[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #81 - 28 January

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Thu Jan 28 21:57:35 UTC 2016

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #81 – 28 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
substitute in any way the transcript.

1.  Welcome, Roll Call & SOI (5 min) LS

On audio only: Seun Ojedeji, Barrack Otieno

No updated SOI.

2.  Rec 1 – GAC as decisional participant – (30 min) Second reading TR


TR - First conclusion was that the GAC could be included as a decisional participant.

RGross - NCSG objects and is going against the basic structural arrangements which created ICANN -
grave mistake.

BSchaefer - Not really a second reading because last time this was discussed. GAC still has not
decided if it will. Thresholds would be affected if GAC does not join or if they cannot decide how
to vote if they do join. Should have GAC as an advisory member to the empowered community.

KAresteh - We have to allow the GAC to decide if the wish to participate. How would we handle the EC
handling an issue which directly affects the GAC. This is the second reading.

OCavalli - The GAC must have the right to decide if they want to participate.

PIvoSilva - The GAC has not objected to this. The GAC will decide and has the right to participate
if it so wishes.

SBachollet - this is a new arrangement and should include the GAC.

Alan Greenberg: @Robin, and GNSO is no longer developing and recommending policy, but taking on a
VERY different role.

Decision - TR - There are no new objections. It will be possible for RG and others to add minority
statements in the final report. As such we should confirm that the conclusion of the second reading
is that the GAC can be a decisional participant in the EC if it so decides.

3.  Rec 10 – SO/AC accountability - (30 min) Second reading LS


LS - SOAC accountability should be handled in WS2.

AGreenberg - include in current Bylaws revisions.

LS - reviews vs GAC ?

KArasteh - GAC representatives have a special responsibility as representatives of their govts.

LS - this could be discussed in WS2.

TRickert - GAC is evolving. Suggesting that GAC proposes review processes as to how the GAC is
accountable for how it interacts with the community but not about how the GAC works internally.

FBadii - Are we amending article 4 of section 4?

LSanchez - this will update that Bylaw.

OCavalli - Thanks TR for his proposal.

CDispain - Board generally supportive - The SOAC reviews are independent.

FBadii - Object to 4,4 as a great mistake, please reconsider.

LS - We should proceed as proposed and include some reference to the possibility of some type of GAC
accountability reviews.

SDelBianco - The ATRT currently reviews the effectiveness of GAC interaction with the Board. We
could a minor review which would include the interaction of the GAC with all the community vs only
the Board.

Decision - LS - Good suggestion. Any objections.? (none). Way forward is to make the amendment to 44
and include the suggested language to ATRT (SDB). Any other objections to WS2 plan? (none). This
concludes this item.

4.  Rec 8 – Reconsideration – (20 min) Second reading TR


Decision - TR - Second reading, any new arguments vs the consensus? the issues noted should be
handled in implementation. Any further discussion?  (none) - Recommendation approved as it.

5.  Rec 11 – GAC Advice – (60 min) Second reading TR


TR - SDB can you do a recap of where are and the 6 discussion points.

Discussion 1 - No change in voting requirements.

PIvoSilva - no new requirement.

SDelBianco - this is a response to IPC that the recommendation was creating new obligations. This
was verified with our lawyers - and we are simply confirming that there are no changes.

GShatan - Just confirming we are continuing as is.

TR - Any objections (None). we will ask again after all questions.

Discussion 2 - Rationale requirement was too weak - this has been strengthened for all ACs and it is
the Board that decides if it is adequate.

TR - important to note - this is for all ACs.

KArasteh - what happens if the Board decides the rationale is not acceptable.

SDelBianco - The Board if it rejects the rationale and request revisions and clarification which is
not required to be a formal process.

TR - interesting discussion in chat:

Bruce Tonkin: One of the struggles in our ICANN format is that the Board meets with the GAC early n
the ICANN week.   The GAC uses that discussions to develop their communique.   The challenge is that
the Board doesn't generally have an opportunity to meet with the GAC and seek clarifications.
There are some process improvements that could be made there.

Jonathan Zuck: unclear and unconvincing are two different things

Bruce Tonkin: I would love to have statements from ACs before the Board meetins with them at a
public meeting.   In some cases that might mean there are two separate meetings. -

Sabine Meyer 2: Bruce, so you would like to meet the GAC after the communiqué is published?

