[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 2 Session 2 | 24 March

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 2 Session 2 on 23 March are
available at:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893814

 

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 ITEM: Go through GAC input and compare that to what is in mission value.

ACTION ITEM - To capture language on IRP immunity issue


Notes


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

Golden Bylaw

- This provision in Bylaws may not be changed under any circumstances. Discussed golden bylaw
provisions that would require a very high standard for modification which has to be adopted by Board
(supermajority) following certain procedures. Discussed golden bylaw for mission statement or core
values using veto include lower standard to permit change in articulation of core values. Use of
veto approval process coming out of community empowerment. Options envisioned include: Provision
subject to legal intricacies that may not be changed; provision of bylaw may not be changed unless
publication of proposal followed by detailed description of how it fits in the mission statement,
followed by vote of community or vote of SO/ACs, followed by public comment period.

- Clarity and predictability needed on number of times you could propose bylaws change. 

- You cannot change bylaw without affirmation approval of community nor without precise procedural
requirements. Community has a right to veto a proposed change.

- There is agreement we do need provision in Bylaws.

- We would follow advice not to make it unchangeable but set high bars to get it changed.
Flexibility is needed. 

- Threshold requires discussion.

- Get clarity on what items we think should get special protection: i.e. mission core values - is
there objection to giving protection to mission and core values?

- Current bylaws contain too much substance - split operational from it. Part of bylaws could be
golden.

-> Concerns regarding suggestion to condense bylaws i.e. not within remit.

- Suggestion to have different levels of golden - work on thresholds is needed.

- Limiting scope is platinum - protecting mission is priority. Protecting core acccoutability
measures, protecting ability to implement WS2 work.

- Careful with painting golden - every single change of bylaw will have blocking possibility by
community. We will have to come up with blocking of ordinary changes and approval process for golden
bylaw changes. 

- Golden bylaw is protection against global corporate reach. The following are essential: 1) writing
in stone mission; 2) writing in stone IRP. It is an absolute minimum.

- In Bylaws there should be a power to veto a Bylaw change - this power should be protected so that
can only be changed with approval of community. 

- Two types of Bylaws: 1) golden Bylaw ; 2) enshrined Bylaw - affirmative agreement to a change:
i..e he binding independent review process, the Board spill mechanism, the mission.

- Don't understand mission closed to interaction with ecosystem.

- TIme lag from time Bylaw approved by Board and time community can react.

- Combination of different community empowerment.

- Suggestion to incorporate: any changes cannot be implemented until community has had opportunity
to veto. 

- Reference set of principles which ICANN should operate according to, identify layers of rules. 

ACTION ITEM: Go through GAC input and compare that to what is in mission value.

- Future role of IRP and extent to which one could have situation where panels decisions have a de
facto impact on values and mission clauses, to what extent is work being done to mitigate that risk
and eliminate it? IRP immunity issue needs to be addressed.

> 1st safeguard: decision made by IRP are published - transparency on how mission is construed - if
there are defects identified this is call for rectification - Would welcome language on how to
reflect specific provisions in Bylaws. 

-> It could also be baked in IRP that can go "so far" 

ACTION ITEM - To capture language on IRP immunity issue

-Mission is only golden if core values are golden too 

Conclusion:

We do want golden bylaws - mission, IRP, community power to spill Board and veto provisions incl.
procedural aspect that Bylaws changes should not be implemented before Community has had a chance to
veto it. 

--

Community Empowerment

Thomas Rickert walked the group through proposed comparative table: 5 community powers for which
findings of day 1 need to be confirmed and a discussion to be commenced on populating other cells.
Table has genesis on templates that were prepared. 

- Who gets voting: we had talked about notion of certain number of entire group - that means someone
could opt-out but vote would not count as positive vote.

- Every SO/Ac has option to opt- out every time.

- If not participate, they could also provide advice. Don't see why vote could not participate 

- Discussion needed on what abstention means.

- Is there objection to testing establishment of community council? 

- Opt-out should not an option. It is too important. Abstention should not take place - all should
have opinion. 

- If start with internal mechanism - spill the Board - Would be extraordinary if one SO/AC decided
not to take part in process. What is the status of them not voting? Absention from GAC is
neutrality. Work out how voting would occur and what associated thresholds are. Opt-out does not
make any sense.

- There is consensus around issues - we are talking about moving parts. While discussion is very
useful, we could make more progress and channel it into coherent options 

- Agreement opt-out should not be option.

- Critical to establish common elements before going into detail of voting mechanisms. More general
principles are needed. 

- Key to this is that we should use discussion to help Jordan and Team get as much information as
they can - clarity needed around consensus, directed voting. 

- Minimum number of voters is needed.

- Fractional votes (notably in GNSO) that need to be factored in.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150324/19c3c98b/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/20150324/19c3c98b/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/20150324/19c3c98b/smime.p7s>