Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #15 – 6 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xaXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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 exercise 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 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 Mueller: 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 analyzed 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 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 · ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/ICANN%20Expected%2...> · Chart showing alternatives for Questionnaire.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/Chart%20showing%20...> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/InfluenceofExistin...>