[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT #41 Session 1 - 17 July

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Fri Jul 17 11:37:21 UTC 2015

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #41, Session 1 - 17 July will be
available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/BYFCAw

A copy of the notes may be found below.


Thank you.


Kind regards,




Proposed Agenda

08:30-08:45 - Welcome:

Opening remarks

Define meeting goals, outcomes and rules (if any)

Relevant documents :
-        <https://community.icann.org/x/gYNCAw> Agenda of Paris F2F meetings (Day 1 meeting ; Day 2
-       Slides (to be provided)

08:45-09:15 - CWG dependencies - introduction and reminder

Relevant documents :   <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> CWG final

09:15-10:15 - Community empowerment model - Q&A with lawyers

Relevant documents :
624&api=v2> Sidley & Adler community model document:

10:15-10:45 - Review of emerging items - WP3

Relevant documents :
rsion=1&modificationDate=1436916091198&api=v2> Staff accountability WP3 input
sion=1&modificationDate=1436916136487&api=v2> SO/AC accountability WP3 input 
dificationDate=1436916162639&api=v2> Diversity WP3 input

10:45-11:00 - Coffee break


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

Goal to reach our Second Public Comment at the end of July.

Recalling the arrangement of work stream 1 and work stream 2. 

Concise interventions, to allow everyone to be heard.  Best practise, of one intervention per topic.
The 2 minute clock if necessary.  

Day 1 and Day 2, as different meetings, and allowing for the two-meeting rule as part of our working

Eberhard Lisse objection to the two-meeting proposal noted.

New agenda circulated yesterday (July 16).  Change: additional session on IRP, two IRP sessions on
day 2.

*  Concerns identified from the public comment

*  How have they been resolved

*  What are the open issues

23 members in the room.  And all liaisons, and 3 Advisors, 7 ICANN Board members

CWG Dependencies, Lise Fuhr CWG Co-Chair

The CWG proposal has been sent to the ICG. 

There are conditionalities in the proposal based on the outcome of the CCWG.

Timing is important: need CCWG input by Dublin, or the CWG proposal cannot stand'

Dependencies in 6 areas:

1.  ICANN Budget: to reconsider or veto the budget regarding the IANA portion of the budget.  

2,  IANA Functions review: incorporated in the ICANN bylaws

3.  Customer Standing Committee: incorporated in the ICANN bylaws

4. To be able to recall the Board, particularly regarding the reports and recommendations of the
IANA Functions review

5. An independent appeals mechanism

6.  Fundamental bylaws, that these dependencies are protected as fundamental bylaws

Asking that the CCWG meets these CWG requirements

ICG will issues a proposal for public comment on July 31 and wishes to know that the CWG
dependencies will be met.  The cross-check session on Saturday July 19 will address this. 

The CWG is still to decide if the Post Transition IANA arrangement should be included in the ICANN
bylaws, and how those bylaws should be drafted.

Is there a preference or requirement for the levels of enforceability from the CWG?

There are distinction between some of the technical issues and the procedural or management issues.
Will take the question of level enforceability back to the CWG.  

The CWG is concerned with the IANA budget rather than ICANN budget as a whole.  And the CWG proposal
notes would be helpful if the IANA budget were made faster than the overall ICANN budget

* Presentation based on the presentation on July 7  #39  Review of the members models

Likelihood of capture and the consequences:

Low under the designator model

Under the member model the consequences are higher as they have access to other powers

The sole member model, the likelihood and consequences are considered low.

The sole member would need to have some legal personhood, what is a decisions to be made.
Unincorporated Associations being the simplest

Question for the CWG to consider:  of the three models, are they all sufficient?  CWG will take this
on. From a legal perspective all meet the dependencies. 

Is the goal to have a single reference model in the public comment, or three options?  The CWG/ICG
proposal relies on the model.  

Goal is to have consensus forming by the end of the meeting tomorrow.  With our goal not to reinvent
but to refine.  

The models must be able to deliver everything in the proposal.  

Consideration of the independent objector, asked that information about this proposal is sent to the
list for the group to consider and see if the proposal gains traction. 

The information about relevant statutory rights is contained in a legal memo, information will be
sent to the CCWG list.  

Risk of statutory rights and derivative suits.

Designator model do not have those risks.  

Member model, would have to be reduced by truncating rights in the bylaws

The sole member model the issues reduced by the structure, and through truncating rights in the

* WP3 Emerging issues

Three topics highlighted from the first public comment

SO/AC Accountability: who watches the watchers, with the enhanced power they wield

ICANN Staff Accountability: 


Three short papers developed by the sub-group distributed in the document package contain

Assess whether the IRP should ask apply to SO/AC activities and should this be considered as WS1.
Other issues  suggested as WS2. 

A clear definition of staff role as part of WS1.  As an addition to the problem definition and
scoping document.  

Apply some recommended recommendations to staff, and consider as WS1? 

Other issues  suggested as WS2. 

Note: not intending to micro-manage staff. 

Diversity should be included as a consideration in an new structure in WS1. Other issues suggested
as WS2. 

WP3 as emerging issues, three suggestions:

1.  Larry Stricklng's suggestion: the standard for board action, that a consensus has been reached
in the communiyt

2.  Kieren, some community power to hold hearings on a congressional inquiry style

3.  Some sort of independent objector, with the power to initiate an IRP.

The community roundtable would be inline with point 2. 

The proposes transitional bylaws article requires a commitment to implement. Was favourable received
in the first public comment. 

"Ensure" regional diversity in each of the new structures created.  Ensure may be too strong a
direction.  But there should be some criteria to be taken into account when new structures are

Concern with increasing number of WS1 issues and short period of time to address them all.  

Note: The standard for the IRP is did ICANN violate the bylaws by some action or inaction.    


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/0e25d111/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20150717/0e25d111/smime.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list