[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #65 - 3 November

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #65 -  03 November will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/xbJYAw

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion.  

ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss'
refinement edits ("ICANN shall act 
in accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). 

ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333.

ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language.

ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback. 


Notes


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

 

Mission, Core Values & Commitments

IAB

IAB proposal raised concerns regarding provisions in the mission statement and suggested three
edits. 

Concern is largely related to changing coordinating to supporting. 

For CCWG, issues of timing. Can we make an adjustment at this stage to address concern. Is there a
word between coordinating and 
supporting that people would be comfortable with? It is a significant change. 

Is this required for the transition to happen? It could be undertaken under Work Stream 2. 

Feedback:

- Concerns with coordinate but bitter concerns with chapeau i.e. changing to "collaborates ... of
Internet". It is a bigger focus. It should 
be accurate description.  

- IAB raised question in ICG. Sensitive issue. We need to import minimal changes to meet
requirements. On 1) "coordinate and support 
where necessary" - remaining unchanged. On 2) Domain name including associated root zone - remaining
unchanged. 3) coordinate and 
support where necessary" - remaining unchanged.

- Purpose of this revision is that on any part that needs more clarity it needs to be reflected
accurately. Language suggested in IAB 
proposal would describe role of ICANN in a more accurate way. Like Becky's suggested language that
refines and add clarity. 

- Fail to understsand why we are dealing with this. Community taking advantage of change and
pressure of time. Stop conversation and 
move to Work Stream 2, if needed. 

- It is a serious problem for IAB. Second comment period highlighted that it is a critical issue.
Proposal creates significant accountability 
measures that are founded on mission statement. Mission includes things ICANN does not do. It is
IETF's legitimate purpose. We propose 
language that outlines ICANN's role as understand it to be. ICANN has a policy by virtue of contract
but no role in rest of DNS. In addition 
it is going to be made fundamental Bylaw which is also a concern. Find a way to circumscribe ICANN's
role. It is a serious problem for our 
real work on Internet. We need to make sure mission statement is limited to what ICANN really is.
There are registries ICANN does not 
operate and there is some that it does.

- While current mission is accurate for names, it is too broad for numbers and protocole parameters.
Why do we unified scope? 

CONCLUSION - Continue discussion offline. Use Becky's suggestion as reference model. Base
discussions with requirements. 

ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion.  

Contracting issue

In Dublin, we came out with consensus that ICANN should have clear ability to enforce his contracts
with recognition that ICANN could use 
last minute imposition to bypass consensus policy development. This is language to be given to
lawyers. Notion would be that contracts are 
enforceable. Language intended to capture degree of consensus. 

Feedback:

- In accordance with? What is reasonably appropriate? 

- Proposed language does not capture discussion in Dublin. Delete exceeding ICANN's mission and add
"in service of its mission"

ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss'
refinement edits ("ICANN shall act in 
accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). 

Transparency proposal

In Dublin we discussed the need to ensure provisions related to transparency inherent to membership
model would be addressed in designator 
model i..e right of inspection. Documentary disclosure has been on table as part of WS2. Update DIDP
policies within two years. Transparency 
of interaction with gov. 

Feedback:

- There is an undue influence of governments on policy decisions. Purpose is last bullet point is to
know whether there is governments' 
undue influence. It would also help address mission creep. 

- In Second Draft Proposal, we have AoC provision for document disclosure. It is already part of
Work Stream 1. 

- Do we have bandwidth to deal with this now? Does that mean we don't trust WS2 to deal with
significant issues? Major concern that any 
contract between government and ICANN could be larger than intended. 

- What is needed beyond what is currently report in quarterly financial report?

- There is a  recognition that DIDP policy as currently implemented 

ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333.

- Bullet point 3 would give assurance against government capture. It needs to be Work Stream 1. 

- Find a credible way to have WS2 happen. 

- Transparency as WS1 is slowing us down. We need to have in WS2. 

CONCLUSION: Bullets point 1 and 2 will be WS1. Bullet points 3 and 4 will be Work Stream 2. 

Decision-Making

We need a clear way forward. We need a rationale for why making change in model. 

Call for objections on summary of recommendations 

Sebastien Bachollet objects to a). 

Feedback:

- When rough consensus is achieved but still objections, those who have consensus should look into
whether objections are meaningful in a 
way that would require reconsideration. 

- Concerns with including GAC. We don't know if they are going to participate. You need to proceed
with two scenarios (1 with 4 - 1 with 5)

--> Stick with 5 as recommended. All get to participate in adhoc system. 

- We may require support but not objection. 

CONCLUSION: We consider these recommendations and third table as basis for our third report. They
will be used as basis for drafting going further. 

Human Rights

Proposed Bylaw text that suggest running by lawyers. Transitional Bylaw gives timeframe to develop
framework of interpretation. 

Feedback:

- NTIA has said that more you leave to future the less confidence we have is what we are approving
is a package. 

- Succinct framework on p3-4 that will be fleshed out in WS2. It provides enough meat on bones to
satisfy Strickling test. 

- Bylaw language should be run by lawyers

ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language.

CONCLUSION: We will have lawyers check Bylaw. This is our reference model moving forward.

A.O.B

Samantha Dickinson has joined writers Team. We should have materials to review next week. 

ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/d0b7c5a3/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/20151103/d0b7c5a3/smime.p7s>