- Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, Recordings, Transcript LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #10 8 April
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #10 on 8 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895432 Action Items Action: email co-chairs and rapporteurs to ask when they need lawyers on their calls. and any feedback, and to identify documents that might be needed for those calls Action: pass the ARIN legal memo to the lawyers ask for their consideration. Action: forward questions asked in response to the lawyer's questions to the respective firms. And forward other relevant WS1 questions to both firms. Action: To provide legal counsel with ToC for the public comment document , and tracking document of the progress of WP1, WP2 and the stress test WP. Action: Staff/legal sub-team will give notice to counsel of when Stress Test WP needed. * legal sub-group will send formal memorandum to initiate work on items received from CCWG * legal sub-group will contact co-chair and rapporteurs, identify which calls should lawyers join, with any supporting documents * send stress test request for legal advice. Request, relative priority of questions: Yes, will provide prioritization. Will send calendar invites to all lawyers, with links to relevant groups pages and meeting information To co-chairs to ask for time on the agenda for next CCWG call April 14 12:00-14:00 UTC - CCWG, or an exceptional call, to allow outside legal counsel to level set., offer a presentation on the mechanisms being considered. Legal presentation, 50-60 minutes required. Action: contact co-chairs about legal counsel presentation at the next CCWG meeting, or an exceptional meeting? 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. 1. Welcome & Roll call 2. Timeline and Methodology (15 minutes) Preliminary report on April 21. Less than 2 weeks for document to be produced. How can Counsel and the legal sub-team support the groups. How to best inform the lawyers of calls. With an eye to cost effective. Friday 17, following the CCWG schedule of 14, 16 and early 17 April. What other calls should legal be on? WP1 later today (April 8), Adler unable to join be Sidley will cover the call and do document review. 48 hours notice would be good, scoping the next 2 days ideal Coordinate with the co-chairs and rapporteurs. Suggest legal call on Apr 20 in addition to the 17th. And check with the co-chairs where outside legal advice might be needed on their schedule of calls. Action: email co-chairs and rapporteurs to ask when they need lawyers on their calls. and any feedback, and to identify documents that might be needed for those calls Stress Test team will becoming for legal advice on issues they have identified. One person from the legal sub-team should join the calls where lawyers have been requested. Members will provide coverage. 3. Review of Issues Arising from Written Advice Issues arising from the documents and what's being discussed in the WP teams Amend the second hour agenda to inc issues they see in the mechanisms - addition to the agenda. Takeaways from the advice: models that are looking good, those that might be relegated. Issues that need to be focused on, a triage. Also look at the ARIN legal notes, particularly on designators. Also ask the lawyers to react to the memo. The memo is from ARIN not the ASO. However ASO representatives discussed the proposal as it was developed, but the document put forward by ARIN for the community's reference for work in WS1 Focus legal efforts of the next 10-12 days on WS1 issues. Action: pass the ARIN legal memo to the lawyers ask for their consideration. Binding nature of IRP may be an issue to focus in on. 4. Review of Issues Raised by CCWG Participants Pedro da Silva and Eberhard Lisse. Need to address issues that deal with WS1. Dr. Lisse's questions not directly WS1. A centralize list of questions, and non-WS1 can be addressed after the public comment period. Other questions directly address the Sidley and Adler documents, suggest asking the lawyers to respond directly to the questions posed. Da Silva, about California law, asking for a direct response would be reasonable. (Action: forward questions asked in response to the lawyer's questions to the respective firms. And forward other relevant WS1 questions to both firms.) A Wiki page will be created listing questions, with action taken provided, i.e. forwarded to counsel or if not with the reasons why not. Outside counsel join the call. Want legal advice on calls when needed, but with adequate time to prepare. Proposing a 48-hour rule, unless some emergency matter. How to best use legal advice, will coordinate with the co-chairs and rapporteurs. 48 hours if a new legal issues is short notice, but for previously seen information should be adequate. Noting that lawyers on the team have different skills and not entirely interchangeable, but the benches are strong. April 21 work product will be the CCWG's proposals. Based on the matrix sent to the legal teams. Recommendations on work stream 1 accountability mechanisms. Action: To provide legal counsel with ToC for the public comment document , and tracking document of the progress of WP1, WP2 and the stress test WP. Task to ask co-chairs and rapporteurs when the expect legal counsel to be needed. Questions from Stress Test WP will submitted to legal counsel. The WP meets weekly, Wednesday at 11:00UTC. Action: Staff/legal sub-team will give notice to counsel of when Stress Test WP needed. WP1 questions will be discussed on the group's call later today (21:00- 23:00 UTC) Sidley will address at a high level on the WP1 call. How powers are given to the community are important, but would be helpful to know the priorities for this powers, and the primary powers and mechanisms needed. Helpful to understand if some powers are alternatives, or are all powers are wanted? Counsel: If the CCWG comes with a set of specific requirements (to remove the board, to remove individual directors etc), then can give advice Response: And this is where the WP1 seems to be at. Powers have been identified. Some draft mechanisms have been drawn up, but need advice on whether those mechanisms are possible and if they are, can they do what the WP1 hopes they can do. Legal sub-team will perform some triage on questions for outside counsel. More is needed on best mechanisms rather than outliers, but for CCWG to identify those. * Issues arising from mechanisms List of mechanisms sent outside counsel. Any comments on the mechanisms documents.: Two firms cooperating. A response covering legal concerns and viability. Will provide feedback by the end of the week, and in one voice. Wiki page will be created for questions from the community, the legal sub team will coordinate which are asked and all submit a memo to outside counsel. Questions on the Sidley/Adler documents will be sent. Questions received from the community include Question about California incorporation. A request for a multi-jurisdictional survey, which is too broad, but may ask if the lawyers know of any jurisdiction where ICANN functions can be better accomplished. ARIN, the RIR for N America region, sent some legal advice the sub-group the outside counsel to consider, some informal response will be requested. Questions can be seem by outside counsel as the come in, but not respond until a memo received from the legal sub-team Not aware of another jurisdiction what would have greater benefit than California. But have not formally researcher this and the research would be a substantial exercise. Questions will focus on work stream 1. FAQ listing responses received will be created (future action) whether intergovernmental organization and sovereign states can bring actions against ICANN in state and fed courts in the US, or whether other fora should be utilized to bring their legal issues/action Conclusion the CCWG reached on 31 March: "Still in agreement that our goal is to enhance ICANN's accountability and therefore the topic of jurisdiction comes into scope when a requirement we have for accountability cannot be achieved within California jurisdiction. Based on potential requirements that could not be achieved in WS1, the jurisdiction issue might be pursued within WS2."

