[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #18 31 March

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Apr 6 13:34:11 UTC 2015



On Sunday 05 April 2015 07:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From my participant point of view,
>
> On Community:

Avri

Thanks for your response. Although I have some substantive points to
make about your  definition of 'community' , I will do so in another
email. What is more important at this stage is that even your response,
to me, underlines the urgent need to get clarity within the group, and
in terms of its final report, about what is meant with 'community';
issues like whether with communtiy we mean SOs/ACs, and whether this
'community' being empowered to exercise better accountability is the
same as the 'global multistakeholder global community' mentioned in the
original NTIA announcement. We need complete political and legal clarity
about the use of this term, which is so central to the discussions, and
I understand would also be to the final proposal. So, hopefully, we can
first focus on clarity of the meaning and definition of 'community',
which is commonly shared by all - something which is much more easy to
share than differences in substantive views. Can the legal team meeting
on the 8th do it?

Next, about your observations on the jurisdiction question, thanks for
supporting the proposition that it a most important issue to be
considered by this group in right and full earnest. Further substantive
points in a different email, but just wanted to add a point of fact on
your observation "   I believe it is about making sure that any of the
stakeholders has a chance to argue their case in a jurisdictionally
appropriate venue. For States and IGOs, that is not generally the US
court system."

One must add to 'states and IGO's also 95 percent of global population
that is not US citizens. We must keep in mind that constitutional rights
and some of the most important legal protections of the US jurisdiction
are *not available* to non US citizens, which is 95 percent of the
world's population. (The recent NASA surveillance issue demonstrating it
well enough, if indeed any demonstration was needed!)

Second, it is not just a matter to be able to 'argue ones case in a
jurisdictionally appropriate venue' but also to be an equal participant
in constructing that jurisdiction (through democratic political means)
whih 95 percent of the global population have no role with regard to the
US jurisdiction. (If this point is included in your definition of
'jurisdictionally appropriate venue' then fine, and my apologies for the
contention.) BTW, this is what is meant by the need for global Internet
governance to be democratic.

Regards
parminder


>
> I believe that community and the AC/SO community are nearly
> coincident, in an asymptotic way.  In the case where they are not, it 
> is mostly due, in my opinion, to inadequate outreach and engagement. 
> Governments are included, can, and do, participate in the processes. 
> Hopefuly more countries will engage earlier in the process all the
> time. The users are represented in a network of local user
> organizations. There should be more of these all the time and they
> should become more engaged in the process. The commercial interests
> are engaged in many ways, and I expect in more ways all the time. And
> various special interests like security and stability of the Internet
> and rights on the Internet are also represented to varying degrees
> among the AC/SO. 
>
> An additional piece of this community involvement, since the AC/SO can
> never reach everyone, relies on the fully open comment periods that
> all policy goes through.  Everyone is periodically requested to
> comment on the problems before they are worked on, and on the
> solutions while they are still drafts and after they are proposed to
> the Board.  More and more these requests for comment are released in
> multiple scripts and languages.
>
> On Jurisdiction:
>
> I agree that this is a basic topic that still needs to be covered.  I
> believe it is about making sure that any of the stakeholders has a
> chance to argue their case in a jurisdictionally appropriate venue.
> For States and IGOs, that is not generally the US court system. A
> solution for this does seem to be a necessary part of any
> accountability solution.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 05-Apr-15 01:25, parminder wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I am unable to attend the legal team meeting on the 8th, but will be
>> grateful if the meaning of the term 'community' is sorted out, and if
>> needed legal advice taken. It is especially important because the any
>> final proposal should address the intention of the original NTIA
>> declaration to transition its current functions to the 'global
>> multistakeholder community' , which to me appears to refer to global
>> public (although, in my view, in an inadequate manner). If ICANN's
>> enhanced accountability to its SOs and ASs - or the 'community'
>> engaged with names and numbers functions - is to be taken to be
>> meeting the needs of transitioning NTIA's role to the 'global
>> multistakeholder community' or the 'global public', the logic has to
>> be established and explained. I am right now unable to see the logic.
>>
>> Also, the jurisdiction question remains basic. If one prefers
>> concrete examples rather than a larger political discussion: I think
>> it would be universal knowledge that as per the applicable US
>> sanctions, no party or company based in Crimea - and I think also
>> Iran and Sudan - can legally apply for a gTLD from ICANN. Tomorrow,
>> God forbid, it could be Russia, Venezuela, India, or China, and much
>> more easily a number of smaller nations. Is such a situation tenable?
