Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Intensive Meeting Day 1 Session 1 - 23 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Day+1+-+Session+1 A copy of the notes and a summary of the session may be found below. Thanks, Best regards Alice ---- IN SUMMARY Section 6.6.1 - Mechanism to empower the community AGREEMENT: Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes for public comment ACTION ITEM - Argue this proposal in document: notion of equal footing has to be set out. Elaborate on this section in document and capture value of discussion Section 6.6.2 - Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans AGREEMENT: WP1 decision threshold ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot Section 6.6.3 - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws AGREEMENT: First reading complete SESSION CONCLUSIONS We have discussed methods and approach. The group had substantive discussions on composition of community mechanism, budget/strategic plan approval and reconsider/reject changes to fundamental Bylaws. We have discussed pros and cons of giving weights to different groups and observed that Istanbul proposal has most of traction I.E. : 5 votes for ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC - 2 seats for SSAC, RSSAC. This is not the definitive discussion. The variation of that will be provided in the report along with background for community to determine whether agree or would suggest alternatives. With respect to community power to reject or veto budget/strategic plan, we need to make sure the community maintains control over both items. We need to be clear what terms we will use. We received confirmation from Council that we are those determining how to use terminology and that it is not necessarily prescribed by statutory law. This discussion will be revisited once we have more clarity on community mechanisms. The group – however – supports voting threshold. With respect to reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Bylaws, the group is in agreement with what is in the draft report. Next steps – we will be updating the report in light of session 1 discussion and will advise where the update can be found. We will recap when we reconvene in session 2. Tomorrow's agenda will be adjusted to capture budget/strategy discussion item. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: ACTION ITEM: Get back to CWG to determine whether comply with expectations ACTION ITEM: Adjust 24 April agenda to include budget/strategic operating plan agenda item ACTION ITEM: Indicate where session 1-related updates to draft report can be found ---- 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. Working Methods Reminder We will not be asking for consensus and chairing for final approval of proposals. We may describe options upon which community may provide input. We are focusing on requirements first and will discuss implementation as time permits. Our goals is to enhance ICANN accountability and to determine whether comply with CWG expectations. The CWG draft proposal is out for public comment - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04... ACTION ITEM: Get back to CWG to determine whether comply with expectations Rapporteurs will introduce sessions - staff is capturing edits - as needed. Fundamental Bylaws was missing from the frozen draft. Jordan and Becky have produced a short memo to be circulated shortly. We ask for susbtantive and constructive comments. Mechanism to empower the community Legal counsel was asked to provide a one-page overview of the four models: 1) membership; 2) variation using one single member; 3) designator; 4) as it is and achieve requirements within existing structure. Questions relate to voting powers, composition etc. Representation of voting: 1) equal representation between SOs and two main ACs and lesser power for RSSAC or SSAC; 2) distribution of powers and mechanisms should be same as in ICANN Board: 2 directors for ccNSO, 2 for GNSO, 2 ASO, 1 CEO, 1 ALAC. We should narrow down options to 1 - how do we distribute powers? Clarification in chart: suggested relative voting power, SO = 5, ALAC and GAC = 5, SSAC and RSSAC = 2 Feedback: - Work on equal footing - Important that each component of structure is equal - Second line is inaccurate - there is ALAC, not ACs. "S" on ACs is incorrect. Proposal: 5 SOs and 5 ACs is acceptable - Board voting is unacceptable. - This point should be open to public comment during discussion - Preference for advantage to SOs - they are core organizing groups - prefer 5 to 2 ratio rather than 5 to 1 - We should be asking community - Important that we are talking about voting power not about seats on Board - Not accurate to say we would be able to mirror Board composition (NomCom). Agree with 5 to 2 ratio - We need a model for future to come - agree SOs large ACs - equal footing and smaller 2 ACs having less. - 2:1 is a suitable ratio, no more than double - NomCom seats aren't really part of structure - counting everyone equally is not right move. Designators structure runs into trouble in trying to work to out in different way than Board decision - Support for 4 to 2 ratio proposal - Double voting to give voting to smaller ACs -- RECAP: traction for having different weight for different groups. Distinction between big and small groups. Traction for having 4 to 2 - If compare 4 vs. 5 - it might strengthen geographic diveristy especially for GAC and ALAC. Traction for 5 to 2 in chat. How do we allocate numbers? More support for big 5 (ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, GAC, ALAC) equally with lesser representation for SSAC - RSSAC --- - Suggestion to have 5 to 3 - let's note use big/small analogy - Who objects to equally treat: SOs + ALAC + GAC? - Suggestion to give RSSAC less weight and SSAC on equal footing - Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC: 2 votes. - Propose that these two options be submitted to community