March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

v4 of Community Powers Table
by Jordan Carter March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hi all Thomas and I did some work over the break, here is what is for discussion now.... cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Fwd: Comm Powers table for display later
by Jordan Carter March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Here is the PDF and .docX versions of the table Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 24 March 2015 at 11:44 Subject: Comm Powers table for display later To: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, stevedelbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org > as attached JTC -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Fwd: [client com] Summary Slides
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding this information from the CWG client committee. It might be useful for our work. Sorry for any cross-posting Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > Para: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Fecha: 24 de marzo de 2015 1:04:05 GMT+2 > Cc: "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com>, Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com> > Asunto: [client com] Summary Slides > > > Dear Members of the Client Committee, > > Attached for your preliminary review please find a draft set of slides that summarize the information we provided in response to the questions in the scoping document. We have also included information that responds to questions posed more recently about the integrated/hybrid model These slides could provide a framework for discussion in Istanbul of the legal issues implicated by the various models under consideration. Please note the following: > > • These slides summarize the information provided in response to CWG’s first set of questions, but with the information reordered along the lines of the proposals. > • As with our preliminary responses, these slides summarize technical legal information in a generalized form in keeping with the general level of the questions posed. This information is provided for the benefit of the CWG, to help facilitate its consideration of the transition proposals that have been described to us, and should not be relied upon by any other persons or for any other purpose. > > Please let us know if you would like any revisions regarding presentation style. Also, we note that we did not receive any comments on the underlying document. > > I look forward to seeing you in Istanbul. > Kind regards. > > Holly > > HOLLY GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>

4 6

FW: RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
by Drazek, Keith March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

