Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC
Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, weve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Thanks Mathieu I will bein a plane at the time of the call, please note my aplogies. Will review notes and recordings. Best Olga
El 16 nov 2015, a las 4:34 a.m., Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours.
Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we’ve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-)
Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours.
Best Mathieu
AGENDA
1. Welcome, Roll call (5')
2. Scope of the subgroup : (10')
Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10')
Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation.
4. Requirements (20')
Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document.
5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10')
Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call.
6. Conclusion and next steps (5')
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** <20151116 ST18 recap comparison.pdf> <20151116 ST18 recap comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Mathieu, All, I will be in a meeting when this call starts but hope to join at 1630 UTC. Cheers, Chris
On 16 Nov 2015, at 18:34 , Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours.
Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we’ve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-)
Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours.
Best Mathieu
AGENDA
1. Welcome, Roll call (5')
2. Scope of the subgroup : (10')
Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10')
Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation.
4. Requirements (20')
Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document.
5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10')
Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call.
6. Conclusion and next steps (5')
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** <20151116 ST18 recap comparison.pdf><20151116 ST18 recap comparison.docx>_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
I am chairing a CWG subgroup call at the same time and regret I will be unable to attend this call. Greg On Monday, November 16, 2015, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Mathieu, All,
I will be in a meeting when this call starts but hope to join at 1630 UTC.
Cheers,
Chris
On 16 Nov 2015, at 18:34 , Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr');>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours.
Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we’ve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-)
Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours.
Best Mathieu
AGENDA
1. Welcome, Roll call (5')
2. Scope of the subgroup : (10')
*Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as :* - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10')
*Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. *
4. Requirements (20')
*Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. *
5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10')
*Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. *
*6. Conclusion and next steps (5')*
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** <20151116 ST18 recap comparison.pdf><20151116 ST18 recap comparison.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','S18@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
I will be passing through an airport and hope to join by audio only Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:21 AM To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Mathieu, All, I will be in a meeting when this call starts but hope to join at 1630 UTC. Cheers, Chris On 16 Nov 2015, at 18:34 , Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> > wrote: Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, weve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** <20151116 ST18 recap comparison.pdf><20151116 ST18 recap comparison.docx>_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list <mailto:S18@icann.org> S18@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Mathieu I think there is one error in your summary chart (one that is fixed by the common ground proposal from Julia). Under the Board has the ability to disagree with GAC advice after trying to find a mutually acceptable solution you list OK under the Brazilian and amended Brazilian proposal. I think that is wrong (or at least it is wrong as I read the proposal). What I (and others) have objected to is the language requires finding mutually agreed solutions which suggests that the Board may not in the end disagree with GAC consensus advice. That issue is ameliorated by Julias seek agreed solutions language or by the current try to find but as written the Brazilian proposal reads, to me, as if it is a mandate that the Board MUST find (require) an agreed solution. Other than that, I think your summary is an accurate statement of where we are. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:35 AM To: s18@icann.org Subject: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, weve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Sorry but this is an unfortunate misinterpretation – nothing in the revised version sent by Julia (DK) or in the previous version from Pedro (BR) was intended to suggest that the ICANN Board can never reject GAC advice. As with so many other similar cases I suspect that the legal drafters can improve the final version to reflect even more accurately megan From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:47 PM To: 'Mathieu Weill'; s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Mathieu I think there is one error in your summary chart (one that is “fixed” by the common ground proposal from Julia). Under “the Board has the ability to disagree with GAC advice after trying to find a mutually acceptable solution” you list “OK” under the Brazilian and amended Brazilian proposal. I think that is wrong (or at least it is wrong as I read the proposal). What I (and others) have objected to is the language “requires finding mutually agreed solutions” which suggests that the Board may not in the end disagree with GAC consensus advice. That issue is ameliorated by Julia’s “seek” agreed solutions language or by the current “try to find” but as written the Brazilian proposal reads, to me, as if it is a mandate that the Board MUST find (“require”) an agreed solution. Other than that, I think your summary is an accurate statement of where we are. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:35 AM To: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we’ve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
I agree Regards Jorge Von: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2015 16:33 An: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; s18@icann.org Betreff: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Sorry but this is an unfortunate misinterpretation - nothing in the revised version sent by Julia (DK) or in the previous version from Pedro (BR) was intended to suggest that the ICANN Board can never reject GAC advice. As with so many other similar cases I suspect that the legal drafters can improve the final version to reflect even more accurately megan From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:47 PM To: 'Mathieu Weill'; s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Mathieu I think there is one error in your summary chart (one that is "fixed" by the common ground proposal from Julia). Under "the Board has the ability to disagree with GAC advice after trying to find a mutually acceptable solution" you list "OK" under the Brazilian and amended Brazilian proposal. I think that is wrong (or at least it is wrong as I read the proposal). What I (and others) have objected to is the language "requires finding mutually agreed solutions" which suggests that the Board may not in the end disagree with GAC consensus advice. That issue is ameliorated by Julia's "seek" agreed solutions language or by the current "try to find" but as written the Brazilian proposal reads, to me, as if it is a mandate that the Board MUST find ("require") an agreed solution. Other than that, I think your summary is an accurate statement of where we are. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:35 AM To: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we've been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
See how easy consensus is to find. -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Monday, 16 November 2015, 10:46AM -05:00 from < Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> :
I agree Regards Jorge Von: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2015 16:33 An: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; s18@icann.org Betreff: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Sorry but this is an unfortunate misinterpretation – nothing in the revised version sent by Julia (DK) or in the previous version from Pedro (BR) was intended to suggest that the ICANN Board can never reject GAC advice. As with so many other similar cases I suspect that the legal drafters can improve the final version to reflect even more accurately megan From: s18-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:47 PM To: 'Mathieu Weill'; s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Mathieu I think there is one error in your summary chart (one that is “fixed” by the common ground proposal from Julia). Under “the Board has the ability to disagree with GAC advice after trying to find a mutually acceptable solution” you list “OK” under the Brazilian and amended Brazilian proposal. I think that is wrong (or at least it is wrong as I read the proposal). What I (and others) have objected to is the language “requires finding mutually agreed solutions” which suggests that the Board may not in the end disagree with GAC consensus advice. That issue is ameliorated by Julia’s “seek” agreed solutions language or by the current “try to find” but as written the Brazilian proposal reads, to me, as if it is a mandate that the Board MUST find (“require”) an agreed solution. Other than that, I think your summary is an accurate statement of where we are. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [ mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:35 AM To: s18@icann.org Subject: [S18] Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, we’ve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
participants (7)
-
Chris Disspain -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mathieu Weill -
Megan.Richards＠ec.europa.eu -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig