Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #17 - 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783018 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action for Alan: To translate the discussion into the public comment report of May 4 and redline it ready for Paris. And will redraft the paper Notes Notes Updates on Community Mechanism, AoC document and. Robin to join the group on budget and strategic plan Members: Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, Robin Gross. Matt Shears comments not reflected as he couldn't join the call 6 issues: Who should participate in the council. Vote weighting from the May 4th proposal Should votes be divided, potential fractional voting allowed? Opt out or opt in on issues Mechanism or formal group? If the GAC participates in the community mechanism should the bylaws be amended? Who participates? Close unanimity. All SO and AC be included. If some as a result of next PC say they don't want to participate then can review their decision then. And need to define what participate means. Q. RSAC and SSAC said they didn't want to participate. Did you consider that? A. The first proposal largely focused on membership and there was confusion of what membership means. Felt, that subject to the next comment, unfair to drop groups off, they said they wanted to stay as advisors. And they can opt out and not participate. Avri: tend to agree not to exclude now. One has just become a charter org. If they asked to be removed, then fine. And if they opt out now, they can opt back in without having to have a bylaws change. Unless they request to be named as excluded. NTIA stress test, sufficiently open? And this approach addresses that. Leave the voting option open for any SO/AC recognized in ICANN's bylaws. So give the opportunity to vote in the future, an open invitation. Need another look at the super majority thresholds depending on voting participation. The SSAC, RSAC and GAC, might participate in an advisory capacity. Keeping them out because they don't want to vote may not be necessary. They can advise the community council. Second item looked at comments referring to the voting weight. Some supportive. Some questioned why the RSAC and SSAC had less and suggested equal votes. Some that the GSNO should have more. Or the votes may shift depending on issues, e.g. gTLD or ccTLD. No closure. Most in favor of the mechanism, but this was only a small number of the total comments. But recognition on proportionality, etc. Dealt with 2 and 3 together by considering fractional voting and issues of seating of people. Jordan. The question was also not clearly set out in the comment. SSAC, a board appointed group. And RSAC a very small specialist group. Votes by issue, this not about policy so answer is no to differential votes. Need to be clear on questions in the coming round. About differential votes, the issue might pertain to one of the SO/AC rather than to the others. SSAC picked by the Board: yes it approves the nominations, but it comes from its own nominating process. And if you consider their issue as a primary issue of ICANN then there are good reasons for parity. Normalized votes, can work. But they do make the situation much more complicated. Greg. General comment. Some justification for less weight to SSAC and RSAC. They don't represent stakeholder communities in the same way. They are fundamentally different. Alan. Don't agree with differential votes. SSAC represents a large group and interest. The RSAC loss easier to justify. Suggest leave open and ask a very clear question next time Fractional voting. Should a group choose to divide its vote in fraction below one, then should allow. Jordan. Should allow. All dependent on this being a group of people. But we should set some limit on the number who can represent a group. Stress test issue - is there a need for a member's avatar to cast the vote, and what does this mean for the potential rogue voter. And the stress test will remain. Other officers of SO/AC need to communicate that a problem occurred and request to hold a re-vote. Going rogue: for removal of the Board, there were directed votes. But silent on other issues. Could apply that to directed vote to all the powers, or ensure that the votes cast represent the views of the SO/AC There seems support for the votes to be traceable back to the SO/AC How to handle a SO/AC or individual which abstains. Don't count abstention or opt outs, but there should be a minimum number of yes votes, but need the answer to 2 above before we can finally decide. Can there be votes through email or through a formal group. If a group it will grow to justify its own existence. But these issues are important and may require a degree if socializing to gain community support, perhaps even public comment. Suggest there should be a group. There may be need to meet face to face, which raises issues of travel support. Create a construct to allow it to meet. Staff support to help understand an issue. Even if the people are together on a phone or together physically, or just an email, then the vote should be recorded. That the votes be transparent and accountable. 6. If the GAC chooses to participate in some way or form, then it should not have other preferential treatment. ATRT2, recommended that if any AC gives formal advice, the Board must respond positively or explain why not. Middle ground might be that the GAC cannot issue advice counter to the advice of the community council. Others suggest CAG should pick one or the other. May be heading to a bylaws amendment that only where the GAC has consensus must the board provide deferential treatment. Note, GAC advice may have been given to the Board prior to the community council meeting. Don't tie voting to the giving of advice that the group was created to give. Avri: feel they are getting a double bite at the apple. Feel the two powers are incompatible. Falls to the category of making the governments more equal. Hearing today, Fadi made a statement about governments, we should check. OK if they opt out of the mechanism. Need to think about them having additional powers. Steve to capture comment and send to Alan. Action for Alan: To translate the discussion into the public comment report of May 4 and redline it ready for Paris. And will redraft the paper. AoC update, revised text as circulated. OECD privacy guideline and other tweaks. Steve: Edits since Monday. Page 3, Board and GAC chair designate members and there is no diversity requirement. Our requirement to be as diverse as possible is a new proposal. Question then how many? Steve's proposal, keep open, but voting would be equalized among SO/AC. Avri: the complication of votes, from and indeterminate number of participants. These ATRT processes are meant to be consensus affairs, not jumping too quickly to voting. If we can reach consensus then that is best. The numbers flexible. Keep the core group small. Something predictable, easy to decide. Diversity: the instruction the two chairs had did ensure diversity, and wish to transfer that to the five chairs. Overall concern about putting the diversity requirement into the bylaws when diversity it undefined. The number 3 doesn't help anyone, not a natural number. If we talk about diversity and representativeness then can't ignore where they come from. 3 is unhelpful. Greg. Is membership and important factor, or is participation key? If membership less important then easier to accept. Alan. Don't ignore the board in this. Strong support for Avri's view. People who have the skills for the task. The number 3, the smallest number with a wide spread of opinion. Believes skill set dependent on diversity, but can be swapped. Jordan: instinct, don't make a distinction between us, but use the CCWG. But concerned that neither proposal doesn't limit the number participation and that doesn't seem right for this issue. Put to the CCWG in Paris. And in text, remove the name labels. Steve. Public comment from Spain, first element about putting for public comment. Bottom of page 4. Remove the requirement that the ATRT look at other review teams. They only review ATRT implementation. Timing: 1 year of convening. And from convened to convening in terms of frequency. For each of the AoC reviews. WHOIS review, page 7. OECD guidelines, not force of law. Steve alternative, to look at privacy guidelines. Convene: might say when the group meets for the first team. Suggest pass through as a note and see what lawyers drafting think about it. Assent on the OECD tweak. Friday call: recall of the board, and community powers on Friday Monday call: bylaws revisions, Alan on removal of individual directors and text mark-upon the community mechanism. END