[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Intensive Meeting Day 1 - Session 3 - 24 April

[Alice Jansen]

Dear All,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Intensive Meeting Day 1 Session 1 - 24 April  will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Day+2+-+Session+1
A copy of the notes and a summary of the session may be found below.
Thanks,
Best regards
Alice
----
CCWG ACCT  Day 2 Session 1 – 24 April 2015
IN SUMMARY

Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals
ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion
ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list

Discussions of sections 1-5
ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate
ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter
ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder
ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language
ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion
ACTION ITEM: Jordan to circulate this language on list for discussion
AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation

Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)
AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess
ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process

Community Mechanisms
ACTION ITEM: - Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options
AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period
ACTION ITEM:- Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

SESSION CONCLUSIONS
- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2
- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion
- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms.
- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical

NOTES (Notes have not been reviewed by CCWG-CoChairs yet)
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Josh Hoffeimer - Tijani Benjemaa - Barrack Otieno and Alice Munyua not on Adobe Connect at this time
Recap of Day 1
Revised mission core values and notion of Fundamental Bylaws are approved . We have conducted a first review on IRP enhancement - a second reading will be made today. We obtained approval of request for reconsideration. Community mechanisms, recall of Board, recall of individual Board members, reject budget/strategic plan, reject changes to ICANN Bylaws to be rediscussed.
Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals
Current list available in the draft report includes:
•   Enhancements to ICANN's accountability based on law applicable to its action -
•   - Enhancements to Ombudsman role & function
•   - Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests
•   - Improvements to ICANN's budgeting and planning process that guarantee the ability for the community to have input, and for input to be given due cosnideration
•   - Define security audits and certification requirements for ICANN's IT system
Feedback
- Consider alternative options for jurisdiction
- DIDP (as a follow up to day 1:  review of DIDIP recommended as it relates to IRP and reconsideration request. Suggestion for DIDP to be a broader review.
--> This would be captured in "Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests"
- What kind of timeframe are we expecting? At what point will we get to these? Will we be waiting for implementation?
--> WS1 we are working on items that need to be prior to translation. It will include adoption and implementation phase. We will have freed up time for group to dive into WS2.
- They should be a review process put into this. We will be recommending substantial restructuring. We need to have checks and balance and this concept should be captured.
--> Envisages Team exercising implementation oversight and if any issue is spotted, we can reconvene and work on that.
- We are putting all transparency off yet again. There is a problem with how much stuff ends up needing DIDP. You have to work to get things visible. It is a broader issue than just improving DIDP. Transparency philosophy of ICANN (methodology) should be an issue that is noted separately. Suggested language: Institute a culture of default transparency at ICANN, including guidelines for when it is acceptable to classify information, requirements for logging decisions to classify information and procedure for de-classifying information.not sure classify is the right term, but it all that occurs to me at this point.
ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion
- What could be the link between WS2 and ATRT3? Consider diversity: how do we enhance diversity across ICANN's organization?
--> We have recommendation that relates to ATRT review - connection is made between our work and future reviews.
ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list
Discussion of Sections 1 -> 5
Sections present work we are doing: introduction & background, methodology, summary of problem statement & definition, Accountability of existing accountability mechanisms, input gathered by community (short summary of work area 2 of input). Work area 1 and work area 2 outputs will be put into appendices.
ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate
- Let's not spend too much on this.
- 20 pages to get to substance might be too heavy
- Assess whether could change order of sections
ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter
- Suggestion to leave as it is and to include a complete management abstract for community
- We need to write report for readers
- Decision hard to make in absence of executive summary. Need to find recommendations quickly - have meat closer to the front
- Suggestion to have a placeholder for a glossary at end of report
ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder
- Edits on introduction and Background: "remains"
ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language
ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion
- Avoid language that there is no accountability at ICANN
- Combine while there is a certain degree of accountability with enhancing
- Corporate reaches level of accountability that is satisfactory to community is absence of contract would be a good way to frame it.
- We are enhancing current accountability but also creating a new one and that needs to be clarified.
--> Introducing mechanism would enhance mechanism
- Language suggesed by Jordan "From this dialogue, the Enhancing ICANN accountability process was developed so ICANN can realise  a level of accountability to the global multistakeholder community that is satisfactory inthe abence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S Government. This contractual relationship has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organisation-wide accountability since 1998."

