[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 - 3 May 2016

Wed May 4 16:14:56 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 - 3 May 2016 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/bEuAAw
A copy of the Notes and Action Items may be found below.

Thank you.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Notes
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Summary of Action Items:
*        Action item - Bylaws section 1.1.D - "Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to". Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership.
*        Action Item - Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - "Wording of Human Rights text".  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
*        Action Item - Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting.
*        Action Item - Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation.
1.  Welcome, roll call, SOI
*        KDrazek phone only
*        No SOI updates
2.  Outline of next steps (TR)
*        CCWG comments should only include those supported by the group overall.
*        The general tone of our comments should be supportive.
3.  Discussion of CCWG Responses to public consultation on draft Bylaws (co-chairs)
*        WHOIS review vs 5 year requirement - AG this has to be NOTED as a minimum. Relation to RDS. JGannon this is not the job of the CCWG to fix - but needs to be noted. GS there may be reasons to postpone reviews. MW general agreement to note in CCWG comments.
*        Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language - Suggested fix GShatan: The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority."  That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer to?"  I support this fix. TR supported. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Bylaws section 1.1.D -  Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to. BBurr this is a significant concern. KDrazek - ICG has discussed this and is more than just PTI but also includes the IETF and IAB and the ICG will be submitting a comment on this. KArasteh serious issue for ICG. TR concerned parties should be the ones making the comments. ACooper the concerns arise because they are not in the ICG or CCWG proposal - therefore this is not consistent with the CCWG recommendations. It would be worth the CCWG taking a broader view. KArasteh - needs to be raised. TR difficult situation - many expect an answer - we need to state what was in our report. MW the CCWG comment can confirm what was in the CCWG report (RA and RAA and renewals) and note that there are other reports which are not in our recommendations. AGreenberg could ask the Chartering Organizations to comment on this topic. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Action item - Bylaws section 1.1.D - "Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to". Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership.
*        Bylaws 1.1(d)ii(A)(1) -Includes grandfathering RA and RAA agreements that are not yet signed. BBurr explained what is in the CCWG proposal. May need to go back to original draft of the Bylaws.  MW RA and RAA agreements are covered but the wording should be reviewed. BBurr should not allow renewal of agreements that are not in the Form. KArasteh - need to be careful as grandfathering has been expanded. Bschaefer - BB has properly explained the situation and the fix should address this - looking forward to seeing new text. Concern that renewals could take the agreements beyond the scope of the mission. AGreenberg - agree with general thrust. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws 1.1.(d).ii.(F) - Arguing against renewal as drafted - MW if the agreements are removed because they were not in the CCWG report this would fix this issue. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws 6.1.(b) - Expand examples - SEisner - earlier parts name those participants so there is no need to do so here. JHammer, no need to call out SSAC. TR this will not be on the CCWG comments. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws 22.8 - Why does this specify that the Decisional Participants have to decide by consensus? LS - Phrase "by consensus" should struck. No comments, accepted for CCWG comments. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws 22.8 - Board power to redact should not be as significant as proposed.MW. There was no such power in the CCWG recommendations. BSchaefer suggestion to remove "including". KArasteh why should we object to this. BSchaefer as written it leaves it open to the Board's discretion to define what can be redacted. AGreenberg - support removal but if it is removed the list may have to be expanded. Approved for CCWG comment removing INCLUDING. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4.(b)TR. KArateh not convinced. Carve out is a very sensitive issue. IMittemaier (Adler) GAC carve out could apply to an approval. BSchaefer the GAC carve out could apply and this is necessary for clarification. KArasteh cannot agree with this as I do not see how this could apply to approvals. TR this seems to be a point only supported by BS, as such we should encourage BS to file his comment individually. SEisner this was discussed by lawyers and although it applies it would not change the thresholds therefore it did not add anything to include it. TR comment should be that the CCWG ask the Board to check with legal if this is required. