[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs and Lawyers Meeting (8 January)
brenda.brewer at icann.org
Mon Jan 11 19:37:29 UTC 2016
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs and Lawyers (8 January) will be
available here: https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.
HJGregory - reasoning for call - at this critical time in the project want to discuss if the team
could be more useful to the process. Concerns regarding the edition of documents since their
comments are not being included. Also need greater clarity about which of our comments get posted.
Uncomfortable with the certification requirements but this should not apply to the drafting of
documents. We would also expect to understand what is expected for implementation so we can reserve
the resources accordingly. Finally need guidance on Marrakech given participation by phone would not
MWeill - Thank you for your directness. Looking at your questions. On integrating comments - the
timeframe did not allow us to work with smaller comments. The co-chairs initially focused on any
TRickert - we are going through different phases. Making too many changes in any version of the
document would cause concern to the community. Going into details too much can distract people from
focusing on the major issues. So a balance must found between what legal and staff can do.
HJGregory - we understand you concerns but wanted to ensure that our concerns were clear. This
being said we would recommend posting our comments to the entire group and that the group is our
client. Often we are not involved on an issue does not mean we have opined in any fashion. There may
be a misconception on the level of comments from the lawyers wrt the 3rd draft.
MWeill - we are editing the 3rd version currently - we have to consider your input more up front.
But we have to find a way to make this efficient for everyone. Given we are working on
recommendation by recommendation we could ask for legal comments on a per recommendation which has
had a first reading.
HJGregory - this sounds like a good idea, but the answer to dealing with lawyer comments is not to
TRickert - We agree with you but we have been working to incredibly tight schedules.
RMFrei - we need to understand why our comments are taken or not.
TRickert - Understand but the new interactive approach should handle this issue. Documents that go
out after the first reading will include all the lawyer comments. We should also document which
comments are accepted or not.
HJGregory - this sounds acceptable.
MWeill - next implementation
HJGregory - support using the details to implementation. At some point the implementation cannot be
made by the full CCWG. Also understand the cost implications for ICANN. As such implementation
should not be with done with the full group.
MWeill - was not the strategy of oversight groups for implementation not ok.
HJGregory - concern that using the same group of people for oversight and uncertain they can get
above trying to line edit vs checking for consistency.
MWeill - Understand that this is a challenge and there is no way around it. This is in part because
of community experience with other implementation exercises having generated unexpected results.
HJGregory - Would encourage the co-chairs to help the oversight participants that the process is
going to be different - it will not be interactive drafting - lawyers will draft the documents and
the oversight will group can comment on if it matches the guidelines. We will get there.
Implementation needs to be a different process.
TRicket - Implementation is about ensuring that the group's wishes and the work product. But
understand we have to streamline to make it efficient.
HJGregory - Marrakesh - we have real concerns that we can be effective via the telephone.
Understands it depends on what the requirements are given where we are.
MWeill - currently expecting ICANN55 to scope WS2 and would not expect lawyers would be required for
this. There would also implementation work on WS1. So we do not expect the draft Bylaws will be
ready for ICANN 55.
HJGregory - one approach could be for us to book refundable airline tickets and as time progresses
we can decide if we are needed. As such we should make reservations which can be cancelled.
MWeill - the IRP skill set would be needed in Marrakesh - but we would expect that the total number
of lawyers on the ground would be less than previously.
RMFei - I will probably sit this one out if the focus will be IRP. So I will wait to figure this
HJGregory - what could we be doing to help you more.? please let us know.
TRickert - thanks for the offer we will need to think about it some more. Things are moving quite a
bit, commenting ad hoc on every suggestion that is circulated. After the first reading we publish
this to the list and lawyer comments would be best there.
HJGregory - agree with this.
HJGregory - maybe the first step should be to reach out to Jones Day to understand their risk
analysis of this.
RMFrei - also not everything is black and white - there are some judgement call.
TR and MW - in case lawyers have concerns about provisions that currently exist in the Bylaws, and
may not be within the CCWG remit, they should discuss with JD first.
RMFrei - on current process for reviewing changes to recs.?
HJGregory - we should review materials from scratch?
TRickert - the lawyers would share their high level comments on each recommendation / agenda item
after 1st reading, then provide detailed feedback after 2nd reading . best to get your input after
the first reading where you can insert your comments. Acceptable?
HJGregory - yes.
TRickert - certification of human rights question. The reason it makes sense to certify this because
ICANN believes it is opening significant risk. Need to understand vs current risks.
HJGregory - need to understand what you mean by human rights.
HJGregory - this is it for us.
Conclusion of the call.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community