Dear all, Here are some high-level notes from the call today. Staff will pull the questions from the chat transcript and prepare a FAQ-type document per the Chairs' instructions. Best, Grace CCWG/Board Dialogue Call 2 September at 22:00 UTC Steve presented introductory remarks: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/ 005160.html. Chris outlined a CCWG-Accountability Proposal Delivery Framework (see email here:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Septe mber/005161.html) 1. Develop Fundamental Bylaws and Process for Modification (including ICANN's Mission and Core Values; AOC reviews; Budget and Ops and Strat Plans and process for Fundamental Bylaws) 2. IRP (2013 Standard of Review; commitment to work on IRP) 3. Expand Reconsideration Process 4. Establish new Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) (challenges against Board action on fundamental Bylaws; binding arbitration process funded by ICANN) 5. Community is involved in developing of Bylaws changes, and budgets, op plans and Strat plans 6. Board Removal/Recall (pre-service letters) 7. Bring AOC reviews into Bylaws 8. Fulfill ICG Contingencies 9. Institutionalize in Bylaws the current practice of Board/GAC consultation requirement used only over consensus advice 10. Identify and commit to a process for defining continuous improvement work how the Board will consider those recommendations Comments and questions: * What are some unintended consequences? Capture is a big one. * How are Board proposals tested or better than the CCWG proposal? The Board doesn¹t propose a change to governance structure * Enforceability is not sole reason for membership. There was motivation for legal person and binding outcome as well * The 10-point proposal covers all elements of the CCWG proposal without the membership model for enforceability. Instead, the Board proposes a Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism. * Kavouss: under existing structure, the community has no power. The Board is trying to maintain this power and using NTIA as an excuse. * Fadi: The Board is embracing community powers and accepting binding arbitration Board is not rendering judgement on the Membership model. * Board will move to membership model if not possible to do all the community requirements in current model. * There is a need for the CCWG to understand what the weaknesses of its proposal are and why the Board proposal is better * One weakness with the model is that the exact membership hasn¹t been defined yet within the sole member model * Anything perceived by the US as an increase in government role will not be accepted. * The CCWG does not agree and understand why a shift is needed. Actions and next steps: 1. Board to provide detailed proposals in writing to the CCWG. Would be beneficial if this could come with legal analysis as well as rationale and any prior work on the impact analysis of the Board¹s implementation proposal. 2. Then, the CCWG will certify a request for its lawyers to review this proposal and check for CCWG and CWG requirements 3. In the CCWG remit to consider what parts of the proposal need to be taken on board while remaining an open process where Board will remain engaged. 4. The lawyers (ICANN, Sidley, Adler, and Jones Day) should start a dialogue to review the Board proposal. Do we want to schedule any more calls or small group interactions or a F2F? Before the CCWG decides on this, the CCWG needs to understand the Board¹s comments better. Public statement for reporters? * We can acknowledge that there was constructive dialogue * The CCWG is willing to understand what Board¹s recommendation is * We need to make sure the statements today do not overturn or prematurely compromise the CCWG¹s work to date The Board will endeavor to get comments into the Public Comment Forum ASAP.