[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #33 - 19 May

[Kimberly Carlson]

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #33  - 19 May will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53775089

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

Thank you

Best regards,
Kim


ACTION Items

Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal

Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum.

Action:    WP leaders to plan their meetings.

Action:   Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received.

Notes

CCWG ACCT - Call # 33 - 19 May 2015.

This call is being recorded.

Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

LINKS
Public Comment Announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en
Draft Report https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG-Draft-Proposal-clean.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1430780681000&api=v2

AGENDA:
1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI
2. Summary of feedback
*             Potential additional Webinars
*             Board
*             Other sessions report?
3.  CWG submission
4.  Planning for analysis of public comments
*             Detailed planning & organization
*             Work before BA
5.  CCWG organization towards BA and beyond
*             Legal sub team - legal work
*             Level of detail expected
*             Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC)
*             WP structure

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

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI

None.  Please complete statements of interest

2. Summary of feedback

Comments from the community.  2 webinars on 11 May and session with the board on 15 May.

Compiling answers to the questions.  FAQ will be published in the next day or so.


Questions during the webinars noted concerns about the creation and use of unincorporated associations and their internal governance.  Questions about US, about board recall, about the IRP and its binding nature.  Questions about reconsideration and the ombudsman.  And questions about the stress tests and timeline.

Some areas where the community has more questions. Overall, felt the number of questions was quite low.  Questions for clarification rather than about alternatives.  Suggests the webinars were for the community to better understand the proposal, with questions to come later.

Noting a question raised during the board call about the removal of individual directors. And whether this should be WS1 or WS2.  The question was also about the criteria for removal, which was not defined in the proposal.

Rights to remove a director for cause rather than without cause.  Our focus has been to remove without cause.  Under statute of CA law, the appointing entity can remove the director without cause.  A for cause removal is usually reserved to the Board.   Typically for a breach of fiduciary duties.

Should explicitly mention this for cause and without cause in the proposal.
Also noted that when a Director joins the board they serve the community not the interests of the appointing community. So removal by that community is not appropriate, the entire community should remove.

Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal

Example:  ALAC appointed director has a fiduciary duty to ICANN, but the statutory right of the appointing organization is that they can remove their director. A member can remove their director at any time.

That the community can impose their will on the process only in the for cause case.

Note that the document is not agreed by everyone.

The intent of what was intended internally needs to be made clear externally and WP1 will review.

* potential additional Webinars

Views on whether more are needed?

Suggest not: that the first were well attended.

FAQ will be available, more questions and responses will be added as received.  Working on more video to explain various parts of the proposal.

3. CWG submission

Draft a co-chairs submission to the CWG public comment period, which ends 20 May.

Addressing the dependencies we have identified and explaining how we  in CCWG are proposing to address their concerns.

Budget and transparency.  Review process for the IANA budget.  See no obstacle to coordinating proposals of the two groups.

CSC reference.  Noting that it needs to be created under the bylaws, but it is responded to in section 1.4, p 12.  About the IANA function review.  The separation review and process, this is not reflected in the CCWG proposal.  That process is being worked on in the CWG.  Might acknowledge that this is in process and will advise appropriately.

Suggestion to introduce a general paragraph, that any review regarding naming would be a subset of the accountability proposal.

Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum.

4. Planning for analysis of public comments

Public comment tool populated with comments on a section by section basis by June 7.  Working party to review by June 16: where there is consenus, where are diverging views, and where are the concerns. And then how we move forward.  For logistics the WP leaders will plan ahead. With the suggestion of an intense work weekend June 13/14

Action:    WP leaders to plan their meetings.
Action:   Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received.

Suggestion:  the full group should have at least one pass of the comments.  And plan a call on 6 or 7 June to have a pass-through of all comments for the whole groups.

5. CCWG organization towards BA and beyond

* Legal sub team - legal work

Legal sub team will be reorganized.  Had 3 tasks: identify legal firms, provide a scooping document for interaction with legal advisors, and to gather questions and assign to lawyers to receive answers on these questions for the group.