As we discuss jurisdiction, I’m resending my email of March 5 for further context: From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:53 AM To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; 'Phil Corwin'; 'Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hi Tijani, In light of Fadi’s statement during his February 25 Senate testimony (as quoted by Phil Corwin in another email), there may be a risk to a successful and timely IANA Transition if the AoC’s US jurisdiction language is NOT incorporated into the bylaws. Fadi’s statement that ICANN “stands by” the requirements in the AoC (and the US jurisdiction requirement in particular) and that he believes incorporating the obligations into the bylaws is a good idea has set an expectation. If that expectation is not addressed and met by the community proposal, it will be very difficult for NTIA to explain to Congress why it was omitted. This could be used by some to try to derail the transition that we all want to happen. Also, it’s important to note that Fadi’s statement was part of his prepared remarks, not an off-hand comment. In those prepared remarks, he referenced the July 2014 letter that was sent to Steve Crocker by Senators Thune and Rubio where they called for the AoC obligations to be made permanent. As such, Fadi went out of his way to assure the Senators that ICANN would remain subject to US jurisdiction and that he expected the AoC obligations to be incorporated into the bylaws, as they had requested. I hope this additional context helps. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 6:25 PM To: 'Phil Corwin'; 'Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Phil, I also was watching the senate hearing, and confirm that Fadi said that ICANN would remain subject to US jurisdiction. I also confirm that this is a very important point. It is important because the NTIA announcement of the stewardship transition calmed very much people who were always complaining that it is unfair that a single country control the Internet, a global network. Now that we have this achievement, it would be a pity to loose it because we want to put in our bylaws that ICANN will remain acting under the US jurisdiction. I know and agree that the US jurisdiction is one of the best for the not for profit corporation. I don’t say that we need to move ICANN to another jurisdiction, but I think we don’t have to make it a condition. We need a stable and predictable legal environment, and we also need to build trust and make people stop complaining. So being diplomatic in our work is really necessary for a successful and sustainable transition. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Phil Corwin Envoyé : mercredi 4 mars 2015 23:29 À : Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; 'Steve DelBianco'; Accountability Cross Community Cc : ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Pedro: This is a very important point. I was in the room at the Senate Commerce hearing last week, and also at another event at the US Chamber of Commerce two days later. At both events Fadi stressed that ICANN would remain subject to US “jurisdiction" post-transition, not just maintain its nominal HQ in the US. As you correctly point out, there is a big “difference between "headquarter location" and "legal presence/legal jurisdiction". Choice of legal jurisdiction is a very important point for multiple reasons, among them: · Stable and predictable legal regime for contracted parties. As all of ICANN’s authority vis-à-vis registries and registrars is based on its contracts with them, reliable and predictable contract enforcement is a key consideration. The US is generally regarded as having one of the best legal systems in the world. · Design of both the IANA and ICANN accountability measures. Both the CWG and the CCWG are going to engage independent legal counsel to advise them on the design of accountability measures within the context of California public benefits corporation law. If the legal context changes those accountability measures may not fit properly within it; they may become less effective or even unworkable. · Security concerns. As a US corporation, ICANN is forbidden by OFAC regulations form engaging in any transactions with entities classified as criminal or terrorist. This consideration is particularly potent for the Administration and Congress. As to your point that “The community should be given the ability to decide, in the future, which jurisdiction better serves the purpose of ICANN acting in accordance to the global public interest.” , that is not necessarily foreclosed, at some future date, depending on what mechanisms are provided for Bylaws amendments. But for the immediate future those engaged in this transition exercise should have some idea whether ICANN’s continued legal existence as a non-profit California corporation is acceptable to other nations or whether it will become the new “irritant” (as described by Secretary Strickling) that replaces the IANA counterparty status as cause for complaint and basis for calls for further alterations in its structure and status. This is central to the issue of whether the transition we are designing will be stable for the foreseeable future or will just be a short-term transitional stage from which new initiatives for change are launched not long after the ink dries. Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:55 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Dear Steve, Thank you very much for the update on the Stress Tests. With respect to ST #15, it is very valuable, but I think we should be very cautious about proposed measures. The following option makes sense and should be further debated: " If ICANN board voted to vacate a legal presence, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision". However, we anticipate objections to the alternative solution below: "One proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to include AoC commitments 8, requiring it to maintain legal presence in the US, where it is subject to legal redress by any aggrieved party." Paragraph 8 of the AoC requires US legal presence most probably due to the present scenario where the US government (i.e.NTIA) is the steward of the IANA functions. Once that link is no longer there, and especially because that stewardship is being inherited by the global multistakeholder community (stressing the word "global") a legal presence in the US (or in any other specific country) should not be etched in stone. The community should be given the ability to decide, in the future, which jurisdiction better serves the purpose of ICANN acting in accordance to the global public interest. During yesterday's call, some colleagues mentioned ICANN CEO's Testimony in the American Senate last week. What he stated was literally: " Further, ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change". Although such a decision/affirmation may be debatable, it is important, once again, to stress the difference between "headquarter location" and "legal presence/legal jurisdiction". Under e.g. an international jurisdiction, an entity could potentially be headquartered anywhere. Regards, Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society Ministry of External Relations - brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: ccwg-accountability4-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability4-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Steve DelBianco Enviada em: segunda-feira, 2 de março de 2015 23:36 Para: Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Assunto: [ST-WP] [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Stress Tests to discuss For tomorrow’s call, we applied 4 more of our stress tests against the draft package of proposed accountability measures. Stress Tests #1 and 2 (together), #24, and #15, are shown below and in the attached draft document. Stress Test: #1. Change authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. #2. Delegation authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: interference with existing policy relating to IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. Existing Accountability Measures: Under the present IANA contract, NTIA can revoke ICANN’s authority to perform IANA functions and re-assign to different entity/entities. After NTIA relinquishes the IANA contract, this measure will no longer be available. Proposed Accountability Measures: The CWG planning the IANA stewardship transition might design mechanisms and structures that enable separation, such that the IANA functions could be readily revoked and re-assigned. To manage the revocation of IANA functions, the CWG might also propose an emergency backup provider and procedures, pending re-assignment of the IANA functions. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. At this point, CWG’s recommendations are still in development. ——————————————————— Stress Test: #24. An incoming Chief Executive institutes a “strategic review” that arrives at a new, extended mission for ICANN. The Board, having just hired the new CEO, approves the new mission and strategy without community consensus. Consequence: Community ceases to see ICANN as the community’s own mechanism for discharging limited technical functions, and views ICANN as an independent, sui generis entity with its own agenda, not necessarily supported by the community. Ultimately, community questions why ICANN’s original functions should remain controlled by a body that has acquired a much broader and less widely supported mission. Existing Accountability Measures: As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN could risk losing IANA functions if it were to expand scope too broadly. The Community has some input in ICANN budgeting and Strat Plan, and could register objections to plans and spending on extending ICANN’s mission. California’s Attorney General has jurisdiction over non-profit entities acting outside Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is empowering the community to veto ICANN’s proposed annual budget. This measure could block a proposal by ICANN to increase its expenditure on extending its mission beyond what the community supported. If the ICANN board voted to approve the CEO’s plans, one proposed measure would give the community standing to veto a board decision. Another proposed measure is empowering the community to challenge a board decision, referring it to an Independent Review Panel (IRP) with the power to issue a binding decision. [What would be the standard used for this review?] Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. Proposed measures in combination are adequate. ——————————————————— Stress Test: #15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation where Internet users or domain registrants are seeking legal remedies for ICANN’s failure to enforce contracts, or other actions. Consequence: affected parties could be prevented from seeking legal redress for commissions or omissions by ICANN. Existing Accountability Measures: As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN could risk losing IANA functions if it were to move in order to avoid legal jurisdiction. Paragraph 8 of the AoC requires ICANN to remain headquartered in the US, but the AoC can be terminated by ICANN at any time. As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN feels pressure to maintain the AoC. Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is to give the community standing to veto a board decision. If ICANN board voted to vacate a legal presence, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision. One proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to include AoC commitments 8, requiring it to maintain legal presence in the US, where it is subject to legal redress by any aggrieved party. If ICANN’s board proposed to amend the AoC provisions added to the bylaws, another proposed measure would empower the community to veto that proposed bylaws change. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. Proposed measures improve upon existing measures, and may be adequate. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9218 - Release Date: 03/03/15 ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

