<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Avenir;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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 lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Working Session 1 (AM), 19 June will be available here:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-Accountability+Working+Session+1+%2819+June%29+Buenos+Aires">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-Accountability+Working+Session+1+%2819+June%29+Buenos+Aires</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kim<o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">ACTION Items<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Notes<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:#1F497D">Part 1<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agenda<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Drafting response to public comment received (08:15-10:10)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Break (10:10-10:30)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Drafting response to public comment received (10:30-11:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Debate on enforceability: for and against (11:15-12:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lunch Break (12:15-13:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Drafting response to public comment received (13:15-15:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Break (15:15-15:30)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. Drafting response to public comment received (15:30-16:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6. Responding to NTIA query on timeline (16:15-17:15)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. Preparing for community engagement at ICANN 53 & establishing Buenos<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Roll call: no remote participants.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robin Gross attending.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consider as a reply. The public comment tool has been populated. CCWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Review, and then a dive into details.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Questions received in the comment need to be explained. We as a group are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step. The<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">rather than the community trying to work together of solutions. This<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">process has brought to community together in seeking consensus on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">improving ICANN. And this reflected in the comments and review of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">powers we want to bring to the community. A lot of consensus on the basis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">proposals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shared goal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We should review the models we have been considering. The reference<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">asking those who want to speak to a particular model for community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">plan for the day:Review of the public comment: hear the models; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">review these in the afternoon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Order of speaking for the models:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan, Sam, Greg.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues point<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">of view. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Request to hold a random draw for speaking. Request that new voices make<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">their thoughts about the model. New chairs of working groups and open the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reform<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">was top-down, the initiative of a few board members. The process not yet<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">process but we have moved a long way forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Review of public comment report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WP2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the comments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Need work on ICANN's defined powers. Suggestion to consider Human Rights,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a sub group working on that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Contract compliance should part of the core values. A balancing test.: A<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core values<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">against each other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">but may need to be reconsidered.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical part<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">of public interest. Some new ideas and some missing aspects.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Notion of fundamental bylaws. Some major themes. String support for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and some additions. Clarification on who can change and how. Question if<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The headquarters issue important for the group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">IRP:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process more<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">accessible. Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound by<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">binding arbitration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">independent. There needn't be a compromise of independence, and group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">needs to rethink this. And also comments about the selection process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reconsideration: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Roll of the ombudsman. The board reviewing itself, and conflict of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">interest issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To avoid frivolous requests.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next step: the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our further<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">deliberations this week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comment: Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some issues about the binding nature. About the number of panel. About<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the way selected. And the issues of diversity of geography.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP. Anglo-saxon dominance of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN processes. Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational. A<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">critical task to seek out the right persons. Agreement on the need for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">diversity, but how to achieve is out challenge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">of what we agree to and move forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the issue of the IRP, further consideration of enforceability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The impact assessment review from the Board received last night. And need<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to explain what they think the answers are. So the answers can be shaped<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">into the public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which will<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">cause the group to rethink.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this. The board<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">does not have answers to those questions. And the Board has no<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was no<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">intention to be anything other that constructive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">answers. The point of the questions was to say how you considered from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">board itself. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What do you as the board think the answer's should be? As they have just<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3pm.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WP1. High level community feedback was positive. Responses on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions were<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">on the webpage until late in the process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Amendments to the planning process to make sure concerns taken into<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned. The<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Standard bylaws: request for more time to review. Something for the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fundamental bylaws. Mostly in favor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consistency of process and thresholds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Real of the board. Request for higher threshold.