<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;}
/* 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;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<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 2 / ICANN 53 – 24 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-ACCT+Working+Session+2+%2824+June%29+Buenos+Aires">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-ACCT+Working+Session+2+%2824+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">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">Notes<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from CCWG members and participants about the new model and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">generally about the public comment and reactions to the CCWG work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now we are on agenda point 2, debriefing and feedback received. Share<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">concerns and suggestion from your respective communities on all aspects of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">our proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The success or failure on our shoulders. Depends on our approach. In<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">addition to public comments, we have also received input from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">distinguished comments from Sec. Strickling, CEO Fadi Chehade, and others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We should review Sec. Strickling's comments carefully.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As we proceed to we seek perfection we must also look for some areas of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">compromise. So take the immediate and urgent issues as a minimum set lf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">requirements for public comment 2. We can still move issues to WS2.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Board liaison: The board had sent a lot of questions, perhaps we could<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">have engaged more, but concerned we might have been seen as trying to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">overly direct the conversation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During the meeting on Friday people were given time to present models.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thinking about how groups resolve disagreements. On one end of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">spectrum there are contractual arrangements, not relying on trust, but on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">legal intervention. On the other end of the spectrum there is a model of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the Quaker meeting, based on purely on trust. And the voluntary model has<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">driven the development of the Internet. Free to access, a sharing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">culture, and learning culture. And the culture allowed the net to spread.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And while overtaken now, this enthusiasts model is still pretty strong.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Friday we heard models that were legally oriented. See this model as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">infiltrating more mistrust. And suggest that these types of model run<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">counter to some of the original models of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Numbers community: Concerned if the CCWG can deliver and implement the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">proposal without delaying the overall transition. Note: the CCWG must be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">in sync with the ICG process. Effectiveness is not the only goal, we must<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">also be in time. A balance of enforceability and the stability of ICANN,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And also look again at whether the elements are needed for the transition<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">of IANA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Better if models are tested before. Strengthen the IRP, strengthen the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">bylaws, and agree with the concern about timing. Can some of the work<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">regarding community empowerment be shifted to WS2?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hybrid model is a concern for the NCSG, particularly with derivative law<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">suits, that our time could be tied up by lawsuits. So more focus on how we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">would get agreement on budget and strategic plans, to bring the two sides<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">together rather than any recourse to the courts. Softer enforcement<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">methods for these two issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Stakeholders from India. Relationship between and Board and SO/AC and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">keep feeling that we are looking at WS2, rather than issues essential to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the transition. CWG is dependent on CCWG mechanisms, and would like to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">hear those explained.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from the commercial stakeholders groups. (1) simplification was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">welcome, but preserve access to enforceability, and anxious to get to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">details of that. (2) Comments about accessibility and cost of pursuing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">an IRP. (3) acknowledge that RSAC and SSAC may not wish to vote, but<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">wish not to loose their advice to the community group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How might it effect individual ccTLD managers. Is there a veto mechanisms<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">available for an impacted group. How could an individual ccTLD manager<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">enforce. Larry Strickling's advice. Implementation of the WS1 proposals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Linkages to the CWG proposal explained. One comment that all that needs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to be enforceable is removal of the Board.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AoC reviews, come confusion between the ongoing nature of the AoC reviews<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and the shift of those to the bylaws. Advice to continue the AoC reviews<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">until such time as the transfer to bylaws complete.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">RSAC and SSAC. Both very much committed. But do not expect to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">participate in the voting mechanism. The attach importance to being an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">expert group. Don't want to create any fuzziness about their advisory role<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and new powers. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SSAC they are advisors nominated by the board. Interest to them if the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">future a situation arose where they wanted to engage more directly they<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">could do so<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ALAC: Concept of the culture of the Internet resonates. Something softer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concern about membership. And concern about liability. Question, who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">has standing. Possible that the ICANN Board does something dumb, but its<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">likely that such a decision will not be unanimous and that person<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(persons) have standing to take action against the rest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The GAC needs more understanding on the proposed mechanisms. The group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">has developed questions, and will submit those and comments before the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CCWG mtg in Paris. Main issue is how the GAC can participate, and how<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">public policy issues will be taken into account.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next Steps and technical assistance for CCWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A second public comment launch end July. F2F meeting July 17-18, where we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">need to discuss and resolve the issues from the pubic comment and meetings<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">here. Governments and others will submit questions and comments, but we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">need these a few days early so they can be fairly addressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will design a scorecard of issues raised in the PC; those supported,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mostly supported, divergence. Need to discuss these and reach agreement on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">each.