September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #52 - 08 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #52 - 08 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/149CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board. ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented. ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine workload (prior to certification of request) ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section 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. Board interaction & next steps We have worked based on requirements and have looked at implementation models to operationalize accountability requirements. The change of reference model was to address comments from Board members (statutory rights etc). We have asked Board members to be constructive. We should remind ourselves that we are working towards the same goal. We should take Board comment as intent of good faith to take it to the next level. At this stage, we don't have enough details to assess Board comments. Our perception was that the Board had identified gaps. We can expect written input from the Board highlighting areas of agreements and variations of proposals. We should remain open-minded to good faith criticism and not be prematurely defensive. We should wait for Board's written input and carefully analyze it. We need to make clear to community that we are still in public comment period and do not want to discourage community members from providing comments. All community input is welcome and will be treated with same diligence as 1st PC period. We need to emphasize this. We need to be responsive and consider writing a note to the Board to help them navigate through this process as well. Feedback: - Any change to process creates discomfort. It is a human reaction. Some of concerns may be due to misunderstandings (e.g. budget). Creation of subgroups (CCWG & Board) may help. - Open to learning from criticism. Welcome same level of education from ICANN Board and Jones Day. Sharing this input with us could be done much sooner instead of waiting for them to flesh out their comments. We should be given chance to digest information. - It is unhelpful for the Board to state that it is "changing the model". The work of this group sustains and strengthens the multistakeholder model. It would be appropriate for us to request that the Board not treat our proposal as a proposal that changes the model. - Has the CCWG's legal counsel spoken yet with ICANN legal and/or Jones Day? --> The call has taken place. It primarily informed lawyers and JD of respective perspectives. This information will go into Board's deliberations. - JD has indicated that they are not in disagreement with legal analysis we have provided. We are awaiting to hear from JD. We will inquire whether these calls are recorded. --> We did not want discussion to be a battle of experts, but rather a discussion to exchange views. - Board focused a lot on enforceability. Disagreement is appropriate. - If we can give Board guidance, it would be to prioritize issues with our proposal. - We don't need a new proposal by Board. We must insist we are not waiting for an alternative proposal but waiting for comments on our proposal. - CCWG disappointment and frustration. Answers are contradicting. Suggest making reference to comments that have been made on the list. - We need further detail to take action and assess Board position. Board will be asked to prioritize concerns. The note will refer to comments shared on list (e.g. Avri's note) ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to send a notification to Bruce to ensure the message is relayed to the Board. Documenting our Work We need to be aware of expectations placed upon on us regarding documentation. It is part of our Charter that when we submit our final report, our group is expected to provide information on process, including PC consultations. We have received feedback in PC2 indicating that further documentation might be needed. We should prepare for further documenting. On principles - Becky has proposed synopsis of proposed changes. On IRP: we need process details for selection of panelists and need to compose rules of procedure. On RfR: Rules of procedure might be needed. CMSM: We need to document rationale as well as initial feedback for detail on community forum. In addition, there is a need for details on Bylaws. We have had a call with ICANN legal, counsel and CWG leadership to coordinate. ICANN project management will provide a plan by the end of this week. This document will be shared with the CCWG. We have received question of how GAC advice will be factored into new process. It would be valuable for our group to flesh out how community forum would work. We could go as far as suggesting showcasing it so that we answer any concerns about details of this process. Feedback: - Rationale for changes in princples, core values, commitments is needed. ACTION ITEM: Recirculate the synopsis paper to determine if rationale is appropriately documented. - WP1 started initial work on community forum. It would be viable to get more work done on this. Note to be sent out to WP1 list. - WP2 had produced draft set of Bylaws on IRP. --> Recommend discussing with lawyers ACTION ITEM: WP1 to further flesh out details of community forum and WP2 to initiate a call regarding draft Bylaws of IRP. Legal counsel to participate in initial WP2 call to determine workload (prior to certification of request) - ST 18 appears in two places. --> We need to update number of stress tests. 14 and 18 appear twice to illustrate why we need Bylaws changes. ACTION ITEM: Double check that there is no inconsistency in Stress Test section September Face-to-Face Meeting Pros and cons were exchanged on list. Feedback: - It should not be deemed a negotiation. If substantive input, the meeting would be useful. If not, it is a good opportunity to address all comments. Whether Board is active or not, meeting would be useful. - We should decide on our work flow. If meeting is to discuss with Board, opposed to it. - Agenda needed - We need to understand if Board is to talk about issues or if there to enhance their proposal. Their approach needs adjustments. Funding will be an issue. Cost benefit analysis is needed. - Meeting should not be held unless it is clear what expected outcomes are. Do not understand how this meeting fits in overall public comment period. Are the Board's views to be given more weight? Let's be cautious - how will this meeting fit in evaluation of comments - We have a lot of work to do ourselves. For that reason, meeting would be helpful to hammer out details. We can take Board's concerns with all other comments and evaluate them. Agenda needs to be set as CCWG and we need to focus on our work flow. - It will be useful for our work but we cannot tell Board we do not want to talk with them. It is an opportunity to have all Board members with us. It is important. - Unclear whether in person/remote. - If we go to LA, we should leave antagonism behind and need to work together. - If meeting goes ahead - it must be a full discussion. - Disagree that we need more funding. It is already a large group. This meeting must be a balanced meeting. We need to ensure that meeting is webcast. - Many valid comments came from participants. We should not be limiting participants' attendance. The group is in agreement that a face-to-face meeting if conducted must be well-prepared and fit in the CCWG workflow. It must be as inclusive as possible, including additional travel funding. We need to have a good documentation of Board's thoughts. There should not be any suggestions that this is a negotiation between Board and CCWG. Meeting should be kept more open to community input as such. At same time, we have heard comments that we should embrace opportunity to work with Board. We are lacking information to make a decision of whether this fits work flow. We will let Board know that we are continuing to make a decision about this and will share with them discussion that took place today. We will be able to make a decision once all comments received. A.O.B - How will we deal with comments --> Staff summarizing comments and we will need to analyze and potentially adjust our report. - Confusion about which comments should be addressed --> Let's keep comments on existing proposal.

