[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #52 - 08 September 2015

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #52 - 08 September will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/149CAw 

 

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

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board.


ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented. 

ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call
regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal 
counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine workload (prior to certification of request)


ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section  


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. 

Board interaction & next steps 

We have worked based on requirements and have looked at implementation models to operationalize
accountability requirements. The change 
of reference model was to address comments from Board members (statutory rights etc). We have asked
Board members to be constructive. We 
should remind ourselves that we are working towards the same goal. We should take Board comment as
intent of good faith to take it to the next level. At this stage, we don't 
have enough details to assess Board comments. Our perception was that the Board had identified gaps.
We can expect written input from the 
Board highlighting areas of agreements and variations of proposals. We should remain open-minded to
good faith criticism and not be prematurely defensive. We should wait for Board's written input and
carefully analyze it. We need to 
make clear to community that we are still in public comment period and do not want to discourage
community members from providing comments. 
All community input is welcome and will be treated with same diligence as 1st PC period. We need to
emphasize this. We need to be responsive 
and consider writing a note to the Board to help them navigate through this process as well.  

Feedback:  

- Any change to process creates discomfort. It is a human reaction. Some of concerns may be due to
misunderstandings (e.g. budget). Creation 
of subgroups 
(CCWG & Board) may help. 

- Open to learning from criticism. Welcome same level of education from ICANN Board and Jones Day.
Sharing this input with us could be 
done much sooner instead of waiting for them to flesh out their comments. We should be given chance
to digest information. 

- It is unhelpful for the Board to state that it is "changing the model". The work of this group
sustains and strengthens the multistakeholder model. It would be appropriate for us to request that
the Board not treat our proposal as 
a proposal that changes the model.  

- Has the CCWG's legal counsel spoken yet with ICANN legal and/or Jones Day? 

--> The call has taken place. It primarily informed lawyers and JD of respective perspectives. This
information will go into Board's deliberations.  

- JD has indicated that they are not in disagreement with legal analysis we have provided. We are
awaiting to hear from JD. We will 
inquire whether these calls are recorded. 

--> We did not want discussion to be a battle of experts, but rather a discussion to exchange views.


- Board focused a lot on enforceability. Disagreement is appropriate.  

- If we can give Board guidance, it would be to prioritize issues with our proposal. 

- We don't need a new proposal by Board. We must insist we are not waiting for an alternative
proposal but waiting for comments on our proposal. 

- CCWG disappointment and frustration. Answers are contradicting. Suggest making reference to
comments that have been made on the list. 

- We need further detail to take action and assess Board position. Board will be asked to prioritize
concerns. The note will refer to comments 
shared on list (e.g. Avri's note) 

ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board.


Documenting our Work  

We need to be aware of expectations placed upon on us regarding documentation. It is part of our
Charter that when we submit our final report, 
our group is expected to provide information on process, including PC consultations. We have
received feedback in PC2 indicating that further 
documentation might be needed. We should prepare for further documenting.  

On principles - Becky has proposed synopsis of proposed changes.  

On IRP: we need process details for selection of panelists and need to compose rules of procedure. 

On RfR: Rules of procedure might be needed.  

CMSM: We need to document rationale as well as initial feedback for detail on community forum.  

In addition, there is a need for details on Bylaws. We have had a call with ICANN legal, counsel and
CWG leadership to coordinate. ICANN 
project management will provide a plan by the end of this week. This document will be shared with
the CCWG. 

We have received question of how GAC advice will be factored into new process.  

It would be valuable for our group to flesh out how community forum would work. We could go as far
as suggesting showcasing it so that we 
answer any concerns about details of this process.  

Feedback: 

- Rationale for changes in princples, core values, commitments is needed.  

ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented. 

- WP1 started initial work on community forum. It would be viable to get more work done on this.
Note to be sent out to WP1 list.  

- WP2 had produced draft set of Bylaws on IRP.  

--> Recommend discussing with lawyers  

ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call
regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine
workload (prior to certification of request) 

- ST 18 appears in two places. 

--> We need to update number of stress tests. 14 and 18 appear twice to illustrate why we need
Bylaws changes. 

ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section  

September Face-to-Face Meeting 

Pros and cons were exchanged on list.  

Feedback: 

- It should not be deemed a negotiation. If substantive input, the meeting would be useful. If not,
it is a good opportunity to address all comments. 
Whether Board is active or not, meeting would be useful. 

- We should decide on our work flow. If meeting is to discuss with Board, opposed to it.  

- Agenda needed 

- We need to understand if Board is to talk about issues or if there to enhance their proposal.
Their approach needs adjustments. Funding will be an issue. Cost benefit analysis is needed. 

- Meeting should not be held unless it is clear what expected outcomes are. Do not understand how
this meeting fits in overall public comment 
period. Are the Board's views to be given more weight? Let's be cautious - how will this meeting fit
in evaluation of comments 

- We have a lot of work to do ourselves. For that reason, meeting would be helpful to hammer out
details. We can take Board's concerns with all 
other comments and evaluate them. Agenda needs to be set as CCWG and we need to focus on our work
flow.  

- It will be useful for our work but we cannot tell Board we do not want to talk with them. It is an
opportunity to have all Board members with us. It is important.  

- Unclear whether in person/remote. 

- If we go to LA, we should leave antagonism behind and need to work together.  

- If meeting goes ahead - it must be a full discussion.  

- Disagree that we need more funding. It is already a large group. This meeting must be a balanced
meeting. We need to ensure that meeting is webcast. 

- Many valid comments came from participants. We should not be limiting participants' attendance.  

The group is in agreement that a face-to-face meeting if conducted must be well-prepared and fit in
the CCWG workflow. It must be as inclusive as possible, including additional travel funding. We need
to have a good 
documentation of Board's thoughts. There should not be any suggestions that this is a negotiation
between Board and CCWG. Meeting 
should be kept more open to community input as such. At same time, we have heard comments that we
should embrace opportunity to 
work with Board. We are lacking information to make a decision of whether this fits work flow.  

We will let Board know that we are continuing to make a decision about this and will share with them
discussion that took place today. We 
will be able to make a decision once all comments received. 

A.O.B 

- How will we deal with comments 

--> Staff summarizing comments and we will need to analyze and potentially adjust our report.  

- Confusion about which comments should be addressed 

--> Let's keep comments on existing proposal.  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150908/661aa537/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/20150908/661aa537/smime.p7s>