Hello all, Sorry for the delay. The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Face to Face - Paris - Day 1, Session 4 (17 July)will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoFCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim Notes Now, session on government input (previous session rate late) * GAC to remain in advisory status * Large diversity of views in GAC input Core value 11 and Stress Test 18 are issues for France and, if they remain, they will be limits to gaining concensus on CCWG proposal in Dublin. Community mechanisms practicalities (including voting weights) What were the concerns found during the Public Comment? * A range of views on voting weights: SSAC and RSSAC not wanting voting weights. Some calls for GNSO to have greater voting weight * How votes can be shared within an SO/AC's allocation * Clarity on whether there is a Community Council How were they resolved? * Central proposal still 5 votes each for SOs, GAC and ALAC, and 2 votes for SSAC and RSSAC, alternative 5 votes each * Clear expression of SO/AC right to share votes among constituent parts by formal decision of that SO/AC * Opting out or abstentions removed from count - minimum thresholds to take action * Mechanism is a group: ICANN Community Council, with nominees from SOs/ACs. Participation at varying levels. Potential for F2F meeting if ultimately needed. What are the open issues? Decision in Paris or Included in 2nd Proposal * Group preference for voting weights, including what to do with RSSAC/SSAC * ICANN Community Council * If GAC decides to participate in any way, would they lose their unique right to "negotiate" with Board? Other points to note/consider: * The ICANN Community Council could be the "Sole Member" * Fractional votes could imply large number of people per AC/SO Numbers are not clear in GNSO CONCLUSIONS: Voting weights: * SSAC and RSSAC are not interested in any major change (would require bylaw change). They will not have voting rights in the mechanism as proposed. * Other groups will remain at 5. Suggestion to go into 2nd Public Comment with fractional votes. Refining community powers: budget / strategic plan, Bylaws - WP 1 What were the concerns found during the Public Comment? * Better to improve community involvement in Budget and Strat Plan Development * Concern over potential operational paralysis * Concern over board acceptance of continuing resolution * How do we prevent "horse trading" by SO/ACs on budget (TODAY) * How do we prevent undue delays in budget development (TODAY) How were they resolved? * Clarification that continuing resolution prevents paralysis * Assurance that development process improvement is in WS2 * Proposals to cap round trips before escalation or squeezing the budget * Clarification over voting thresholds, depending on mechanism For WS2, improving the budget process Edit the draft to include: - provide rationale for veto - rationale will include public comments reference A veto does not affect the IANA/PTI budget. --> no agreement. group will factor discussion in re draft and suggest clearer text Do we agree that the budget process needs to be further defined in WS2? --> Yes. However, for clarity, IANA budget is not tabled to WS2. What are "budget sanctions"? In case there is a veto, the budget would be cut by a certain percentage to force concensus. --> CCWG decided against having these sanctions in the budget Rest of WP1 will be sent to mailing list (Fundamental bylaws and Standard Bylaws) 17:45-18:30 - Review of emerging items - WP3 Relevant documents : - Staff accountability WP3 input - SO/AC accountability WP3 input - Diversity WP3 input Staff accountability -- defining role with regard to ICANN and community for WS2 Look at SO/AC accountability as part of structural reviews Diversity --> keep in WS1 the regard for diversity in any proposal(s). Any item of WS1 will need to be fully described in the 2nd draft since the Public Comment is the last opputunity for comment.