text to frame the request to the lawyers which we will send to the list. * LSanchez - any other AOB. None. * This completes the call.

1 0

Regarding Annex 12 - recommendation #12
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Hello All, Just putting in writing some feedback I provided on the CCWG regarding the proposed language for Recommendation 12. The draft as displayed in the meeting addresses some of the Board concerns regarding how the recommendations from the working group on work stream 2 would be considered. Regarding converting the Board's resolution of Los Angeles in 2014 into bylaws language we suggest the following: (1) We place a bylaw such as this as a "transition" bylaw similar to Article XX of the bylaws. (2) We would like to generalize the bylaw to allow flexibility for the chartering organizations to create separate cross-constituency working groups on specific work stream 2 topics if they wished. This would allow chartering organizations to appoint members with specific expertise etc, avoid burn-out from existing members that have been working for more than a year, and allow topics to work to different timetables. (3) Any such working group would be under the same conditions in terms of participation and support as the current CCWG on Accountability. Ie any member of the community may participate in the work of a cross-community working group. I am happy to provide some edits to the proposal put forward by the co-chairs today to reflect the comments above for consideration by the group. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Board working methods to participate in the upcoming CCWG calls
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Hello All, The Board is planning the current approach to interacting with the CCWG on calls to discuss the recommendations. - we are rostering at least two Board members to be available to discuss the relevant CCWG recommendations in each call. We assume that the CCWG will also be considering other community comments in each call as well. - the Board members will be available to explain our position on any topic and work on the call to find a possible solution to a concern that the Board has raised - the Board members are not authorised to agree to any solution on the single call - they will take back any proposed solution at the end of the call to the full Board email list for review - we will be having weekly Board information calls to review any proposed solutions developed in the CCWG calls and/or mailing list, and seek to get Board support for each solution developed. - I can then convey whether the Board accepts a proposed solution in principle or still feels that their concerns have not been addressed. I will explain why the Board still feels a proposed solution doesn't address its concerns. I would see it as a similar process for any member of the CCWG that would need to take any proposed solutions back to their groups to get feedback before they could commit a particular SO or AC to support a solution to any concern that they had raised. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

TR: Practical suggestions for constructive CCWG-Board dialogue
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Dear Colleagues, For your information, a correspondence sent by the co chairs to Steve Crocker in his capacity of Chair of the Icann Board. Staff will shortly add it in the correspondence section of our Wiki. Best wishes to all of you. Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : jeudi 24 décembre 2015 12:26 À : 'Steve Crocker' Cc : 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Fadi Chehade'; 'Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org)'; Thomas Rickert (thomas(a)rickert.net) León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx) 'ACCT-Staff' Objet : Practical suggestions for constructive CCWG-Board dialogue Dear Steve, The CCWG-Accountability 3rd public comment phase is now closed and we appreciate and value the amount of effort dedicated by the Board, through a series of meetings, in order to provide our group and the community with comments in this process. As you know dialogue has started on our list regarding several items raised by the Board and we look forward to continuing this fruitful dialogue. Our group is actively preparing the analysis of all the comments received, in order to finalize its recommendations, and want to inform you of these plans as well as offer a constructive way forward for a constructive dialogue. In the CCWG-Accountability process, the Icann Board holds two distinct roles : - the Board is one the affected stakeholders, and as such, its contributions, as well as those of the individual Board members are welcome and encouraged ; - the Board also committed, in its 16 October 2014 resolution to assess CCWG Accountability recommendations on the basis of global public interest, and engage into a special dialogue with the CCWG Accountability in case it found that implementation of a recommendation is not in the global public interest. After the Los Angeles face to face meeting, and during the Dublin meeting, the recommendations from our group greatly benefitted from the significant increase of Board member participation into our deliberations. We strongly encourage the Board and its individual members to maintain this high level of engagement. Starting in early January, our group will increase the frequency of its plenary sessions to two per week. The calls will be open to all, and include topic based agendas to facilitate participation of interested parties. We hope that, beyond our Board liaison, the interested Board members will actively engage in this process. Beyond this first role, the latest Board's comment on our Draft Report stressed the importance of some of its concerns by stating that, unless theses concerns are addressed, the Board would have to consider "whether it believes the specifics of the recommendation meet the global public interest". Understanding and taking into account these global public interest concerns as part of our deliberations is a very high priority for our group. Chartering Organizations should be informed of any such remaining concern before they are requested to endorse our final recommendations. That is the reason why we had requested some clarification from the Board, through our Board liaison. We appreciate the response that was provided. Beyond these clarifications, since the next few weeks will be key in finalizing our recommendations, we would like to offer the following practical suggestions to establish a constructive dialogue around these issues : - the Board could appoint specific Board correspondents for each of the global public interest concerns raised. These correspondents would engage in the respective CCWG Accountability discussions in order to clarify the Board's concerns and provide rapid, of not real-time, feedback on whether potential refinements are addressing these concerns ; - as the CCWG-Accountability finalizes each of its recommendation, the Board could hold short, regular (for instance, weekly) meetings to collectively confirm these views (through the Board liaison or these correspondents). - should there be remaining concerns from the Board when a Report is sent to the Chartering Organizations, these could be documented in our Report, just like we currently document minority statements. This approach would not only significantly enhance the cooperation between the CCWG Accountability and the Icann Board. It would also enable all involved parties, including the Chartering Organizations, to make a fully informed decision. Last, but not least, this approach effectively addresses the need to deliver a fully thought-through proposal while at the same time improving the timeliness of the delivery of a consolidated IANA Stewardship Transition to NTIA. We are looking forward to working with you and the Board to a successful conclusion of these important efforts, and hope that you and the Board can take a few days rest over this holiday season. Best wishes and happy holidays, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu CCWG Accountability co-chairs