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript ST-WP Meeting #3
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability Stress Tests WP Meeting #3 on 8 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892510 Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions published for public comment. * ACTION ITEM: Leave strike-through on community veto and alert CCWG. * ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam * ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. * ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG * ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call * ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min * ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests 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. 1. Beran Gillan is on audio line 2. Further editing of stress test 18 since Istanbul 3. There are many anticipated mechanisms which we supposed would be part of the comment period e.g. mechanism of community veto - that was present in 8 of our stress tests. Community veto, however, is not being developed as part of WS1. May need to strikethrough some mechanisms. Eberhard has sent language for ST 21. Edward provided new ST (p.15) to be discussed Progress on ST 18. WP1 fully endorsed suggestion to proceed with change to Bylaw. Notion of how do we get Board to initiate action in proactive way - mechanism needed to force action. CWG identified set of stress tests as critical. 3&4 still up for discussion Expectation that we will apply stress test to what will be published for public comment. ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions published for public comment. Community Veto Stress test 3 litigation arising from existing public policy & stress test 4 new regulations or legislation. Proposal to leave strikethrough and alert colleagues as a warning. If no community veto, we would take it out. Removing community veto would not be fatal. --> Alternatives: reconsideration or IRP - these two mechanisms are close but not identical to community veto. Parameters are being set for reconsideration request (Cf Robin Gross' template) --> Community veto is not redundant ACTION ITEM: Leave strikethrough on community veto and alert CCWG. Forcing ICANN's Board to implement a recommendation ST 17 ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other SG. ATRT2 recommendation compels Board to respond to advice from AC. Is a response enough to trigger a review mechanism or do we need Board to make resolution/take a vote in order to have something to review? LEGAL QUESTION: can we ensure there is a response which relates to inaction of Board, not just responses that are triggered by action of Board? ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam If there is a response to issue, it is a far more high consequence such as proposal to spill whole Board. Spilling Board could be result of inaction. If inaction from Board, is it enough to trigger reconsideration or IRP? Where is the linkage? ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. It would depend on nature of response/decision. We must have clarity about triggers. ST11 Compromise of credentials WP1 and WP2 to ensure reconsideration or IRP can be triggered on inaction of Board. ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG ST 26 suggested by Edward Morris was added. 4. ST 18 will be discussed on next CCWG call. 5. Following stress tests have been identified in context of CWG work: Failure to Meet Operational Expectations 1. Change authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. 2. Delegation authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. 11. Compromise of credentials. 17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. 21. A government official demands ICANN rescind responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent ccTLD Manager. High priority should be given to this. On 13-14 April the CWG is having intensive work day Expecting long form document The CWG would have to build text around it to show how this would be applicable and how it is mapped. Suggestion to have Cheryl & Avri circulate CWG accountability mechanisms as soon as high confidence they are close to final stage ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests ST 21 TBD