1 0

Board consideration and interaction with CCWG Accountability
by Mathieu Weill Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As requested in the chat during the meeting, here is the extract from our Charter, which is actually simply quoting the Board resolution of 2014-10-16 regarding Board consideration and interaction with our group. Full Charter is available here : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter Extract from Section V : Rules of Engagement, decision making methodologies. [...] /Resolved (2014.10.16.17), the Board commits to following the following principles when considering the Cross Community Working Group Recommendations on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance:/ 1. /These principles apply to consensus-based recommendations from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance./// 2. /If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board./// 3. /The Board must provide detailed rationale to accompany the initiation of dialogue. The Board shall agree with the CCWG the method (e.g., by teleconference, email or otherwise) by which the dialogue will occur. The discussions shall be held in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution./// 4. /The CCWG will have an opportunity to address the Board's concerns and report back to the Board on further deliberations regarding the Board's concerns. The CCWG shall discuss the Board's concerns within 30 days of the Board's initiation of the dialogue./// 5. /If a recommendation is modified through the CCWG, it is returned back to the Board for further consideration. The CCWG is to provide detailed rationale on how the modification addresses the concerns raised by the Board./// 6. /If, after modification, the Board still believes the CCWG Recommendation is not in the global public interest to implement the CCWG Recommendation, the Board may send the item back to the CCWG for further consideration, again requiring a 2/3 vote of the Board for that action. Detailed rationale for the Board's action is again required. In the event the Board determines not to accept a modification, then the Board shall not be entitled to set a solution on the issue addressed by the recommendation until such time as CCWG and the Board reach agreement./ Before submitting a modified recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors, as envisioned under 5. of the Board resolution, the CCWG-Accountability will submit a Draft Supplemental Board Report to the chartering organizations [...] best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Fwd: Response to request for public comment on the IANA transition
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Colleagues, FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Response to request for public comment on the IANA transition Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:18:14 +0100 From: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)roberts.co.uk> To: public-comments(a)ianacg.org -- Nigel Roberts P O Box 1065, Alderney (C.I.) GY9 3JZ Tel. +44 1481 520618 or +44 7973 263842 (mobile)

