Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #12 held on 2 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/5Z5YAw 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. para 187 vs contract enforcement is a misunderstanding which can be corrected. Propose a clarification that any voluntary commitments (contracts) and consensus policies can be enforced. Need to better understand ALAC comment on this. AG- discussions about PICs and with NCSG that the TLD and domain names themselves are content and cannot be controlled and this could be interpreted by some as restricting ICANN from limiting things like confusingly similar. BBurr - a clear reference that consensus policies are within the ICANN mission would fix this concern? AG - ideally yes but practice no DM - issues is more about domain names vs TLDs. BB - need to clearly describe what is consensus policies. 187 had a lot of support when drafted.Removing it could cause major issues. Would be good to have volounteers to work on language. DM - Would be good to group issues. 187 may relate to Stress test 29 and 30. KA - does not support 187 language is not clear BB - This text has been present for a very long time. Asha H - what is absolute prohibition. BB - ICANN has enumerated powers, if not listed it is not in ICANN powers..Intends to say ICANN must act within its mission. GS - There are some issues with the language - Bylaws drafting is an issue how we get from this to bylaws language - may be more useful to look at this more as properly defining the concepts (BB agrees).. In this language AS REASONABLY APPROPRIATE - unclear on relationship between mssion and bylawws - gives broad rights. Second sentence - regulation not defined. usually a unilateral act over what is covered - inherent flaw is that ICANN cannot regulate anything. Do regulation and enforcement overlapp etc. Willing to volunteer to improve this as per consensus. Avri Doria: we recommend: "ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that they carry or provide." Kavouss Arasteh: icann shall act in accordance with its mission and shall not be engaged in or attempt to regulate the services that use the Internet ;s unique identifier ,or the content that they carry or provide BB - need language to instruct lawyers drafting. KA - does not support HAVE NO POWER. needs to be simpler.jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): Please add for the record in the Notes of the meeting: I have an issue of process. According to the Roadmap distributed by the Co-Chairs up to Dublin we should identify areas of consensus, areas of refinemente, areas of divergence and potential options. We should do this in writing. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): Otherwise, as has happened before, the decisions taken by this WP are not traceable for people not able to participate. AD - re NCSG proposal - If we are considering changing it we should consider all proposals. BB - summary - The approach of enumerated powers has no oppostion. There is concern with the language itself regarding complexity and possibly of implementation. There are several suggeestions for modifications. There are concerns that the language could be interpreted as limiting ICANNs ability to enforce consensus policy and freeely entered into agreements. GS - agree with summary. also issues around definin=g content and what ICANN does with respect to content currently. Willing to volounteer. BB - GS, KA and DM to work on reviewing vs comments. BB - move on to not having imported the entire affirmation of comm. text into this.. Need a decision to take the text out of here and put in the Review section - which seemed to be the best way to do this - there were several comments regarding this. Need to review the purpose this language serves and how to handle it. SDB - your description is accurate - have separated out AOC reviews into commitments and Bylaws. BB - will produce document on this point for the group to consider. AG - ALAC commented on removal of consumer trust. KA - 1 deterministic language is not acceptable - 2 private sector issue - there are 4 categores of the community Private sectror, Civil society, Tech. comm- academia and govts. BB - noted BB - consumer trust issue was in there and will be included in the write up. GS - Missing a sense of concordance bet AOC and our text. Need to understand where each aspect of the AOC has ended up in our propoal. Need to demanstrate clearly what has happened with the oriianl AOC. BB - concordance would be useful. AG - re Private sector defn - this list was created becasue there are many defns of private sector being used.. BB - correct. We continue to have objections froms some govts about this language. Also strong objections from commentors who took excxeption about how we addressed govt concern re how to address how GAC advice was inconsistent with Bylaws. (mutually acceptabe solution text). Propose to write this up as a whole that would clarify that at no time can ICANN act in a manner that is against the Bylaws. Volounteers? Alan Greenberg: When re-writing, please factor in ALAC and other comments related to "civil society" and users. AG - Like private sector civil society has many definitions.. There is enough confusion that it requires clarification. BB - solution to this would be to add end-users jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: Dear Becky and Staff: please include the following suggestion in the Notes: jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: We support a wording in Commitment number 5 that recognizes in that Commitment that Governments participate in the bottom-up public policy process and provide their advice to ICANN Board BB - last issue for today - Global public interest issue. Heard a lot about this in LA face to face that the ICANN Board is required to act in the global public interest. Need to recognize that this is defined by the bottom up multistakeholder model.. Have been clear as to how to define the globabl public interest. GS - many efforts ongoing to define this in the context of ICANN. Sceptical about the exercise as this will always be subject to interpretation. At best this will be difficult. BB - very encouraging. AG - there is no defn. public interest in the Bylaws. Suggest we do not define but give examples. BB - we do not have a defintion but in the core values we say that the bottom up Ms process is used to acertain the global public interest aaand have remove3d the other referrences to global public interest. Uncertain how we could define the global public interest - would the current approach be satisfactory AG - what we have is troublesome because the MS bottom up process to determine what is global pulic interest. BB - no the polcies developed by the bottom up MS process as the articulation of the public interest in the particular case. AG - as clarified this causes him to fully reject.. BB - providing the Board with a global public interest Trump Card would not be acceptable to many.given it may go against polcies developped by the MS bottom up process. AG - Board could not change the policy but could refuse to implement it because of global public interest. KA - Remove bottom up references in all text - any effort to constrain the GAC in any way.. cannot subornitae any category of stakeholder in any other GS - public interest includes the interest of the public and private sectors.. If we want to avoid giving the Board the trump card - then do not give it the last word on deciding what is public issue. KA - Why in 5 we do not mention Govt. BB - Private sector leadership has been in the ICANN Bylaws since very early days. But the wording was the subject of consensus but several govts have pushed back on. We need to have this discussion based on the comments jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: Dear Becky: this organisation has evolved since its inception. At least the Government role should be included under Commitment number 5, as I suggested before Kavouss Arasteh: That was written many years ago and by one single government wthat wanted to be the sole stewwardship of the whole process but we are changing that process BB - public interest issue - RG - Use the ICANN Bottom up process to determine public interest. BB - re public interest AG - bottom up process is fine but you need a level bottom up process - those with commercial interest can participate more. GS - We are all trying to accomplish the same thing,. By defining it we may be tying the Board hands. We should not limit the list - but for those things tahat are identified we should not go against them. JC - he bottom-up process is our way to ascertain the public interest within ICANN, but the right mix and the right balance is key, including the fair consideration of civil society interests and public policy issues as fed in by the GAC BB - Will work on text for this part. Recap of the issue of public interest.. AND WILL CIRCUTLATE TO THE GROUP bb - rECAP ASSINGMENT gs AND dm PUT TOGETHER A DISCUSSION ON ENUMARATE DPOWERS BB - consumer trust - re concordance - will work with staff for next meeting.. DM will work on the Private Sector leadership and GAC consideration advice.. BB will work on global public interest (note KA request to participate).. BB - appreciate participation. AG - interested on public interest and consumer trust