2 1

AGENDA - Call #74
by Alice Jansen Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Dear all, In anticipation of your call#74<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986616> - Tuesday, 5 January from 19:00-22:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Update from Chartering Organizations 3. Global Public Interest (GPI) 4. January Work plan discussions and overarching agenda (see attached) 5. Recommendation 12: Work Stream 2 (see attached) 6. Recommendation 4: Board removal liability mitigation (see attached) 7. Marrakech - ICANN 55 8. A.O.B Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thanks and Happy 2016 to all! Best regards Alice

8 13

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-programmewg] REMINDER: Programme WG, Tuesday 5 Jan @12:00 UTC
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Dear Accountability Staff, please note this scheduling conflict that I overlooked, so I may be an hour late, for,the record. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On 4 Jan 2016, at 16:40, Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > The next Meetings Programme Working Group call will be tomorrow at 12:00 UTC. >

2 1

Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in China
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 4, 2016

Jan. 4, 2016

Hello All, I have had a few requests for information on ICANN's participation in the World Internet Conference which was held in Wuzhen, China: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/cnleaders/2015WIC/ and http://www.wicwuzhen.cn/english ICANN sent a contingent to the conference as part of its Strategic Goal 1.2 "Bring ICANN to the world by creating a balanced and proactive approach to regional engagement with stakeholders." Fadi attended as CEO and gave a speech, and George Sadowsky attended as a Board member. Subsequent to the conference, the conference organizers announced that Fadi would co-chair a high level advisory committee for the next conference. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-12/18/c_134928240.htm The Board had a call with Fadi to get a briefing. Fadi has now posted a blog that notes that he has accepted this role in his personal capacity, and the advisory committee will meet after his term as CEO is completed in March 2016. See: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/my-transition-from-icann-ceo-an-update Regards, Bruce Tonkin

24 48

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
by James Gannon Jan. 2, 2016

Jan. 2, 2016

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO. -Jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January Dear Colleagues, In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January. As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly. Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary. Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly. We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate. Best regards Mathieu – Thomas - León

15 40

Marrakech CCWG meeting
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 2, 2016

Jan. 2, 2016

Dear Colleagues, During our call on Tuesday, we promised to come back to you quickly regarding organization of the Marrakesh meeting. In order to help you plan for travels, this is to inform that we have requested that a full day meeting be organized for the Friday before the Icann week (March 4th). We have not yet received a formal response from Icann about this request but wanted to update you on progress. More precise informations will follow as soon as we receive confirmation. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 10

January Activities of CCWG
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs, dEAL aLL, happy New year to all I wish to refer to my previous message ,part of which, is reproduced below ,with some additional elememnts. We need to take ICANN Board's comment serious ,read them carefully and examine, analyze,discuss and reply to them one by one as appropriate. 27 Pages of comments deserves to be carefully examined .I have not seen any plan on how you wish to do so: On piublic comments , I have not also seen any plan on how we examine them neutrally and not on defensive or offensive fashion. Number and duraion of a call must be discussed and agreed uopn. 3 hours of call is totally inefficient? We need to establish a clear time mangement plan to study all comments including those of ICANN Board We should not RUSH .There is no definitive deadline , We have only an objective deadline. If some people rush, CCWG MUST not rush. Our reputation, prestige and valuses are at stake. We need to have an overarching agenda and also detailed agenda for each meeting available for comments in advance Pls kindly reflect on my suggestions Regards Kavouss

1 1