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] AGENDA - Call #52
by James M. Bladel Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Hello Alice & CCWG. I will be in the air during this time and likely unable to attend. I'll jump on the bridge if I'm able (flight delays, etc.) Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Monday, September 7, 2015 at 2:09 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] AGENDA - Call #52 Dear all, In anticipation of your call #52 - Tuesday, 8 September from 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Board interaction & next steps 3. Documenting our work 4. Community forum 5. September face-to-face meeting* 6. A.O.B Thank you, Kind regards Alice * Be kindly reminded to record your availability by today, 23:59 UTC - Doodle poll --> http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt

1 0

AGENDA - Call #52
by Alice Jansen Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #52 - Tuesday, 8 September from 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Board interaction & next steps 3. Documenting our work 4. Community forum 5. September face-to-face meeting* 6. A.O.B Thank you, Kind regards Alice * Be kindly reminded to record your availability by today, 23:59 UTC - Doodle poll --> http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt

2 1

Human rights - way forward
by Mathieu Weill Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As announced during our last call, the co-Chairs have reviewed where we are on this issue. Our group is tasked to work on the basis of consensus, and we have focused on assessing where this condition was met. It is our conclusion that : 1) our group has achieved consensus on including a human rights related Commitment in Icann's Bylaws. 2) no particular wording currently proposed achieved consensus. As a consequence, we propose to include into the public comment 2 report (in the Mission & Core value section, a draft is included below) - this assessment and a firm commitment to add a human rights related Commitment into Icann's Bylaws, - the underlying requirements expressed during the debate, - the concrete language proposals that were considered by our group so far, as examples Finally, given the strong momentum on the issue, both during the meeting and on list before and after, and taking into account the high level of complexity involved, we suggest to kick off ASAP a subgroup to further refine the requirements and assess potential options based on further studies of the current situation and "agreed-on" language. We thank you all for your understanding and commitment on this topic, as well as the extensive discussions both on list and during the calls about this. As a reminder, Minority statements filed until Saturday 12.00 UTC will be incorporated into the report to be published on Monday. Statements filed after this deadline will be published online but not incorporated into the report. Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu Co-chairs ----------------------------------------------- NEW SUBSECTION IN 3A Mission, Commitmennts & Core Values Elaborating an Icann Commitment to Human Rights The CCWG-Accountability extensively discussed the opportunity to include into Icann Bylaws a Comittment related to Human Rights. The group commissioned a legal analysis of whether the termination of the IANA contract would induce changes into Icann's obligations with regards to Human Rights (LINK). While no significant issue was found to be directly linked to the termination of the IANA contract, the group acknowledged the recurring debates around the nature of Icann's accountability towards the respect of fundamental human rights. These discussions identified the following, non-exhaustive, list of accountability-related requirements : - the NTIA criteria to maintain the openness of the Internet, including free expression and the free flow of information - the need to avoid extending Icann's mission into content regulation - the importance of assessing the impact of Icann policies on Human rights Examples of language that could serve as a Commitment were as follows : - Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information. - Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights. The group has achieved consensus on including a human rights related Commitment in Icann's Bylaws. However no particular wording currently proposed achieved consensus. Reiterating its commitment to elaborate concrete proposals as part of its mandate, the CCWG-Accountability is calling for comments on this approach and the underlying requirements. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

31 46

Blog: Upcoming Comments from the ICANN Board to the ICG and CCWG-Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-th e-icg-and-ccwg-accountability Upcoming Comments from the ICANN Board to the ICG and CCWG-Accountability <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to- the-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-t he-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-t he-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-t he-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-t he-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/upcoming-comments-from-the-icann-board-to-t he-icg-and-ccwg-accountability#> This is a very important week as we work towards the end of phase one of the IANA Stewardship Transition. With both the ICG and CCWG-Accountability public comments coming to a close, the ICANNBoard plans to submit comments into each process. Firstly, the Board will submit comments on the ICG IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. We are very appreciative of all the hard work done by the ICG members and the three operational communities to produce the ICG proposal. The main focus of our comments will be on the implementation of the proposals by ICANN as the current IANA Functions Operator. Secondly, as discussed extensively <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile> over the past week, the ICANN Board will submit comments on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. These inputs will include: * Comments on the mission and core values; and * Suggested enhancements of elements of the draft report; and * A matrix of the key elements proposed by the CCWG-Accountability highlighting the elements of alignment between the Board and the CCWG-Accountability as well as the elements where the Board has suggested enhancements. We thank the community for their consideration of our comments and continued trust in the multistakeholder process that has got us this far. The continued back and forth of ideas and opinions is how we will together build the strongest proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition, and we look forward to the next steps in the process and encourage all interested parties to submit their comments before the deadline.

