- Accountability-Cross-Community

Article
by Roelof Meijer April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Kieren, I came across your article in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/15/internet_kingmakers_cry_mercy_over_… It surprises me (or maybe it doesn't) that you quote me, without showing the courtesy of at least informing me beforehand. Additionally, I wonder if you have announced to us all that you are participating in the CCWG as a journalist. I am not aware of that, but might have missed something. Roelof Meijer

4 4

Fwd: FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the latest timetable from the CWG. Their public comment period is expected to start on Wednesday, 22 April. -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date : Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:40:08 +0100 De : Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Répondre à : jrobinson(a)afilias.info Organisation : Afilias Pour : Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr> Copie à : Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Please see below for latest timetable information from the CWG. Jonathan *From:*Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] *Sent:* 16 April 2015 19:57 *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Cc:* Brenda Brewer *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement *Importance:* High Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. */It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed./* The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now *cancelled*(we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. Timeline for the upcoming week: * *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. /Note/: /This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days)/. * *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace

1 0

Initial draft section 8 - work stream 2
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As part of our planned report structure for public comment, section 8 is planned to address work stream 2 : what items would be considered and how would we ensure commitment that they will indeed be addressed ? The task of assembling a draft was assigned to the co-chairs in Istanbul. With precious help from staff, we are circulating this initial draft, building on the idea of a transitional article in the Bylaws, which seemed to get traction in Istanbul. The list of items is very tentative. the status of the document is an Initial draft. Amendments sent before Friday 17 Apr 15.00 UTC will be incorporated into the “freeze period” document. And of course, full and detailed review will be on the agenda of our intense work days (so this is NOT an urgent last call). Thanks for your consideration, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

7 11

Further Objection to the Methodology
by Dr Eberhard Lisse April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making. I object to this. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

10 15

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #11 16 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #11 - 16 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897025 Notes WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April Please note that 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 Links: WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Starting from 6.5.6 Recalling the entire ICANN Board comment: regarding petitioning power, on the basis of 2 or more SO/AC. Suggest a much higher bar. Create an extreme measure because everything else hasn't worked to that point. What higher threshold: 2/3 of all SO/AC in ICANN (of 7 total, 3 SO and 4 AC, 2/3 cannot be reached by the AC alone). In a group that broadly works on consensus, 75% to remove the Board seems low. Some earlier comment that did not want 1 SO or AC to be able to block this power. Is there any voice for the NomCom in removing their directors? As a whole board removal the question is about removal not appointment. WP1 does not need to address the mechanism for doing this now. Using options to describe these thresholds would allow the community to see why certain % have been offered, including an explanation of thinking behind the options. Suggest creating a table to represent thresholds. 3rd paragraph. Internal mandate and discussion. Can it be unbolded? Yes, Agreed 6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws Stress test 14. After the contract with NTIA's gone there is nothing holding ICANN to stay within the AoC. To answer the test, to retain the commitment and reviews, add the AoC to the bylaws, as a WS1 item. 1st preserve 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the commitments cited in the section 9 reviews. Para 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not reference commitments made by ICANN, not of concern to the CCWG Noted that "Other parts of the AoC are either preamble text or commitments of the US Government, so these have not been proposed as additions to the ICANN bylaws." Left column is the commitment to the community, the right column is how to approve on this commitments in the core values. suggestion to add "and approval" to para 3 to "Ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the global public interest and are accountable, transparent and bottom-up in their formulation" [and in their approval] Need care when adding to the bylaws, to be sure we know what we mean. further caution: the word "global": has been added so needs to be underlined. bottom-up in their formulation is loose language for bylaws. And not all ICANN processes are bottom-up. Note: the text will get further scrutiny. Add to the chapeau: that text being added to the bylaw is understandable and implementable. suggested change: "and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of ICANN". Accepted. Chapeau, remove "the following..." (and in other sections) Financial and non-commercial are not two sides of the same coin. The text was intended to refer to broad financial impact. Non-financial impact might be considered. Para 7. Using reasonable has been defined over years of law, adequate doesn't the same legal clarity. Suggest that what trying to do is propose the sense of the change we desire, and too much close text editing gets away from that goal. Para 8b, should, be considered by the CCWG. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material, 4 recommendations. The first text box is from the ATRT2 report. Avri to draft standalone paragraph about the CWG review mechanisms. SSR review. Suggestion to hold more frequently than five years, "This periodic review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years" New gTLD expansion "Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" AoC is proscriptive, new text tried to simplify. WHOIS/directory services Addition of reference to the OECD guidelines (remove, note text) Periodic review of the IANA Function Information now in CWG. First after 2 years and subsequently every 5. Packaged as an AoC review. Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests Force the board to respond to SO/AC advice. So that the board has taken a stand on advice, which then would be subject to review. Next Steps: New version 3.2 will be sent to the list immediately. Later, a tidied version, with comments and table for the voting threshold as clean document and track changes will be distributed, this version will be open for any changes. Final version responding to last comments will be sent to the CCWG (as directed by co-chairs) END

