[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #82 - 2 February

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Tue Feb 2 19:54:42 UTC 2016

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #82 - 2 February will be available here:

A copy of the notes may be found below.


Thank you.


Kind regards,





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. Opening Remarks MW

Audio only:  Sebastien Bachollet; Barrack Otieno; Jordan Carter; Seun Ojedeji

No updates to SOIs

2. 3rd Reading on Recommendation #11 -- GAC Advice TR

Significant discussion on mailing list both on process (related to polling) and on substance
(options for solution including the 60% proposal by Kavouss and the 'reverse carve out' by Becky)

These proposals introduced in good faith and have generated interest.

Leadership has decided to not go to polling given the encouraging signals which could lead to a
compromise solution.

KArasteh - Becky proposal is good but would require a structural change. 60% is in line with the
current proposal as a compromise on the numbers.

Decision - TRickert - There have been no objections to not polling and proceeding as proposed by the
leadership. As to KA issue around the Becky carve out, this is not unprecedented in our current
round of work (we have established other carve outs since the third draft). But let us consider the
60% proposal first to see if could be a consensus positions. We will then look at the Becky

SOjedeji -  timeline, if there is enough progress today we may not need a special group to meet on
this given the timing requirements.  60% should be accepted.

TRickert - We are trying to find consensus but we stand by the overall timeframe that will be
presented by MW later in this call. Any further comments on the 60% proposal?

JBladel - Registrar perspective - 60% was intriguing to some but need more time to properly

MHutty - Need a compromise to address the concerns - the 2/3rd rule creates two bites at the apple -
which is addressed by the Becky proposal but does not address the special requirement for the Board.
A change in supermajority does not create a presumption that the GAC must accept advice.  The Board
has a duty to consider all advice - continuing the current criteria for evaluating GAC advice.

ELisse - against 2/3 but support 60%. Do not agree with MH.  We need to be precise. Special GAC
advice is that which has consensus as currently defined - this kind of advice would require 2/3rd.

TRickert - 60% could be part of the solution. Let us now understand the Becky proposal.

BBurr - The point of this proposal does not involve any changes to rec. 11. Rather when there is a
discussion of using a comm. power to challenge the Board following GAC advice - to ensure there is a
fair possibility to challenge such actions would not allow the GAC to vote on this (carve out).
Would have to adjust thresholds, mostly in IRP if this was accepted. It is simply to address the two
bites at the apple issue.

TRickert - Any questions - no ok proposal is understood. Any support for this.

KArasteh - this is complex and must be discussed

TRickert - JC suggesting this item be completed today, but this is not the feeling of the group with
respect to these two additions.

BShaefer - would like to see the Becky proposal in writing and this could be a very positive step
towards resolution.

ASullivan - No official position. Trying to understand how this comes to an end.

TRickert - no intent to extend the proposed deadline. Propose to use a dedicated calls on this
specific topic (Thursday and Monday). A final position needs to be in by 23:59 UTC Monday.

SRadell - We have no GAC position beyond the Jan 25 position. Welcomes the additional time.

TRickert - Aditional calls, this is not establishing a new subgroup, simply a forum for discussing
the specific topic. This closes this topic.

3.  Final readings on Recommendations that required CWG-Stewardship feedback: MW

MWeill - Closing of ongoing issues. first part about resolving CWG issues.  Recommendation #4a
--Budget - timing issues have been addresses and a requirement to keep interacting as implementation
goes forward. Separation was not contentious. On IRP, bylaws would mention that ICANN is responsible
for PTI applying its Bylaws as well as process to address issues. Our next steps will be to closing
up these items in the next few days as per our current process. No issues raised. All CWG
dependencies are now addressed. thanks the co-chairs of the CWG for the cooperation. This closes
this point.

 4.  3rd reading on Recommendation #9 -- AOC Reviews MW

SDelBianco - Annex 9 has size and composition in para 54, methods in in 57. Timing of reviews is per
review, but propose no less than once every 5 years. Yesterday RI replied to the CCWG. There seems
to be a misunderstanding. We are not recommending a fixed number simply a maximum of 21. Also on
schedule we are only requiring a minimum of 5 years. What is the Board really asking - Board and
Staff want to compile operation standards vs Bylaws on size, composition, timing and process.
Contrasting AOC vs operational reviews. There are 3 questions for the Board so we can understand
these requirements better. Would the community have input on developing or approving these initial
Oper. Standards? Could the CCWG proposals on size & composition, working methods, and timing be
considered the starting point for the Operational Standards? What is process for revising and
approving changes later on?

MWeill - No Board members present (confirmed by SE). We need to resolve this.

AGreenberg - AOC reviews managed by the community? No, conducted by the community. Supports the
Board position.

MWeill - the Board concerns have been taken into account and many things are for implementation.

JCarter - support Bylaws being as thin as possible but we have run out of time and we have made a
commitment to translate the AOC in the Bylaws. We should go forward with third draft.

MWeill - not all operational details are in the Bylaws but the rather high level requirements - the
rest is for implementation.

