[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting | 7 October

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Wed Oct 7 21:42:39 UTC 2015


Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-2 meeting on 7 October will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/6Z5YAw

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.

 

WP2 Issues for Dublin Briefing (PowerPoint presentation) -

Principles:

2nd Draft Report Paragraph 187:  Enumerated powers and prohibition on regulation to be clarified to
ensure that ICANN has authority and responsibility to enforce (i) voluntary commitments contained in
TLD applications (e.g., PIC Specifications) and (ii) Consensus Policy.  Note also misc. wording
suggestions.  Authors:  Greg Shatan and David McAuley

2nd Draft Report Paragraph Paragraphs 218-219:  language regarding "consumer trust and choice" and
discuss AoC language regarding new gTLDS now contained in AoC review text at Paragraph 566.  Becky 

2nd Draft Report Paragraphs 205-206, 224-225 regarding private sector leadership.  ALAC comment
regarding inclusion of end users in description of private sector and push back from certain
governments regarding retention of current bylaws language.  Authors:  David McAuley and Kavouss
Arasteh.

2nd Draft Report Mission, Commitments & Core Values references to and formulation of "global public
interest."  Alan Greenberg and Kavouss Arasteh.

2nd Draft Report Paragraph 225: removal of limitation on consultation with GAC to Advice that is
consistent with Commitments and Core Values.  Becky Burr.

IRP and RFR:

Funding, costs, accessibility, independence

Bruce Tonkin: @Becky - the Board was not specifically against the cost model proposed by the CCWG.
Our point was that for community disputes we would go beyond funding the cost of the panel - but
also help with the costs of any external counsel that the community might need., We were a 1B on
this topic not a 2.

Scope - Reconciliation of expert panel conclusions; "fundamentally irrational" decision;
Community/single member accountability

Standard - abuse of discretion vs. de novo

Standing: Individual SOs/ACs/constituencies without community support; "community" IRPs where
minority does not support and "Permissive" approach vs. abuse prevention

Abuse: Require participation in PDP for standing (also arises in RFR context); fee shifting for
frivolous actions; other abuse mitigation?  Prompt action to establish CCWG sub-group to work on
details.

BB - The next step for IRP is for the community to roll up its sleeves to work out the details for
implementation.

GS - Unclear if this is meant to replace the current IRP or be in parallel?

BB- Reform/replace current process.

BB - MEM and IRP - this is an area for discussion if two separate processes are necessary.

CD - Board thought that a community IRP was different because the expertise required might be
different and that ICANN would fund it completely vs the commercial IRP.

AG - Is MEM for standard bylaws also.

BB - This was not considered in the ICANN proposal. It is clear to the CCWG that this should be
included (standard Bylaws).

CD - There are 3 processes - standard commercial IRP, standard Bylaws issues and Fundamental
Bylaws..And the Board would fund community actions.

CD, BTonkin and BB to work on this issue collaboratively.

GS - We  need to consider all input including the Board's.

BB - agreed.

Becky Burr: i will seek input from the board on whether, and if so why, they think separate panels
are necessary.

B. Tonkin - The Board separated these thinking that commercial complaints should be handled
differently from community complaints (rules, costs etc.).

BB - should not differentiate based on complainant but rather on type of complaints. Regardless from
an efficiency point of view a single panel would see best for all complaints.

Asha Hemrajani: One thing to remember though that the MEM panel is NOT an "advisory IRP" but very
much binding

Becky Burr: confused Asha, are you saying that the Board is not agreeing to make IRPs binding??

Asha Hemrajani: @Becky no, both are binding

Staff - Schedule for Dublin still fluid trying to adapt to CCWG needs - as such we should wait for
Monday before taking any time commitments.


Documents Presented


*
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139497/PC2%20-%20Section%204%20-Fundamental%20By
laws_.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444251339803&api=v2> PC2 - Section 4 -Fundamental Bylaws_.pdf
(sample template)

*
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139497/WP2%20Dublin%20Analysis%20Topics.pptx?ver
sion=1&modificationDate=1444251362799&api=v2> WP2 Dublin Analysis Topics.pptx

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151007/d24c09f0/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/d24c09f0/smime.p7s>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list