congrats Sam!

hi sorry to enter late my internet not working well

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

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

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

Thanks Sam

I cannot hear her either.

I’m having trouble

We cannot hear Sam

I will respond by end of this week

i.e., Friday

The webinar is a good idea!

ok for webinar

it is clear for me too even translating it

yes

totally agree with Alan - ALS are independent

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

+1 about ALSes can apply

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

ICANN Org itself CLEARLY cannot apply.

yes once ALS fulfill the requirements they can apply

I believe the Board Letter was clear on that

But we dont want to create a paralel budget

Danko +1

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

As everyone who meets the criteria can apply.

so I don't fully understand the discussion

Is there a change in the text proposed?

I agree with Alan

I would not modify the text either

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

no need to debate more

i am ok with the present text.

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

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

+1 Statements from Samantha and Danko

that makes sense Erika, let’s do that

Alan, The future is unknown!

Very, very unknown.

The was the most important lesson from my MBA, I still remember it

+1 to include in the letter. and sunset comment.

yes, thanks for this clarification makes it more clear

Thank you Erika

i agree with Erika- let’s move on

I agree with the leadership’s recommendation not to revisit these issues

For me, the requirements for independence are clear, at least from the Boards perspective

agree Erika

This is currently included in the response to charter question 6

agree Erika

That these issues will be considered further in the implementation phase

sure one moment

Alan dropped his connection and is no longer connected to Zoom (FYI)

Sorry, I lost power just as you were calling on me.

good for my view

Are you back Alan?

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)

Got you Alan

good point Alan

I think we are covered with the e

*text as is

I am ok with the text Erika it is clear

Alan, I agree, our community is very wide, so we can't exclude someone who has participated in an ICANN meeting (even remotely)

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.

I agree with Sam

Likewise

@Sam - is "feasibility assessment" okay for you?

would “strongly encourages” be a possible path forward?

we would not be mandating, would we? i believe it is just a recommendation

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

not sure why there is a need to mandate a study...so agree Allan

I believe Alan’s position is quite right Board shall have freedom

BTW, is the "feasibility study" write term - it might not be a study

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

No problem with breaking up badly here. All is loud and clear.

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

yes, Erika is loud and clear

Breaking up may be associated with my power failure,

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

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.

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

+1 Erika

agree Erika this decision Board shall define

strongly encourage the Board is good

ok with me

agree

are we still having a call next week?

I understood too but if not there is no sense related to the mechanism

agree with Erika

i agree with Erika

yes not to us to decide

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.

Samantha could help here

April 8 is Passover so prefer we do not have a meeting then

yes

fine with me

Yes

yes

yes

Call next week works.

ys

thanks everyone!

Thank you Erika and Emily!

thanks all. Ciao

:)

Thanks Erika.

bye all!

Wash nhands after this too?

bye

happy!

hbd Judith