SDelBianco - We only require max, size, composition, timings and methods. The rest can be in Ops.
Stnds. We understand that the Board wishes to move these to op. stnds.

ADoria - let's leave it as is in 3rd draft. The AOC is specified and cannot be changed. As such our
transition of the AOC should be in the Bylaws. In order to cancel the AOC we are putting these in
our Bylaws.

Decision - MWeill - there seems to be some confusion about what we are trying to do. We are simply
proposing a minimal framework as standard Bylaws. Keep our recommendations as is. Action item for
co-chairs to reach out to RI to explain our recommendation and this can go into finalizing drafting.
This closes this item.

5.  4th Reading on Recommendation #5 -- Mission TR

TRickert - Becky will provide an overview of where we are.

BBurr - On consumer trust Where feasible and appropriate - we have agreed to reinsert that text and
have general agreement. Still waiting final input on ASO and the RSSAC. We continue to have an open
discussion about how scope of agreement with contracted parties is dealt with in Bylaws. Lawyers
have advised that it may be best to have a general statement and leave the rest to interpretation.
Board has suggested that this should be drafted in another part of the Bylaws. Grandfathering
language is based on agreements from last week. Looking forward to trying to close grandfathering
and then trying to confirm the regulatory prohibition goes somewhere else in the Bylaws.

TRickert - On Board input maybe BTonkin can provide updates on ASO and RSSAC language. SE is working
with RSSAC on language. We would expect input from the Board by Monday. 2359UTC on these topics.

GShatan - Third party beneficiaries, why is this there and why is it serious.

TRickert - Can we resolve this.

BBurr - not proposing any changes to language just saying it has to be considered. where does this
concept go in the Bylaws.

Malcolm Hutty: Easy to close: just include a clause saying that this does not create any rights in
those contracts for third parties

BBurr - agree. but we need to understand where we put this and the Board comments.

TRickert - The Board is not against this it is just suggesting it not go in the mission. Can we
conclude on accepting that suggestion?

BBurr - It is complicated creating a contracting section. Need to emphasize that enforcement of
contracts should be in the mission.

TRickert - who objects to putting this into another section.

AGreenberg - no particular opinion. We do not seem to be making progress - we need to close on this.

MHutty - A cannot be moved, possibly B - Lawyers advice is draft principles these are A,B,C and D.

GShatan - do not agree with separating A from B.

Decision - TRickert - There seems to be consensus to leaving 4 as it is. Any objections? (none). AG
wants to talk to the market mechanisms.

AGreenberg - issue vs bottom up PDP. Would like to eliminate the words Policy Dev.

BBurr - This language is the result of much work and appears in core value 2. Caution vs the global
public interest. Need to think about deviating from this.

TBenJemaa - support AG otherwise ICANN could be in breach

Decision - TRickert - let us note this and see if there is support on list in the next 48 hours, If
not it will not be included. Grandfathering - any issues with proceeding with the recommendation
(BTonkin asking to not use grandfathering, BB will look at replacing.) No objections. Is the
consensus way forward.

6.  Timeline & Communication MW

GAbuhamad - presentation of tracker tool.

MWeill - the only things left is rec 4 indemnification and rec 11. It is an appropriate time to
communicate to the community via a co-chair blog post which will also be sent to the chartering
organizations. We would provide an update of where we are and that we are planning to send an
supplemental to the Chartering Org. in time for approval in Marrakech.

KArasteh - Rec 1 and rec 11, or only rec 11.

MWeill - it is about finding consensus. completely new ideas are not acceptable, tweaks are

SRadell - GAC has a request from JC as to the status on Rec. 11, when will this text be posted.

MWeill - We will be working on text on Thursday and Monday. Dedicated calls to produce consensus.

MHutty - is my proposal being considered in those calls.

TRickert - can be brought up during the call.

MWeill - Hope this, hope this answers the question.

KArasteh - The only thing to report is that this will be discussed Thursday.

AFragkouli - Given the time required by NTIA to process our proposal and ask the CO's to approve
before Marrakech.

MWeill - How would you propose we proceed? Uncertain how this can be done given recent history.

AFragkouli - Appreciate the work and that it is difficult - we need to put in hard deadlines and
stick to them. Participants need to compromise and there should be no new issues.

Decision - MWeill - appreciate your concerns. Marrakech would be time for the approval of the
recommendations which implies the proposal will have to be ready significantly before Marrakech - if
any CO's wish to approve before Marrakech it would be great.

BSchaefer - details on the Thursday call? Concern re gNSO meeting on Th and Fri.

MWeill - full CCWG call on one on topic. Will look at how to accommodate the gNSO so there can be

KArasteh - why not use noon UTC?

Decision - MWeill - we will come back very quickly with a time for this Thursday meeting. Will close
this item with this.

7.  AOB - TR

TRickert - any AOB - none.

8.  Closing

TRickert - We need to close rec 11 on Monday latest to try and avoid voting.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/3a9917ab/attachment-0001.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/20160202/3a9917ab/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list