>> I understand that a number of stress tests are going to be made on
>> any final proposal. Has the contingency of US sanctions on different
>> times on different countries, which if fully enforced would prohibit
>> any US entity to do any kind of business with those countries, taken
>> into account as one stress test? If not, please do include. It is one
>> of the most important stress situations. It is easy to see that any
>> final proposal that keeps ICANN within US jurisdiction will fail this
>> very real stress test. The only solution is an international
>> jurisdiction for ICANN - but certainly immunity from the jurisdiction
>> of the one country which most frequently imposes sanctions and on
>> most number of countries. This is not a tirade against the US, which
>> has many good points to be said about it, it is simply a fact that
>> cannot be refused to be faced.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 03 April 2015 02:37 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I request one clarification, and permission to make one comment.
>>>
>>> I hear the term 'community' a lot in these discussions, including in
>>> the below mentioned notes/ transcript document. The term has been
>>> used to imply something that is supposed to be able to have agency
>>> and can perform clear tasks - for instance, of recalling ICANN board
>>> members, and possibly appointing members of the appeals and review
>>> teams. We also see the use of the term 'community mechanism'. At
>>> some point it appears that this community is basically the SOs and
>>> ACs (Icann's supporting organisations and advisory committees) .
>>> Obvious greater precision is required about the specific legal/
>>> political meaning of the term 'community' as used in these
>>> documents/ discussions, especially since what is being attempted
>>> here is a new institutional mechanism of global importance. Inter
>>> alia, I will like to know if this community is the same as the
>>> 'global multistakeholder community' (itself a very uncles term)
>>> mentioned in the original NTIA statement on IANA transition.
>>> Finally, when we are looking at enhancing accountability of ICANN,
>>> is it accountability to global public, or to some specific
>>> community, and if the latter, how is it defined. One would think
>>> that is the foremost and primary question to be sorted out, and made
>>> clear, beforehand, on the basis on which an accountability mechanism
>>> can be built.
>>>
>>> The comment that I wish to make is about the discussions on the
>>> issue of 'jurisdiction' .
>>>
>>> At many or most points, I see 'jurisdiction' seen as merely an
>>> enabling framework, spoke of as a somewhat technical -  'neutral'
>>> and more or less given - construct, that enables Internet's
>>> technical and operational management to take place. As a body of
>>> some kind of ideal standard private law that supports and enable
>>> private contracts. Now, firstly, a 'jurisdiction' - even in its bare
>>> minimum private transactions enabling aspect - is never a neutral
>>> and static thing, and it can and does change as per political
>>> understanding and priorities of a political community. The even more
>>> important point is that any jurisdictionconstitutes a public
>>> accountability mechanism, especially by means of its public law. The
>>> law incorporates the political priorities of the corresponding
>>> political community (country) and through the backing of coercive
>>> force extracts accountability from all people and institutions
>>> subject to that jurisdiction, as currently US law extracts public
>>> accountability from ICANN as a UN non-profit. 
>>>
>>> Jurisdiction is therefore directly related to public accountability,
>>> and cannot be a minor sub point in the discussion. Lines of thinking
>>> like expressed in a conclusions part below as 'topic of jurisdiction
>>> comes into scope when a requirement we have for accountability
>>> cannot be achieved within California jurisdiction ' therefore
>>> worries me a lot. Further, it is not only a question of whom a
>>> jurisdiction (here, the US) responds to, but the prior question is
>>> which political community forms and informs a jurisdiction (here the
>>> US people). I therefore cannot see how the issue of ICANN's
>>> accountability to the global public can be addressed without making
>>> it subject to international law, and making it immune to the laws of
>>> the country of its physical presence. That remains the primary
>>> question and issue with regard to ICANN's accountability.
