[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #83 - 9 February

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Tue Feb 9 15:04:21 UTC 2016

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #83 - 9 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

Roll call: none on audio only.

No new SOI

2. Final reading on Recommendation #4 with closure of waiver/indemnification text: TR

Trickert: history of this item. Our legal has spoken to ICANN legal and they have reached an

HGregory: good call with ICANN legal and Jones Day.

Rosemary Fei: In order to encourage and promote healthy discussions in the director removal and
Board recall process: .          If a director initiates a lawsuit in connection with their removal
or recall, ICANN will provide indemnification (e.g., a director claims that they were libeled in the
written rationale calling for his or her removal). .               Indemnification will be available
(i) to a member of a Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, the Nominating Committee or the
Empowered Community (ii) who is acting as a representative of such applicable organization or
committee (iii) for actions taken by such representative in such capacity pursuant to the Bylaws
(e.g., a chair of a Supporting Organization submitting a written rationale for the removal of the
director). .             As required by California law and consistent with ICANN's current Bylaws,
indemnification will only be available if the actions were taken in good faith and in a manner that
the indemnified person reasonably believed to be in the best interests of ICANN. I guess it exceeded
max chat size:.            ICANN will develop guidelines to provide guidance as to standards of
conduct that will be deemed to have been in good faith (e.g., conducting due diligence as to the
truthfulness of a statement).

TRickert: Entering an Adobe room we have to tick that we agree to the standards of behavior, if we
abide by those - if they are modified, we would be ok?

GHolly: yes.

TRickert: This seems to be a smooth solution. Any objections to proceeding on this basis?

AGreenberg: People acting as representatives of the org. - would it be sufficient if an ALAC passed
a resolution saying all members are representatives for such a process. The term indemnification
refers to after the fact, is this about being reimbursed?

HGregory: have not addressed advancement of expenses, but permissive under California Law but must
repay if found to not be in good faith. Good ask and we can work on with ICANN legal. As to the
first question - if you look at what is currently there - members of SOACs - we could have the same
concept here but this will be part of fine tuning the language.

RFrei: an SOAC could decide who represents them but need to meet the requirements.

TRickert: Implementation should deal with financial aid during an action.

KArasteh: If so requested for first question. As to the first question from AG let us say just

AGreenberg: originally the offer from the Board was to indemnify the Chairs of SOACs or those who
wirte the reports. We now have more but we need to have a wider coverage to properly participate in
the Community Fora.

Decision - TRickert: No further comments being made. This seems to be a consensus position and we
will ask legal to work out the details. any objections? (none). this is then our consensus position.

3. Board feedback on human rights LS

 LSanchez: history of the dev. of the recommendation.

KArateh: Do not like the OR ANOTHER text. Support deleting the parenthesis text.

TBenJemaa: Support removing this text. Re placing in core values only.

LSanchez: this have been discussed widely. We have mechanisms to ensure ICANN stays on mission.

BSchaefer: the second sentence was important.

LSanchez: let us remember these are guidelines for our lawyers to draft. Also we are only discussing
the yellow text.

AGreenberg: I find it unusual to refer to a transient WG. Final language should fix.

KArasteh: Lets not change anything and support deletion of yellow text.

Decision - LSanchez: any opposition to deleting the yellow text? (none). We will be deleting this
text. This will be our CCWG consensus position.

KArasteh: Thanks need to be given to Leon for doing this very difficult job.

4. Final reading on Recommendation #5 (Mission)- MW

MWeill: History of development. The idea given this is a final reading is to identify any strong
objections. Concerns?

AGreenberg: core Value 5 and PDP issue. Given there was no support for this issue but it is
important to note that there is still a level of discomfort from the ALAC regarding this.

MWeill: This is important to keep in mind and there is no intent to generate the potential issue.
This needs to be considered in the implementation phase. Any further concerns (none). We have a
consensus position. Congratulations to BBurr for piloting this very difficult project for the CCWG
and this is a remarkable achievement.

KArasteh: Becky is a star.

AGreenberg: Judgement Free DNS - what is technical DNS as raised by ASullivan. Had proposed a small
change for this remove Technical and substitute ITS. Can be note to drafters.

ASullivan: good either way.

Decision - MWeill: this can be fine tuned in implementation. This will not stop us from closing.
Question from Izumi in the chat: is the Jan 26 language the final? This closes this item.

MHutty: We are not intending to change the mission - but there is the question of PICs and the
potential solution was Grandfathering. We are currently saying this is a note to lawyers for
implement - what does this mean?

MWeill:BBurr is confirming you proper interpretation.