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AoC: concern about location. What happens in the future to the AoC,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition. And<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">composition of the groups and to ensure diversity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mechanisms: generally supported direction. But comments show need<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">decisions around enforceability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2. The model<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">approximation of the community. Members favored over designators.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concern about implementation. Concern about the voting weights. RSAC and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">give that power. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">give that power. And hard to judge the range of around the model, further<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">discussion by the CCWG is needed. Importance of avoiding insider capture.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">forum.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">process, and ensure that the responses address accountability<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">specifically. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want. GAC unsure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">look more and more inward looking. End result may be a devaluing of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. But<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community feedback doesn't suggest that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When discussing replacing the old mechanisms. Remember the community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mechanism we are seeing up. The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all. The community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">address those. The models are complex and there must be clarity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at. Now<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, more<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">accessible to outsiders.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model. A different analysis now<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and what we would do in a crisis mode. In a crisis model, where we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">time. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all those<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, which<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">has some similarity. Private international organizations, such as FIFA, a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">negative example. And then the key question of who is the global<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to. Can the IGF set<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that represents<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the global public interest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are general ares of agreement. We are arguing around details. Now<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Break - thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p><b><u><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">NOTES Part 2</span></u></b><u><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Items for WS2</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Suggestions made by contributors:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Assess efficiency of proposal (our mandate or ATRT2)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Bylaw that would require ICANN to disclose Goverment related activities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Timeframe <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">General comments</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Vast majority of comments were supportive<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Recommendations are seen to be improving accountability substantially<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- 2 commentors are opposed to process: Roberto Bissio (provide a clear rationale) and .NA (challenges process)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Methodology</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Criticism for truncating comment period (40 days for second comment period)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Specificity needed on public interest term<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">- Impact analysis request from Board <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Turning tables around: presentation of perspectives regarding membership / cooperative approach</span></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We need to bring ICANN's accountability to a level that is sufficient for transition to take place. We need consensus on proposal. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Two rules for this discussion: 1.Timing (5 min) - 2 Factual (avoid slogans) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">This agenda item is an opportunity to explain benefits of options.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Greg Shatan</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Fundamental differences between models where we see authority sitting whether with community or with Board. I have worked with not-for-profit both with members and without members. Without members it is Board centric - with members it is members centric. Membership is a natural tool to give power to community. Speaking as member of CWG, change between CWG models puts greater reliance on ability to give authority to the hands of global multistakeholder community. Accountability needs to flow through ICANN to the community. Model that uses members is the tool that provides community with real basis in governance to exercise and to obtain ultimate judgement we believe the community should have. If we don't trust community, none of our models will yield results we want. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Alan Greenberg</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We have been working with set of Bylaws up until now that probably should not have existed. They don't follow any pattern in not-for-profit. I propose that we continue with same model where we put proposed powers in Bylaws. Budget power would be similar to what we do with GAC. Enforceability that I am proposing is removing Board directors. Process would have to follow agreed processes. Recalling Board will give us accountability we want but how do we remove Board without individual members? The threat of removal should give us everything we need.
What of ACs who choose not to participate in membership model? We have small part of community calling all the shots and will look bad. Tying our entire governance structure to California law does not serve us well. Concerned about timeframe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Robin Gross</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Empowered designator model: we talked about powers - agreements we want these powers. 2 of these powers (strategic plan and budget approval issues) will be challenging but they are not enough to cause upheaval and great change we are going to have to go through. There is going to be a lot of issues before we can get to membership model. It is not enough to push in the other direction. We can have ways to require way for community and Board to work on these two items together. Board also has knowledge that may be recalled which creates a strong incentive. The membership model does not work for those outside of community. Empowered designators model can be more open. We risk making mistakes we would be stuck with if go for membership model. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Jordan Carter</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Fundamental understanding about nature of human society: when we have something that is important, a separation of powers is needed. We divide authority. We take steps to protect our organizations by distributing powers by ensuring no one has single point of authority. This is a constitutional point. We will distribute it through SO/AC structure. It changes where authority lies away from Board of Directors and bakes it into community. That is what will make it trustable. We should embed the authority. I support membership, designators. Membership: we are going to rely on all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Roelof Meijer</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">It is very clear that most community members agree to foreseen powers. We are looking too much at things that already exist. This industry has become what it is not because of all legal processes but because of lack of processes around it. We have to be very careful about situation that might not happen but we need to protect ourselves. We won't get enough people and structures that will agree with this and we will end up empty-handed. Let's be creative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Samantha Eisner</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">I don't come here with answers. We are working through proposal along with you and have questions. We have characteristics of a model (designators, membership, creative etc). It is important that ICANN not for profit does not get affected. We need to look holistically at ICG's proposal. There should be further looking if membership model that we understand it is model to use when collective interests. We need to ensure secure, stable internet. Membership model makes sense in organization of interest. Any model we go to needs to leave open pathways to new participants. We need to see what membership model is to a new participant: do you have a voice? Can you meaningfully participate? Are there
