Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #17 call on 17 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890273 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting to be productive. Notes All participants in the adobe connect room Next stop: Istanbul Link to information about the Istanbul <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276 WP1 and WP2 will hold informal meetings on Sunday afternoon: * * WP1: 16:00 - 17:30 * WP2: 17:30 - 19:00 * followed by cocktails XPLANE will support the F2F meeting. Following discussion in WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working on, document "comparing accountability mechanisms" sent to the CCWG list. Purpose is to propose options, based on work we have been doing to date rather than introducing new ideas at this stage. The spreadsheet is not proposed as a full tool to compare the qualities of one mechanisms against another. If certain parameters are present for some mechanisms but not for other then will help us in the substance of discussions Activity reports WP1 report Jordan Carter * Last WP1 call consider how to write mechanisms on the the bylaws, the community veto and the updated template. And the new mechanism of the community council. * Question of jurisdiction keeps coming up, need to agree how to handle this or it may become a problem * The existing SO/AC model is based on decisions based on their own democratic processes and own thresholds and aggregated across the collective SO/ACs. Other suggestion is for the creation of a community council mandated by the SO/AC, with either directed or independent vote. And members discuss issues. * Questions being asked if each SO/AC should have the same weight in the decisions making process. * There are difference between mandated and non-mandated decisions. * with WP1 powers when talking about veto etc are very far from the usual policy making decisions of ICANN. There should be high thresholds. * Currently working on a tool to test how voting behavior of different groups will impact the outcome. Some mechanisms may have a lower voting threshold than others. WP2 Becky Burr * Core deliverables will be on the mission statement, community values. Will be prepared for March 20 and distribution. * Good discussion of independent review and expect good outcomes * work stream on ombudsman and reconsideration have had a lower start and will be the focus of informal meeting on Sunday in Istanbul * The constitution" document, and about to what extent, if any, ICANN's mission statement should be allowed, and the evolution of the mission should be a very high bar. Is there a need for * a constitutional court in addition to an independent review. Group seems to be favoring and combination. * Discussion about access ti the independent review and constitutional court are accessible both from point of view of standing and cost (looser pays, frivolous claim) * Mission statement core values: the group considers it important to ensure that there is no mission creep. Should there be a specific statement outlining what ICANN is trying to achieve. A vision statement might be useful, perhaps noting the security, stability, interoperability and resiliency of the Internet through coordinating the unique among and numbering system. Stress Test Working Party * The test regarding GAC consensus advice and requirements of the bylaws for the Board to act in response. Thomas Schneider's letter in response to co-chair's communication about the test. * All 25 stress tests have been drafted against the current mechanisms were have designed. * Tests 1 and 2, combined: * Change if delegation authority for IANA rootzone ceases to function. This is a test is an attempt to cover the needs of the CWG. The current contract held by NTIA could be revoked by NTIA, and this provides leverage. * Test 11. Compromise of credentials. Regarding security breaches and ICANN's standards for security training, follow-through on required training. To be able to enforce implementation of adopted security standards. Not directly related to the transition. Legal sub-team * Close to reaching agreement, had calls with a number of law firms. Call tomorrow (18 March) to finalize agreement. And hope to have representation from the external legal advisors present in Istanbul. Further refinement of the scoping document is required. * Will the legal firm be able to answer questions about international jurisdiction matters, or is this a matter for the CCWG expert advisors? * Might ask the experts while in Istanbul why we are talk about jurisdiction. CCWG colleagues might agree on what the requirement for jurisdiction debate are. Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting to be productive. Public comment approach structure of public comment, using question format and allowing for free form replies. Desire is to structure the public comment to the format of WP1 WP2 and stress tests. Asking questions about the approach, do you support or not. With a free form text field to allow comment to explain their answers. Anticipate large number of comments. Concern noted about the time line and that we will have a final proposal for WS1 by April 6. We are proposing significant changes to ICANN's organizational structure. Need to receive legal advice. And then go to our communities for their views, and then may be ready for public comment. The timeline will be an important discussion point for Istanbul.
