[CCWG-ACCT] FW: UPDATE: Notes from CCWG/Board call

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

In addition to the information below, please see CCWG Wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/x/xIZYAw for attendance, recordings, questions, Adobe chat, and
transcript (soon to be posted) for the CCWG/Board call on 2 September.

 

Best,

Brenda

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:30 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes from CCWG/Board call

 

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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150903/47377c69/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/20150903/47377c69/smime.p7s>