Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:17
congrats Sam!
Vanda's iPhone 5
33:08
hi sorry to enter late my internet not working well
Sam Eisner
35:52
Thanks Emily. I’ll follow up in writing this week
Sam Eisner
36:17
On this point, I can confirm that the BC’s statement is correct
Sam Eisner
36:31
But there are other points I still have to provide to the group
Emily Barabas
36:39
Thanks Sam
Stephen Deerhake
37:20
I cannot hear her either.
Sam Eisner
37:20
I’m having trouble
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:20
We cannot hear Sam
Sam Eisner
37:35
I will respond by end of this week
Sam Eisner
37:44
i.e., Friday
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:46
The webinar is a good idea!
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
39:23
ok for webinar
Vanda's iPhone 5
43:18
it is clear for me too even translating it
Vanda Scartezini
48:26
yes
Vanda Scartezini
49:29
totally agree with Alan - ALS are independent
Judith Hellerstein
50:07
yes ALSES are independent and many of them are legal entities in their own right
Nadira AL-ARAJ
50:52
+1 about ALSes can apply
Alan Greenberg
51:37
ALL ALSes are independant, but some may not be legally incorporated. Those would not be eligible.
Alan Greenberg
52:11
ICANN Org itself CLEARLY cannot apply.
Vanda Scartezini
52:16
yes once ALS fulfill the requirements they can apply
Danko Jevtović (board)
52:38
I believe the Board Letter was clear on that
Danko Jevtović (board)
53:00
But we dont want to create a paralel budget
Vanda Scartezini
53:03
Danko +1
Emily Barabas
53:03
It would be helpful if CCWG members could let us know what they think is missing from the text.
Emily Barabas
53:19
As everyone who meets the criteria can apply.
Danko Jevtović (board)
53:48
so I don't fully understand the discussion
Danko Jevtović (board)
54:27
Is there a change in the text proposed?
Carolina Caeiro
55:27
I agree with Alan
Carolina Caeiro
55:37
I would not modify the text either
Vanda Scartezini
56:11
I agree too it is quite clear even translating it to other LATIN languages for instance
Vanda Scartezini
56:24
no need to debate more
Rudi Daniel
59:16
i am ok with the present text.
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:00:13
I there's no further review soon I think we should all agree on the present text
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:00:27
If there's no further review soon I think we should all agree on the present text
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:01:01
+1 Statements from Samantha and Danko
Carolina Caeiro
01:02:21
that makes sense Erika, let’s do that
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:03:30
Alan, The future is unknown!
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:03:55
Very, very unknown.
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:04:29
The was the most important lesson from my MBA, I still remember it
Rudi Daniel
01:04:52
+1 to include in the letter. and sunset comment.
Judith Hellerstein
01:05:12
yes, thanks for this clarification makes it more clear
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:05:18
Thank you Erika
Judith Hellerstein
01:10:14
i agree with Erika- let’s move on
Carolina Caeiro
01:11:07
I agree with the leadership’s recommendation not to revisit these issues
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:11:52
For me, the requirements for independence are clear, at least from the Boards perspective
Vanda Scartezini
01:11:54
agree Erika
Emily Barabas
01:12:06
This is currently included in the response to charter question 6
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:12:30
agree Erika
Emily Barabas
01:12:32
That these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase
Emily Barabas
01:12:39
sure one moment
Julie Bisland
01:12:40
Alan dropped his connection and is no longer connected to Zoom (FYI)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:13:49
Sorry, I lost power just as you were calling on me.
Vanda Scartezini
01:15:02
good for my view
erikamann
01:15:24
Are you back Alan?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:15:55
My comment was going to be that my recollection was that the board explicitly said that the selection panel should NOT be a "community group" although individual members could be from the community (but not be there representing them)
erikamann
01:16:26
Got you Alan
Carolina Caeiro
01:17:26
good point Alan
Carolina Caeiro
01:17:32
I think we are covered with the e
Carolina Caeiro
01:17:40
*text as is
Vanda Scartezini
01:19:16
I am ok with the text Erika it is clear
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:19:45
Alan, I agree, our community is very wide, so we can't exclude someone who has participated in an ICANN meeting (even remotely)
SamLanfranco
01:24:48
I think that "feasibility" is the wrong term here. There needs to be an "assessment" and in any other business this would have been a day one "no brainer" task to be done.
Carolina Caeiro
01:25:02
I agree with Sam
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:25:56
Likewise
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:18
@Sam - is "feasibility assessment" okay for you?
Emily Barabas
01:26:37
would “strongly encourages” be a possible path forward?
Carolina Caeiro
01:26:49
we would not be mandating, would we? i believe it is just a recommendation
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:01
Let's get it right - not just do it fast.
Rudi Daniel
01:27:40
not sure why there is a need to mandate a study...so agree Allan
Vanda Scartezini
01:28:20
I believe Alan’s position is quite right Board shall have freedom
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:28:47
BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study
sarahdeutsch
01:29:29
Thanks for these comments, everyone. I don’t think a mandate is necessary and “study” might not be the right word.
SamLanfranco
01:29:38
No problem with breaking up badly here. All is loud and clear.
Emily Barabas
01:30:08
On the last call, there were suggestions to use “feasibility assessment.” Would that be better?
Judith Hellerstein
01:30:10
yes, Erika is loud and clear
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:30:23
Breaking up may be associated with my power failure,
Julie Bisland
01:31:10
@Alan: I agree it’s on your end, lines (Erika’s included) are clear on my end
SamLanfranco
01:31:41
I thought the earlier discussion was more around the need for an assessment of the necessary elements to make a mechanism a go, and the resource (cost) implications. Not an assessment of the what or why, more the how.
Carolina Caeiro
01:32:31
I think if it is done, it should be the board the one to commission it, cause they will need this info to make a decision
Carolina Caeiro
01:32:34
+1 Erika
Vanda Scartezini
01:32:58
agree Erika this decision Board shall define
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:09
strongly encourage the Board is good
Carolina Caeiro
01:35:19
ok with me
SamLanfranco
01:35:32
agree
Judith Hellerstein
01:39:18
are we still having a call next week?
Vanda Scartezini
01:42:07
I understood too but if not there is no sense related to the mechanism
Judith Hellerstein
01:42:59
agree with Erika
Judith Hellerstein
01:46:10
i agree with Erika
Vanda Scartezini
01:48:05
yes not to us to decide
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:23
I think the ICANN Board and org will be bound by the Human Rights Framework once this is implemented in Workstream 2 work and that this will apply to all mechanisms.
Vanda Scartezini
01:49:41
Samantha could help here
Judith Hellerstein
01:53:41
April 8 is Passover so prefer we do not have a meeting then
Vanda Scartezini
01:54:14
yes
Carolina Caeiro
01:54:15
fine with me
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:54:18
Yes
Judith Hellerstein
01:54:18
yes
SamLanfranco
01:54:20
yes
Stephen Deerhake
01:54:23
Call next week works.
Rudi Daniel
01:54:29
ys
Carolina Caeiro
01:54:38
thanks everyone!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:54:49
Thank you Erika and Emily!
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:54:49
thanks all. Ciao
Rudi Daniel
01:54:50
:)
Stephen Deerhake
01:54:51
Thanks Erika.
Joke Braeken
01:54:56
bye all!
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:54:57
Wash nhands after this too?
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:55:01
bye
Danko Jevtović (board)
01:55:08
happy!
Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou
01:55:08
hbd Judith