pathways without immediately aligning themselves with a group? Model that needs to be tested. We need to make sure that we are holding up values and stability of certains part of organization. We need to hold out to global community that we are a stable organization. Does this mean membership is off table? No - there are still questions we can answer - if lesser changes that wind up not giving results the community wish to see happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Sebastien Bachollet</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We need it to be holistic review. The solution does not have a name. Accountable, diverse, equal multistakeholder which give confidence - my gift to community. It is important that wherever we go, we need to make sure we don't put any legal characteristics between relationships between any groups of ICANN. We don't need US legal jurisdiction to be involved in setting discussions. We have to remember that all groups are us even Board. If we ask accountability, I want us to be accountable at all levels and that remains to be seen. Trust should be our motto. Important for us to find a solution where we can leave organization open to all, not just to those who know but open to creating/merging new structures. If too solidified (and we already are), it will difficult to have solution. We don't know what will be future - we need to be open to that discussion but how can we create it and who give agreement etc? Diversity is an absolute need - real diversity (culture, gender, age). HQs in US: one way to solve diversity problems is presidency from other region. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Avri Doria</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">I support the model Internet has been created on. It is the same one we have been using to find solutions for accountability. It has been a successful model. Like all models it is one that benefits from constant refinement and improvement (ATRT). If we get reconsideration improvements, fix IRP and can remove recalcitrant directors, then we have reinforced model. I believe in notion of perpetual refinement. By constantly doing outreach, we have a much better chance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Malcolm Hutty</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">I would like to bring up variation that is worthy of exploring. We have got a group of people who think enforcement is key to process. For this group, it will be hard to build consensus. Those people have been told that ability to go to court is way to get enforceability through membership. It leads to strong membership model but it does not have to be membership model This creation of UAs is very complicated, creates new structures and unforeseen consequences. We need to address this. My suggestion is to have membership for everybody - under that model, Board have duties to their interests, they would have ability to go to Court. There may be other statutory powers we would need to look at. No harm in making that available to world at-large. We owe it to ourseleves to see if that can be resolved. A
point of membership application e.g. accept that we don't get to wind up company if not 99% member. They would agree to a process, concept we create. It would not create complex structures but would allow for all to hold it to commitments. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Becky Burr</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">At time request came from US gov was very much focused on technical services, not on accountability issues - which were viewed as distracting. This community came together and insisted for accountability to be addressed. Concerns are real and persistent. We are hearing objections that accountability might delay transition. Nobody wants that to happen but concerns should not lead up to compromise our shared determination to resolve this. We can do both. It should lead us to bridge gaps between legitimate perspectives. Membership model is a complex model and who watches watchers? We have come up with empowered SO/AC model: essentially comfortable with SO/AC structure but let's empower bodies by giving SO/ACs authority - it does not involve creating new entities. To accomplish this, the only thing that needs to happen is for SO/ACs to articulate status quo (powers, authorities). This intention can be expressed in SOP for each SO/AC, it can be expressed at any time, whenever we are ready. Intention is to work together to accomplish goals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Erika Mann</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">I like empowered SO/AC model but we would have to articulate principles. We should pay attention to HQs: California gives stability. Governements have concerns but there are no alternatives. We have to find best model - principles would have to fulfill global public interest. Governements in finding right model have difficulties in identifying the best way forward. Let's not confuse it with model we have to find. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Paul Twomey</span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Combination of Alan and Becky. Community has not done a bad job from changing discussions. This model strongly stands against Board membership model. Membership is not the same as participation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Jonathan Zuck </span></i></b><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Institutional resistance to accountability has shown itself in many different aspects. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Methods of dealing with problems and desire to drive through anecdotes is persistent through organizations <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">There are instances where high leverage - ATRT as part of AoC - agreement to make US have oversight role. If look at recent evolution at resisting - there was delay and resistance to process
when talking about model in past. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">It gave community leverage to sway Board and change course the organization is taking. Model I want to propose is one of leverage. If we want to empower overall community, there isn't institution
that has arisen. Method of operation needs to be tested and leveraged from time to time. It is not goodwill that will get that done. I am supportive of leverage in hands of community. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We now have a greater understanding of where aiming at - will be extremely valuable for next steps. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Is there any statement that could potentially mislead? Word of caution - not everything will work. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">--> It is difficult to comment on underlying assumptions. All different models are workable in some fashion but devil is always in details. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Which requirements we are advancing with particular models so we can explain why we are making changes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">--> Have we considered hybrid of various models?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">There is no assumption that we have looked at all models. We can call it creating model or hybrid. This discussion is not over. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">--> There would be letter from Board members that would represent interest of community. How would we hold them to these commitments? How would you resolve paradox?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We will need to be clear about this. It is quite possible to have irrevocable letter to be signed saying that it will step down if certain characteristics are met. Contract that could be made
enforceable. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Robin suggesting empowered designators model. It also required a UA or legal entity - it has same problem.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Empowered designators model - we would use UAs. What is difference between empowered designators models and empowered So/Acs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">We are recognizing and empowering to SO/ACs by articulating intention to come together to exercise powers. It essentially creates entity you need for enforcing those. There is no requirement
that anybody file a UA - they could do designation by same model - Get rid of middle man and who watches watchers. SO/ACs would have same powers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">If move forward membership model, please be careful about how you define what a member is <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Let’s not confuse open membership model <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Avenir;color:black">Empowered SO/AC gets rid of middle man - even when had those in place, - joining UAs was never part of proposal - it needs to stop being an issue. It would never have affected any of the powers,
roles of SO/ACs - wherever we go, we have to be clear that in building accountability general principle should be that anyone can participate, remains free of obligations<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>