Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #16 – 10 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (opening with 30 participants). No updates to SOIs. No audio only. 2. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Options for Question 4 Greg Shatan: (proposals for Question 4 document - staff to prep DM proposal also). Kavouss Arasteh: which version are we discussing? It is important for all of us to agree on something. DM text needs to include "mission". Parminder: I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the last call and not new David's text. Parminder: I dont agree with current David's text Milton: I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4 Parminder: but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text David McAuley: re my suggestion - I could support the GS reformulation of this. Still disagree we deal with JOI. Milton: it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call Brenda Brewer: Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here; https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw John Laprise: I support the McAuley Formulation Vidushi Marda: Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first? Steve DelBianco: I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg Mathieu Weill: Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ? Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text Parminder: We should focus on the previously presented 7 versions and could support any of these except 7. Steve DelBianco: Have not supported Q4 but in the spirit of compromise could agree to the reformulated DM question. If we cannot reach consensus on Q4 we should proceed to the plenary with the first 3 questions and advise we will continue to work on Q4. Jonathan Zuck: Agree with SDB and like the simplicity of this version. Parminder: Please put Seun’s modification on the screen, which had good support on the elist Jonathan Zuck: Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances" David McAuley (RySG): Steve makes a good point about consensus Kavouss Arasteh: not constructive to work on 7 versions. Could work with DM version with MISSION included. Milton: If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version Parminder: Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here. Milton: "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla" David McAuley (RySG): +1 Milton, I could support Greg's reformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters Philip Corwin: Agree with Jonathan Z's observation. David McAuley (RySG): by adding Mission and leaving other reformulated wording we risk confusion again Milton: simpler is better Milton: agree with David on that Kavouss Arasteh: why David Parminder: this is the wording Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." David McAuley (RySG): adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different - Steve DelBianco: @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement. Philip Corwin: "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication. Kavouss Arasteh: re-insert MISSION in square brakets and send to the CCWG-Accountability plenary and they cand decide. John Laprise: I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better. Steve DelBianco: Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission. It is about accountability mechanisms Milton: Corwin is correct Jonathan Zuck: we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again Milton: Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountability mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that John Laprise: @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic. Parminder: strong objection to not showing my or Sheun's modifications to DM's text. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY Jonathan Zuck: @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it. David McAuley: Re KA question - my concern is to avoid confusion by inserting mission. Parminder: i also put them here , puttting again Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Jonathan Zuck: if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now Milton: "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated? Steve DelBianco: ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws. It is over 700 words long. I doubt anyone could quote it by memory. Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question? Parminder: seun's text that I amended was ""Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Parminder: Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation Kavouss Arasteh: Greg. Milton: it does cover alt jurisdiction Kavouss Arasteh: If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion Milton: yes there is, Philip Corwin: As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation. Ghislain de Salins: what about the original objective of Q4 about alternative jurisdiction in DM's proposal? (explanation it is there by GS) Milton Mueler: Still want to separate Q4 but we seem to be making progress. DM proposal is very close to consensus Farzaneh Badii: If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group… Tatiana Tropina: Milton, well said. Brenda Brewer: On behalf of Seun Ojedeji: Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity. Wale Bakare: Absolutely Vidushi Marda: I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get. Parminder: Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up. Farzaneh Badii: I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more . Jonathan Zuck: agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation David McAuley (RySG): Milron cutting out now Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Milton. Parminder: need to put up Sheun and my versions. Milton: Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi sent the formulations to the email. Brenda can you put it up ? Kavouss Arasteh: lets put the DM version in front of people and get the co-chair to respond to FB. Parminder: why are you not putting up that text. Mathieu Weill: I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress Milton: As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement (Staff) displaying Sean and Parminder. Milton: Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho John Laprise: Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only. David McAuley (RySG): My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future John Laprise: Agreed John Laprise: too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy Steve DelBianco: Stick with David's original, I'd say Parminder: The future should be logically deductible form "facts" Jeff Neuman: Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three Parminder: that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work Steve DelBianco: I would not support speculation about future facts Philip Corwin: Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant. Herb Waye Ombuds: Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all. Jeff Neuman: David's language Jeff Neuman: and these 2 Jonathan Zuck: the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): argh. should sayo Jonathan Zuck: David's original Philip Corwin: Past is prologue Tatiana Tropina: David's Greg Shatan: Polling - DM original version (12 pro). Object to DM's original version (3). Going to Seun's option (4+, 11-). Last Parminder version (3+, 11-). DM modified version (2+, 8-) Philip Corwin: NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission. Mathieu Weill: Important to identifiy any *objection* Milton: just added my check a bit late Steve DelBianco: Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks. We got to 13 Steve DelBianco: If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2 David McAuley (RySG): I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first Milton: if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal Mary Uduma: we are actually arguing on trivals. avri doria: we should not use such poll to determine things. if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @Parminder fixed. Mathieu Weill: Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal David McAuley (RySG): in other words I strongly support my original proposal Parminder: thanks Vidushi Marda: Unsure what we are voting on Tatiana Tropina: yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok Philip Corwin: I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative John Laprise: +1Tatiana Jonathan Zuck: Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Phil me a Parminder: I agree with Avri's process objection Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also Kavouss Arasteh: we have our result from the polling and this should be reported to the plenary. Jeff Neuman: I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself. That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary Milton: It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus Mathieu Weill: This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting. Milton: Mathieu is right Greg Shatan: We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus? Kavouss Arasteh: This is done. Parminder: I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations. avri doria: consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such Farzaneh Badii: what is enough? Tatiana Tropina: Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)? Steve DelBianco: If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: I do not think there is consensus David McAuley (RySG): i hear beeping Mathieu Weill: Can we mute Nigel line Philip Corwin: Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question. Kavouss Arasteh: cannot qualify that consensus. avri doria: Philip, I would noot agree with that. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version avri doria: i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors John Laprise: agreed, so motioned... Philip Corwin: @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll Greg Shatan: We will go forward with the 4 questions which include DM's original version. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus Steve DelBianco: If some do not agree this is not consensus on 4 then we go ahead with 3 questions. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus avri doria: we have no consensus for sending just 3 Milton: yes we do Vidushi Marda: +1 avri Parminder: But no consensus on 1-3 either Mary Uduma: I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward. Mathieu Weill: Not necessary to reopen the debate - this is a good compromise position and thank everyone. Steve DelBianco: Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3 John Laprise: Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4 Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we had 1-3 well supported earlier Milton: +1 Mathieu Jeff Neuman: @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection. Philip Corwin: On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3 avri doria: i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus Farzaneh Badii: so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out? Wale Bakare: We have consensus on all Qs. Mary Uduma: @Parminder, not so on 1-3 Farzaneh Badii: YES! Tatiana Tropina: wow what a day Farzaneh Badii: SUCCESS Kavouss Arasteh: Appreciation to GS for the effort to get us here. Leave it as is. Still need to answer FB's question. Greg Shatan: will deal with this on the list. Adjourned.