[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for ST-WP Meeting | 7 October

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Stress Tests meeting on 7 October will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/pqVYAw

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

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related
question


Notes


Review of analysis of public comments on Second Draft

Areas of consensus - no commenters expresses overall concerns with STs.

Stress tests on capture or unintended consequences of changes are areas needing clarification. Is
our analysis of 
ST 35 (unintended consequences of operationalizing advisory groups) complete?

No feedback. 

Requests for New stress tests: Conduct new stress test on deadlock over approving changes to
fundamental 
bylaws and blocking changes to regular bylaws. Should this be taken on? 

The ST-WP could respond to comment and explain why it cannot be addressed. No conclusion.

Areas of convergence: 1) stress test 21 regarding revocation and reassignment. We stayed away from
it per CWG-stewardship. ccNSO indicated that policy is underway.  We should retain ST21 analysis ant
not recommend 
other actions. No feedback.

2) Stress tests 29 and 30 - submissions were concerned with content regulation. 7 objected to
inclusion. Contract 
enforcement would not be affected by mission and core values. Suggest adding something that would
carve out 
contract enforcement so that it would not be affected by IRP; 3) Stress test 18. 16 comments were in
favor of Bylaws 
changes. 4 comments were opposed to Bylaws changes. Olga in LA commented that governments did not
submit 
comment but are against stress test 18. Suggestion to remove freedom of expression example. No
objection. How 
does one instruct ICANN Board? Board needs to understand level of support. Board action is subject
to IRP if top 
down - outside bylaws - if went into content. We are awaiting text from GAC that would reframe ST18
- instructing 
Board on how it understands advice. Conclusion is we should clarify ICANN Bylaw. Request for
rationale. 

Is the GAC working on text - should we wait for that or proceed with writing new rationale?

Feedback:

- The perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18 but it
does consider 
differently how the GAC makes its decisions. It does not change our concern for this ST 18.

- If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only kicks in if
the Board has rejected 
consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing by GAC
individuals has not 
got to GAC-wide exchange yet. Need CCWG explication of rationale and purpose in tandem with this
effort.

- Cannot understand why ST 18 is needed. 

- Fail to see what problem is. ST 18's purpose is to skip engagement step when GAC provides advice
to Board. If no solution can be found, ICANN Board will state why advice was not followed. Board has
ability to reject 
GAC advice. what is advantage to skip engagement steps? 

- It needs to be clear how this relates to transition requirement. 

ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related
question

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151007/1588c390/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/20151007/1588c390/smime.p7s>