Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Jeff or Cheryl please

not much to report on

hello all, sorry for being late (due to GNSO SSC meeting)

hello everyone

Welcome

christa taylor

Donna Austin

Indeed

the Board is not the Community, it is ICANN :)

Thaks @Paul just for the record that *is* imiportant you DID have a review affort of the comment *AND * in fact a sorting of them was also done by a Member of the small team as ell in preparation for call 1

I must have misspoken. We did not produce a response.

+1 CLO

definitely not edicts

Thanks Becky.

In all our spare time over what some part of the community consider holidays we will indeed continue such work

CLO - don't WG chairs have to swear off holidays to get the gig? :-)

and many other things as well @Paul ;-)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1091535370

Thx Emily

No

LOL

Apologies, he is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=976056819

Ergh @Steve sorry to hear that!!!

We're looking at our own copy!

good we have a meeting now, not few hours prior to that (when the drive was not working)

it seems to be a good time to make offline copies :)

Seasonal gremlins as opposed to greeting abound??? 2020 is the 'gift that keeps on giving' it seems

we need to ask Santa to spare us

I'll check back with our team

Thx @Katrin

I think it was more about their criteria, which were not really clear - but as mentioned, I'll check

+1 to citing IBA Guidelines as reference

Thx

link to topic 10 doc?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=1091535370

Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation

Maybe we can link to the Human Rights Framework in the Final Report to help applicants?

Cheryl i think those folks were on the Human Rights Committee. The Framework itself is final I believe though not implemented.

A footnote referring to WS2 work already out there seems sane. Tweaking the actual Recommendation(s) at this late date seems a bit Herculean given that we have only 1 hour left of WG call time.

Agree (personal opinion) @Paul

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=53966201

Guys - all I am suggesting is adding a link to the language of the actual Framework that was adopted. Nothing controversial there.

@anne The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved.

Yes Avri - that is why I am suggesting a link to it.

Yes @Anne we need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally...

In fact, I think the IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this.

If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote.

You're welcome, Jeff. Happy to see it. :)

Thx @Justine

less hard coded number and more threshold

Thanks Jeff.

old style - communities send the best fighters, and the one wins takes it all

LOL

I'm OK with a % threshold but it should not be easier than 14 out of 16

Making it easier will just increase gaming

Not that many community applications made it last time. No need to make it more difficult

+1 Anne

And no need to make it easier

Yes actually there is a need to encourage communities.

Do we have evidence that there were legitimate communities that didn't make it last time?

Trying to make it more predictable and easier to understand @Anne

Data was not collected or assessed @Maerc

@Marc

So what "need" is there to encourage communities? What is this need based on?

sorry typos

Yes Cheryl n- not sure why you think i am disagreeing with you.

I don't @Anne my job is to try and seek maximal clarity and understanding

@Jeff, before we go, can you give us a 30,000 foot look at the new GAC correspondence you mentioned?

lowering the percentage would be helpful but doesn’t address the main problem , IMO

Marc said he wanted to leave it at 88% I was disagreeing with that, - just to clarify.

88% is the status quo though correct?

At least adjusting hard numbers to percentages

87.7 or something like that :)

Then I agree we do not need to make it harder and can stick at 87.7%!

We have language changes recommended for the CPE evaluation that should make it easier to get points.

what prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract

Then no need to lower the # of points / %

PICs are a specification to the Registry contracts , so it is enforceable by ICANN

I like to think of it as a delicate construct over a "house of Cards'

+1 Jeff

spraying it with resin helps

ICANN has a history of not enforcing things in contracts

I wish it wan’t necessary.

+1 Jeff. We are a WG and not JJ. Also, correct, we do not need to rewrite contract law.

the third party should not have more power than ICANN over it’s contracts

There may be a difference of opinion on what is enforceable in the current contracts.

+1 to Avro which is a whole separate can of worms

That's one reason RVCs should go to private third party proceedings - keeps ICANN out of the fray and out of the cost of the dispute. RVC DRP should be like a UDRP proceeding.

Sorry - Avri

it is up to 2 parties of the contract

(personal opinion again) there IS only so much we as a WG can do on this

and different views of ICANN and contracted parties is a common thing

I think this horse has been well and truly beaten in these past weeks and again on this call. Who wants to wrap this up?

I have to drop off for a conflicting obligation

Thanks for joining us @Marc

Thank you @Maxim...

anti abuse provisions allow third party to have a role too

if it is a local LEA , for example

Good point Greg

PICs and RVCs, Greg

The revised ByLaws clearly state that PICs are enforceable.

the whole text of the Registry Agreement has to be followed by the Registry (and ICANN)

PICs do not exist outside of the RA text

Thanks @Greg

we should not conflate some items with all outcomes of the process

hand up

I will do that.

Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal.

Text feezes after the next meeting @Alan

I was not asking for a clause to say it was enforceable. I want provisions to ensure it is.

+1 @Paul, there should not be two or more grades of enforceability

any violation of the contract could be a subject of the compliant and curing/enforcing

more IRT territory if anythong at this stage

I think the point is that there should be no difference in enforceability between the PCS/VCRs and the rest of the contract.

I believe our attention would be better trained towards Contractual Compliance --that they should enforce every RA's PICs and RVCs. In this respect, I'd like the opportunity to see if we need to insert (or repeat) something compelling Contractual Compliance to inform the community on why it chooses to or not to enforce a PIC or RVC.

Next meeting: Thursday, 17 December at 20:00 UTC

ICANN can check if the due process was followed, not to challenge the outcomes

What is URL of current redline?

I would recommend to make local copies of the doc (in light of today issues)

Don't involve ICANN in determining whether a PIC is content-based. Any voluntary PIC or RVC should go to a third party Dispute Resolution Provider.

@Anne, the current PICs were obligatory, so this seems to be bit of an overkill

Important distinction Cheryl

@CLO - a good, and important, clarification

hand up

and an email from Justine

who is a Liaison form an AC

+1 Anne, where members of the WG have a minority view

WG Members

are the ones who file a Minority Statement

Then we would expect to see some Minority Viewpoints in the Consensus call based on Working Group deliberations.

Level of consensus as discussed in 3.6

and not everyone will be delighted with the exact language in some issues but it should represent the Consensus or compromise resultant of your work...

Next meeting: Thursday, 17 December at 20:00 UTC

Thanks everyone we are getting CLOSE!!!

I don't think you should adopt a process that preempts the decision on whether or not a Minority View exists. If a small number of individuals agree, the WG guidelines say that is a Minority Viewpoint. That's why we need time to coordinate such a vieiw.

thx

Bye all1

thanks all