>>>
>>> Lastly, as a global group, presumably working on the behalf of the
>>> global public, this WG and other similar ones need to come up with a
>>> solution and institutional mechanism which best serves the interests
>>> of the global public. It need not be second guessing what would be
>>> ok with the US government and what not - that is for the US
>>> government to think. After all, this processes merely provides the
>>> recommendation for the best model, the final decision is still US
>>> government's to make. One can still stick to the five conditions set
>>> by the US government to making the oversight transition, and
>>> recommend incorporation of ICANN under international law with host
>>> country immunity. Subjecting ICANN to the jurisdiction of
>>> international law is the first and the basic question in terms of
>>> its global accountability. Rest will rather more easily fall in
>>> place once we have decided on this all-important matter.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>> (www.ITforChange.net)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 10:05 PM, Brenda Brewer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the *CCWG ACCT **Session
>>>> #1**8*call on 31 March will be available
>>>> here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893477
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *Action Items*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on
>>>> mailing list for anyone to join*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub
>>>> team):*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to specifically review notes on
>>>> jurisdiction.** *
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement
>>>> later this week.*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for
>>>> reconsideration *
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG,
>>>> Board, ICG and COs (transparency) on expected timeline and engage
>>>> with relevant stakeholders*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing
>>>> list (in interest of time).*
>>>>
>>>> ·        *ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.***
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *Notes*
>>>>
>>>> /These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript /
>>>>
>>>> 1. León Sánchez reminded the group that outstanding Statements of
>>>> Interest need to be filed.
>>>>
>>>> /*Legal Subteam Methods & Updates*/
>>>>
>>>> León Sánchez reported that Adler & Colvin - Sidley & Austin were on
>>>> the call and would speak to documents.  
>>>>
>>>> Working methodologies were elaborated to coordinate work across
>>>> firms/groups. León Sánchez noted that the legal sub team remains
>>>> open. A call for agreement was made: does the CCWG feel comfortable
>>>> with executives from legal subteam acting as liaison between firms
>>>> and larger group? It was stressed that the subset of Subteam would
>>>> have obligation to collect any concerns or questions from larger
>>>> group and relay them to lawyers. It was commented that questions or
>>>> concerns from group should be raised on main CCWG-ACCT mailing
>>>> list.       
>>>>
>>>> Feedback:  
>>>>
>>>> - All correspondence between lawyers and subgroup should be open
>>>> and transparent. Agree that should not be entire team but anyone
>>>> should be able to join the list on read-only model
>>>>
>>>> --> This is what is in place. Anyone who wishes to join the legal
>>>> subteam can join the list on read-only mode. Only executive Subteam
>>>> members have posting rights.
>>>>
>>>> - When posting concerns on main mailing-list, include header.
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION: Working Methods are adopted - this issue is closed. 
>>>>
>>>> *_Adler & Colvin_*
>>>>
>>>> - Preliminary responses to 10 questions
>>>>
>>>> Q1 relates to available legal mechanisms. We reviewed structures
>>>> available to ICANN. Different models of governance. Likely will end
>>>> up using membership or designators.  
>>>>
>>>> ·         
>>>>
>>>> ·        Statutory members (entities or individuals) would elect
>>>> directors and would be given bundle of rights (positions of
>>>> directors can vary); 
>>>>
>>>> ·        Self-perpetuating Board may not be something you will use; 
>>>>
>>>> ·        Designators:  appoint seats but no constellation of
>>>> membership rights, more a matter of drafting a structure;
>>>>
>>>> ·        Neither members nor designators have fiduciary duty unlike
>>>> directors;
>>>>
>>>> ·        California law principles designates Board as ultimate
>>>> authority; 
>>>>
>>>> ·        If members or designators are unhappy with Board
>>>> performance, they can remove particular director or Board;
>>>>
>>>> ·        Possible to have an executive committee (highly engaged)
>>>> of a larger group. The larger group would be entitled - in
>>>> discharging duties -  to rely on smaller group i.e. the superBoard
>>>> option. Certain authorities would have to be exercised by full group. 
>>>>
>>>> - This document will be reviewed in detail on Wednesday, 1 April
>>>> during legal subteam call.
>>>>
>>>> - Q2 Responsibilities and liabilities (fiduciary).
>>>>
>>>> - Q3 Bottom-up process for decision-making (vs. top-down) -
>>>> identifying issues we see in defining bottom-up group (more
>>>> empowered): what decisions it will have, who is in the group etc.
>>>>
>>>> - Q4 Ways to prevent ICANN from experiencing mission drift e.g
>>>> requirements for amending bylaws or articles, designators to consent. 
>>>>
>>>> - Q5 Fiduciary duties: what they are and who has them. How do you
>>>> reconcile representing constituency and acting in public interest?
>>>>
>>>> - Q6 Board bound to accept IRP decisions e.g. contract or super
>>>> board structure.
>>>>
>>>> - Q7 Attorney General: unlikely unless assets are misused.
>>>>
>>>> - Q8 How incorporate of AoC into bylaws.
>>>>
>>>> - Q9 Interim mechanisms for caretaker Board: California law is not
>>>> designed to accommodate that but suggested mechanisms to take this
>>>> on. A&C has reservations about spilling entire Board and advises
>>>> that group reconsider.