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to circulate this language on list for discussion
AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation
Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)
In Istanbul: we agreed we would be seeking confirmation as much as possible on our proposals and try to have questions that are focused on getting feedback.
Questions would be standard about whether community agrees with the recommendation, agrees with list of requirements and ask how the community would recommend amending requirements. Asking for guidance on preferred options from community, stressing need to understand rational for prefering issues so that can use feedback.
This section of the session is for us to get feedback on how to organize fitting questions into the report. It is a good way to open discussion on this.
- We need to talk about status of report i.e. clarifyr on consensus. There are cases for which there are alternatives/options - community should pronounce in favor or against and could provide alternatives. How would we prepare these questions? It should be consistent with Charter.
- In order to have proper evaluation, we need proper questions.
- Asking clear-cut questions on specific parts of report. will enable us to have answers that focus on specific recommendations.
AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess
- When you raise questions to public, we specify focal points in a way that people who need clarification can seek these clarifications. Suggestion to have Rapporteurs, Cochairs to work on focal point and to have dedicated source available for the community.
ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process
Quick turnaround will be needed.
- FAQs could also be useful.
Community Mechanisms
Seeking further comments on whether want to go with option 1 or option 2 - composition of community representation: Two options : 1) 5 to 2 .; 2) 4 to 2 - for public comment i.e. 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO  ALAC GAC 5 votes. RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, : 4 votes. At-Large, GAC SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes
Feedback:
- Need a degree of flexibility
- Bridge gap between 4 GNSO, 1 for Nominating Committee appointees - GNSO could have 5 match to its own structure easily. There is traction for 5. Should we have 5 vs. 2 or should we have 3 SOs vs lower number of votes. The suggestion to give both ALAC and GAC only 2.
- We should not have long discussion. We have explained logic of the choices. The difference between is whether ALAC and GAC should have opportunity for same representation as 3 SOs. Support option 1.
- There is more traction for what we call option 1. Recollection that more traction for options for SOs - ALAC - GAC to have equal footing with less for SSAC and RSSAC.
- ALAC wont approve report that goes with option 2. There are 5 regions. Rational for 4 is that 4 SGs and that disenfranchized some of appointees.
- Let's retain both options.
- The 2 options presented might not be the best 2. There was suggestions for equal footing yesterday.
- Establish whether there is sufficient traction for alternatives. Option 1 gets central traction. Could narrow it down to 1 if clear preference. We could highlight preference and provide different options as needed.
- CCWG discussed two options. During discussions some dregree of preference was expressed for option 1. There might be other options coming from community. We cannot eliminate options at this stage.
- There is no real specialized expertise needed for level. If go with option and not talk about others, it is superficial. We need legal experts Better to present multiple options as long as clarify which option got traction and why.
- We need to have clarity on various options on table.
- Option 1 - call is the "central option" we are considering. This got a little more traction. We used it to test thresholds but not closing door for other options.
- We have no one from SSAC/RSSAC - have we reached out to them? SSAC is not chartering organization because they do not have bandwidth but has strong interest in it. Need to pass this by them.
ACTION ITEM – Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options
"Central option" not acceptable.
RECAP: We will not be ruling out further options but for reference of work will flag the central option. This will give the community the chance to have altenatives to evaluate.
IRP and approving budget/strategy plans would be viable through different means. Set of questions has been posed to lawyers. On Unicorporated associations, one of most important answers on set of questions would be ability to sue and be sued and obligation of paying for legal costs.
-  What of liability?
--> They could still be sued today and in future. Bylaws should have plain and clear statements.
- If challenging ICANN decisions, how can you ensure ICANN support if your are being sued?
- 2 facets: 1) give community assurance that covered by ICANN; 2) what is the likelyhood of being sued? Need to convey that there are risks already that we are clarifying in Bylaws
- What do we want out of this discussion?
--> Have in report that we have traction for either models: designator or member - Aim is to have sense of signaling that we do have more traction for one of the models.
- Membership model could achieve objectives - designators model even if supplemented by contract could not work
- Likelyhood of being used: unincorporated associations not having assets and not easy to find and attach to lawsuit, will make it less likely to being sued. Certain degree of risk today - as individual covered by ICANN. It does not increase individual liability.
- Designators vs. membership may well address some issues. We seem to undestand designator solution may not give us all options/powers we need. Community has to be made aware of issues that were raised.
-  People can act as partnership - partnership does not present itself as entity. Individuals are still liable.
- Membership and designators cant be on equal footing - can't be opaque. Support membership. We are developing preference. We have to reference designators model but should clarify preference.
- Unclear whether incorporation should be done under California law alone.
--> Delaware would be default because of its flexibility. California gets you to unincorporated associations and you can rely on what exists in chartering but these are details that can be worked on once we have clarification on mechanism.
--> California has good framework for unincorporated association
- Have questions that have come up about membership model been addressed?
--> Paramount importance is to be able to exhert as much control as possible over Board. The member model is by far the stronger model. What sort of power should have community over budget/strategic plan? The decision rests on how much power you want to reserve to community. Downsides on legal and geopolitical sides: members do have greater statutory rights and we would have to look at how organize bylaws. We would want to take steps to preserve flexibility. Members have rights that need to recognized. Designators powers are limited.
--> We often base decisions on whether should be membership or designator based - California is one of strongest states in members' rights.
- What if we decide membership is a mistake - can we switch to another model?
--> California code provides for 45 days notice. If orgaznization wants to convert to designator structure, we would have to get members'  consent to give up statutory rights.
AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period.
- Legal analysis may be different in other states and jurisdictions. Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law.

ACTION ITEM - Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

Next Steps
- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2
- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion
- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms.
- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150424/ac27665c/attachment.html>