2 1

Questions regarding access to IRP when harm is prospective
by Burr, Becky April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Earlier today Rafael Perez Galindo wrote: we deem it essential that the standing scope encompasses not only materially affected persons or entities, but also potentially affected ones. The rationale behind this proposal is that there are instances in which the harm is only done AFTER a decision that violates the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation is made. A typical example would be the decision to delegate a new gTLD that has a high likelihood of harming determined interests or rights or users. In this case, the potentially harmed communities should be in a position to file an IRP BEFORE the harm is done, thus avoiding the commission of the violation. Hence, sometimes it makes no sense to wait till irreversible damage is caused, and a provision envisaging this situation should be put in place, expanding the scope of legitimacy to file an IRP to situations in which it is demonstrated that a severe harm can potentially be done. I responded as follows: As to “potentially affected” parties, I think we are really talking about “prospectively affected” parties. In other words, if the Board takes an action, the party in question will be materially or significantly and adversely affected. In that case, a prospectively affected party would have standing to seek relief prior to an action or decision to the extent the prospective harm is ‘material’ or ‘significant’ and the normal standard for pre-emptive or injunctive relief is met. This would require a showing on the part of the prospectively affected party that they are likely to win an IRP on the merits and that there is no adequate remedy once an action or decision has been taken. Putting aside the merits of any particular case, I believe that this approach has been adopted in at least one ongoing IRP. The chart below reflects my quick research regarding how this issue is handled in different (English speaking) jurisdictions, and how it has been applied in the international arbitration context in an ICANN IRP. (It would be great if Thomas and Leon could provide information on how this applies in civil law jurisdictions.) Our task is to decide (a) whether we agree that this kind of prospective harm should be covered, and if so, what standard should be applied. Please let me know your thoughts. Ontario, CA Three-part test for granting an injunction in R.J.R Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. (1) Is there a serious issue to be tried? Some cases apply a low standard (case is neither vexatious or frivolous) and others apply a high standard (moving party to demonstrate that it has a strong prima facie case). (2) Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm – i.e., harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms or that cannot be cured - if the injunction is not granted? (3) Which party will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the remedy pending a decision on the merits (“balance of convenience”)? Are there other factors to be considered, e.g., “clean hands”? Australia Under Australian Broadcasting Corp v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, an interlocutory injunction will be granted where it is shown that: (1) There is a serious question to be tried in that there is a sufficient likelihood of success so as to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial; (2) The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction (that is, the inconvenience or injury the IPR holder would likely suffer if the injunction were refused outweighs the injury the alleged infringer would suffer if the injunction were granted); and (3) The plaintiff is likely to suffer injury for which damages will not be an adequate remedy having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case. United States Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as explained in Johnson v. Burge, 506 Fed. Appx. 10, 11 (2d Cir. 2012), a party seeking injunctive relief must show: (1) Irreparable harm; (2) Either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits; and (3) A balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking the injunctive relief. International Commercial Arbitration (ICDR) Article 21 of the ICDR Rules grants broad powers to the Panel and the Emergency Arbitrator to “take whatever interim measures it deems necessary.” In order to demonstrate entitlement to interim relief on an emergency basis, a party must indicate the relief requested, explain why it is entitled to the requested interim relief, and demonstrate why the relief is required on an emergency basis. As applied in DCA Trust v. ICANN, interim relief may be granted if the claimants demonstrates (1) There is an urgent need for relief to protect an existing right (2) The relief requested is proportionate to the harm that would occur in the absence of interim relief; and (3) The claimant has a reasonable possibility of succeeding on the merits. (from another source "… most of the Rules do not provide any guidance other than that the decision maker “may” grant interim relief where the decision maker deems it “necessary” or “appropriate.” Some commentators have criticized this lack of specificity, arguing that defined standards will help overcome arbitrators’ traditional reluctance to grant requests for interim relief. Consequently, one commentator has argued that an applicant should be required to demonstrate that it is “possible” (not “probable”) that it will prevail on the merits and that it will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted. This is the approach that UNCITRAL has adopted. Others have argued that these standards, although vague, necessarily incorporate other requirements, such as irreparable harm, urgency, and some consideration of the strength of the parties’ claims and defenses.”) J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

