[CCWG-ACCT] Notes from CCWG/Board call

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thx Grace

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:30 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Here are some high-level notes from the call today. Staff will pull the
> questions from the chat transcript and prepare a FAQ-type document per the
> Chairs' instructions.
>
> Best,
> Grace
>
> *CCWG/Board Dialogue Call *
> 2 September at 22:00 UTC
>
> Steve presented *introductory remarks*:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html
> .
>
> Chris outlined a *CCWG-Accountability Proposal Delivery Framework* (see
> email here:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html
> )
>
>    1. Develop Fundamental Bylaws and Process for Modification (including
>    ICANN's Mission and Core Values; AOC reviews; Budget and Ops and Strat
>    Plans and process for Fundamental Bylaws)
>    2. IRP (2013 Standard of Review; commitment to work on IRP)
>    3. Expand Reconsideration Process
>    4. Establish new Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM)
>    (challenges against Board action on fundamental Bylaws; binding arbitration
>    process funded by ICANN)
>    5. Community is involved in developing of Bylaws changes, and budgets,
>    op plans and Strat plans
>    6. Board Removal/Recall (pre-service letters)
>    7. Bring AOC reviews into Bylaws
>    8. Fulfill ICG Contingencies
>    9. Institutionalize in Bylaws the current practice of Board/GAC
>    consultation requirement used only over consensus advice
>    10. Identify and commit to a process for defining continuous
>    improvement work how the Board will consider those recommendations
>
>
> *Comments and questions*:
>
>    - What are some unintended consequences? Capture is a big one.
>    - How are Board proposals tested or better than the CCWG proposal? The
>    Board doesn’t propose a change to governance structure
>    - Enforceability is not sole reason for membership. There was
>    motivation for legal person and binding outcome as well
>    - The 10-point proposal covers all elements of the CCWG proposal
>    without the membership model for enforceability. Instead, the Board
>    proposes a Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism.
>    - Kavouss: under existing structure, the community has no power. The
>    Board is trying to maintain this power and using NTIA as an excuse.
>    - Fadi: The Board is embracing community powers and accepting binding
>    arbitration Board is not rendering judgement on the Membership model.
>    - Board will move to membership model if not possible to do all the
>    community requirements in current model.
>    - There is a need for the CCWG to understand what the weaknesses of
>    its proposal are and why the Board proposal is better
>    - One weakness with the model is that the exact membership hasn’t been
>    defined yet within the sole member model
>    - Anything perceived by the US as an increase in government role will
>    not be accepted.
>    - The CCWG does not agree and understand why a shift is needed.
>
>
> *Actions and next steps*:
>
>    1. Board to provide detailed proposals in writing to the CCWG. Would
>    be beneficial if this could come with legal analysis as well as rationale
>    and any prior work on the impact analysis of the Board’s implementation
>    proposal.
>    2. Then, the CCWG will certify a request for its lawyers to review
>    this proposal and check for CCWG and CWG requirements
>    3. In the CCWG remit to consider what parts of the proposal need to be
>    taken on board while remaining an open process where Board will remain
>    engaged.
>    4. The lawyers (ICANN, Sidley, Adler, and Jones Day) should start a
>    dialogue to review the Board proposal.
>
>
> Do we want to schedule any more calls or small group interactions or a
> F2F? Before the CCWG decides on this, the CCWG needs to understand the
> Board’s comments better.
>
> Public statement for reporters?
>
>    - We can acknowledge that there was constructive dialogue
>    - The CCWG is willing to understand what Board’s recommendation is
>    - We need to make sure the statements today do not overturn or
>    prematurely compromise the CCWG’s work to date
>
>
> The Board will endeavor to get comments into the Public Comment Forum
> ASAP.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150903/aa2de5db/attachment.html>