>>>>
>>>> - Q10 Suggested steps to manage litigations risks.
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on mailing
>>>> list for anyone to join
>>>>
>>>> *_Sidley & Austin_* 
>>>>
>>>> - There seems to be overlap between questions asked to A&C and S&A. 
>>>>
>>>> - CCWG has a lot of tools to accomplish what it needs – how to use
>>>> them needs to be determined. Through expressed provisions in
>>>> articles and bylaws, there are mechanisms you could use e.g.
>>>> to influence Board composition, limit ability from Board to limit
>>>> changes to Bylaws, decisions around budget etc. With respect
>>>> to mission creep: bylaws and articles can be used to ensure purpose
>>>> is met. 
>>>>
>>>> - A jurisdictional review of every place in world where you
>>>> could reincorporate is premature and would be an expensive
>>>> endeavor. Any state in USA would work. California is a great place
>>>> to focus and cannot think of other state that would be
>>>> automatically more advantageous. Switzerland has a structure that
>>>> include membership structure we can look into, if needed. 
>>>>
>>>> - Antitrust: it is an issue you have to be mindful of but no
>>>> significant concerns. 
>>>>
>>>> /*WP2 Fundamental Bylaws*/
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION: There would be provisions in bylaws where any change
>>>> would require affirmative approval with specific procedure
>>>> requirements from community. Scope of bylaws would include: core
>>>> mission of ICANN, provision creating special
>>>> bylaws, independent review panel and powers to change bylaws and
>>>> spill board. 
>>>>
>>>> /*Jurisdiction*/
>>>>
>>>> - Considering high sensitivity of topic, CoChairs not comfortable
>>>> using first reading to include it in the Istanbul statement.
>>>>
>>>> - Call for agreement on Istanbul conclusions. We were not tasked to
>>>> change jurisdictions of ICANN but to enhance its accountability.
>>>> Question is whether ICANN's accountability would be
>>>> enhanced depending on law applicable to its actions (legal input
>>>> useful here). We concluded that 1) we would not be making specific
>>>> recommendations regarding jurisdiction in WS1 ; 2) we would
>>>> consider it in our scope as a topic when a requirement we set
>>>> cannot be met or achieved within California jurisdiction ; 3) we
>>>> would rephrase question as a problem statement we would use within
>>>> WS2. 
>>>>
>>>> _Feedback_:
>>>>
>>>> - A change of jurisdiction is not appropriate for WS1 but an
>>>> expectation has been set by ICANN CEO about importing the AoC
>>>> obligation #8 (ICANN to remain in US jurisdiction). If bylaws ought
>>>> to to be amended to incorporate AoC obligations including #8, that
>>>> needs to happen through CCWG work.
>>>>
>>>> --> Anything that would incorporate AoC might be redundant with
>>>> existing mechanisms (Bylaws, articles). Legal group could look into
>>>> this. 
>>>>
>>>> - Is there something that we have identified that cannot be
>>>> accomplished according to California law?
>>>>
>>>> - This is unnecessarily bringing negative political attention onto
>>>> this work and transition. Is anyone driving this issue for it to be
>>>> a must-be? Where are those questions originating 
>>>>
>>>> --> There were questions raised whether California law would
>>>> constrain accountability. No reasons to believe there is something
>>>> that cannot be achieved outside California law. The question
>>>> whether ICANN can remain accountable to global community if remains
>>>> in California is being brought up. 
>>>>
>>>> --> Jurisdiction question are being assigned to lawyers and
>>>> expecting answers shortly. Included initial questions in legal
>>>> scoping document as well as adding input from Jorge Cancio on
>>>> whether there are provisions on jurisdiction issues. 
>>>>
>>>> --> Input from Pedro (Brazil), Arun
>>>>
>>>> --> Jurisdiction is #1 question within French Business constituency
>>>> and civil society.
>>>>
>>>> -  Jurisdictional question is not necessarily centered around where
>>>> the corporation is based, rather legal questions governments may
>>>> have for which they could not come to US court. They
>>>> are looking for method of raising legal issues that are not
>>>> necessarily restricted to US courts but rather involving
>>>> international arbitration decision-making that is adequate
>>>> at government level. T ere is no appropriate mechanism for
>>>> governments, international bodies to bring actions, questions,
>>>> issue before appropriate court of judgement. We are conflating
>>>> these two issues. Moving ICANN is not a WS1 issue but addressing
>>>> questions of appropriate mechanism for others to
>>>> get jurisdictional response is perhaps a question that needs to be
>>>> tackled. 
