Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #8 - 13 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783221 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: Discuss on list whether any discussion needed in Paris ACTION ITEM: Becky to propose new language to reflect comments and discussions on affirmative constraint. ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate a revised doc on IRP. Notes Mission Statement First changes in mission statement were suggested by the IAB and Post-Kiehl comments. IAB suggested that ICANN's mission is to support the policy development for the Internet core registry. Language for coordination has been there for quite a while. Feedback: - Suggestion to use IANA registry - Concerns about IAB's use of "support". --> Retain coordination language - Coordination is important. To get it implemented and operationalized. - Is "coordinate" an attempt to evolve or devolve? We need to understand what they are aiming at. - Suggestion to use facilitate instead of coordinate - Request that we remain consistent in language - uniform approach is needed. Support or facilitate should be an open issue that would need to be considered by whole group. - Existing language has priority --> Retain wording that is in current Bylaws. ACTION ITEM: Discuss on list whether any discussion needed in Paris - Objection to "reasonably necessary" ---> It is current Bylaws language. The language is more limited - Would we rely on this language for IRP? - Consider contract enforcement and regulation - Is provision part of ICANN purpose - Concerns about ICANN compliance enforcing provisions that are not within mission. - Question raised as to whether ICANN enforcing a contract is regulation. ---> We do not believe that the language precludes ICANN from enforcing its contracts - A very large number of comments that referred to keeping ICANN squarely within its mission and indeed many that expressly referred to the need not to allow that it's mechanisms in which the contract enforcement would be included to go beyond that into a regulatory space. - ACTION ITEM: Becky to propose new language to reflect comments and discussions on affirmative constraint. Core Values - Commitments reflect ICANN's fundamental compact with the global internet community and are intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN's activities. In any situation where a core value must be reconciled or - with another, the balancing must further an important public interest goal identified through the multi-stakeholder process. ---> Ok to move on with proposed language. ---> No objection to local law addition - Suggestion to have indicative list of applicable treaties is for WP3. - Is unbiased to challenge experts or do we feel there has been biased experts in the past. - Conflict of interest is given - no need to add it. - Add in on biased is a risk. It's inherent in system. --> Agreement to remove unbiased - Suggestion to remove "to the extent feasible and appropriate" and "where feasible and appropriate" without creating unnecessary constraints on ICANN ---> Remove "to the extent feasible and appropriate" ---> Implement paragraph 336 into the language - Concerns about "consistent with the mission" and "remaining rooted in the private sector" language - Suggestion to change "governments and public authorities" to "the GAC - Suggestion to add "within their own jurisdictions" ---> Include "GAC" and "within their jurisdiction" --> Include "striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of different stakeholders in the pursuit of its mission." ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate a revised doc on IRP.