<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name="Microsoft Theme 2.00" content="Arctic 011"><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;}
h5
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;}
h6
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#9D454F;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#814E95;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#262626;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.Heading5Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.Heading6Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white background="cid:image001.gif@01D080F6.61AEF330" lang=EN-US link="#9D454F" vlink="#814E95"><img src="cid:image001.gif@01D080F6.61AEF330" v:src="cid:image001.gif@01D080F6.61AEF330" v:shapes="_x0000_Mail" width=0 height=0 class=shape style='display:none;width:0;height:0'><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<v:background id="_x0000_s1025" o:bwmode="white" o:targetscreensize="1024,768">
<v:fill src="cid:image001.gif@01D080F6.61AEF330" o:title="background_arctic" type="frame" />
</v:background></xml><![endif]--><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#18376A'>A</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ll, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The notes, recordings and transcripts for the <b>Intensive Meeting Day 2 Session 3 - 24 April </b> will be available here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Day+2+-+Session+3">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Day+2+-+Session+3</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>A copy of the notes from this session may be found below. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Brenda <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><h2 style='margin-top:22.5pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>Action Items</span></b><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></h2><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-line-height-alt:9.5pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: Becky to confirm with ccNSO if this non-inclusion in the IRP, is acceptable.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: update text redelegation and revocation issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. And considering GAC contributions.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: to ensure the IRP txt is aligned as above.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: Chairs will review the transcript and put a proposal to the group, and double check with the lawyers.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: Alan to provide a sentence about the reviewing past reviews (WHOIS etc)</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: Should take on the action item that CWG will </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Action: Staff+ Steve Del Bianco to make sure the text in the reviews tables lines up</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p><h2 style='margin-top:22.5pt;background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333;font-weight:normal'>Notes</span></strong><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></h2><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:7.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt:9.5pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Rollcall:</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>all participants in the AC room</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:7.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt:9.5pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:7.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt:9.5pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>1) Recap of session 2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:7.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt:9.5pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Preserving ICANN commitment from the AoC and through the AoC reviews, but not covered the bylaws changes suggested by the stress tests. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>2) Outstanding stress tests - Stress tests where the contingency does not appear to be fully mitigated </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Stress test 21. Govt official demands a reassignment of a ccTLD. Currently no mitigation on this test. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>No answer, but to see if a revocation of a reassignment that did not follow procedure: RFC, FOI and GAC principles were considered. CWG has suggest that ccNSO will soon be working on policy. The test articulates the issues, but no solution/bylaws proposal or mechanism emerging. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>CWG request that CCWG should note define mechanisms, ccNSO addressing this. Unless perhaps out appeals mechanisms apply. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>ccNSO has been working with GAC on transfer and revocation, a framework of interpretation (FOI) worked on. The FOI references an appeals mechanism, but the ccNSO is still working on the appeals mechanisms, and as ongoing work the ccNSO is not will to sign up for any particular appeals process. And not all ccTLD managers are subject to 1591 as their TLD assigned before it was issues and before the GAC principles of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><s>2006</s><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>2005. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Could the local parties use the IRP mechanisms? Or in line with the CWG input should we say this should not happen in the IRP. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The view of the ccNSO is until ccNSO policy is developed on this the IRP is not applicable to the relegation process. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggestion that we include language to say these issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action: Becky to confirm with ccNSO if this non-inclusion in the IRP, is acceptable.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Keep current text, this mechanism could be available if compatible with the Policy development process of the ccNSO</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>This section was frozen before the CWG request, we will be updating this in the next few days. CWG explicit not to address pending ccNSO policy. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action: update text redelegation and revocation issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. And considering GAC contributions. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action to ensure the IRP txt is aligned as above.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>3) Second reading of outstanding issues for public comment report </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>NomCom to recall board members or a new committee and community.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Don’t believe NomCom will be interested in or able to remove people appointed by a previous NomCom. And don’s want to put a NomCom in the position of taking instruction from the SO/AC ash this affects the independence of the NomCom.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>pre-sign an letter to resign under certain conditions, and conditions might be a super-majority of the SO/AC to express dissatisfaction with their service. This could remove one or more. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggestion for the recall NomCom be created. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>This NomCom takes the SO/AC appeal and no complication over the person’s appointment. The only issue is the complaint. A simple matter</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Disagree that the pre-signed letter is enough to remove a director, as opposed to being used to initiate a process. It may tend to be a reaction to a situation going on and does not involve a check and balance.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Comment: use the current NomCom, does not see the difference in the board process. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Comment: Removal for cause may cause appeals and other processes. A group formed ad Hoc may be hard to fit in the member/designator models. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>(legal) The resignation letter. Not meant to usurp and checks and balance. It's the end of the process in an entire board recall situation. A contractual obligation for the director to step down from the board if the sending organization requested. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Current NomCom can be used. The SO/AC may also have a changing membership. This is the same for the NomCom</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>In favor of Avri’s proposal to create a new structure of a recall NomCom as in the draft proposal. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Many seem in favor of not putting the current NomCom on the spot. And this suggests the recall NomCom mechanisms should be favored. The conditional pre-signed resignation, also useful as the NomCom would not have a voting right in the community mechanism. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The recall NomCom originally written for individual director recall. But not the whole board, and that the NomCom appointees to the board could stand or fall with the rest of the board by whatever mechanism is adopted for that.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>If the recall NomCom constituted separately from the NomCom then lawyers have suggested this may not be possible as they are not the appointing body. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>[Possible Action for legal sub-team to consult with the lawyers TBC]</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Seem that the recall mechanism would be outside the community. Have often spoken as the threat of removal as a means of influence what a Board member might do. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Comment. Discomfort with the notion of removing a Board member. They are there for 3 years, community does not see al their work. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>On the table: </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Let the community do it, with some push.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The recall NomCom, which can only take place with a trigger from the SO/AC community. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Would be under the NomCom bylaws, and if a member model the NomCom would be an unincorporated association. and the recall NomCom would come under the NomCom’s procedures. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Or use the existing NomCom, but hopefully keeping the petitioning mechanisms. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>(legal) The power to remove is a reason for having a member of designator model, with reason or no reason. And hearing it would be difficult for the NomCom to do this is problematic. But the proposal is viable. Could have two committee under the unincorporated association entity and one of those could appoint and one recall. For individual directors. And these directors could still file a pre-resignation letter for their removal, or absolutely needed for the removal of the whole Board. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Is the Avri option what Josh described? It is his the model could be implemented if we go with a member designator model and the NomCom becomes a unincorporated association. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Going forward if the NomCom is to put someone on the board it does need to be at least a designator, an unincorporated association. And that entity can have two committees. The process from the view of counsel is as described. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>A problem is that the new committee is constituted in the same numbers as the NomCom, so very different from the community mechanism. If constituted same as the community mechanism could go along with this. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Note, the process is to decide which option we put to the community. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Some do not have enough information to make the decision now, and objection to the use of a poll.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Would be advisable to have the same organization principles for the group that recalls as the one that appoints. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>If member or designators, then the groups appointing to the board must be unincorporated association. The NomCom would need to take on the required structure. Then the question is should the same group of people who appoint be different from those who remove. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Then SO/AC community reps would bring in their input in the petition. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggestion for a legal paper to explain the options. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action. Chairs will review the transcript and put a proposal to the group, and double check with the lawyers. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Board recall powers </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Reference proposal. 5 for SO and AC of ALAC and GAC, and 2 for RSAC and SSAC brings a total of 29 people. 75% is 22 of 29. 80% 4/5, is 24 votes of 29. 85% is 25 votes of 29. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Petition is 3 SO/AC.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>If we want to block a single group from blocking a proposal then a 85% trigger is not workable. Assuming that the will be able to split vote, then 80% is appropriate, 75% if a block vote. The dynamics of the ICANN community will make reaching such a high threshold as 75% will be difficult. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The group is leaning to individual vote. Removal of the whole board, and need stability. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>80% means if a single group blocks then requires unanimity from the rest and that is too high. Abstention are not counting.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The options are 75% and 80% with 75% preferred as the reference option. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The removal NomCom would have a different structure. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The pre-resignation letter essential, to ensure the recall process has effect. If the 75% threshold is met then expectation is that all directors would resign.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Diversity (participation and inclusion) as an issue for WS2.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>This proposal is consistent with Jan Scholte’s advice received before the meetings. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Is included in the core values work?</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Seeking what does it mean to be transparent by default? How do we record what is classified and be aware of when something is classified. And as has come up in ATRT, just because something has classified at the time, does it mean to be so in 5 years. It is almost default that every inquiry requires a DIDP</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Not seen any objection to these two items </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Also suggest looking at ICANN’s whistleblower program in WS2. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>In WS1 the 4 AoC reviews we are suggesting bringing over they will have better access than before to information needed to use during a review. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>A package of three items to be added to WS2</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Diversity</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Transparency and </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Whistleblower policy</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Noting we will ask the community for any additional issues during public comment</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Package accepted.