1 0

Regarding financial reporting versus auditing
by Bruce Tonkin March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hello Paul, >> That’s why I called it a “forensic audit” – it’s a practice I’m familiar with that I’ve heard go by that name, but I am comfortable with “deep dive.” I am not asking after the annual financials for the last 5 years – but a deeper examination of line-item expenditures and such. At the top level, the financials ICANN releases which talk about thinks like administrative expenses have much less detail than I am suggesting we should be interested in – either as part of the CCWG’s review or as part of a longer-term WS2 project for the “Community Council” (of what ever form it takes) to undertake to see where the expenditures are going on a more granular basis. I think what you are asking for is more detailed financial reporting. One of the challenges at ICANN is each group wants reporting in a different format. E.g. groups like to know how much is spent on the function that is of most interest to them - e.g. IANA, policy development, , or compliance. Accurate reporting will require time-sheets and projects codes - which is not in place right now. The finance system can certainly report how much is spent on phone calls Internet access, building, rent etc - but not how much of the phone bill is related to IANA. Ultimately the community needs to reach agreement on exactly what level of detail they want to see - and the organization can design systems and processes to get to that level. An audit – is to check that the organization is complying with accounting standards, and internal policies relating spending authorities, travel expense policies etc. The auditors identify any issues found in compliance with policies and account standards to the audit committee and the audit committee ensures that staff fix any issues found. A forensic audit – would be if you have some evidence or suspect illegal behaviour – e.g. a employee stealing money from the organization – in which case you use a forensic audit to gather evidence for prosecution etc. It is not something you do as part of normal financial governance. If an auditor found big discrepancies between stated revenue or assets - then that might trigger a forensic audit. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Agenda, CCWG mtg Istanbul, Day 2
by Adam Peake March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hi everyone, Agenda for CCWG meeting, Tuesday 24 March attached. Warm regards, Adam