1 0

Calendar view of CCWG and SubTeam Meetings 20 - 30 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Hello all! As a visual tool, here is a calendar for next two weeks of CCWG ACCT and SubTeam Meetings. April (subject to change) 2015 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 12 April 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCWG ACCT 19:00-21:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00-12:30 UTC LEGAL 15:00-17:00 UTC CCWG ACCT: 04:00 - 06:00 UTC 11:00 - 12:00 UTC 19:00 - 22:00 UTC LEGAL 22:00-23:59 UTC CCWG ACCT: 08:00 - 10:00 UTC 13:00 - 14:00 UTC 16:00 - 19:00 UTC 26 27 28 29 30 CCWG ACCT 19:00-21:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00-12:30 UTC LEGAL 15:00-17:00 UTC

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Stress Tests Meeting #4 on 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability Stress Tests Meeting #4 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895714 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895714%20> Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1 ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note ACTION ITEM - remove strike through ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed. ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language Notes Accountability Stress Tests WP Meeting #4 on 15 April Link: ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. P1 last paragraph will be edited. ST of interest to CWG will be added. ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1 Edward Morris' additional ST will be #26 STs # 3, 4, 29, 11, 27, 17 - Board Inaction: ability to spur the Board to make a decision in order to trigger a reconsideration or IRP is not firmly established in any of the design powers and mechanisms yet. Outreach to legal on Board inaction has not led to formal feedback. Suggestion that threaten Board of removal to solve for Board inaction is not a formal mechanism. Expanding on ATRT recommendation #9 language in the bylaws might be sufficient to trigger the IRP and other review mechanisms that are being worked on in Work Party 2. Conversation with WP1 to ensure inducing Board action is a community power. WP2 discussion about whether or not existing redress mechanisms could somehow be triggered by a failure to act. ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note Steve del Bianco flagged that Preserving AoC commitments in ICANN bylaws will be discussed in WP1 Suggestion that better to have Bylaw provision that forces Board an accountability to the community to respond to Advisory Committee formal advice. - Advisory Committees would benefit from this. Outreach to ACs might be needed. Community Veto STs #3, 4, 19, 10, 20, 15 ACTION ITEM - remove strike through ST #18 GAC Discussion is pending. Some GAC support for ST recommendation. Should more urgent issues come forward from WP1 - WP2, stress test 18 still needs discussion - would cut back on 14 - 17 GAO Steve provided GAO with overview of STs ST #21 Suggestion to amend ST 21 in light af CWG remarks concerning appeal mechanism and respect national legislation on redelegation ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed. Consider including reference to GAC principles ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 08:00 UTC | 24 April
by Kavouss Arasteh April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Co-Chair What does it mean to have two meeting each of two hours with two hours of interval on Friday 24 April? Pls clarify the usefulness of these two almost consequtive meetings Kavouss 2015-04-16 13:03 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear Brenda > I have asked you to kindly provide us in a tabular form the lastest > updated schedul for all CCWG and its Working Groups > Regards > KA > > 2015-04-16 12:40 GMT+02:00 Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>: > >> CCWG-Accountability – Friday 24 April 2015 from 08:00 – 10:00 UTC >> Time zone converter *here* >> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…> >> >> *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ >> The dial-in details are below - *please let me know if you require a >> dial-out.* >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Participant passcode: *CCWG ACCT * >> >> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >> _______________________________________________________________ >> >> Dial in numbers: >> *COUNTRY* *Number* *Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE >> 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 >> 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY >> 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE >> 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA >> – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH >> REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND >> Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE >> PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 >> 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG >> 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 >> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL >> 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA >> 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 >> LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >> MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW >> ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >> PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >> POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH >> AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN >> 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 >> 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 >> 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED >> KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON >> 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 >> 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 >> 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> >> > >