3 5

Follow up from the last CCWG call
by Izumi Okutani April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Hello all, I'd like to follow up from the last call for reconsideration being list as WS1 requirement. As you can see from the chat record of CCWG ACCT Session #18 we requested for more time to consider it since it is the first time we see this and and this was agreed by the chair. The current note from CCWG ACCT Session #18 call says "CONCLUSION: Reconsideration process is WS1. " May I suggest this to be revised as this is not consistent with what was agreed? As a feedback on reconsideration process, I support we consider this as a group, move fast on drafting requirements, identify ways to address it. At the sametime I have some reservations on making a decision at this point for this mechanims to be in WS1. We have at this point identified as WS1 : - Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values - Develop Fundamental Bylaw - Strengthening the existing independent review process, and - Mechanisms for community empowerment which includes "recall the ICANN Board of Directors", "approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws, Mission and Core Values", "reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and budget" It looks like we already have several core powers to ensure accountability of key decisions. I support the group to continue working on this, progress as much as possible, but I would like to see an overall picture of accountability mechanism based on what we have identifies already, before adding more as WS1. As a away forward, I would like to suggest that we continue working on this but to visit whether this should be in WS1 after we go through developing mechanisms for core requirements we have already identified powers for, have legal reviews, conduct stress test, rather than to make a decision at this point. I would be intersted to hear if anyone have other thoughts on why we have to make a decision at this point that this needs to be in WS1. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani

8 9

Updated CCWG-ACCT Calendar of calls
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Hello all, Please see the attached updated calendar of calls coming up for CCWG-ACCT. Thank you! Brenda

2 3

Fwd: Draft Agenda for Call #7 WP1: 21h UTC on Wed 8 April
by Jordan Carter April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear CCWG members, below for your info our agenda for the WP1 meeting on 8 April. cheers Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 8 April 2015 at 14:45 Subject: Draft Agenda for Call #7 WP1: 21h UTC on Wed 8 April To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Dear WP1 members, We have our next call coming up in around about 20 hours: 21h00-23h00 UTC on Wednesday 8 April. *Please note it's a 2hr slot.* The draft agenda is as follows, subject to any additions proposed between now and then: *1. Agenda review* *2. Report back from CCWG meeting on 7 April* *3. Working through our draft Comment Report* *We need general comments and specific comments on the overall approach, and on specific items of disagreement, improvement, or just questions, so we can update and then circulate an updated version for us to look at on the next call.* *To be most economical with time, it would be good not to have specific drafting comments dealt with verbally on the call - these would be most helpful as comments bubbles or tracked changes in Word, or just in text in emails responding to specific text from the paper.* *This will be the biggest item on our call.* *It's already apparent that another layer of detail will probably be required.* *4. Discussion (incl with the legal advisors) on how to work out our mechanism* *There are a decent list now of possible mechanisms developed by us - membership/delegates, a group inside ICANN under the bylaws, SO/AC processes - to which our legal advisors have offered additional suggestions e.g. the very large super-board.* *We need to work out how to make a call on this.* *My suggestion as rapporteur is that we try to focus on one or two options - the permanent CCWG/Community Council model, or the superboard model that Adler have discussed - and ask the legal advisors which of those models can deliver what we need, or whether they recommend a different mechanism instead (and if so why).* *As prep I will update the table we began to discuss in Istanbul that sets out the key features of the different mechanisms, and circulate it later tonight.* *5. Agree agenda for 10 & 13 April calls* *Current suggestions for 10 April:* *- next version of our comment report* *- agree what parts can be sent to CCWG as early notice for the 14 April CCWG call* *- focus on decision weights and thresholds for our powers and mechanisms (who has the power)* *Current suggestions for 13 April:* *- resolution on a mechanism to recommend to the CCWG* *- final review of comments report before sending complete input to CCWG* *6. Any Other Business* Any other suggested agenda items, please let us all know ASAP. 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 * -- 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