1 0

Some comments
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, After today's sessions, and since I'm not a native english speaker, I would like to reiterate in written some of the points I made so that they are clear for everyone (see attached file) See you tomorrow --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Some comments
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, After today's sessions, and since I'm not a native english speaker, I would like to reiterate in written some of the points I made so that they are clear for everyone:. See you tomorrow -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 1 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 1 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+1 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items Action: Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources: to review document with a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes ** (action) There are outstanding issues on individual values and missions mentioned on the list still need to be addressed Notes DAY 1: Monday, 23 March 09:00-10:30 EET, Meeting Room #25 * Roll Call & Introduction * Erika Mann, Chris Disspain not in AC room. * Thanks from chairs to colleagues for the work achieved since Frankfurt and the work achieved and achieved on time. * As we develop our proposals please voice your doubts. But avoid interventions that just agree with the past speakers (+1 on the chat.) * Focus on agreement and disagreement and improving shared understanding Working methods: * Use the room to raise hand to speak (and lower when spoken) * Use the tools to show agreement. * Use the "agree" tool to indicate agreement, we are not deciding here. We will follow rule of not deciding at the same meeting. * Focus of the meeting will be Work Stream 1. Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details. * Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details. Start with what we know: the existing mechanisms within ICANN we are all familiar with. The legal advice we have received so far. Focus on WS1. * Quality first and details second. Approval of agenda * broad issues on day 1, and time on day two to return to unfinished, under-addressed issues. * And discuss timeline, public comments, communication from the meeting. * Agenda accepted. Issue 1. Mission, vision & value statement Four building blocks: * Empowered community (people) * Board (Executive) * Principles (Constitution) * Independent Review Mechanisms (Judiciary) Appeals testing again the principles to see of something has gone off track. Our principles underpin all our work for the next two days. Suggestion to take a broader view of the organization, not a single focus on the board. Looking at all areas of the organization. Mission statement in the bylaws that talks of coordination of unique identifiers. Specification 1 - is what's in the registry and register agreements. What is fair game ICANN can develop and impose a range of topics on contracted parties. Q. operators of new gTLD - why singled out? A. taken from spec 1 of the new registry agreement Current mission statement talks of coord at the overall level of unique identifiers and technical functions. These are preserved in the proposed documents, but include specification 1. Same language about dIP addresses and protocols but more detail when comes to domain names Concrete about what ICANN is not about: ICANN is not about regulating content. And what the mission is not about can be added as we discuss. 11 core values in the bylaws and 1 overarching value. We will not give each the same value and weight so as not to defuse what the core issue are. Divided as two: (1) "commitments" how ICANN is supposed to perform it's job These are absolute commitments ICANN makes to the community and the community makes to each other. Some values so important, when balanced they should be balance if particular way. in a "Substantial and Compelling Reason in the Public Interest", narrowly tailored and no broader than to achieve the goal. Need to capture all the core values: are the categorized appropriately as those requiring the high standard and those lesser. Noted that this is an evolution of the mission, reflecting recent developments. Concern/doubt about the categorizing as higher/less values. Some new distinction may be helpful. Transparency and how clear these changes may be. These are very basis aspects of ICANN. Any change even to nuance, takes a great deal of explanation. Such specific changes. In public comment will need to be clearly explained. Concern that this is creating a new ICANN. Consider that the changes could be made overtime, rather than making them proposals for the end of June 2015. Suggested the balancing language proposed protects the commitments more that the current bylaws language. Necessary now as WS1 track, as these are fundamental changes that underpin other proposals from the group. The proposals are generally not new, consolidating agreed positions from other ICANN sources. These provide objective standards to point to for the processes of review and redress, Explicit exclusions: invites grey areas. Internet community: make some link to the stakeholders already defined as the community it. Public Interest is not defined. Constitution references market mechanism, which is unusual. Constitutions often have a reference to justice, e.g. human rights, and closest the proposal comes is for respect diversity Action: Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources: to review document with a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes ** (action) There are outstanding issues on individual values and missions mentioned on the list still need to be addressed ICANN determination of the public interest was the outcome of the ICANN process wherein we discussed the various perspectives on the global pubic interest and came to ICANN consensus on what it meant to us at this point in time END Session 1

