Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #51 on 1 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/1Y9CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: Clarify whether article 2 section 3 is deleted or not ACTION ITEM: Bruce to ensure proposed language on AoC WHOIS review is sent to CCWG ACTION ITEM - Ensure synopsis of changes is posted ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to debrief on September meeting and discuss polling (whether dates get tracting) ACTION ITEM: Staff to get back to CCWG with a clearer deadline. 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. Review input received To date we have received 10 submissions. The comment period will close on 12 September. The CCWG has also received Jones Day's impact analysis. We have relayed it to lawyers and expect to receive initial feedback on Jones Day's document by the end of today. It is also anticipated that legal counsel will speak with JD lawyers. A briefing with the ICANN Board and a call with Advisors took place on 31 Aug. The ccNSO organized two ccTLD webinars. Outreach is extremely active. 4 Advisors offered comments on the Advisors call. Most comments were supportive of our proposal. We received valuable feedback from Nell (proposal should dive deeper into outreach) and Jan (voting methodology). On the leadership call with NTIA, NTIA reminded us of the blog post and BA intervention. Larry asked us to document its process. It was also reported that there is too little rationale: pro and cons of models need to be highlighted etc. NTIA mentioned that there might be questions on IRP. We conveyed to NTIA that our group has worked strictly on a requirements basis. Feedback: - The BC is concerned about: 1) Board is suggesting that they would give us new wording for AoC WHOIS review - we have not received that text and need it; 2) the Human Rights draft is currently limited. - Synopsis of Bylaws changes implies a deletion of article 2 section 3. Is that the case? ACTION ITEM: Clarify whether article 2 section 3 is deleted or not - How do we intend to proceed with Jones Day advice? Are we envisionning a systematic answer? It is a complex and hard-to-read document. Jones Day is still arguing that the Board must remain final arbitror, IRP should be advice and that ICANN should not be subject to coercive reviews. ---> Board is calling for us to signal any misunderstandings there may be in the memo. Our core focus will be to read the memo and provide comments. We have asked legal counsel to provide overview of relevant points and points that may be based on wrong assumptions of proposal. Jones Day's memo does not mention key legal issues, technical problems, but only focuses on pointing Board to appropriate risk level they want to take. We will discuss with Board once we have the memo at hand. ---> Legal counsel: we have focused on sole member and IRP issues. We will provide in-depth comments by Friday. We suggest our memo be sent to Board and/or posted. ACTION ITEM: Bruce to ensure proposed language on AoC WHOIS review is sent to CCWG Prepare for discussion with ICANN Board Meeting on 2 September - 22:00-01:00 UTC Briefing (31 Aug) was organized to ensure Board had a good understanding of our proposal and that spirit of proposal is appropriately conveyed. No major concerns were raised on 31 Aug. The Board is continuing analysis of report. There were no questions on mission, commitments, core values, fundamental bylaws, building blocks. There were a lot of questions on CMSM and IRP. We can anticipate comment that there are gaps in the report on voting procedures, IRP etc - we have not spelled out details. Feedback: - Is the Board aware of all changes that need to be made? ACTION ITEM - Ensure synopsis of changes is posted * . SCWG Suggest closing this issue as it is not CCWG related. This is a CWG-ICG issue. Feedback: - This conversation is based on a misreading. There is nothing for the CCWG to do other than to form a community mechanism. There is no indication that CCWG input would be be needed on SCWG. - We need to be aware of glaring hole in process. The IETF is not part of community mechanism. Separation could include one or all IANA functions. - Section on ICG is a summary of CWG report. It is not intended to replace the CWG report. The CWG has a process with a special IFR. - The community mechanism does not participate in the SCWG. - Close coordination is needed. CONCLUSION: This issue is closed. Elaborate a work plan for analysis of PC2 comments and finalization of report (September meeting suggested by ICANN Board) Staff is getting organized to populate the PC tool by Sept 15. We have limited time to deliver an analysis of comments and the final report incorporating any additional amendments as appropriate for COs to endorse in Dublin. We need to set time aside for lawyers' reviews, We were invited by ICANN Board for a face-to-face on 23-24 Sept. Should we organize intensive call periods or double amount of calls per week. Feedback: - Do we expect to refine proposal or rebuild the proposal into a third draft? - interaction with Board is useful. We have to have as much interaction with the Board as possible. - We need to take the Board's offer. ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to debrief on September meeting and discuss polling (whether dates get tracting) Political communication We received feedback from NTIA, Board, community that implies our proposal is not adequately transparent and easy-to-read. Report describes differences between first and second report. We need to have a stand-alone version of the report or similar document that explains the proposal as it is now. We have received requests to provide realistic/theoretical examples of how powers are interlinked. We need to further work on explaining our proposal and spelling out the genesis of our proposal. We should be coming up with recommendations that are suitable to meet requirements but we need to be professional about how we populate and formulate recommendations. We must ensure our high quality outcomes are understood. We have started a dialogue with Tarek Kamel. Idea is to ensure that our proposal does not lose strength because we failed to use the language of the target group. Feedback: Each recommendation has to be well explained. Bylaws amendment discussion We have to take holistic of proposal to Bylaws. Both ICANN legal and legal counsel are working on amendments. No objections to process. Benefit of experimenting is that we will learn about what is effective and what is not effective. We wrote to John Jeffrey to kick off process. Sam has indicated that we would have more clarity towards the end of the week. ACTION ITEM: Staff to get back to CCWG with a clearer deadline. Feedback: - Timeline and role unclear. - We need to be clear on what process is going to be and division of roles. How will this be conducted from a transparency point of view? Clarity needed. A.O.B