[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #84 - 16 February

Tue Feb 16 21:22:27 UTC 2016

Dear Brenda
It was indicated

*Action: Kavouss to submit edits in writing to specify change(s)
needed/requested*

After careful thought, I came to the conclusion that, even though there is
some unclarity in the text in question, it might be priudent not to change
any thing as it might rerquire other changes to make it consistent
throughout.

*Regards*

*Kavouss *

2016-02-16 15:03 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:

> All,
>
>
>
> Here are the specific clarifications and edits I proposed it the chat
> earlier this morning:
>
>
>
> 1.       Page 8 in Annex 1 (continuation of paragraph reference #23 on
> page 7) states:
>
>
>
> ·         Process for identifying GAC consensus advice and applying the
> GAC carve-out:
>
> o   GAC confirmation: When the GAC provides advice to the Board, the GAC
> will need to indicate whether the advice was approved by consensus.
>
> o   Board confirmation: When the Board takes action that is based on GAC
> consensus advice, the Board will need to state in its resolution that its
> decision was based on GAC consensus advice.
>
> o   GAC carve-out identified in petition to use Community Power: When a
> Board action that is based on GAC consensus advice is challenged, the
> petitioning SO or AC will need to indicate in the initial petition that the
> matter meets the requirements for the GAC carve-out and clearly identify
> the applicable Board action and GAC consensus advice at issue.  The
> decision thresholds (as revised when the GAC carve-out is invoked in
> accordance with Annex 2) required for the escalation and enforcement
> processes will need to be met for the Community Power that is being
> exercised.
>
>
>
> In the first sub-bullet, I suggested adding “, understood to mean the
> practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any
> formal objection” after consensus since that term for the purposes of the
> GAC carve-out is otherwise not defined in Annex 1. The suggested text is
> lifted verbatim from Annex 11.
>
>
>
> 2.       Paragraph 52 on page 12 of Annex 2 states:
>
>
>
> ·         The thresholds presented in this document were determined based
> on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be
> Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be
> adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to
> have more SOs or ACs.
>
>
>
> My comment was to highlight an inconsistency in that the second sentence
> uses “may be adjusted” while the third sentence uses “have to be adjusted.”
> I don’t have a preference between the two, but I believe that they should
> both use the same terms since they are both discussing the same issue – the
> potential need to adjust the thresholds if the number of Decisional
> Participants is not five.
>
>
>
> 3.       Paragraph 4 on page 24 of Annex 4 state:
>
>
>
> ·         NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role
> with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.
>
> o   Retaining decision-making based on consensus rather than voting.
>
> o   Maintaining the advisory role of governments in the SO and AC
> structure.
>
>
>
> This is the same language that was updated in Annex 1 and Annex 2. I
> suggest that this language also be updated.
>
>
>
> 4.       Paragraph 7 on page 3 of Annex 14 states:
>
>
>
> ·         NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role
> with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution
>
> o   Clarifying that any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved
> by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the
> practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any
> formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 60% of the Board, and
> the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in
> good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually
> acceptable solution.
>
> o   Retaining a decision-making based on consensus rather than voting.
>
> o   Maintaining the advisory role of governments in the Supporting
> Organization and Advisory Committee structure.
>
> o   Establishing a later commitment to investigating options for
> increasing the transparency of ICANN’s relationships with governments.
>
>
>
> I suggest that the second and third sub-bullets need to be updated similar
> to the updates done for Annex 1 and Annex 2 on this topic.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Brenda
> Brewer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 3:04 AM
> *To:* CCWG-Accountability
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT
> Meeting #84 - 16 February
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #84 – 16
> February will be available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/AAt1Aw
>
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Brenda
>
>
>
>
> *Action Items*
>
>
> *Action: Kavouss to submit edits in writing to specify change(s) needed/requested*
>
> *Action: Brett to send email with details of edits suggested on call *
> *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.*
>
> *1. Opening Remarks*
>
> Audio only:  Seun Ojedeji
>
> Review of the timeline:
>
> ·        Document went out for review on 12 Feb.
>
> ·        Review period closed on 14 Feb at 22:00 UTC.
>
> ·
> All the lawyers' markups (for the most part, minor changes for consistency) have been published to the CCWG list.
>
> ·        The report will go to Chartering Orgs on 18 Feb.
>
> ·
> Between now and then, there is time for the CCWG members to submit minority statements.
>
>
> Minority statements can only be submitted by CCWG members (appointed by Chartering Organizations).
>
> *2. Comments on the Supplementary Report*
>
> Review of comments received and incorporated by staff:
>
> ·
> Andrew Sullivan -- clarifications on removal for non-voting liaisons (see email here:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/010924.html
> ). Will not change the substance of the recommendation, but ensure that the text is clear
>
> ·
> Izumi Okutani -- ensuring that exclusion for numbers is applied to recommendations for IRP and Reconsideration
>
> ·
> Graphics will be updated, but were not done in time for the report publications on 12 Feb due to late instruction to designers.
>
> ·        Brett Schaefer -- Annex 6 and consistency notes for annex 2, 14.
>
> ·        Kavouss Arasteh -- Language in Rec 1 needs to be more clear.
>
> ·
> In Rec 5, there were side-by-side comparison updates needed for some sections. Becky Burr has provided and updated
> the tables today (not new language)
>
> *Action:*
>  Kavouss to submit edits in writing to specify change(s) needed/requested
>
> Additional changes:
>
> ·
> Brett Schaefer -- Rec 1, page 8, first bullet: request to define the term consensus. (Absence of objection).
>
> ·
> Brett Schaefer -- Annex 2: change language for consistency "may be..."
>
> ·
> Brett Schaefer -- Last section of Annex 4 and Annex 14 relating to the NTIA criteria on replacing their role with a gov-led or intergov-led solution: update language to reflect agreement from email
>
> *Action:* Brett to send email with details of edits suggested on call
>
> Board comment regarding threshold for Board removal in GAC carve-out
>
> ·
> Bruce Tonkin: To mitigate the Board's concerns with this new compromise, we suggest that this new lower threshold only
>
> applies when BOTH of the following occurs:- The Board decides to accept GAC advice, and hence the GAC cannot participate
>
> in a decision to remove the Board over this decisionand - An IRP raised by the community has found that the Board acted
> inconsistently with its bylaws (which includes the mission).
>
> ·
> Brett Schaefer: agree that this would be rare, agree that the IRP makes sense. however, does not agree that this is unusual
>
> threshold for community power: other powers are based in 3 SO/ACs thresholds. Current thresholds work.
>
>
> Apologies to Seun for not getting back to him sooner. His line dropped before Thomas could go back to him.
>
> *3. Budget Requirements*
>
>
> Support for the next phase of the work (beyond Marrakech). Xavier Calvez (ICANN CFO) and Board Finance Committee have
>
> requested an assessment of the costs anticipated for three months following Marrakech. The Chairs propose:
>
> ·        Lawyers' drafting of WS1 requirements
>
> ·        Possible F2F before ICANN56
>
> Feedback:
>
> ·        Kavouss supports Chairs' proposal for continued ICANN support.
>
> ·
> Sebastien suggests a 2-day F2F as part of ICANN56 (one for WS1 and one for WS2).
>
> ·        Greg agrees with continued outside counsel support for the work
>
> ·        Alan: we need to estimate a reasonable budget and stick to it.
>
> *4. AOB*
>
> Need redline of Bruce's proposed change (aiming for circulation today)
>
> Need tracking of changes made to draft so that there are no surprises.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160216/739d915f/attachment-0001.html>