>>>>
>>>> --> Let's focus on facts and requirements instead of
>>>> second-guessing political implications.   
>>>>
>>>> --> Sovereignty concerns from governments when dealing with
>>>> national courts 
>>>>
>>>> --> Who are the people that can approach the US court? Question of
>>>> which legal jurisdictions provide for ideal balance has not been
>>>> answered by Sidley & Austin  - answer needed. 
>>>>
>>>> - It remains to be discussed within WS1 whether AoC article 8 will
>>>> be incorporated into Bylaws
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION: Discussion whether to incorporate article 8 from AoC
>>>> still generates questions. Still in agreement that our goal is to
>>>> enhance ICANN's accountability and therefore the topic of
>>>> jurisdiction comes into scope when a requirement we have for
>>>> accountability cannot be achieved within California jurisdiction.
>>>> Based on potential requirements that could not be achieved in WS1,
>>>> the jurisdiction issue might be pursued within WS2.
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub team):
>>>>
>>>> ·        What extra accountability would be brought to community if
>>>> AoC article 8 was incorporated;
>>>>
>>>> ·        Balance of jurisdiction need to further explored. 
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to specifically review notes on jurisdiction.  
>>>>
>>>> /*WP1*/
>>>>
>>>> _Community Mechanism_
>>>>
>>>> - WP1 meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 1 April 21:00 UTC – quick
>>>> drafting will be done to tighten up options that were discussed in
>>>> Istanbul in regards to community mechanisms and see if can come to
>>>> understanding to debate with lawyers and CCWG. 
>>>>
>>>> - CONCLUSION: there was agreement that voting would be involved and
>>>> transparency would be needed. Except for Board recall, votes would
>>>> not be directed by SO/ACs. SO/ACs would be the basis for
>>>> determining who has vote. For all powers, there was a common ground
>>>> that there is no specific cause for a decision to be made. 
>>>>
>>>> _AoC reviews _
>>>>
>>>> - Migrating 4 reviews into Bylaws with suggested improvements.
>>>>
>>>> - Discussion point on ways to appoint members of Review Team
>>>> (intention that community selects representatives but comments
>>>> about diversity balance). 
>>>>
>>>> - CONCLUSION: Increased transparency features (access to documents,
>>>> annual report on accountability & transparency), potential for
>>>> incorporating new reviews, when necessary
>>>>
>>>> /*WP2 mission & Core Values */
>>>>
>>>> -  A revised document was circulated to reflect input from Istanbul
>>>> (substance and format). 
>>>>
>>>> - We will circulate a revised draft which compares existing Bylaws
>>>> with proposed changes and incorporates input.  
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement later this week.
>>>>
>>>> /*WP2 Independent Review*/
>>>>
>>>> No further discussion on this item. 
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION: IRP will be part of WS1. It is meant for ICANN to be
>>>> accountable to all stakeholders with provisions against frivolous
>>>> claims. There were a number of items to look at how binding it
>>>> could be, subject to legal advice. 
>>>>
>>>> /*W2 Reconsideration Process */
>>>>
>>>> - Issue of standing: there was a thought to amend who has proper
>>>> standing to file reconsideration request i.e. widen its scope and
>>>> include any party that is impacted by ICANN's decision or inaction. 
>>>>
>>>> - Standard of review: Amend standard to include reexamination of
>>>> underline merits of arguments/decisions and broaden type of
>>>> decisions that can be reexamined; amend when Board
>>>> Governance Committee may dismiss a request; clarify that a
>>>> frivolous claim amounts to a cost that would extraordinary in
>>>> nature; word changes (actual to notice etc); 
>>>>
>>>> - Composition: Less reliance on legal department to guide Board
>>>> Governance Committee on its recommendations and recommend more
>>>> Board members engagement early on in decision amend rules so that
>>>> Board governance committee cannot make final decisions without
>>>> fuller Board briefing and discussion of issues; call for more
>>>> transparency in decision-making process. 
>>>>
>>>> - Precedential value: Ability to challenge precedential value
>>>> of previous decisions without reopening old cases.  
>>>>
>>>> - Accessibility: Extending time deadline for filing reconsideration
>>>> request to 60 days from when requestor learns decision. 
>>>>
>>>> - Implementation: Follow-up process regarding implementation of
>>>> the decision. 