for comment. - Ability of ICANN to make decisions in public interest. Contracted parties get precedence and advisors get pushed into second class position. We need to think hard about what we are saying. Support for WP1 proposal -> In option GAC has 5 votes - RSSAC is small - Need to ensure GAC will accept to have voting members in such a body. RECAP Substantial traction for proposal whereby the ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC, GAC, ASO would get a higher number of seats with lesser representation between SSAC and RSSAC without making a distinction between them. 5 - 2 more traction that 4 - 2 for geographic for diversity. Keep Istanbul proposal as most favored option. - Difficult to highlight pros/cons – concerns. AGREEMENT: Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes for public comment. ACTION ITEM - Argue this proposal in document: notion of equal footing has to be set out. Elaborate on this section in document and capture value of discussion Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans Need to discuss whether open set of grounds and nuances that need to be in place to set up this power. Currently have process where Board has final approval - community does not have power to reject. We can provide community with power via designators or membership models. Each of these structures has pros and cons. Easier to implement at Bylaw level in membership model but does not mean it is easier in practice. It is important to consider legal advice as it will have an impact on design of mechanism. To discuss: 1) No objective list of criteria; 2) Plan or budget cannot be sent back again with new issues raised. - Suggestion to have community plugged into process as budget is developped - budget approved before it is sent to Board instead or reject - Process of approving could work in members model, but not in designators model. Community decision can only be binding if members. For designators, contracts. - CWG asks that we give power to veto budget and requests full transparency of IANA budget. Important that we make sure we stress whether this proposal fits CWG expectations. If it only a partial fit, provide a specific rationale. - Need to take into account that there might be changes to which there may be new objections - Who is going to judge whether request to reject is within grounds? - Community council will need more votes to reject budget again - setting higher threshold. - There have been improvements in recent years and need to look at these during WS2. If move to member model. Board is deciding power. - Reconsideration is first step of any course of action. Not logical that rejected or vetoed from beginning without giving right to ICANN to reconsider. Veto should be last recourse. 1) approval/disapproval ; 2) reconsideration ; 3) veto - Reconsideration may have timelines that are impracticable for Board. Give Board opportunity to review. Define transparency. - The Board is representing community. Take into account that process to build budget is complicated. Adding layer will mean we are outside timing. Open data can be collected/published. - Will need to discuss who has standing. - Legal counsel needs to describe what is reconsideration, what is approval/disapproval, what is reconsideration/veto. -> these are terms the CCWG defines - parties describe them in contracts/bylaws. - Are we willing to accept as a whole package (recalling Board members etc)? - Difficicult to make decision when unclear mechanism. Suggestion to rediscuss this during open slot on 24 April. There may be room for compromise: strong influence from community - 1) Force veto or require approval (membership) 2) reconsideration process. Suggestion to discuss tomorrow. Need real strong mechanisms that have teeth - not focus on recalling Board. - Support for WP1 threshold - agreement on these would be helpul for public comment. - Weight for membership model. Suggestion to have document identify membership model issues. -- RECAP: Item open for further discussion on 24 April. Call for any objections on WP1 thresholds. ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot AGREEMENT: on WP1 decision threshold Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws This power can work in member and designator models. Higher threshold If sending back again. - Bylaw has fundamental provisions and general provisions. We should clarify that not two Bylaws but one Bylaw. AGREEMENT: First reading complete --- SESSION CONCLUSIONS We have discussed methods and approach. The group had substantive discussions on composition of community mechanism, budget/strategic plan approval and reconsider/reject changes to fundamental Bylaws. We have discussed pros and cons of giving weights to different groups and observed that Istanbul proposal has most of traction I.E. : 5 votes for ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC - 2 seats for SSAC, RSSAC. This is not the definitive discussion. The variation of that will be provided in the report along with background for community to determine whether agree or would suggest alternatives. With respect to community power to reject or veto budget/strategic plan, we need to make sure the community maintains control over both items. We need to be clear what terms we will use. We received confirmation from Council that we are those determining how to use terminology and that it is not necessarily prescribed by statutory law. This discussion will be revisited once we have more clarity on community mechanisms. The group – however – supports voting threshold. With respect to reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Bylaws, the group is in agreement with what is in the draft report. Next steps – we will be updating the report in light of session 1 discussion and will advise where the update can be found. We will recap when we reconvene in session 2. Tomorrow's agenda will be adjusted to capture budget/strategy discussion item.