[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #11 16 April

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Thu Apr 16 22:34:07 UTC 2015

Dear All, 


The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #11  - 16 April will be available here:



WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April 

Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of


Links:  WP1 Drafts -  <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.


Starting from 6.5.6

Recalling the entire ICANN Board


comment: regarding petitioning power, on the basis of 2 or more SO/AC.

Suggest a much higher bar.  Create an extreme measure because everything

else hasn't worked to that point.


What higher threshold: 2/3 of all SO/AC in ICANN (of 7 total, 3 SO and 4

AC, 2/3 cannot be reached by the AC alone).


In a group that broadly works on consensus, 75% to remove the Board seems low. 


Some earlier comment that did not want 1 SO or AC to be able to block this power. 


Is there any voice for the NomCom in removing their directors?


As a whole board removal the question is about removal not appointment.

WP1 does not need to address the mechanism for doing this now.


Using options to describe these thresholds would allow the community to

see why certain % have been offered, including an explanation of thinking

behind the options. Suggest creating a table to represent thresholds.


3rd paragraph.  Internal mandate and discussion.  Can it be unbolded? Yes, Agreed


6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws


Stress test 14.  After the contract with NTIA's gone there is nothing

holding ICANN to stay within the AoC.  To answer the test, to retain the

commitment and reviews, add the AoC to the bylaws, as a WS1 item.


1st preserve 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the commitments cited in the section 9 reviews.


Para 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not reference commitments made by ICANN, not of concern to the CCWG


Noted that "Other parts of the AoC are either preamble text or commitments

of the US Government, so these have not been proposed as additions to the

ICANN bylaws."


Left column is the commitment to the community, the right column is how to approve on this
commitments in the core values.


suggestion to add "and approval" to para 3 to "Ensure that decisions made

related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the

global public interest and are accountable, transparent and bottom-up in

their formulation" [and in their approval]


Need care when adding to the bylaws, to be sure we know what we mean.


further caution: the word "global": has been added so needs to be

underlined.  bottom-up in their formulation is loose language for bylaws.

And not all ICANN processes are bottom-up.


Note: the text will get further scrutiny.


Add to the chapeau: that text being added to the bylaw is understandable and implementable.


suggested change: "and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of  ICANN".  Accepted.


Chapeau, remove "the following..."  (and in other sections)


Financial and non-commercial are not two sides of the same coin.  The text was intended to refer to
broad financial impact.  Non-financial impact might be considered.

Para 7.  Using reasonable has been defined over years of law, adequate doesn't the same legal
clarity. Suggest that what trying to do is propose
the sense of the change we desire, and too much close text editing gets away from that goal.

Para 8b, should, be considered by the CCWG. 

AoC reviews.  Suggestion to add more explanatory header material.

AoC reviews.  Suggestion to add more explanatory header material, 4 recommendations.  The first text
box is from the ATRT2 report.

Avri to draft standalone paragraph about the CWG review mechanisms.

SSR review.  Suggestion to hold more frequently than five years, "This periodic review shall be
conducted no less frequently than every five years"

New gTLD expansion "Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" AoC is proscriptive,
new text tried to simplify.

WHOIS/directory services

Addition of reference to the OECD guidelines (remove, note text)

Periodic review of the IANA Function 

Information now in CWG.  First after 2 years and subsequently every 5.

Packaged as an AoC review.

Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests

Force the board to respond to SO/AC advice. So that the board has taken a stand on advice, which
then would be subject to review.


Next Steps:

New version 3.2 will be sent to the list immediately.  Later, a tidied version, with comments and
table for the voting threshold as clean document and track changes will be distributed, this version
will be open for any changes.  Final version responding to last comments will be sent to the CCWG
(as directed by co-chairs)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150416/32a32820/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150416/32a32820/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150416/32a32820/smime.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list