1 0

The Proposed F2F Meeting in LA
by Paul Rosenzweig Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Colleagues I want to pick up on something that Phil just mentioned (more as an aside) and make it an affirmative point of discussion within the list - whether or not we should have a F2F meeting with the Board in Los Angeles. By way of background, I think the general sense is that the dialogue with the Board was not a success (in the sense that it was a positive step toward resolution and a successful transition). While I am sure that some on this list disagree (most notably the Board members) I have a clear sense from reading the transcript, the chat log and the messages on this list (including Malcolm's excellent discussion of the issue which highlights the ambiguity in the Board's statements) that most of us see the meeting as, at best, a wash and at worst the harbinger of bad results. >From my personal vantage point, I think the reasons for that is clear - lack of preparation and definition. There was no pre-meeting exchange of written views from the Board to narrow the issues; there was no agreement on a concrete set of discussion points; and quite clearly the Board has not yet coalesced around a uniform viewpoint. On many occasions, the Board was left saying "we don't know for sure but we have many questions" and on the few points that they were firm on (e.g. the opposition to the Single Member model) the Board's reasons were not well-articulated and, to some degree, a surprise to the community. That kind of poor preparation of significant meetings is a formula for failure - and it is precisely why the dialog did not go as well as anyone would have liked. If we rush to the F2F in Los Angeles (in 2 weeks time! Or maybe 3) without better preparation, that meeting, too will be unsatisfactory. Here, in my view, is what needs to happen: 1) The Board needs to adopt a formal written response to the CCWG proposal - not a set of bullet points and not a summary of legal analysis by an outside lawyer with which it may not completely agree, but a full response with both its objections to the CCWG model; its reasons for the objections; its alternate proposal; and its justification for the same. 2) The CCWG needs to take those comments and conduct a thorough analysis of them; responding as appropriate. Again, not just a quick lawyers analysis (which was helpful but does not answer the fundamental questions) but rather a full-scale justification for accepting/rejecting/modifying the Board's views. And this response needs to take into account, as well, the responses of others in the community (all of which will not be compiled until the end of this week). 3) Only when the disagreements remaining between the Board and the CCWG are narrowed; well-defined; and clearly articulated would it be worth having a F2F meeting at which views can be expressed; compromises (perhaps) reached; and agreements to disagree finalized. That process CANNOT happen on the time line of a late September meeting with the Board. I have no doubt that such a meeting will fail for being ill-prepared if we attempt it. It is very likely that such a meeting COULD happen in Dublin in the days immediately before the ICANN meeting, but no sooner. I realize that this likely means that no final proposal will be available to the community in Dublin - but given the Board's fundamental objections that is now beyond possibility. If the Board were to recede and agree that the CCWG proposal is the fundamental core of what will go to the NTIA, then the timing can be restored - but if it insists on discussing its proposal (which, I am sorry Wolfgang, is absolutely NOT basic agreement - no matter how hard you wish it to be) in detail and attempting to modify the CCWG proposal then the timeline must shift. I am, of course, only a participant, not a member. So I have no "vote" in this matter. But it would be my firm recommendation that the Co-Chairs respectfully decline the Board's invitation to Los Angeles and schedule a meeting with the Board in due course once the Board actually has a formal position to put forward. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9>

4 3

ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

All, following the call with the Board yesterday, I went through the chat history and feel compelled to remind everyone of ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior. We may disagree on substance, but please let us treat each other with respect. We have challenging times before us. Let's keep up the collaborative spirit. Best, Thomas

2 1

Chris's summary of current thinking
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

