
32:17
congrats Sam!

33:08
hi sorry to enter late my internet not working well

35:52
Thanks Emily. I’ll follow up in writing this week

36:17
On this point, I can confirm that the BC’s statement is correct

36:31
But there are other points I still have to provide to the group

36:39
Thanks Sam

37:20
I cannot hear her either.

37:20
I’m having trouble

37:20
We cannot hear Sam

37:35
I will respond by end of this week

37:44
i.e., Friday

38:46
The webinar is a good idea!

39:23
ok for webinar

43:18
it is clear for me too even translating it

48:26
yes

49:29
totally agree with Alan - ALS are independent

50:07
yes ALSES are independent and many of them are legal entities in their own right

50:52
+1 about ALSes can apply

51:37
ALL ALSes are independant, but some may not be legally incorporated. Those would not be eligible.

52:11
ICANN Org itself CLEARLY cannot apply.

52:16
yes once ALS fulfill the requirements they can apply

52:38
I believe the Board Letter was clear on that

53:00
But we dont want to create a paralel budget

53:03
Danko +1

53:03
It would be helpful if CCWG members could let us know what they think is missing from the text.

53:19
As everyone who meets the criteria can apply.

53:48
so I don't fully understand the discussion

54:27
Is there a change in the text proposed?

55:27
I agree with Alan

55:37
I would not modify the text either

56:11
I agree too it is quite clear even translating it to other LATIN languages for instance

56:24
no need to debate more

59:16
i am ok with the present text.

01:00:13
I there's no further review soon I think we should all agree on the present text

01:00:27
If there's no further review soon I think we should all agree on the present text

01:01:01
+1 Statements from Samantha and Danko

01:02:21
that makes sense Erika, let’s do that

01:03:30
Alan, The future is unknown!

01:03:55
Very, very unknown.

01:04:29
The was the most important lesson from my MBA, I still remember it

01:04:52
+1 to include in the letter. and sunset comment.

01:05:12
yes, thanks for this clarification makes it more clear

01:05:18
Thank you Erika

01:10:14
i agree with Erika- let’s move on

01:11:07
I agree with the leadership’s recommendation not to revisit these issues

01:11:52
For me, the requirements for independence are clear, at least from the Boards perspective

01:11:54
agree Erika

01:12:06
This is currently included in the response to charter question 6

01:12:30
agree Erika

01:12:32
That these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase

01:12:39
sure one moment

01:12:40
Alan dropped his connection and is no longer connected to Zoom (FYI)

01:13:49
Sorry, I lost power just as you were calling on me.

01:15:02
good for my view

01:15:24
Are you back Alan?

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)

01:16:26
Got you Alan

01:17:26
good point Alan

01:17:32
I think we are covered with the e

01:17:40
*text as is

01:19:16
I am ok with the text Erika it is clear

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)

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.

01:25:02
I agree with Sam

01:25:56
Likewise

01:26:18
@Sam - is "feasibility assessment" okay for you?

01:26:37
would “strongly encourages” be a possible path forward?

01:26:49
we would not be mandating, would we? i believe it is just a recommendation

01:27:01
Let's get it right - not just do it fast.

01:27:40
not sure why there is a need to mandate a study...so agree Allan

01:28:20
I believe Alan’s position is quite right Board shall have freedom

01:28:47
BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study

01:29:29
Thanks for these comments, everyone. I don’t think a mandate is necessary and “study” might not be the right word.

01:29:38
No problem with breaking up badly here. All is loud and clear.

01:30:08
On the last call, there were suggestions to use “feasibility assessment.” Would that be better?

01:30:10
yes, Erika is loud and clear

01:30:23
Breaking up may be associated with my power failure,

01:31:10
@Alan: I agree it’s on your end, lines (Erika’s included) are clear on my end

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.

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

01:32:34
+1 Erika

01:32:58
agree Erika this decision Board shall define

01:35:09
strongly encourage the Board is good

01:35:19
ok with me

01:35:32
agree

01:39:18
are we still having a call next week?

01:42:07
I understood too but if not there is no sense related to the mechanism

01:42:59
agree with Erika

01:46:10
i agree with Erika

01:48:05
yes not to us to decide

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.

01:49:41
Samantha could help here

01:53:41
April 8 is Passover so prefer we do not have a meeting then

01:54:14
yes

01:54:15
fine with me

01:54:18
Yes

01:54:18
yes

01:54:20
yes

01:54:23
Call next week works.

01:54:29
ys

01:54:38
thanks everyone!

01:54:49
Thank you Erika and Emily!

01:54:49
thanks all. Ciao

01:54:50
:)

01:54:51
Thanks Erika.

01:54:56
bye all!

01:54:57
Wash nhands after this too?

01:55:01
bye

01:55:08
happy!

01:55:08
hbd Judith