[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #66 - 10 November

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #66 -  10 November will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/yLJYAw

 

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

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


*        ACTION ITEM - Define areas of consensus on this. 

*        ACTION ITEM: Becky to write up language to include confirmed areas and discuss outstanding
items on Friday

*        ACTION ITEM - Provide comments on executive summary by closed of business today. Comments
should be submitted via email. 
Comments should not address wordsmithing.

*        ACTION ITEM - Jordan to send language on Fundamental Bylaws on list 


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.

Opening remarks

- We are due to deliver first set of deliverables for public comment by Sunday. We need to close
outstanding items 

- Extra call planned for Friday at 06:00-08:00 UTC to wrap up conclusions

- Important to stay focused on discussion how writing is consistent with requirements instead of
focusing on wordsmithing

Revised Mission, Core Values & Commitments

Agreement on notion and consistency with requirements is needed.

ICANN should not use contracting authority to regulate behavior downstream in ways that are not
within mission. ICANN should limit obligations to goals 
that within mission. We are having problems with word "regulate". Voluntary public interest
commitments is an example of concern. Would prohibition on 
regulation get in the way? 

  Post Dublin language - it is language intended to inform work to be undertaken by drafters. 

- Language on contract not constituting regulation 

- Language to enable or facilitate reachability over Internet nor shall it regulate 

- On Malcolm's language, suggestion so strike "strictly". Use "shall not regulate services". We
don't have clarity of what services means. Consensus 
policy is outside of prohibition. 

Without in any way limiting the foregoing, ICANN shall not regulate services (i.e. those offered by
web servers, mail servers and the like)that 
use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that those services carry or provide.  The
prohibition on regulation of services that use the 
Internet's unique identifiers or the content that they carry or provide does not act as a restraint
on ICANN's authority to negotiate, enter into 
and enforce agreements.  Consensus Policy, as defined in "Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies
Specification" in the 2013 Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement, is outside of such prohibition.

--> Concern in public comment that this language can be interpreted as preventing ICANN from
enforcing contract. Suggestion to proceed 
initial language with addition of sentence to address public concern. ICANN should not use
contracting authority to regulate content and 
behavior of DNS registrants.

- Clarify that ICANN is not using authority with respect to registries and registrars to regulate
registrants.

- Intent is to not influence how registrars deal with registrants

- Point of confusion: we have not articulated in a granular way what we mean by ICANN shouldn't use
its authority to regulate registrants' behavior.

- Try to take stock of agreement within our group i.e. want to avoid ICANN making regulation

AGREEMENT: 

- ICANN should stay within its articulated and limited mission.

- In furthering its mission, ICANN has ability to enter into and enforce contract with registries
and registrars

- Specification 1 in registry agreement and specification 4 RAA as they are currently written
include description of consensus policy that is 
within ICANN's mission. 

--> Concerns: specification 1 unclear for some. 

- ICANN should have ability to impose obilgations exceeding mission except for voluntary
commitments.

- ICANN should not use its contract with registries and registrars to regulate registrant behavior
with regards to subjects that are outside of 
ICANN's mission as defined in the picket fence

DISAGREEMENT: 

- Should ICANN have the ability to enter into and enforce volunteer contractual commitments that
registry applicant has 

voluntary provided. ICANN must have ability 

ACTION ITEM - Define areas of consensus on this. 

Define what ICANN can do and not what it can't do and delineate areas of agreement. 

ACTION ITEM: Becky to write up language to include confirmed areas and discuss outstanding items on
Friday

Executive Summary

ACTION ITEM - Provide comments on executive summary by closed of business today. Comments should be
submitted via email. Comments 
should not address wordsmithing.

Summary is designed for those who are not deeply involved in this. It has to be representative of
our work and readable

*         

*	Is the content clear and does it represent our point of view?
*	If so, is there any way it can be more clear?
*	If not, how can we make this more clear and simple?
*	What isn't being communicated?
*	If the visual doesn't work for you, please say why, and also provide input, information or
solutions so we can make it better.

Feedback:

- Term Designator will source of confusion

--> We need to discuss branding. Would empowered community be more apprrppriate? 

- Suggestion to use "Empowered Community" 

- On Fundamental Bylaws, escalation process should not apply here. There should not be petition
step. Approval has to happen as part of process. Keep 
conference call and potentially community forum but no petition step. It's a co-approval process. 

- What is official status of model?

--> Sole Designator model is our model of reference. We should talk about empowered community.
Designator is only term we can use in legal context

CONCLUSION Comments will be needed by November 10th - 23:59 UTC on mailing list to enable us to make
changes in time. This applies to feedback 
from lawyers and advisors. Focus on messaging, not wording. We have agreed to refine Fundamental
Bylaws process and to use "Empowered 
Community" instead of "Designator Model" 

ACTION ITEM - Jordan to send language on Fundamental Bylaws on list 

Budget

Xavier is working on framework for defining caretaker budget. Writing Team has summarized budget
process. we have resolved all issues that were 
raised in public comment process. 

CONCLUSION: Agreement on budget 

IRP Implementation Oversight

Call for volunteers to join oversight Team. This Team would be tasked to oversee lawyers work with
regards to drafting of Bylaws, rules of procedures, 
selection of panelists etc. We are looking for 5-7 volunteers. Skill-based assignments. We encourage
Omnudsman and representaton from ICANN Legal department to join this effort.This group would provide
guidance 
to lawyers and oversee drafting. Any outcomes would go to full CCWG for discussion. Becky Burr has
volunteered for this group. 

AOB - none

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151112/a3f0bb2c/attachment-0001.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/20151112/a3f0bb2c/smime-0001.p7s>