2 2

Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation
by Robin Gross April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace. We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace. Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward. I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam. Best, Robin

11 15

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Meeting #10 on 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability WP1 Meeting #10 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895958 Action Items Action: Avri Doria to write a short explanation Notes Accountability WP1 Meeting #10 on 15 April. Links: WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. About the agenda: legal document with WP2 template and legal advice on some. CCWG Tuesday a presentation by the lawyers on powers and mechanisms. Some questions not asked, and clear in the call that the CCWG is far from agreement as to the mechanisms to choose. So WP1 is not close to recommending a mechanisms by Friday. On the co-chair coordination, need the debate in the CCWG to have the discussion about mechanisms next week. WP1 discussed Q&A items, to ask q of the lawyers, and WP1 written questions will be forwarded. So when we have the meetings next week, we are all in a better position to refine down to critical points and the mechanisms. Not a decision making call. To talk about the issues with the lawyers. To debate with the fill CCWG next week. 40 minutes. Followed by review of the 3rd draft "CCWG-ACCT Working Party 1: Community Empowerment Input for First Public Comment Report" 2. Q&A with Counsel on the "Mechanism" debate Question: different advantages/disadvantages of the designator model and the membership model. Strongest reason to select and drawback to each model. Advantage of membership is also the weakness. Statutory framework of rights in the corporation code. Members are given rights under bylaws or statute that cannot be given to designators. Some rights are those the CCWG wants. They are provided in the statute. The downside is the extensive framework of statutory rights that should be built into the bylaws, protections and rights. There is a lot of procedure and detail in the bylaws Advantage of designator is ignoring all of that. And disadvantage is that corporate law does not give rights that re available in the statute. To make those rights available, have to look to contact. CA corporations code allows any provision in the bylaws that you want for internal governance, that is not prohibited by law. If there are procedures you want to follow (reconsideration etc) can be out in, so long as not illegal. And what happens with enforce-ability. What happens if someone (the board) decides not to follow within the system, may have a harder time to respond in the designator system than the member system. If the SO/AC become members, are the liable. If GNSO designed a gTLD designed a policy that everyone thought silly and cause companies to loose millions $$$ could the GSNO be sued for this? CA law requires legal persons. For the designator model. legal advice is the designators be legal persons, or there'd be no means to legally enforce bylaws etc. This has worked for ICANN, perhaps we don't care? But having legal persons does also bring complications. So unincorporated associations are recommended for designators and members. And in member model the law says members are persons. If not legal persons then they only exist inside ICANN. So there is no legal recourse. They have the right to contract and the right to sue, and the burden of being sued. But the unincorporated associations have no "blood" no value. The unincorporated associations only can be sued, the participants are not liable. (Agreement from legal advisor) Freedom from lawsuit. Believe forming as unincorporated associations should not cause liability, and can protect the participants. They don't have assets. Crazy people might file lawsuits but expect those to be thrown out pretty quickly. Legal advisors do not think this is a significant concern. Q. Members and designators. GNSO made up of 4 distinct and different parts, unlikely to come to agreement on any issue. GNSO needs 4 distinct votes, weighted. Is this legally doable? In a member structure, members of different classes could be given different votes, quarters, or 4 votes, etc. In the designator structure, each would appoint their own Directors. It's the internal structures that would elect the same number directors. Second pathway, the same mechanisms as used to select the GNSO director could be how you vote as a designator or a member. Q. Designing a mechanism to induce the Board to consider, and what such a mechanism might look like. Advice that is received but not acted on. How to cause board action. Mechanisms to force a consideration by the board. in the member or designator structure could design a structure to whenever the member or designator petition the board for a hearing they get a hearing. A convening power to the community. q. if we get that mechanism, can the board then be forced to respond in such a way that can then be subjected to review, for example a triggering of a review mechanism. The outcome of the convened meeting has 3 results: do the thing people want, not do the thing, not take a decision. And those could be triggers for an IRP. A little easier with membership, but probably work