Hello All, Below are some notes relating to Chris's summary that reflects a DRAFT of current thinking. We will refine these and post the final points into the public comment forum, once we get feedback during this call. Regards, Bruce Tonkin CCWG-Accountability Proposal Delivery Framework 1. Develop Fundamental Bylaws and Process for Modification a. Bylaws areas: i. ICANN's Mission and Core Values. ii. Reviews imported from the Affirmation of Commitments, including modifications with community consensus. iii. The requirements for having community input and consultation on development of ICANN Budget, Strategic Plans, Operating Plans and Standard Bylaws. This includes the IANA Functions Budget as well. iv. Commitment to fund IANA Functions housed within ICANN. v. IANA Functions Reviews called for within the CWG Report, with commitment to implement recommendations from those reviews. b. Change process - When Board proposes changes to Fundamental Bylaws (including amendments, additions or deletions): i. Incorporate into the Bylaws a requirement for community comment and input. ii. Empower the community to support such a change through a demonstration of consensus in the community. Consensus in this situation is demonstrated through meeting the specified threshold of numbers of SOs or ACs needed to support the proposed change. iii. Once there is community consensus to support the change, the change is effective upon 3/4 of the Board voting in favour of the change. 2. IRP Enhancements a. Roll back modification of standard of review that was in place before 2013. b. Commitment that revised standard of review, standing panel and procedural improvements will be part of next phase of work on IRP enhancements. 3. Expand Reconsideration Process and Define Clear Escalation Path For Accountability a. Expand scope of reconsideration process to define as an initial step in seeking challenge against Board or staff action. Expansion could include: i. Allowance of Reconsideration Process to be used in allegations that the Board acted in violation of the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. ii. Increase from current process-driven bases to areas of more substantive concern, such as unfairness of a decision or inconsistency of logic. b. Following Reconsideration Process, use IRP and build escalation through accountability mechanisms, resulting in development of full appeals process. 4. Establish new Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM): =============================================================== a. Process for community to bring challenges against Board action that is alleged to be inconsistent with specified fundamental Bylaws. b. Binding arbitration process that is enforceable in California Courts c. ICANN funds MEM arbitrations. d. The MEM shall not be available for challenges based upon the adoption of ICANN's annual budget or annual operating plan. 5. Community Involvement in Development of Standard Bylaws Changes, Budgets, Operating Plans and Strategic Plans a. Incorporate into the Bylaws a requirement for community comment and input on each of these areas. b. Empower the community to raise timely consensus-based issues or concerns on a proposed Board action ("Community Concerns"). Consensus in this situation is demonstrated through meeting the specified threshold of numbers of SOs or ACs needed to support the raising of an issue or concern. c. ICANN commits to working with the community to resolve areas of Community Concerns, through a consultation process. d. Provide a consultation process (borrowing from the GAC/Board consultation requirement), if the Board intends to take action that is inconsistent with the Community Concerns, to work to resolve the inconsistencies where possible, or if not possible, then a 2/3 Board threshold needed for Board to act against the general Community Concerns. 6. Board Removal/Recall =========================== a. Institute pre-service letters to require the resignation of each director upon the occurrence of specific events: i. Serious violation of governance standard, including statutory causes for removal (such as fraud). ii. Refusal to abide by the processes set forth to enable new community empowerment areas. iii. Failure to abide by outcome of Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (defined in #5 below). b. Process for invoking the resignation requirement. Any removal of a director is a very serious action, which must include a special community rationale and justification for removal of any individual directors and a special process for removals that would impact a significant number of voting directors. The process should allow for Board members to have an opportunity to defend against allegations that could support removal, and also include the potential for the imposition of sanctions less severe than removal. 7. Incorporate Affirmation of Commitments Reviews into Bylaws a. Consider proper edits to WHOIS review. b. Commitment to work with community on guidelines for reviews: i. Review team size and composition. ii. Budget. iii. Access to experts. iv. Access to ICANN documentation. v. Expectations on process for adoption and implementation of reviews. vi. Optimization and standardization of review team processes. 8. Implement All ICG Contingencies a. Confirm CSC is included in enhancements. b. Work with ccNSO and GNSO to confirm ability to address performance-related issues is appropriately documented. 9. Institutionalize in Bylaws the current practice of Board/GAC consultation requirement used only over consensus advice 10. Identify and commit to a process for defining continuous improvement work how the Board will consider those recommendations a. Bylaws requirement that continuous improvement ideas must be supported by a high threshold of the community and to uphold the following criteria consistent with the lines of the NTIA Criteria, which are: i. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; ii. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; iii. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; iv. Maintain the openness of the Internet; and v. Not result in ICANN becoming a government-led or an inter-governmental organization. b. Utilize existing mechanisms as home for some of the other identified areas of continuous improvement, including ATRT3.

8 11