CCWG timeline documents
by Adam Peake April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Hi everyone, Please find copies of the revised CCWG timeline attached. Files CWG-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.7 complete CCWG and CWG timeline, delivery of proposals and tentative implementation plan. This file is on the wiki https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountab ility CWG-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.6.9 CCWG and CWG timeline for delivery of proposals CWG-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.6.9b CCWG tentative implementation pending adoption of CCWG recommendations and work stream 2. Best, Adam

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #21 07 April
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #21 call on 07 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894988 Action Items Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. Notes This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Links WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx> http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e> http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Notes/Action Items 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest Tijani Ben Jemaa on the call only. 2. Update on sprint by various groups Work Party 1 (WP1) WP1 team of drafters formed following a work plan adopted April 1. Content further reviewed at calls on April 10 and 13 with a view to completion to allow for a 2nd reading by CCWG reviewing community powers mechanism, stress test on GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, and recall of board members. Update and process. Questions arising from drafting. In terms of removing directors looked at removal of individual and the whole board. Focus from Singapore was the whole board. Advice from lawyers, suggests removing individual directors more consistent with other mechanisms being considered by the group. Should this be WS1? Agreement noted in the chat. Caveat that if more complicated than anticipated then it may be delayed. Some objection, that is may be a more difficult thing to do. And a question if this is necessary for the IANA transition. Removal of the board should be exceptional and stringent. Where an SO or AC appoints a director they should be able to remove them. And WP1 is discussing options for NomCom appointees. Following legal advice, likely that it should be the appointing organization that removes them. Comment that members have argued that Director removal was not needed for the transition. Keep WS1 light. Concern that removal of the whole board might introduce instability to ICANN. Recalled that L Strickling suggested that removal of the Board may be a useful mechanisms. And removal of the whole board was WS1. Legal advice suggested that removal of the board may be difficult and take time, which caused removal of individual directors was reintroduced as potential WS1. Removal of the whole board and the potential difficulties needs to be discussed with legal advisors. Q. sending back a strategic plan and budget to the board: to avoid a repetition of the process, documents can only be sent back once on the same issue. Or more restricted, perhaps once per budget or strategic plan cycle. And some suggestion that the Board have a requirement to take feedback into account. Points of view on this? If the board does not adequately pick up on these concerns on request to "re do". Will already have an idea of community's view, and if sent back by the community then the mechanism to remove the board my come into play if the community view is ignored. Are there teeth in remanding back to the board? Or it becomes a meaningless power. If a single opportunity per cycle to send it back, then it indicates the importance of the action. If sustained disagreement then ICANN could continue to operate under the previous year's budget spending. No introduction of new issues in later rounds of objections. Continued operation on the basis of previous budget To invoke the process so the community has sufficient power and the power has teeth Community should voice all concerns in one submission Community may consider to removing the board in parallel WP1 issues: Mechanisms ro reject changes to ICANN bylaws. To be an approval body for the fundamental bylaws. Board recall, all/individual. Work Party 2 (WP2) Independent review and on mission, commitments and core values. The ombudsman process, questions being drafted and enhancements to the process. And development of templates. Community standing, and potentially affected parties: parties who would be affected if a particular action taken, but not affected in advance of any party. Someone who would not be harmed until the action was taken, would those people have standing? What is the standard of independent review. Under ICANN current arbitration standard, have been cases where the panel has