[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #79 - 21 January

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Thu Jan 21 15:22:52 UTC 2016

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #79 - 21 January 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
in any way the transcript.

Holly Gregory, Roelof Meijer on bridge.

Update from Chartering Organizations

- We are awaiting input from GAC and GNSO. GNSO Council call later today - accountability is on
agenda. GAC had 
a call yesterday and is finalizing its input. Important to receive this input shortly to make
informed decisions for way forward. 


- Items to be discussed on this call (see chat). GAC is dedicated to putting feedback together. 

- GNSO: The GNSO communication will be a summary/consolidation of the SG and C statements. 


Overview of timeline and next steps slides 


- We should reduce pressure. Disagree with supplemental report - we should have a revised proposal
and should discuss 
with full CCWG whether changes require a public comment. Not in favor of public comment period but
we should still 
discuss. Body of report should be submitted for comments for longer period of time to ensure there
is consistency. 

---> Supplemental means a new iteration of the report that takes feedback into account along with a
description of the 
changes. We do not see need for another public comment period as specificities related to

- Time to comment will not be sufficient. We will need to go back to our communities and make sure
the bodies approving 
the report are comfortable with the final version. 

- Plan is consistent with Dublin plan. But what is the date of submission?

--> Some discussions we will have trouble closing without GNSO, GAC input. There are still a number
of gaps to bridge 
that will be closed next week hopefully. Issuing supplemental report in February.

- Will timeline delivery date be discussed with NTIA? Need to ensure NTIA has sufficient time for
their process.

---> Need for all to compromise to get report out in prompt fashion.

- We should not  initiate any coordination with NTIA but if they have questions or a need for
clarification ,it is their decision to 
raise the questions and seek clarification

          CONCLUSION: We will move forward with supplemental draft but will re-discuss with full
group for second reading. To 
preserve integrity of project, CoChairs will produce projections once they have a complete picture
and will discuss with the group. 

Escalation timeframe

Is there additional need to discuss this? Overview of conclusions.

CONCLUSION:  reading of rec 2 escalation timeframe is complete.

Fundamental Bylaws

Overview of conclusions. 

CONCLUSION: 2nd reading of rec 3 is complete.

IRP & PTI IANA decisions 

We determined that PTI actions/inactions would be part of IRP. Concern raised that standard may not
be limited to Bylaws only. 

Do we have agreement that the standard of review is different from other types and is there a
preference for either 
approach? 1) Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction or 2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws
to ensure PTI 
compliance, in which case failure to do so is covered by the IRP. 


- Ask the CWG. 

CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to share this with CWG-Stewardship CoChairs for feedback. This
will be rediscussed next week. 

Scope of community IRP and separation power 

Carve out language to be added along with note that we should not use acronyms.


- Not allowing the rest of the community to disagree with something another set of community
produced jeopardizes 
the multistakeholder model.

- A PDP means a public comment period took place. Community could still elaborate a policy by
ignoring public 
comments. What means would community have to stop this?

--> There are iterative steps with the community and Board to see whether any recommendations made
through the 
PDP are contravening public interest. 

- We should make sure we enhance accountability of SO/ACs. We should consider worst case scenarios 

CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: We will proceed with the conclusion and adopt this. Sebastien/Roelof invited
send thoughts on list and we will re-evaluate if it gets traction.

Update on Board removal liability mitigation

We will be adding clarifications: 

- Since any individual can petition, it will require a rationale;

- There will be a dialogue with Board member;

- Pre-service letters to be included.

Legal counsel update: language shared with Jones Day on a waiver and we are working on
indemnification. We will share in upcoming days.


- Can we assume that if there are discussions with ICANN legal we can expect change from the Board?
Indemnification of whom? 

-> Legal counsel: No commitments have been made but we are discussing what sort of
waiver/indemnificaton (if any) would be 
acceptable. Breadth and depth are being discussed. 

CONCLUSION: We will wait to hear conclusions from lawyers. 

GAC Advice

Overview of conclusions.


- "This recommendation does not create" is not an acceptable wording. Use "shall not create".

--> Intent for sentence is to provide directions for implementation where we will draft actual text.

- Legal counsel: We are having trouble in having pieces of language consistent. We are uncertain how
it is possible to 
act inconsistently with GAC advice and not have that reconsidered a rejection for example. We are
planning to frame a 
high level concern about this.

--> Highlight whether that is due to existing Bylaws or proposed Bylaws. 

- Rejection by 2/3 would trigger obligation to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. We did
not change any of the other language. 

- This is moving in the right direction. With respect to ICANN needs to act in accordance with its
Bylaws: it should be 
clarified that we are not suggesting that it be limited to Empowered community. 

- Problem arises in draft Bylaw: we are introducing concept of rejection that does not have this
concept in; it adds complexity. 

- IRP is against action/inaction by the Board and not against GAC advice.

Avoiding use of "reject" could address concerns about implied obligations. Need to point out
aggrieved party. This is 
only supposed to restrict Board's obligation to find mutually acceptable solution. It is Board's
responsibility to assess 
advice it received. 2,3,4 is trade-off appropriate?


- Concerns about 2/3 being unwelcome by congress in light of statement that was made by Fadi.

Items 2, 3, 4 for discussion on Tuesday:  

CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to come back to use on concern that was expressed in consideration
Greg's comments. Items to 2, 3, 4 to be discussed.

GAC as decisional participant

Concerns expressed about GAC's role are not sufficient to jeopardize consensus of Third report but
it is open for 
debate to see if any traction.


- In GAC there was discussion about definition. What are decision-making steps? Group needs to
initiate petition is not decision-making. How could you prevent GAC from participating in forum.
Step 6-7 are important. 

- NCSG still has concerns. GAC is not permitted to select Board members but we are now empowering
to remove Directors and approve budgets. GAC was never designed to do that. We are empowering them.
need to take will of community into consideration. 

- This may raise real issue as to whether or not ICANN is becoming intergovernment and in violation
of NTIA criteria. 

--> 48 in support - 10 against 

- All the thresholds no longer work - the model disappears if go down from 5 to 4. 

CONCLUSION: We will keep report from language. This topic will be rediscussed next week. 

SO/AC Accountability

Overview of discussion items.


- WS1 gives unilateral control of reviews to Board. It is not a bottom-up approach. 

CONCLUSION: Clarify process / outcome of structural reviews to address this concern that the Board
restructure at will. Concern with respect to the GAC to be addressed in second reading. 


Overview of discussion items. 

Suggestion: acknowledge these concerns and address in implementation

CONCLUSION: Move forward with second reading.


- Share any views you may have on approaches to speed up process.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160121/6d86c3e1/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/20160121/6d86c3e1/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list