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>AoC Section 8 </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Identified that 8b is already reflected in the ICANN bylaws through article 18 offices. And members and designators could block any changes. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Question is whether we want to move article 18 to fundamental.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Comment: to reflect that here are 2 opinions in the group that it should either be kept in the bylaws or as fundamental.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Does it cause concern for anyone to replace principles by headquarters. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggestion to seek advice from the lawyers on actual language. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The bylaws are more specific in CA/Los Angeles, and bylaws only refer to the United States. Registered offices are often in different states from headquarters. The articles capture that it is a CA corporation, so the package captures the whole. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Pedro: The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 should keep its current status or be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”. In the latter case, any changes to it would require positive approval by Members/Designators. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggestion that to allow flexibility and a lower threshold, if it is to be a fundamental bylaw or traditional. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Both options will be in there.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Reviews in the bylaws and AoC</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Highlight difference of today and being proposed. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>proposed: assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC in its interaction with the board.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>in the AoC, item f. Implementation of recommendation. The review team may terminate reviews and create new reviews. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Timing. ART is every 3 years. Suggest no less frequently than every 5 years, which would allow us to do this more frequently. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>5 years: The current implementation is from the receipt of report, so adding an additional year. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The itemized points are all mandatory, and believed others out of scope. Need to take care to allow flexibility. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Review other review teams. Clear in ATRT2, first to review other review teams, 1 lack expertise, 2. exponentially increasing work. suggested the review be done by the successor review. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>'timing". to make a point about the time the board received it. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>unclear on itemized issues</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>(f) May be repeated in each review or in the chapeau</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Each ATRT must review the previous ATRT. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action Alan to provide a sentence about the reviewing past reviews (WHOIS etc)</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>comment: the general principles of what we are trying to archive is actually captured in section of 11 of the ATRT2 report.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>If there is a pressing need for a more frequent review then the proposal gives that flexibility.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Review effectiveness of WHOIS (directory services — is included)</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Privacy concerns added with the OECD principles, and this is new</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>AoC every three years, and left at three years (expecting change wrt directory services)</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Evaluation of the new gTLD. Change of languages as written pre new gTLD program. Competition and consumer trust and choice are reflected in the core values.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Subsequent rounds should not be opened until the review of previous review implemented. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action: Should take on the action item that CWG will recommend an IANA performance review will be conducted as CWG requirements, as a placeholder. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Proceed with language as suggested? </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Action: Staff+ Steve Del Bianco to make sure the text in the reviews tables lines up</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Fulfilling CWG requirements </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Ability of community to veto the budget. Feasible, but more enforceable under the member model.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Ability to set up an IANA function review. And that is be submitted as a fundamental bylaw</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggested that the CWG would be placed in the same section as the other reviews. Currently reviews are not Fundamental Bylaws. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The ability to trigger ad hoc [special] reviews. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The power to convene a review is driven by the community. And there is room for this special out of cycle review.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>ccTLD revocation issue covered. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The IANA functions review in the CWG only covers naming functions, but it might evolve within the ICG. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Next Steps</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Document update with the feedback received. Update by the rapporteurs, staff and co-chairs. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Final document for review and approval by the CCWG </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Final document May 1st, for final adjustments by the group, with a goal to publish on May 4th. And public comment for 30 days, comment period agreed by the group. The final review should not be for substantial change: editorial and inconsistencies.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>First check of the document on Tuesday's regular call, (April 28) and if needed hold an additional call on Thursday (April 30). </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Is this acceptable? </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Will affect the CCWG timeline. The public comment start was April 28, moving to May 4. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Public comment moved by a few days. Staff complies a review tool for the community to review.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Public comment 30 or 28 days? </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>30 days, green tick please</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Objections to keeping to 30 days red cross</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Agreement to open public comment for 30days.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>The advisors will also be given opportunity to review the document. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>We will review the CWG stress test.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Kavouss: profound thanks to the co-chairs, the rapporteurs, working group chairs. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Thanks to colleagues for you participation and support, I have learnt a lot. Thanks staff. And congratulations to ICANN. Thank you to you all. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>co-chairs: Thanks to staff, rapporteurs, lawyers and thanks to the whole group. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Adjourn. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>