Seeking a more agile way to work with the lawyers.  Asking the lawyers to interact more directly with the WP.  Task for the legal sub-team to continue to gather questions and assign to the lawyers.  Less need for the sub-team weekly calls.  Thanks to the sub-team for the work done supporting preparation the proposal and all the work done.

Question. UA.  is it possible for one single SO. If we go to a natural person, a char and vice chair, without the participation of any other SO/AC does it have any powers.  Or, if a legal entity, does that also have the power if no other membership.  What is the minimum number of members to make it valid? What is the advantage and disadvantage of natural person and legal entity.

Suggest to defer answers to the lawyers. And will assign to the lawyers.

* Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC)

We have had 2 reading on important questions, but we have not done any consensus calling.  After BA and full community input, we will need to decide how to transform our proposals into consensus recommendations.  Recommendations we hope will be agreed by the chartering organizations.  And we agreed to work from higher level principles to detail.

Various tasks ahead. Suggest that we try to take stock for the separate bits of our work and to confirm consensus as we work forward.  And try to reach consensus in the higher level principles first, and move to detail .

Moving from the suggestions of our current proposal, to recommendations.

Need consistency to ensure that implementation is done in the sprit of the CCWG recommendations
The community agrees with the proposal. Asked the community to comment on alternative proposals.  They may community disagrees.  All three areas will trigger different ways forward.

Where the community agrees, we make as consensus recommendations
Where there are alternatives, or the community came up with a new proposal, then we work to resolve these.
Where the community substantially disagrees with our suggestions.  Need to review from the beginning.

Post BA, take all the recommendations in our report to consensus.  And then to refine them, so they are ready for implementation oversight.
Agree with the need for a session to digest what's heard in BA.

Keeping the WP organizations, with perhaps smaller teams to work on specific issues.  What's provided should be sufficient to allow implementation.

What are the objectives, the frameworks, the timing?
Proposal was prepared with the help do WP leaders. And it is to facilitate, not make things more complex.  The proposal is about our internal work.

Examples: Community power to veto/reject a strategic plan/budget.  Group might feel there is enough detail for implementation. If we feel the community agrees with the proposal.  The we ask the CCWG if they agree it is consensus.  If yes, then it is parked until we have more time to complete the proposal thru bylaw implementation or whatever required.

e.g. For NomCom appointees we gave options, and asked the community for feed back on alternatives.  We will analyze responses, and if it is on one option then we bring it to our group and seek consensus.  We favored members and designators, but if someone came up with a wholly new proposal that had support of the community then we would need to review from the beginning.

One outcome of the PC will be questions. And our answer may take us in a new direction, to something we'd not worked out before.  And that on slide 5, we may be answering questions.

6 AoB

Congressional hearings.

two hearings last week.  Both committee last held hearings in April 2014.  Progress since then.  Constructive hearings, 1st about IPR and consumer issues.  Commerce committee, jurisdiction over DoC and NTIA. GAO asked by the committee to analyze the risks of the transition.  One proposal was for the GAO to look at the CCWG and CWG work over the next year.  Encourage them instead to comment in the next month or so. Congress let its views be known now.  Steve's suggestion that congress require NTIA to ensure that all the community recommendations are implemented.

Written testimony is available.  Transcripts will be a few weeks.
Request for answers to some question put to the lawyers
Will legal counsel be available for the GAC with the CCWG.

Offer made to GAC for a Q&A session with the CCWG

Closing comments.

Need to keep listening and engaging, please report on your engagement efforts on the list. It must be a dialogue. Goal should be that there is no surprise in the comments we receive, and as few misinformed inputs as possible.

Preparing the next steps in this call. This is an investment that will be pay back 10x, please contribute to these discussions.

END

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150519/50fbff5d/attachment.html>