[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #70 - 26 November

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #70 - 26 November will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/-sBYAw

 

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 

 

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. 

Confirmation of Mission language  

No discussion.  

"Agreed on mission text as presented By Becky Burr, with the clarification of  the use of the 'in
service of text' in place of 'in furtherance of' 

Confirmation of decision threshold 

Feedback: 

- Disatisfaction - there are other ways to get around the problem. We should be addressing
Fundamental Bylaw in easier way.  

--> This threshold and this fix apply to the Budget power, Fundamental bylaws power and Board recall
power 

CONCLUSION: Keep this proposal as part of third report.  

ST18 

Determination of process was made before NTIA statement.  

No alternative proposal to text that was in Second Draft Proposal 

Feedback: 

- What is the position with respect to definition of consensus 

--> We would use Second Draft language in Third Report 

- Proposed way forward is not acceptable. No consensus was achieved with respect to Second Draft
language. Many 
governements have expressed objection to that language. It cannot be ignored. There was clear
support for Co-Chairs proposal on Tuesday.  

- We cannot support current proposal.  

- There is no consensus on right way forward. There are two divergent views on what GAC role should
be. Chartering 
Organizations' test might be needed. Imperative to determine where balance is. Second Report
language does not satisfy 
anyone as no clear definition of consensus. Vague language in Bylaws is a risk.  

- GAC efforts to reach compromise are being ignored 

- This proposal should be made readable.  

- We cannot have ambiguous issue. It is not a viable solution. Advice needs to be consensus.
language has to be 
fixed. GAC need to accept it has to be full consensus advice.  

- We deliberately backed off of a specific definition to address GAC concerns.  

- Statements would need to be clarified in this proposed draft. They are not factually correct. On
call 69 - 17 agreed to 
facilitation proposal and 8 opposed - consider diversity and representation of this temperature call


- We need to move forward with defining consensus as current practice. We need to acknowledge that
the GAC still has ability to refine its operating procedures and to be creative when defining
consenus. We cannot have a path 
forward without defining consensus. Consider replacing significant with "formal". 

- It will be misunderstood if we try to regulate what governments can do. We have a balanced
relationship between 
governments and stakehodlers. It is clear from NTIA statement that this matter should be negotiated
in GAC and not CCWG.  

 - Considering a supplemental proposal would be very unfortunate. Reconsider language proposed by
Finn. 

- Notion of 2/3 instead of simple majority.  

- Need clarity on what flexibility means. 

- The proposal that was put forward by Steve is worth considering under the condition that there is
flexibility for GAC
 to define what formal objection means.  

Is flexibility as laid out in Keith Drazek's email something we can consider?  

- Support clear acknowledgement that GAC operating principles are its own business and that
flexibility is warranted. GNSO 
is uncomfortable with 2/3 but in interest of compromise, we need to consider it seriously. There is
an opportunity to reach a 
proposal for COs to consider report.  

- We have a process for changing fundamental bylaw.  

- Formal objection is plain language. 

- Suggestoin to agree on conceptual level and wait for reacton in third public comment perod.
Include a note that it is a 
concept and that Bylaw language will be refined  

- Words "absence of formal objection" would be in Bylaws.  

- 2/3 vs. full consensus 

Review of Finn's proposed text and Keith's note 

It needs to be spelled out very clearly if we want to reach level of consensus we have not reached
so far.  

CONCLUSIONS 

- we will review ST18 recommendation against Finn and Keith's lines, send it out in writing asap
noting that during this 
call that was no formal objection was lodged against it. We will 
move forward with this for third report.  

Board Comments 

Intention is to respond to comments summarizing input from our group and to explain why these
comments are taken 
into account or not in a factual manner.  

Survey & Outreach 

Survey put together to facilitate process of offering comments on our Third report. Three levels of
response: Yes/No/In spirit 
of compromise I will support this. Box will be included for each question.  

Two webinars organized on 2 December. Report appendices available on wiki. 

Feedback: 

- Caution against using mid-level response in survey. It won't bring valuable input.  

- "Is this a solution that is acceptable to you"  

- Important to draw out difference between those who are happy with proposal and those who aren't.  

CONCLUSION:  

2 webinars to be held on 2 Dec.  

AOB 

/ 


Action Items


/

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151129/993f3f47/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/20151129/993f3f47/smime-0001.p7s>