Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #73 – 22 December will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/9ItlAw

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics

ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments

ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction.

ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week

ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI

 ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report

ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up

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.

Public Comment Period 

Staff update: 80 replies. 4 of COs sent in comments (GAC, ALAC, ASO, SSAC). Input from a number of constituencies received. Staff uses spreadsheet. 

Discussion

·

• Input on geographic regions needed. 
• ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics
• On number of comments: less individual responses as requested to channel feedback through SO/ACs

Update from Chartering Organizations

·

• ALAC: ALAC has 5 YES, 4 YES but with restrictions, and 3 NOs.
• GNSO :The GNSO aims to have a consolidated position statement by the middle of January. The GNSO Council will
  have 2 calls in early January and plans to have a motion by January 14. Most GNSO SGs and Cs have submitted
  direct comments, but these will be consolidated in early January.
• ASO: Positive feedback - we support Draft Proposal: model and recommendations. We intend to participate in community
  structure. Rec. 3: specify that talking about naming function. Rec 5 important to have reference to MoU. Rec 8 excluded
  Rec 11: support text that clarifies today's practices and can be supported by NTIA.
• ccNSO: Call tomorrow. Possible to have input in next few days.
• SSAC: SSAC has submitted one-page comment and deliberately not commented on individual recommendations
  as cannot comment outside limited scope. SSAC anticipates it will be able to support the final proposal on understanding
  that nothing changes between now and then. 
• GAC comment - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00070.html

Work plan for CCWG

Review of proposed work plan.

Issues will require substance discussions to identify common way forward

We will focus on easy-to-fix issues as a priority and then focus on complex issues. Draft analysis will help us structure our work. 

Per our Charter - we will need to consider whether supplemental draft, public comment needed. 

We should not wait for January 14 (foreseen GNSO submission) to conduct assessment. We already have received a number
of submissions from GNSO constituencies. 

Irrealistic to expect that potential supplemental report will be published by January 7. We will need to consider whether there
is a need to increase frequency of calls or need to set up subgroups to address topics.

Discussion:

·

• Supplemental report should go to public comments. 
• Flexibility needed to start discussing 
• In flavor of plenary discussion and more calls. Content for plenary discussions should be concise
• Discussion to be continued on list.
• Treat Board comment properly and timely.

Response on GPI question on Board members' criteria is pending. We are considering asking Advisors for input. Input on how
to address Board comments is welcome. Intent in addressing Board comments is to be as constructive as possible. Board has
two roles: 1) chiming into consensus discussion; 2) Adopting report. We need support of COs first to evaluate impact on consensus
and to assess whether final form of recommendations raise concenrs with Board. It would be premature to edit recommendations
now. We need to think how to deal with GPI and understand Board's concerns. We need to offer rationale why we think GPI is not affected. 

Discussion:

·

• Agree with comment that we should examine Board comments objectively. Agree with approach to categorize Board
  comments. There may be varying degrees. Clarify with Board on how strongly they feel with these suggestions
• Disagreement with proposed approach. 
• There is agreed definition of public interest. It will be endless discussion. 

ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments 

CONCLUSION: Plenary of the CCWG-ACCT will need to discuss outstanding items. 

Mission, Commitments & Core Values - Summary of status quo

With respect to Board comments, we have fundamental divide about potential unintended consequences. Bruce requested to see
there is language the Board could offer to help us close this. 

 ALAC comments boil down to unintended consequences of what this language will do with respect to renewal of registry agreement,
ability to sign those agreements after language is adopted and PICS specifications. 

GAC has been asking for legal opinion. 

Two key questions:  (1) what does the prohibition on regulation mean; (2) what is the scope of grandfathering

Discussion:

·

• Careful analysis of sensitive PICS was done. 
• Grandfathering: difference of opinions whether long term/short term. Policy vs implementation come into equation.
• Determine whether limited to grandfathering. 

Different camps: 1) ICANN should not engage in any activity related to content regulation; 2) ICANN must be in a position to do so.
How can we reconcile these differences? Suggestion to consider attempt mitigation friction by adding language that limits risk of
ICANN exercising monopoly. Where contractory voluntary offers limits. 

ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction. 

ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week

ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI

ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report

Stress Test 18 - Summary of status quo

Public comment period: We have softer support. Objections are dissenting. Discussion will be needed 

Discussion: 

·

• Current Bylaw should remain as it is - sentence should be added: should GAC change consensus to majority then the
  text by CCWG could apply. 
• Revise language to clarify that all we are changing is 2/3 
• In previous bylaw no mention was made on rejection. The Board may not always have used a formal decision. 

CONCLUSION: Only way to obligate Board is to have decision locked into consensus. 

ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up

AOB

Clarifications on CRISP notification on timeline: Board comments were listed as a specific example. Note intended for CoChairs
but shared with full CCWG for full transparency