<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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.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 WP<span style="color:#1F497D">1</span> Meeting #16 – 6 July will be available here:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783015">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783015</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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" style="margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:14.3pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#3366FF">Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:14.3pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#3366FF">Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7)</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:14.3pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#3366FF">Action item. Avri to check language with CWG</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></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="MsoPlainText">CCWG ACCT WP1 #16 - 6July 2015.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Version public comment version 2, and the update on bringing the AoC into<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the bylaws, and review of the next 3 calls.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Any other business?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Steve. Analyze public comment, update our proposal and the update the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">review tool to explain what has been done.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">How to compose the review teams the potentially controversial issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The red text explains the context. The blue text, explains that if the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">AoC has reviews underway at the time of these changes coming into effect,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">then how to handle that is considered. Not to imply that we should delay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the ATRT3 review due to begin 2016.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Both to explain the changes made.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Concern that we did not require the board to implement all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">recommendations. And we explain that there may be reasons for not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">implementing (implementability or cost,). And note that a reconsideration<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">or IRP could be brought if such a decision taken by the board.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Understanding that Board and staff we actually moving towards what we are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">already suggesting, and ATRT3 is due to start 2017. As to the question,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the third is, are they implementing the intent of the recommendation?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Comment: Understand some wish to start pushing the ATRT3 to 2017, but not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">in agreement with that. There are issues over the timing, if it is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">beginning to beginning timing then we are not yet in agreement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">A proposal by staff to review the review processes, open public comment,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and some discussion of CCWG submitting a comment. But the default if not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">clear direction from the comment period would be no change.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Opportunity to clean up the process, and use the accountability process,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">perhaps thru a sub group or calls to do this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The blue text describes an implementation detail for later.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chapeau, applies to all four parts of the review. Shifts the task to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">staff to provide updates every year. Requires lawyers on both sides to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">work on this. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">How specific do we want to be in specifying how many in a review team,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">where drawn from, and whether they are voting. Come back to this. Not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the Board and GAC chair deciding on members, but the SO/AC, including<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">concerns about diversity etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Access to ICANN internal documents. Board comments noted concern about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the sharing of sensitive of confidential information, but who decides what<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">is confidential?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Some things that the whole review team might not be made privy to, but<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">some sub-set of. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If not ICANN's sole discretion, then may be asked to explain that process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Past ATRTs have reviewed confidential information, a form of verbal NDA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">used in those cased. May need another sentence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Review team should say how they reached consensus and the degree of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">consensus, and should respond to public comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Response on individual comments may be too hard, but all comments should<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">be reviewed. And the bylaws should include the degree of consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Text: the review team shall assess the extent to which prior review<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">recommendations have been implemented. Past ATRT team had to check on all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">4 review teams, comment this was too much work. So intent is to say each<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">review team assesses extent to each its previous review team implemented.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And this easier because of the transparency and accountability report<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ICANN will publish annually.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The ATRT has the special responsibility to terminate the other reviews and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">if necessary and to recommend new reviews in the future as needed (e.g.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ending whois to be replaced by a review if directory services).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">There were several public comments that were concerned an ATRT could just<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">terminate reviews with no observations for public comment on that. 3<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">observations: 1. The recommendation to end to start new review goes for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">public comment. 2. If the board accepts/rejects that decision the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">community can review and challenge. 3. to eliminate or add a review is an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">addition to the bylaws, so are subject to community challenge and review,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Complete review within one year of initiation. Based on ambiguity in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">AoC. Some reviews are on topics with potentially unlimited scope, this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">suggestion keeps the review bounded.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Is the word "initiation" defined? From the final selection of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">members. One year of convening (ok as revised text)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">5 years from when the report is given raised concerns, stretched out too<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">long, the reviews being too far apart. Might also be mentioned in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">chapeau text. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Measure the 5 years from beginning to beginning (convene to convened),<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">rather than end to beginning. And this should apply to all four reviews.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Competition, trust, consumer trust. Ensure WP2 picks up the malicious<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">abuse, sovereignty concerns and rights protections, text and is carried<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">over to the core values.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Board concern that WHOIS locked in, response prepared for the PC review<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tool.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">OECD guidelines do not have the force of law. May need to ensure this is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">worded properly. Not stating that this is binding, but just a body of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">international expectations we should take into consideration, and could<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">say that this may not be binding. Are were binding ICANN to the OECD<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">privacy principles without any review?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Answer may be to take out "legal constraints". And perhaps best discussed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">in a sub-group. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Not existing policy and seems ti be suggesting it is such. Needs to be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">examined. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">IANA Functions Review. Need more help from the CWG members to ensure we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">have the right words as this becomes a fundamental bylaws, including the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">chapeaus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Fairly confident that meeting requirements, but Avri will check with CWG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Action item. Avri to check language with CWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Review membership. How to reflect diversity. How to represent the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">interests of GNSO constituencies, would it unbalance the whole review.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The GNSO is very visible in their submissions. Talk to other and start to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">hear regionalization issues, multilingual aspects, start to ask for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">stakeholder rights. Get three votes, for example, but can subdivide them<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">as you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">How to keep diversity etc, but still have the SO and AC determine the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">participants. And new text, that the group must be as diverse as possible,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">this not from the AoC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diversity before expertise and willing to work, is problematic. There was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">a triage for previous reviews.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Agreement on expertise and willing to work. Membership not rigidly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">defined in the past. But is trying to be fully representative, then have<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">to accept that a single seat for a the commercial stockholders will not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">achieve that. Need to focus on goals...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The proposal doesn't have the Board and GAC chairs, but passes to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">community. So the suggestion is for an open group like a CCWG, but one<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">that cannot be swapped by a single group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Not reflected in public comment that some govt want a significant role for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the GAC chair in selection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Need further discussion for resolution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Status of work. Seeing volunteers (thank you).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Mix of volunteers looking at the balance of powers and weight.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1. Jonathan for budget and plans. Not for the others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">No sub-lists. just individual work, with work coming back to the lists.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Call one Wednesday was to address powers, if people have been able to do<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the work. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wednesday to address the voting balance and structure of the council<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Friday, community powers. Monday, bylaws again.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Action item. Avri to check language with CWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Action item: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(page 7)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">END<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>