issued a stay preventing ICANN taking an action. Question will be sent to the group. Reconsideration process will be updated. Comments welcome. IRP, reconsideration, mission and core values, and update of ombudsman process ready for the next call. Review of the ombudsman process will be considered as WS2. Stress tests Test 18, GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, wording for potential bylaws wording for went to WP1. Looking at addressing topics the CWG are requesting. Test 18. "With respect to GAC advice that is supported by consensus" The condition is that the advice is consensus. A change to the bylaws that is proposed as WS1. Full debate on this topic during next weeks call. 3. Legal group update To inform the group's deliberations. How to interaction with the legal advisors. Sidley is the coordinating firm. They will work based on memos drafted by the legal sub-group. The legal advisors will work with the work parties. Are CCWG's proposals adequate and legally viable. Greg Shatan coordinating legal sub-group this week. Formally assigning questions to the legal advisors, how is this done? Only if through memorandum through the legal sub-team. Circulating on the legal sub-team list shows the issue will be on the agenda of the sb-team and consideration for forwarding to the advisors. 4. Timeline To the target of 21 April, our date for finalizing for public comment. Under our current call schedule this only allows 4 hours of CCWG call for discussion of proposals, suggest need more time, and we want to add additional calls,: Tuesday April 16, Friday 17, April 20 and April 21, to close the last round of discussion. Translation time needs to be factored in. Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. New timelines documents. F2F before BA, June 19. To have informed conversation with SO/AC in BA. Second PC after BA, to address outstanding items from the first comment. How to get interim commitments. First public comment period is the main comment period. Second public comment is to address issues outstanding from the first comment period. Important the first round be treated as most important. New during the second PC might be any new powers or mechanisms that are suggested in the first public. The second public comment also an opportunity to comment on details. Some of the implementation work should start as quickly as possible, and need to engage with Board and Staff. June 19 meeting. ICG has been informed, they meet on 18-19 June. Coordinating to adjust our agendas. ICANN will support travel for members and liaisons 5. correspondence, ICG) 6. CWG input Correspondence from Sidley on internal accountability and hybrid models, and what the CWG --according to Sidley-- is requiring as accountability mechanisms from CCWG. This Sidley memo has not yet been discussed by CWG. AOB. Call with GAO, Mathieu and Thomas. Spoke as individuals as c-chairs trying to reflect the current state of the group's deliberations. Comments in line with public statements. The same questions have been asked to a range of community members. Their report will be shared before publishing to check reflects what was said. Once approved the report will be published.

1 0

Calendar of calls
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached the calendar of calls discussed on the call today. Brenda will circulate calendar invites. Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice
by Jordan Carter April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all When we discussed this document at WP1 last week, there was a general view that this was worth doing and there were no objections raised. We did think it needed to be discussed in the whole CCWG as it overlaps the work of WP1 and 2. My apologies for being slow to communicate this to the whole CCWG. I await the co-chairs' advice about when we will schedule that in the agenda. best, Jordan On 1 April 2015 at 15:30, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: > To: members of Work Party 1, Work Party 2, and the stress test WP > > While in Istanbul, the stress test WP had hoped to discuss appropriate > responses to stress test 18, regarding GAC advice that might no longer be > supported by consensus. > > We didn't get to this in Istanbul, so I drafted a summary of previous > discussions of ST 18, and a proposed a way forward (page 5). It's now for > WP1 and WP2 to discuss mechanisms/powers to respond to the stress test. > > I ran this draft by the CCWG co-chairs, who advised several key edits > and agreed this was an issue we need to address, despite the political > sensitivities. > > I cannot join the WP1 call on 1-April, but hope this document is > sufficient for you to consider the proposed bylaws change. > > Best, > Steve > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and > http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.703.615.6206 > > > > -- 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 *

2 1