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 2 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 2 on 23 March are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+2 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils Notes DAY 1: Monday, 23 March, 11:00 - 13:00 EET, Meeting Room #25 Session2. * Mission, vision & value statement (cont. from Session 1) Distinction between the two sets of principles in the document. Direction is good, but takes time to take people along. Consider a longer timeline for explanation to ensure understanding an buy-in. That these changes are committed to. How was the division of values made, and why something became a lesser value. Perhaps that some have a higher priority and some are raised up rather than suggesting others are "second class". In timetable discussion, then how these items are implemented is something to be considered there as perhaps extended. There may be abuse uses of review and redress that block the process. Some principles seem derivative. But some discomfort esp when seeing issues in the top list when there's a derivative in the second. Potential for confusion when a top list issue may trump those below, and how to deal with this. Approach may be to remove some of the more amorphous values. Would all values move to the upper value, and ICANN stringent review. Or lower standard where ICANN board and staff get greater difference? Up or down straw poll: To keep the two set approach, at proposed in the document please say agree in the AC room. Significant support to continue with approach of the document. * Community empowerment Mechanisms and Powers. Mechanisms are the Vehicle for powers: * permanent CCWG, and would need to be addressed in the ICANN bylaws as not permanent and lacks * community council. Who should be represented and with what weight should they be represented. * supervisory board. defined as a European model. Has reserve powers sits alongside the ICANN board * member based, with the members with powers in the bylaws * delegates, a subset of the members, but with a sub-set of the members. Both these set-up under California law. Choosing between them will require some answers from the legal advisors Current structures of SO/AC holding the new powers. Making decisions individually Community Veto, specifies powers No preference as yet until seen legal advice. Simple and straight forward. Might need different mechanisms for different powers. Difference between permanent CCWG and Community Council, apart from the label, there is no functional difference. CCWG by design are not permanent, so this would require changes to be made. The Community Council also includes the possibility of other members from the ICNAN ecosystem Avoid complexity. And be careful of how some of the strong mechanisms are exercised. What is the liability of these entities and their membership? Simplicity to run and maintain Liability comes with taking on power - legal advice and consideration of insurance as ICANN already uses New mechanism Sebastian identified and ask to please complete a template Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils Powers, esp in WS1 must take primacy over the options for mechanisms. example powers: 1C. Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget If the budget is not acceptable it can be forced back to the board, A check and balance, not triggered. Would cause board to review, changes or better explain why. Hi threshold. Straw poll: Should votes be mandated or not The community council may need people with expertise on different issues, suggests the membership might not be fixed. The budget process has taken long evolution, and this process should be baked-in, rather than come at the end of the budget development. Response: but not intended as a type working group they already exist, but a general assembly that reviews final decisions. Use of the term "consensus", different definitions within ICANN. Point is a more direct accountability response. Lack of risk in the template. once there is an understanding of the risk factor then might introduce this proposal. The community should have the ability to shape ICANN'S Discussion has described mandated and non-mandated decisions. The template talks if personal decisions and mandated, this is different. Super-majority in the template to ensure individual constituencies do not over influence the decision. The proposed structure needs protection against capture. Agreement on points, AC room poll The budget question shall not be resolved by means consensus by voting. If agree if it should be by vote then mark as agree If by consensus then mark disagree. END

1 0