[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 2 | 23 March

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 2 on 23 March are
available at:  https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+2  

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

Action Items

Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils

Notes

DAY 1: Monday, 23 March, 11:00 - 13:00 EET, Meeting Room #25

Session2. 

* Mission, vision & value statement  (cont. from Session 1)

Distinction between the two sets of principles in the document.

Direction is good, but takes time to take people along. Consider a longer timeline for explanation
to ensure understanding an buy-in.  That these changes are committed to.

How was the division of values made, and why something became a lesser value.  Perhaps that some
have a higher priority and some are raised up rather than suggesting others are "second class".   In
timetable discussion, then how these items are implemented is something to be considered there as
perhaps extended. 

There may be abuse uses of review and redress that block the process.

Some principles seem derivative. But some discomfort esp when seeing issues in the top list when
there's a derivative in the second.

Potential for confusion when a top list issue may trump those below, and how to deal with this. 

Approach may be to remove some of the more amorphous values.

Would all values move to the upper value, and ICANN stringent review.  Or lower standard where ICANN
board and staff get greater difference? Up or down

straw poll:  To keep the two set approach,  at proposed in the document please say agree in the AC
room.

Significant support to continue with approach of the document.

 

* Community empowerment 

Mechanisms and Powers.

Mechanisms are the Vehicle for powers:

* permanent CCWG, and would need to be addressed in the ICANN bylaws as not permanent and lacks

* community council.  Who should be represented and with what weight should they be represented.

* supervisory board.  defined as a European model.  Has reserve powers sits alongside the ICANN
board

* member based, with the members with powers in the bylaws

* delegates, a subset of the members, but with a sub-set of the members.

Both these set-up under California law.

Choosing between them will require some answers from the legal advisors

Current structures of SO/AC holding the new powers.  Making decisions individually

Community Veto, specifies powers

No preference as yet until seen legal advice.

Simple and straight forward.   Might need different mechanisms for different powers.

Difference between permanent CCWG and Community Council, apart from the label, there is no
functional difference.  CCWG by design are not permanent, so this would require changes to be made.
The Community Council also includes the possibility of other members from the ICNAN ecosystem

Avoid complexity.  And be careful of how some of the strong mechanisms are exercised.

What is the liability of these entities and their membership?

Simplicity to run and maintain Liability comes with taking on power - legal advice and consideration
of insurance as ICANN already uses

New mechanism Sebastian identified and ask to please complete a template

Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils

Powers, esp in WS1 must take primacy over the options for mechanisms.

 example powers: 1C. Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget 

If the budget is not acceptable it can be forced back to the board, A check and balance, not
triggered. Would cause board to review, changes or better explain why.

Hi threshold.

Straw poll: Should votes be mandated or not

The community council may need people with expertise on different issues,  suggests the membership
might not be fixed.

The budget process has taken long evolution, and this process should be baked-in, rather than come
at the end of the budget development.

Response: but not intended as a type working group they already exist, but a general assembly that
reviews final decisions.

Use of the term "consensus", different definitions within ICANN.

Point is a more direct accountability response.

Lack of risk in the template. once there is an understanding of the risk factor then might introduce
this proposal.

The community should have the ability to shape ICANN'S

Discussion has described mandated and non-mandated decisions. The template talks if personal
decisions and mandated, this is different.

Super-majority in the template to ensure individual constituencies do not over influence the
decision.

The proposed structure needs protection against capture.

Agreement on points, AC room poll 

The budget question shall not be resolved by means consensus by voting.

If agree if it should be by vote then mark as agree

If by consensus then mark disagree.

END

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/dc202f97/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/20150323/dc202f97/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/20150323/dc202f97/smime.p7s>