Bruce Tonkin: Good point @Jonathan!    Often ICANN people assume that their arguments are convincing
so the recipient can't be listening - so speak louder, restate the same position etc.   I think we
are all a bit guilty of that.

Bruce Tonkin: Yes @Sabine - I think that would be a way to have more constructive discussions on
some topics.

Kavouss Arasteh: tHAT IS A POSITIVE STEP

OCavalli - Similar concerns for 1 and 2.

TR - we are making good progress.

KArasteh - clarification is good.

Decision - TR - seems to be consensus - any objections? (none).

Discussion 3 -  Decisions on GAC advice by Board need to be consistent with the Bylaws.

TR – discussion?

MHutty - Support.

GShatan - Supports.

Decision - TR - seems to be consensus - any objections? (none).

Discussion 4 - addressing lawyer comments received over the weekend.

SDelBianco - Discussion 4.1 - Duly taken into account - this is in no way changed in the current
proposal. So there is no need for change and not accept the suggestion.

SDelBianco -all other comments are useful clarifications but there is no need to make any changes.

TR any objections to proceeding like this?

KArasteh - supports

Decision - TR - no objections - approach is accepted.

Discussion 5 - 2/3rds Board Threshold to reject GAc advice.

History of this point.

KArasteh - The only GAC support for this recommendation is based on 2/3rds.

AGreenberg - Supports

PRosensweig - Granting greater power to GAC and goes against NTIA requirements - If we go forward
with this we put the entire transition at risk.

TRickert - We are not changing the relative balance of power.

GShatan - It is change and do not support.

MWeill - clarification of CCWG meeting 70 (American Thanksgiving).

MHutty - against.

OCavalli - This is important for the GAC and was supported by consensus in the GAC.

RGross - Against. Significant empowerment of govts.Puts the entire transition at risk.

KDrazek - The GNSO has voting rules and procedures. The approval or rejection of the CCWG proposal
(or portions thereof) will require a simple majority of EACH house (non-contracted and contracted).
Neither GNSO house currently supports the addition of 2/3.  That said, the amendments made in
response to the RySG comments are welcomed by the RySG, but they may not be sufficient to sway other
groups. It's not clear to me that the GAC will reach consensus on Recommendation 11 however it ends
up on 2/3.

PIvoSilva - PDPs can be rejected by 2/3rds - so it would just create a level playing field.


10-minute Break

>From chat:

Keith Drazek: Following up the earlier comment on GNSO PDP advice thresholds, there are several
important distinctions: one key part of that threshold for the GNSO is that the Board only has to
show any deference to the GNSO IF AND ONLY IF that advice come through a formal PDP.  This means not
all GNSO resolutions (call it advice) gets the Board deference even if the vote of the GNSO Council
is unanimous.  In addition, the GNSO may only issue a formal PDP under certain restrictions in both
scope and jurisdiction.  Not every topic can be properly considered in scope for a GNSO PDP.   In
fact, as part of every issue report in the GNSO PDP process, the General Counsel is asked to opine
as to whether the proposed issue is properly within the jurisdiction of the GNSO.  If it is not,
that does not prevent the PDP from continuing, but arguably, the increased Board threshold would not
apply in such a case.

JCancio - this was a community compromise. Both the gNSO and the GAC are unhappy with it. Supports.

TRickert – No consensus – we will move to the next discussion point.

Discussion 6 - Original ST18 recommendation

PRosenzweig - Support. How are we going to resolve this?

TRickert – will propose a way forward after the comments on this point.

BSchaefer - Assumes this includes para 5 from the Bylaws and object to the example as it contravenes
what is proposed here.

SDelBianco – Disagree with BS as per discussion 5 or 6.

KArasteh - 6 is not an alternative to 5. Do these address ST 18.

SDelBianco - both do.

OCavalli -  similar to KA.

Decision - TRickert - this ends discussion on rec. 11. We have consensus on items 1 to 4. We do not
on 5 or 6. We will poll on those issues at the next meeting given we see no alternative. We would
ask that members try and be present at the next CCWG meeting next week for the polling. We would
encourage participants to continue seeking a compromise position before the next meeting.


MW - Any other items to be discussed? (none).

Next call is February 2nd @ 06:00 UTC.

Call adjourned.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160128/fb29287c/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/20160128/fb29287c/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list