[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #50 - 25 August

Tue Aug 25 07:49:31 UTC 2015

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #50 - 25 August will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/049CAw

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes
legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal
experts. A draft will be circulated on list. 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion
in email and seek confirmation 
of approach or go with different proposal.

ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion.

ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript. 

2. Preliminary ICANN Board Comments

Board is scaling up efforts and involved in this. They announced steps that are important for us to
be aware of: 1) seeking external counseling input that will be inserted into forum; 2) reaching 
out to third party experts on governance to assess impact of proposal; 3) they will be using these
briefing materials to build their comments. They provide useful examples of concerns e.g. change of
role of ACs and new 
powers that are being granted, risk of paralysis and IRP related concerns. 

We have been trying to organize calls with the Board but have not been able to find a time. Concerns
that dialogue is 
not taking place. Board announcement might turn discussions into expensive battle of experts instead
of dialogue. 

Feedback:

- Part of comments are positive. The fact that they are seeking advice should not be criticized but
their comment is a warning: we should not be destabilizing delicate balance. 

- Impression of feedback should have been given earlier in process. Why did they not seek experts
feedback earlier? This may 
delay in process. What are we negotiating? 

- Board proclaimed desire to discuss issues in BA but no follow up in Paris. What of Bruce's
attendance to calls? We need an open and constructive discussion with Board. There needs to be
understanding behing report 
before submitting additional comments. 

- It is normal for the Board seek its own advice. If it implements what we propose and somehow it
does not work, ICANN will 
crash. Important not to create a biased. 

- Can't argue with wish to have solid and capture-proof model. What we have come up with needs to be
looked at carefully. Board taking that on is a good thing. How we deal 
with problems they identify will be interesting.

- There is a problem of misunderstanding - we have always had Board members with us. They understand
what we are doing 
and it is their responsibility to evaluate. We need to dialogue with Board. The Board has no
interest in collapsing our work - they 
have concerns. 

- We have to determine how we can improve dialogue with Board. We can't ensure we will come with a
stable proposal to the 
end. We have minority statements, comments in disagreement etc. We need to see how we will honor
that. 

- Next steps is to bring together group to start working on IRP and rules of procedure. Expert
report could be extremely 
damaging and counterproductive. 

- It can be extremely helpful if Board comes up with feedback to identify gaps (e.g. staturory
rights on first proposal). If the 
Board comes back to us with counter proposal, based on misunderstandings or information they did not
get access to, it will be disastrous. We need to be careful about overall impression of dialogue. We
should avoid that Board signals to outside 
world is that it is derailing transition or community discussion. Suggestion to get back to Board to
make the door wide open for 
dialogue. We should be forthcoming and we suggest writing the Board a letter to avoid complications.

On corporate advisors, we should share concerns we see with the Board that ICANN has come us with
idea of public experts. 
We did not go far enough in eyes of some advisors with our proposals. Two scenarios can happen: 1)
external advisors agree 
we have not been far enough; 2) external advisors say we went too far - it will be perceived as
Board asking for less change. 

- It is legitimate for the Board to seek advice but there is value in scheduling a meeting with
ICANN Board's legal experts to avoid misunderstandings. 

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes
legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal
experts. A draft will be circulated on list. 

3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG

- Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based
on CCWG proposal. Should we build 
separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group?

Feedback:

- It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that
Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership.

- Where is it noted that we need to specify process?

- ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion
in email and seek confirmation of 
approach or go with different proposal.

4.  Human Rights discussion 

Progress includes two discussion starter documents: first draft on high level objective and
background briefing. We are in process of closing 
doodle poll for call this week. 

Feedback:

- We should be concise and high level. 

Progress accomplished in upcoming weeks will be shared with CCWG.

5. Feedback received by group Members on Second Draft Proposal

Opportunity to relay initial feedback.

Feedback:

- Simplicity of community mechanism. IPC discussion on contract enforcement. Discussion happening on
unintended consequences which is a good sign. 

--> We identified potential ambiguous reference in revised mission. Edit proposed to Core Values.

ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion.

- Preliminary discussions within GAC: core value 7, voting power of work (participation or not),
unclarity on what it is being suggested. Working on ST 18 and core values language. 

- Current model is not ALAC's preference but can live with it. Comparison between current bylaws and
changes is needed. 

--> Synopsis is on its way. 

ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions

6. ICANN 54

CCWG-ACCT 16 Oct Friday 09:00 - 17:00

Possible engagement session on Monday afternoon either in conjunction with ICG or CCWG alone

CCWG-ACCT 22 Oct Thursday 08:00 - 10:00 --> Touch-base to see where we stand with chartering
organizations

7 A.O.B

/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150825/c84fc82e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150825/c84fc82e/smime.p7s>