around with the designators, not aware of the problem. q. NomCom. Would need to be a legal entity. Question, how to remove a directors appointed by the NomCom, could this only be done by a NomCom. Under the designator system only be removed by that entity. So under the designator system would need to be created as a legal person, restructured in some way. Under the member system, can mix designators, and NomCom could be organized as a designator in a member organized system. q. Designator model, contractual arrangements can make the designator model respond to the major requirements of the CCWG? q. if no additional measures to the designator model, what can we do an not do? Under designator system they cannot be given powers around budget and strategy, and also certain decisions around a review process. What is the minimum: even if you decide to maintain a designator system lead advice if the designators are organized as legal persons, to provide protection against liability, a shield, and in the future if needed, they would have standing to enforce their rights. q. putting the membership into place would be more complicated and take longer? Not considerably more complex. The way currently organized into groups that are like members. The member structure relies on some more subtle areas of law. But not a radical change from the designator structure. Look at discrete member rights and say not so complex, but in CA there are elaborate members requirements, notice requirements, inspection rights, etc., that make it more complicated to implement. (fro chat) I would like to clarify. I think for member corporation, as Ingrid said, the complexity is in the rights and statutory framework. I Think with designators, the complexity is in designing the contractual arrangements. So I would say they are both complex, but perhaps in different ways. q. legal sub-team, ask for questions in writing, what happens to those questions: what steps? Questions are reviewed by the legal sub-team, not all are sent. Questions are sent through, or they are collated and sent to counsel. label any question for counsel, and break out questions from long threads. 4. Public Comment Document content Review the document part by part. Comment: 6.5.2 Power to reject budget/strategy. Suggest the title should include reconsideration, the board should be given that option. Rejection comes later. Correct the inconsistency. Response: In each situation described, there is a reconsider requirement while there is a block of execution going on. Global public interest. What re the criteria for that? What are the ICANN stakeholders. page 3, 2nd power. Change adopted to approved, and these are suggested global changes for the document. Ratios: 50%, 60% subsequent rejection: suggest higher for what an extreme measures, raise by 10% - 15%. Question, should these ratios should considered in comparison with the other powers and the importance of other powers? Think of the rights of members of an organization usually in terms of approval of the budget. issues of detail. Is it a positive right to approve or a negative right to object? But this will not be a process of the community coming in to approve, it will only occur when the community has an issue with the board's actions. 6.5.3 increased threshold for the right to object. Title should also match content (as with 6.5.2.) Fundamental and non-fundamental bylaws. Which are the fundamental bylaws. Timeline of 2 weeks to short, and threshold is too low. Timeline for bylaws change already require a public comment, the additional time is not so long as it will have been extensively publicly discussed. How to distinguish between fundamental bylaws? We propose what they are, and these come from WP2. Mink around core mission and values. And will be visible what they are. WP2 will identify them and describe why they merit protections. Fundamental bylaws tend to go to the core of corporation, and those being suggested seem to do that. And they would be clearly set out that they had different mechanisms for change etc. Who can change or propose changes to fundamental bylaws. ATRT and other review teams have suggested bylaws changes. Believe SO/AC can recommend to the Board to make bylaws changes, but it is a Board mechanism. And the Board on its own initiative can move to amend bylaws. Does this with the 2/3 majority. Anticipate changes to fundamental bylaws would be higher. 6.5.5. recalling individual directors Removal of the NomCom appointed directors. Is the IETF model one to consider? Threshold: 40%, concern too low. Recall methods within stakeholder groups. escalation mechanism: not suggesting the NomCom is the body to remove a director, but suggesting that there should be a way to remove them through a community mechanism. Consideration that it is not appropriate for the NomCom to be the remover. As yet we don't know the mechanism. Threshold: for now, that it should be the majority of the community, but to be discussed on the full CCWG IETF model: Petition to assemble a recall NomCom. Same rules of the regular NomCom, but is single issue. Decide on the 75% basis to remove or not. Offer to draft the analogous procedures. Action: Avri Doria to write a short explanation. 5. Agenda for Next Call Paper is the sole subject of the next call. Jordan will add comments to Ver 3 of the document. Next call will pick up at the end of 6.5.5. 19:00 UTC Thursday April 16.

1 0