<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Meeting #35 on 13 April at 11:00 UTC</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Agenda</b>:</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1. Opening Remarks </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2. CCWG-Accountability Update </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3. DT-O (budget)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">5. DT-N (Periodic Review)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">6. AOB</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">7. Closing Remarks</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Notes</b>: </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>1. Opening Remarks </b></div><ul><li>Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days.</li><li>6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. </li><li>Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. </li><li>Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well.</li><li>There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: </div><ul><li>ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)</li><li>Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option)</li><li>Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)</li><li>Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>2. CCWG-Accountability Update </b>(Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the the CWG requirements. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satify the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>3. DT-O (budget)</b></div><ul><li>DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez</li><li>Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure.</li><li>Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. </li><li>No disagreement with DT-O recommendations</li><li>CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? </li><li>Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal</li><li>If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto?</li><li>The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Statement for CCWG</b>: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)</b></div><ul><li>Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism</li><li>Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received)</li><li>Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. </li><li>So recommendation is to not pursue this now</li><li>The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. </li><li>For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Statement for CCWG</b>: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>5. DT-N (Periodic Review)</b></div><ul><li>These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. </li><li>First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that</li><li>Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with </li><li>The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necssary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment</li><li>Does the review expand to address IANA policy?</li><li>Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period. </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language</font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">6. AOB</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">7. Closing Remarks</div></body></html>