KArasteh: This could be a note to the report.

AGreenberg: I and ALAC want to be certain PICs do not get forgotten. But I find the solution
proposed acceptable.

GShatan: This is the best we can get at this point but I have concerns.

Decision - MWeill: we are providing the lawyers with our expectations. This closes rec. 5

5. Consideration of Recommendation #11 (GAC Advice) TR

TRickert: Framing of discussion on this point. Thanks to SDB and CLO and the Stress Team for their
tireless work.

TBenJemaa: Are you doing a package for changes to the 3 recommendations or just rec 11.

TRickert: Package.

TBenJemaa: Do not object on rec 11 but cannot accept removing the Board with only 3.

TRickert: standard rules only two times speaking and limited time.

KArateh: Agree we are dealing with the package.

PDaSilva: Has concerns about this and this goes against inclusion. Very much against the carve out.
Many countries also have countries.

TRickert: MCarvell has noted, and I can confirm, that the GAC will always be able to provide advice
even if it cannot participate in the final decision.

JCarter: There is exclusion of any group.

OCavalli: Commend co-chairs for their efforts. GAC is not on equal footing because it does not
participate in many activities in ICANN such as the choosing of nomcom Board members. Our concerns
are the same as many other countries such as Brazil and others.

BSchaefer: RE TBJ part of the issue is that we do not need unanimity. In the description of mainly
or all and should be removed in favour of only letting the Board decide if it is based on GAC advice
or not.

GShatan: this is the compromise that can generate the most support. Concern is technical - this is
not final language but rather as instructions to drafters. So a note of caution that the drafters
consider our complete work in drafting the final texts.

RGross: Need to restate that this is not a good way forward especially when the GAC cannot even say
if it is in favour of this or not, especially considering when the GAC is completely opaque vs being
transparent as other SOACs requirements. This will create more problems in the long run.

TRickert: We note your concerns. Any members of other Chartering Orgs on this.

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: The UK Govt supports positive consideration of this compromise proposal
which we do not consider is intended to exclude the GAC from the community framework. The UK
supports consensus-based advice. There is no GAC consensus support for the GAC to take a decsional
role so solely advisory role is the likely way forward. Transparency of advice it provides will be
paramount and the process for provision of advice must be predictable and properly recorded and

SDelBiano: From the BC - agree this is a compromise our communities can live with.

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: Do you personally support it, Keith?

Keith Drazek: I do.

James Bladel: Registrars initially opposed Rec 11, as written in the 3rd Draft Support.  With the
changes in Rec #11 and Rec #1, Registrars have dropped their opposition and will support the
proposed compromise.

TBenJemma: I support rec 11 but not to her changes.

AGreenberg: There are some concerns but would not refuse to ratify.

Izumi Okutani (ASO): ASO would not object to the compromised proposal

Decision - TRickert: Support has been established in this call. As such I would like to confirm we
have a consensus position for the supplementary report. I would like to thank everyone for the
significant efforts.

MWeill: Need to recognize this is the only way forward - and we need to thank and recognize Kavous,
Becky, Malcom, Steve and others. We do recognize there is dissent and we encourage that minority
views be submitted and included in the report, but it is time to move on. We should also step back
and understand what this means for ICANN - the ongoing conflict between the GAC and the gNSO will
continue to plague us. However, we may have only aggravated the situation which is not constructive.
All have value to bring to the table and this should be recognized by all. We need to build bridges.

6. Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition project MW

Decision - MWeill: This is about looking how to go forward and getting adequate support for WS2 and
that costs are not only a concern for the Board but also for the community. The Board is expecting
estimates and processes for managing elements which have impacts on the budget. We need to find a
way to exchange with the BoardFC and the chartering orgs and have ongoing discussions on this. No
comments - we will integrate the comments received on list and report on the results of the meeting.

7. AOB- LS

Decision - LSanchez: Staff accountability should be considered in WS2.

GShatan: Need to reintegrate what was in the second report for staff accountability.

LSanchez: Agree.

KArasteh: form and way forward of supplemental report?

LSanchez: trying to finish by EOB Friday, Review by CCWG over the Weekend and Freeze the
supplemental on Monday.

HGregory: Congratulations to all. On the final review will we have time to review.

Decision - LSanchez: yes.

MWeill: we will publish a detailed timeline for all the elements over the next few days.
Congratulate staff for excellent support.

LSanchez: recognition for staff work. Any other items? (none). This concludes the meeting. We look
forward to to sending the final supplementary for your review EOB Friday for your final review over
the weekend.


Action Items



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160209/37cb198a/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/20160209/37cb198a/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list