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2.(c).(i).(A) - Specific rationales not required in all CCWG Recommendations MW - BSchaefer - need to be clear on the type of rationale that is required and where.  AGreenberg - restrictions only apply to rejecting Budget and Strat Plans. Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): Proposal - Annex 2 - Para 32 bullet 3 says "petitioning Decisional Participants will circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants" MW more work is needed to match the recommendations to the Bylaws. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Approval of Human Rights FOI. LS - Suggested approach - replace ii in draft Bylaws with: "and approved by the CCWG using the same process as for WS1 recommendations." KArasteh - need to be explicit that any decision needs to be approved by chartering organizations. I prefer explicit approval by chartering orgs. GShatan what needs to be clear there is no different process vs WS1 or all other WS2 recommendations. Lets just make this clear. TBenJemaa - Would like to stick with the final report. Simply add AS PER THE CHARTER OF THE CCWG after Chartering Organizations. LS our lawyers should provide what should be the best solution for the comment to ensure clarity. TBenJemaa the current draft is from the lawyers it must be with the input.  Will be the subject of a CCWG comment -  : LS ask lawyers to clarify that there is no need for approval by all COs, but same CO approval requirement as current CCWG charter. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - Wording of Human Rights text LS - Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): "herein" refers to 27.3 of the Bylaws, and that could be substituted for "herein". BSchaefer the herein eviscerates the limitation and creates the opportunity to have a basis for filing. KArasteh - RF was correct, please do not use herein. Agree with the suggestion. LS Seem to be agreement with the proposal by RF. BSchaefer disagrees with RF suggestion, prefers to remove. LS disagree. JGannon - have come around to BS thinking. KArasteh - cannot agree with LS proposal.  We do not need this sentence at all. LS will ask the lawyers to explain their rationale for this text on the list so we can conclude on this topic.
*        Action Item - Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - "Wording of Human Rights text".  Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list.
*        IRP provisions - six month clause.MW TBenJemaa - This means that even if the panel takes 2 years to issue its decision, nothing can be done. My proposal is to remove the last part, and in the Rule of Procedure, we define the nature of the circumstances that may prevent the panel to issue its decision in 6 months, and the maximum extension that could be given to the IRP according to the nature of the circumstance to complete its proceedings. HGregory - We are happy to remove that sentence that was put in by ICANN legal (we did not disagree with them including it.). However, it is important to note that there cannot be an IRP on an IRP failure - as such the statement is true but redundant. SEisner - We are all in violent agreement that it should conclude in six months but there could be circumstances where this cannot be done. However, given the IRP is in the Bylaws and not meeting the six month limit could allow someone to challenge ICANN is not meeting Bylaws requirements. We just want to avoid this situation. HGregory - SE makes a good point - IRP is available when the Bylaws are not met - bringing an IRP against ICANN on this should be judged frivolous. So I understand the concern and the sentence that is there does fix the problem. It does not address the issue that the development of IRP rules needs to encourage the panel to complete its deliberations in the allotted time. MW we understand the underlying concern and would hope that it can be addressed in a different way? Do we submit a comment that there could be an issue? KArasteh - can we list some possible exceptions? TBenJemaa - ok with what was said. MW our comment will point to this text as not the correct way to translate the recommendations into bylaws and recognize the potential for a claim and request the lawyers address this. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments.
*        BSchaefer - the last point in my email about the Ombudsman to offer relief in an RFR. TR the point may have merit but we can only verify if the Draft Bylaws meet the CCWG recommendations and so our hands our tied. However, the Ombudsman process will be reviewed in WS2. Will not be included in the CCWG comments.
4.  CCWG general direction of submission
*        TR we will submit our comments on May 10th. We will begin work on the comments now and will advise soon when we will distribute to the group for a 72 hour comment period.
*         Action Item - Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting.
*        AGreenberg what happens after the public comment. What happens if there are conflicting comments. We will take this up with the Bylaws drafting team. TR we will discuss this with the drafting team.
*        Action Item - Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation.
5.  AOB
*        None
Conclusion of the meeting

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160504/6e30ca64/attachment-0001.html>