[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #51 - 1 September

Tue Sep 1 20:32:10 UTC 2015

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #51 on 1 September will be available
here:    https://community.icann.org/x/1Y9CAw

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

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Clarify whether article 2 section 3 is deleted or not

ACTION ITEM: Bruce to ensure proposed language on AoC WHOIS review is sent to CCWG

ACTION ITEM - Ensure synopsis of changes is posted

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to debrief on September meeting and discuss polling (whether dates get
tracting) 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to get back to CCWG with a clearer deadline. 

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.

Review input received

To date we have received 10 submissions. The comment period will close on 12 September. The CCWG has
also received Jones Day's impact analysis. We have relayed it to lawyers and expect to receive
initial feedback on Jones Day's document by the end of today. It is also anticipated that legal
counsel will speak with JD lawyers. A briefing with the ICANN Board and a call with Advisors took
place on 31 Aug. The ccNSO organized two ccTLD webinars. Outreach is extremely active. 4 Advisors
offered comments on the Advisors call. Most comments were supportive of our proposal. We received
valuable feedback from Nell (proposal should dive deeper into outreach) and Jan (voting
methodology). On the leadership call with NTIA, NTIA reminded us of the blog post and BA
intervention. Larry asked us to document its process. It was also reported that there is too little
rationale: pro and cons of models need to be highlighted etc. NTIA mentioned that there might be
questions on IRP. We conveyed to NTIA that our group has worked strictly on a requirements basis. 

Feedback:

- The BC is concerned about: 1) Board is suggesting that they would give us new wording for AoC
WHOIS review - we have not received that text and need it; 2) the Human Rights draft is currently
limited. 

- Synopsis of Bylaws changes implies a deletion of article 2 section 3. Is that the case? 

ACTION ITEM: Clarify whether article 2 section 3 is deleted or not

- How do we intend to proceed with Jones Day advice? Are we envisionning a systematic answer? It is
a complex and hard-to-read document. Jones Day is still arguing that the Board must remain final
arbitror, IRP should be advice and that ICANN should not be subject to coercive reviews. 

---> Board is calling for us to signal any misunderstandings there may be in the memo. Our core
focus will be to read the memo and provide comments. We have asked legal counsel to provide overview
of relevant points and points that may be based on wrong assumptions of proposal. Jones Day's memo
does not mention key legal issues, technical problems, but only focuses on pointing Board to
appropriate risk level they want to take. We will discuss with Board once we have the memo at hand. 

---> Legal counsel: we have focused on sole member and IRP issues. We will provide in-depth comments
by Friday. We suggest our memo be sent to Board and/or posted.

ACTION ITEM: Bruce to ensure proposed language on AoC WHOIS review is sent to CCWG

Prepare for discussion with ICANN Board

Meeting on 2 September - 22:00-01:00 UTC

Briefing (31 Aug) was organized to ensure Board had a good understanding of our proposal and that
spirit of proposal is appropriately conveyed. No major concerns were raised on 31 Aug. The Board is
continuing analysis of report. There were no questions on mission, commitments, core values,
fundamental bylaws, building blocks. There were a lot of questions on CMSM and IRP. We can
anticipate comment that there are gaps in the report on voting procedures, IRP etc - we have not
spelled out details.

Feedback:

- Is the Board aware of all changes that need to be made?

ACTION ITEM - Ensure synopsis of changes is posted

*        .  SCWG

Suggest closing this issue as it is not CCWG related. This is a CWG-ICG issue. 

Feedback:

- This conversation is based on a misreading. There is nothing for the CCWG to do other than to form
a community mechanism. There is no indication that CCWG input would be be needed on SCWG. 

- We need to be aware of glaring hole in process. The IETF is not part of community mechanism.
Separation could include one or all IANA functions. 

- Section on ICG is a summary of CWG report. It is not intended to replace the CWG report. The CWG
has a process with a special IFR. 

- The community mechanism does not participate in the SCWG.

- Close coordination is needed.

CONCLUSION: This issue is closed.

Elaborate a work plan for analysis of PC2 comments and finalization of report (September meeting
suggested by ICANN Board)

Staff is getting organized to populate the PC tool by Sept 15. We have limited time to deliver an
analysis of comments and the final report incorporating any additional amendments as appropriate for
COs to endorse in Dublin. We need to set time aside for lawyers' reviews, We were invited by ICANN
Board for a face-to-face on 23-24 Sept. Should we organize intensive call periods or double amount
of calls per week. 

Feedback:

- Do we expect to refine proposal or rebuild the proposal into a third draft? 

- interaction with Board is useful. We have to have as much interaction with the Board as possible. 

- We need to take the Board's offer. 

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to debrief on September meeting and discuss polling (whether dates get
tracting) 

Political communication

We received feedback from NTIA, Board, community that implies our proposal is not adequately
transparent and easy-to-read. Report describes differences between first and second report. We need
to have a stand-alone version of the report or similar document that explains the proposal as it is
now. We have received requests to provide realistic/theoretical examples of how powers are
interlinked. We need to further work on explaining our proposal and spelling out the genesis of our
proposal. We should be coming up with recommendations that are  suitable to meet requirements but we
need to be professional about how we populate and formulate recommendations. We must ensure our high
quality outcomes are understood. We have started a dialogue with Tarek Kamel. Idea is to ensure that
our proposal does not lose strength because we failed to use the language of the target group. 

Feedback:

Each recommendation has to be well explained. 

Bylaws amendment discussion

We have to take holistic of proposal to Bylaws. Both ICANN legal and legal counsel are working on
amendments. No objections to process.

Benefit of experimenting is that we will learn about what is effective and what is not effective. We
wrote to John Jeffrey to kick off process. Sam has indicated that we would have more clarity towards
the end of the week.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to get back to CCWG with a clearer deadline. 

Feedback:

- Timeline and role unclear.

- We need to be clear on what process is going to be and division of roles. How will this be
conducted from a transparency point of view? Clarity needed. 

A.O.B

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150901/a384c5f3/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/20150901/a384c5f3/smime.p7s>