<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: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-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body 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 WP1 Meeting#12 - 11 June will be available here:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777766">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777766</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0in"><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-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%"><span style="color:#4472C4">ACTION ITEMS – Ensure Legal link is available for comment 223<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%"><span style="color:#4472C4">ACTION ITEMS - Call notes to be circulated to Counsel in addition to CCWG<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="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Working methods – analyses PC – summary and impression test, analysis of content, action steps and what might be published<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Recap on wp2 approach. Looking for themes that wasn’t thought of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Once we had done granular analysis, we need to produce a summary, similar to what WP2 is creating. Example will be circulated. Do a thematic summary. Further work on summary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Overall summary box will be added to the gdoc – New edits will be made on shared Google doc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Jurisdiction is recurring theme – whether or not new issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Proportionality must be discussed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">WP1 – using: <i>
agreement, concerns, confusion, divergence </i>– for each comment – <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Avri briefed group approach wp2 is taking. Looking for trends, teams assigned to each trending topics…trends that were already known like 8b, jurisdiction, have teams looking at these already.
Then will go comment to comment. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Suggested to use the same approach as WP2 to make understanding more concise.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Be concise in allocating, be specific – so not to be accused of being biased, also why more than one person is used to evaluate.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Encouraged to look at document to add precision, accuracy and neutralize any comments that you feel are not fair – so we have the most accurate record<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Summaries will be addressed during next couple calls, but by working through some of the specifics give us a sense of how it’s working and if we want to make any changes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Avri will discuss comments she has already started<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">373 – marked as “confusion” ”divergence” disagrees with idn being incorporated in us, did come up in the aoc – comingles issues, like 8b (trending), jurisdiction and incorporation, wants inclusion
of 8b in bylaws, Jurisdiction and incorporation – will be taking up in WS2, add to fundamental bylaws, actions – covering its trending.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">What is the “Theme” whether ICANN should not be US, or issue of location of idn in bylaws or fundamental bylaws? Is it a concern by mostly govts? Etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">8b isn’t even on the table, not addressed. Article 18 of bylaws states company shall have headquarters in California. Question is fundamental or non-fundamental. New idea, not WS1. Merit not
addressed at this time. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">374 375 are similar and have been given similar answer.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">374 – Govts given appropriate representation in an ATRT. AoC does not get into the proportion of representation. Moving proportionality into Bylaws of these Review Teams. Our view is that all
SOs and ACs should be represented in the AOC reviews as set out in para 305 of our Public Comment report. The CCWG will consider how to incorporate this matter more specifically in the next version of the proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Is there any other area of government concern? This will be determined after review and summaries will be posted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Perhaps this needs to be specified in the bylaws as it was in setting up ICANN implementation of the reviews<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">All reviews will be conducted by a volunteer community review team comprised of representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations, Stakeholder Groups, and the chair
of the ICANN Board. The group must be as diverse as possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Proportionality has not been completely addressed? Be specific on numbers?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">375. Response – thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">376 - WS2 to review as a longer term process. Doing so now seems less so, but folding them into the bylaws does seem important, especially if we want to dissolve the AOC.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">377 – Agreement – response thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">378 – Agreement – response thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">379 – (Govt of Spain) more detail, a plan needs to be put into place, looking for detailed time scale on termination of aoc. Trend: govt saying headquarters is an issue) AoC states ICANN should
be HQd in US, do not believe this should be incorporated into a fundamental bylaw of ICANN subj to Cal law is not fundamental to the global internet community, - question of how much detail to include in bylaw.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Suggested that - Not really a trending issue. Spain is just answering our question about Article 18 as a Fundamental Bylaw. They prefer it not be. Just record the answer. Opposing view whether
it’s a fundamental or not. Need more attention than to just answer the question; cover carefully.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">WP1 went through assessments of comments and suggested actions and did live editing.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Splitting larger comments will occur at a later time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Working method, and how to categorized – read details, so when summaries are complete, people with different takes, perspectives have all worked through and feel the summary is fair.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">380 - Agrees with enshrining accountability. Concern of inconsistencies, Agrees with putting in ATRT, Flexibility of reviews. WHOIS work stream 1 or 2? Was RySG agreeing with ability to sunset
including WHOIS? Accountability and Transparency Reviews must be incorporated. - We recommended that the ATRT team could recommend sunset of reviews like WHOIS.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Keith to confirm whether it’s the ability to call for sunset vs an explicit call for sun setting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">381 Unreasonable to incorporate all principles of AOC into Bylaws (US incorporation).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Issue of implement ability is important. IRP either confirms or mitigates decision. Put some appropriate principles of AOC into ICANN Bylaws would enhance ICANN's accountability. Calls for re
write. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Consider vs forcing. Can use IRP. Strongly explain rationale without being dismissive. Coupled with powerful mechanisms to challenge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">- 382 support for it to become fundamental bylaw, believes article 18 should be designated a fundamental bylaw, so it would require 75% community voting approval for change; hopes to rely upon
statutory powers to recall the Board and other actions, as necessary, to ensure that the ICANN Board and staff remain accountable to the community.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">383 – Agreement – thanks – although believes, the processes are slow, greedy on volunteers’ time and cumbersome<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">-384 supports inclusion fund bylaws, however the words “if appropriate” could be viewed as divergence. Para 269: The proposed text for insertion in the bylaws is “where feasible, and appropriate,
depending on market mechanisms.....” We feel that there is a large range of opinions on the role of the market. The AoC, however, is stronger in its support of the marketplace, so we would suggest deleting the words “and appropriate” – does not recommend deleting
any words, look further at marketplace demands. Disagree with recommended edits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">-385 – Support, response thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">- 386 Binding AoC into Bylaws. It’s not appropriate to refer to AoC into Bylaws (Bilateral agreement) Instead of writing that ICANN will be committed to them. Instead of writing what is in the
AoC in the Bylaws and producing duplicate description in two different documents, they suggest referencing relevant section of the aoc in the bylaws and bind reference sections by the bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Proposing several enhancements to the AOC. Because OAC is a bilateral agreement, it is not appropriate for it to be referred to in the bylaws after the transition. Allows the affirmation to
sunset.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Something to be considered in next version of proposal.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">387 – We understand the incorporation of a review system defined in AOC, and ability to start a new one. Response – yes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">388 Explain our rationale rather change. This is incomplete, just first couple bullets completed. 8b trending issue, representation issue – ask to consider so/ac but to consider constituencies
and by reference stakeholder groups. Representation issue at the bylaws level, up to each of the so /ac to house their internal apportionment.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Clarification on 338<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Batched round – guidebook is prepared, solicitation, non-batched round open, continuous round, but constant application.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">In the proposal on page 59, 338 The Board shall cause a review of ICANN’s execution of this commitment after any batched round of new gTLDs have been in operation for one year. Used batched rounds
on purpose. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Requirement after at least every 5 years or after a batched round.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">---<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">223 – Membership model is suitable, but that individual membership was suitable in a Swiss jurisdiction ideally. Mostly in agreement. Prefers individual membership (as in members of SO's and
AC's) are the members of ICANN; Swiss jurisdiction; membership preferred to designator No action required.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Pull out memo language to address this.
<u>Ensure link is included</u>. Legal analysis on the Swiss framework indicates there are no significant advantages to such a model.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%"><span style="color:#4472C4">ACTION ITEMS – Ensure Legal link is available for comment 223<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%"><span style="color:#4472C4">ACTION ITEMS - Call notes to be circulated to Counsel in addition to CCWG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">---<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">224 – Correlating the community with ICANN structure, ability to change preserved, the issue of how mechanism participants are held accountable to their appointing circles and how to avoid insider
capture. (Insider capture – theme)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">-relevant name<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">- More work on accountability for mechanism participants<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">- Insider capture – comes up in a number of places, work as group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">ST12 will be expanded to address insider capture and new stress test will be created to address rogue voting SO/AC representative.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">---<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">There needs to be a second phase of work to draw out comment themes and summarize at each top of section. Call for volunteers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Second phase, pattern recognition, draw out themes and summarize at top of section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">AOC in bylaws have been given to ST.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Community mechanism - Q7 and two related questions (13 pages): Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Robin Gross & Roelof Meijer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Veto budget - Q8 (2.5 pages): Robin Gross<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Changes to bylaws - Q9 (~1 page): Keith Drazek<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Approve fundamental bylaws changes - Q10 (1 page): Keith Drazek<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Removing individual directors - Q11 (2 pages): Fiona Asonga<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Recalling the entire Board - Q12 (2 pages): Fiona Asonga
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Incorporating AOC in bylaws - Q13 and 14 (4 pages): Steve del Bianco & Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Work Approach: Go through summary materials to identify themes and determine how we will discuss these themes in BA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Keep looking through document and add edits, proposed thoughts to make responses/summaries as fair-minded as possible.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">On the next calls, go through summary materials.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Next call: Saturday, 13 June 2015 from 05:00– 07:00 (AM) UTC - custom is to have 12 hours to review material.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">Document freeze at 1700 UTC on the 12<sup>th</sup>. Jordan will circulate pdf, but edits can still be made on Gdocs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%">WP2 You can go into original comments - make it more possible - work issue by issue. Read comments in a structured fashion<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:106%"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>