[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #53 - 15 September 2015

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Co-Chairs
Is there is plan to have a consolidated document containing all commdents
pointing toward each Section or sub-section of the Second Draft.
Such document would be very useful as a ready and quick reference sources
Regards
Kavouss

2015-09-15 9:40 GMT+02:00 Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #53 – 15
> September will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/2o9CAw
>
>
>
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Brenda
>
>
> *Action Items*
>
> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC*
>
> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments*
>
> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary. *
>
> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and
> sole member model.*
>
> ·
> *ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel. *
> *Notes*
>
> *F2F meeting*
>
>
> We have been offered 5 additional travel slots. We plan to reach out to leadership of Chartering Organizations.
>
> Logistics will be easier if in LA. We will submitting our proposal to Board
> and it makes
> sense to facilitate participation of Board members so that discussions can be expedited.
>
> Objectives of meeting:
>
> • continue the analysis of comments in sub-teams;
>
> • work on finalizing our consensus recommendations;
>
> • advance
> the documentation and writing up the rationale for our recommendation as well as; • confirm the messaging and presentation of our recommendations so they can be understood more easily. We plan to have comms and graphical experts from Xplane on site.
>
>
> Delivering by Dublin is unrealistic given the comments we have received. We were hoping we would get confirmation of recommendations with second report. Since we have received multiple comments suggesting reconsideration, we do not think recommendations can be finalized in a rush. We will need to establish a new timeplan by LA meeting. We need to keep momentum and work on topics ahead of us. NTIA has made it clear that we need to further document our work. We will need to ask current subteams with analysis of comments received. A prioritization will be needed. We need to work on our message and to determine how we strengthen our proposal to next level.
>
> You are encouraged to read the draft narrative circulated on the list that documents what was done. We will be building
> LA agenda based on comments.
>
> *Human Rights (WP4)*
>
> We have an
> agreement to provide document that establishes high level wording for Bylaws. We also intend to provide rationale for how language was put together. We will
> address comments received in PC2. A follow up call is to be held this week.
>
> *Public comment on Second Draft Proposal *
>
> Staff run through of current trends with a note that more time will be
> needed to go through nuanced issues.
>
>
> This comment period speaks to importance of our work. Suggestion to reach out to SSAC and RSSAC
>
> ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC
>
> ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments
>
> ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary.
>
>
> We will need to determine whether models (MEM and sole model) meet our requirements. It may be useful to receive an update from lawyers on feasibility of model. Suggestion for our lawyers to engage with ICANN lawyers so that we can have final product in time for LA. A matrix would be useful.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and sole member
> model.
>
> *Community forum*
>
> WP1 had a call and has discussed specifics. More to follow.
>
> *Update on Bylaws drafting*
>
> A plan is to be provided soon. Based on input received via comment period, we cannot task ICANN legal with drafting Bylaws
> consistent with our current proposal while the Board is advocating a different approach. ICANN legal reports to Board. Suggestion to revisit the approach and move an approach where first draft would be provided by our lawyers keeping the block by block approach.
>
> Feedback:
>
> - Comments that it would be appropriate until final analysis. Board member will not sign off on Bylaws until lawyers of organization have not OKed
> text. Concerns about wasting time and effort. We first need to reach consensus.
>
> - The earlier the better.
>
>
> - We should move forward with drafting and do prioritizing. It makes sense for our legal counsel to hold the pen. Agree bylaws detail helps with Implementation, not with Communication
>
> Conclusion:
>  Legal counsel to hold the pen. We will have a similar drafting experience with CWG. Whenever we have consensus we will move forward with Bylaws drafting.
>
>
> ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel.
> *Documents Presented*
>
> ·        2nd-draft-CCWG trends-v4.pdf
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693850/2nd-draft-CCWG%20trends-v4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1442299775002&api=v2>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150915/c8b9571d/attachment.html>