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bylaws drafting approach. The timeline for approving bylaws is tight, to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mid November. Some are almost ready, for example of incorporation of AoC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">into the bylaws. Need to be clear about the role of CCWG, of ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">staff, especially in their role assessing of consistency with other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">bylaws, and the Board has a special roll on bylaws changes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How to proceed with bylaws drafting, what do you think is required?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CCWG had significant discussion at the beginning of the process to get own<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">legal counsel, why are they not being asked to lead the drafting work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN legal has the best knowledge of the bylaws. We have legal advisors<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">who can provide advice on how the drafts meet our requirements, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">suggest changes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN internal support. Seeking the best, and timely and cost effective<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">solution. Essential that the CCWG and independent counsel are part of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">effort, a role for review and assessment. Clear guidance about what<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">should be in the bylaws, and also that these are ICANN's bylaws and should<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">be drafted in the consistent way. And also ask for costs to be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">considered. But there is an important roll for the CCWG and independent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">counsel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, ICANN bylaws, but we as the ICANN community should be drafting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agreement, the CCWG is developing the plan, knows what its intentions are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">should be drafting. But ICANN legal should be in there supporting with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the legal counsel. But the pen in the hand of the CCWG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The drafting already done by the CCWG followed much of the language of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AoC and exciting bylaws. The work already done might need a little more<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">work, but after some relatively easy work might be ready to pass over to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN legal. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suspect it will be a collaboration. Optics suggest it should be in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community's hand's first.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Independent counsel do not act for ICANN and there are liability issues<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that ICANN legal must sign off on this. The board must vote on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">resolutions and do so based on it's own legal advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two sets of legal advisors use wisely. CCWG should be giving advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Most cost efficient would be ICANN legal drafting and external counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">reviewing. Think of ICANN legal as working for CCWG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Legal process must be embedded in the multistakeholder discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that ICANN also has bylaws changes from CWG. There isn't much time,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">so important that we are lock-step to Dublin.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Empowered SO/AC model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First introduced during the working session last Friday (June 19). We<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">were reviewing our requirements, and had a table presenting the pros and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">cons of our models. Tried not to use the word enforceability, and also<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">considered implementation time. Need to evaluate the pros and cons, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">then a full legal test. This is a baby step towards consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Slides introduced.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Time is important. Want to retain trust. Don't want to make changes to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">operating principles. Concern for the members model. And flexibility for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the future, the ability to bring in new groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Don't want to change legal nature. Want to exercise the community powers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Leave status quo as it, but could "switch-on" the authority to exercise<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">certain powers. Both the member model and designator model could be the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">basis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are we jeopardizing the CWG dependencies, need discuss the conditionality<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What do SO/AC need to do - nothing at the moment. Can formalize<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">relationship later.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN needs to make sure the authority is granted in the bylaws. Might<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">nerd indemnification for SO/AC. WS1 and WS2 tasks still need to be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">implemented. Needs to be considered in context of stress tests and impact<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">assessment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now talking about mechanisms. The difference between this as a designator<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mechanism and a member mechanism. Only the budget and strategic/Ops will<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">not be legally enforceable. Can't imagine the board doing nothing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Might be more complex than we need, only need the ability to remove the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Board to be legally enforceable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Designators and members have differences in powers relating to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">budget/strategic and operational plans - members also have statutory<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">rights. For example being able to dissolve the corporation. This is not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">acceptable. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The proposed substantial reform of the IRP must be effective, and must<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">have legal certainly in this. Do the models have enforceability for the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">breach of the mechanisms, for examples failing to appoint an IRP panel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is there a remedy?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Changing the bylaws is enough. Don't feel that 15 boards members will all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">act so badly. Support the new proposal, but feel we can go further.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are trying to honor those who wanted the trust based model. Idea that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">if the board/community relationship turned sour then the powers could be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">turned on. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Heard loud and clear about concerns about litigation. No one wants a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">model that leaves ICANN constantly in court. We can seek resolution<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">through the IRP. In the general and normal case, if the community wished<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to rely on the IRP mechanism, that is a viable approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there is a problem with the Board and community we need escalation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Need a table that compares the new model with the old. We are passing on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the hard issues, and think we have had good success with the proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is an obligation on us to support the CWG. And a lot of work in a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">short space of time to take these consensus issues and build on them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Be realistic about the practical level of empowerment. That in the other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">areas the trust models works. Perhaps look at what works right in other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">parts of the community. And consider if we need a numerical method of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">delivering those powers, if voting is the right answer? Any instability in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN effects the numbers community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">GAC and consideration of the role of governments in this new model. (1)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">would the empowered SO/AC model require legal personhood? And if some are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">members and some are not, would this create an imbalance between them. (2)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">if a SO/AC decides to join at a later stage who decides if they can join<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">or not. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firmly supporting the bottom up process. And the CCWG process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Risk of capture. There is no decision in those core fiduciary areas that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">cannot be stopped by the community. And if the community does not like<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">what the board has done it can remove one or all directors. Need to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ensure the corresponding responsibilities of accountability are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">transferred as the powers are.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is issue of community accountability raised my a number of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">commenters. Needs to be resolved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is there any requirement before a SO/AC can spring? IRP as a requirement,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">would we have a way of keeping members out of courts on their issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Proposed as a low risk model, what was involved in that assessment? And<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">need to consider re-writing the bylaws as a member organization.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ability to go to the IRP is one of the first protections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which of these models if any provide a remedy to breaches in the bylaws<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">other than those noted in WP1. Would the empowered model protect from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">cases such as ICANN failing to implement an IPR. Need to work on that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are here because ICANN accountability considered lacking. And here to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">find solutions. The community needs to be empowered to do that. And<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the model does seem to combined good aspects to do that. So lets review<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the models to date.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This will make Directors more cautious in what they say and do. This<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">desire to introduce community powers assumes the community is in agreement<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">with them, it is note. It seems to take ICANN towards being the next UN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">general assembly. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Red herring to talk about trust and accountability. Accountability is the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ability to hold to account. Trying to say that we don't want to use the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">term enforceability, and certainly not go to courts. Also need to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">remember how difficult it is within ICANN to gain consensus. It would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">need to be serious enough to bring about community consensus. And we have<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">work to do making the community more accountable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the one had people say it will never happen so OK to have the power.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other, never happen so don't need the power. Leaning towards those<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">who say the budget and strategic plan not the same weight. Need to examine<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the statuary rights and what those are.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unintended consequences of the budget proposal where members of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community vote against each other, or for their pet issues. Budget<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">paralysis would also threaten the ability to fund the IANA function, which<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">should be enshrined in the bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Empowered designator. 7 directors, if we do not trust 1 to take action<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">then introducible. Then have a contract to require them to take action.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the end is Congress. Everything has to pass a political context. Would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a government or the GAC have the ability to become a member? Senators<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">will ask do the governments have more power than they do today. Yes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Will they have more power relative to others, more power. Isn't one the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">key conditions of NTIA that govt should not replace us? Be careful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are many questions to think through. What is necessary to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">transition ICANN from one govt to all stakeholders. Don't upset the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consensus balance that has worked for years. If the balance changes our<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">model, then we are in trouble.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Must not be under control of one or more govt. A proposal, find<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">consensus, make simple to explain to Congress, but no extra criteria than<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">those laid out when we started. Stick to our requirements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Support for the empowered SO/AC model. It's truly bottom-up. It gives us<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">choices. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Generally in favor. Needs study and development. Budget, the power to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">veto the budget, a super majority. Solvable problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">NTIA ending a contract with ICANN and that is a legally enforceable<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">contract. Can say that today that the SO/AC have different types of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">power. The SO/AC will have the same powers as today. It gives the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">community more power across the board, not more power to any single group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Be clear, I was presenting the risk, not the answer. The contract with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the IANA is not about accountability. There are real political risks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fear of lawsuits and of statutory rights, and the CCWG needs to lookout<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">for this. Ensure that no group can short-circuit and move to enforcement<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mode without having a proper consultation in the community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And commitment to watch the watchers. The two camps, of those who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">enforcement powers and those who want trust model, but head little<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">willingness to compromise. And we do not wish to leave anyone behind.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which suggests a hybrid model is attractive. Starting from trust. But<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the question is when to we move from the trust based model, and when do we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">move. And some movement on some the need for some powers, so long as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">other powers in place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How do we connect the two worlds. A threshold to switch from one level to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the next, perhaps within the community. Take the best from all worlds to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">move forward. And think more about where the power is. And develop a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">rationale as to why we put the votes in the proposal. Need to see if<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">statutory powers can be waived. Putting the IANA budget in the bylaws,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and we have a weakness of the designator model perhaps removed. Very<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">helpful proposal for tomorrow's discussion at the next working session.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">END<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>