>>>>
>>>> - Process concerns: Briefing materials sent to Board should be
>>>> provided, subject to confidentiality; final decisions should be
>>>> issued sooner; criteria for urgent requests should be broadened.  
>>>>
>>>> _Feedback_: 
>>>>
>>>> What is the interaction between IRP and reconsideration request? Do
>>>> we need to articulate how it connects?
>>>>
>>>> --> In order to get IRP, reconsideration request would need to be
>>>> filed. We should spell this out,
>>>>
>>>> --> It depends on what the substantive work of the independent
>>>> review, what standards of evaluation is (exhaustion of remedies).
>>>> Clarification needed.  
>>>>
>>>> - Are we broadening scope to go beyond (new information, facts) -
>>>> would this tie into violation of Bylaws standard or other standard?
>>>>
>>>> --> Standards (put in Bylaws) would be standards against which
>>>> reconsideration requests could be measured to see if Bylaws were
>>>> actually followed. Reconsideration request avenue would be
>>>> available to rectify situation. 
>>>>
>>>> - Potential paradox between extending timeline for filing and
>>>> timely issuance of decisions.
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for reconsideration 
>>>>
>>>> - Call for agreement on whether this is WS1
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION: Reconsideration process is WS1.
>>>>
>>>> /*ST-WP*/
>>>>
>>>> - Informal meeting held in Istanbul to discuss #21
>>>> (delegation/redelegation).
>>>>
>>>> - Minor edits were incorporated since Istanbul. Weekly stress test
>>>> meetings will start again next week. 
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate ST-WP call invites.
>>>>
>>>> - Edits added to # 21, added new stress.
>>>>
>>>> - Veto (supermajority) is distinct from IRP and reconsideration. 
>>>>
>>>> - CWG raised stress testing comments - Cheryl and Avri served as
>>>> liaison between CWG and CCWG on this and will work with leads on
>>>> RfP 4. CWG took on board some of our stress tests to test against
>>>> some of their proposals. 
>>>>
>>>> /*Timeline*/
>>>>
>>>> - Target date for finalizing recommendations is April 20.
>>>>
>>>> - Need to provision for 2 public comment periods.
>>>>
>>>> - ccNSO Council has confirmed that endorsement of proposals would
>>>> require a face-to-face ccNSO meeting so that all members could
>>>> attend and discuss. 
>>>>
>>>> - Berry Cobb walked the group through timeline update
>>>> - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CWG-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.6.5.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1427802208876&api=v2 
>>>>
>>>> _Feedback_:
>>>>
>>>> - Public comments before SO/AC endorsements.
>>>>
>>>> - Public comments could not amend outcome unless go back to SO/ACs.
>>>>
>>>> - What is standard length of public comment period? When should be
>>>> deadline to publish prior to meeting? What if one of COs want
>>>> changes to document delivered on October 1: how will we deal with
>>>> that and what will consequences be? 
>>>>
>>>> -> Objective is to get input from SO/ACs at each public comment phase. 
>>>>
>>>> -> 40 days by default but shortened subject to approval by 2
>>>> global leaders. Given aggressive timeline, attempting 30 days
>>>> subject to change. 
>>>>
>>>> - Issuing new document between comment period and Buenos Aires is
>>>> not a good idea. Suggestion: have the public comment period in
>>>> April/May analyzed to prepare for discussions in Buenos Aires and
>>>> prepare next draft using input received. Prepare a document in
>>>> between is not practical. Depending on nature of feedback, we will
>>>> be able to prepare second draft with little effort or will need F2F
>>>> to re-engineer. How can CWG finalize its proposal without finalized
>>>> accountability proposal? 
>>>>
>>>> - Set aside face-to-Face meeting right before Buenos Aires to
>>>> analyze comments received and finalize after Buenos Aires.
>>>>
>>>> - Need to be aware there is a significant difference between
>>>> expectations set on group by some of SO/ACs, Board etc. 
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG, Board, ICG
>>>> and COs (transparency) on expected timeline and engage with
>>>> relevant stakeholders
>>>>
>>>> - CoChairs will touch on expected timeline when coordinate with CWG
>>>> Cochairs. 
>>>>
>>>> - Considering organizing CCWG meeting on 19 June - will liaise with
>>>> ICG (conflicts with meeting)
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs 
>>>>
>>>> /*Engagement */
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing list (in
>>>> interest of time).
>>>>
>>>> /*AOB*/
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150406/86938a55/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150406/86938a55/attachment.gif>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list