Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 2 Session 3 on 24 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893816 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items Acton: for WP1 to identify specific scenarios Notes These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 14:00-16:00 EET - 12:00-14:00 UTC - Session 3 Community Mechanisms (cont.) (graphic, overview of community powers) 1st column - look. Rooted in the work of WP1. Presentation and then discussion item by item and identify where there isn't consensus. to hope guide WP1 on where more work needs to be done. Threshold to initiative. Diversity requirements, will receive independent advice and consider regional and gender diversity Directed vote seems to have consensus Only once on the same ground: if a complaint fails, how/when can the compliant be lodged again Had also discussed mandated votes and a mandated discussion phase. Dependent contractor: effectively an employee of the organization Thinking behind varied voting powers? That we would differentiate in terms of representation based on the advisory nature of the AC and the direct role of the SO. Is there value without legal advice, the working method of the meeting is to work on the basis of what we know. And if legal advice suggested a better mechanisms then the group would revert to that. Relative voting power. See no rationale for saying the AC are less blessed than the SO - comment supported by other commentors. Correction: lower vote for SSAC as appointed by the Board, and RSAC as representatives of the Root Server operators. ALAC and GAC 5, the SO have vast communities behind them. How can these groups represent themselves in a diverse ways? Ensuring regional balance and inclusion. Regarding spilling the board, it is at least equal to policy recommendations where its required for the SO/AC to reach consensus. Should at least be the same for something as important to the organization. Removing the board, is not as important as consensus policy which affects millions of users. Directed voting. Sense yesterday that there should be directed vote for spoiling the board. Though argument for each SO/AC to decide for themselves. Challenge is how to enable the split. Effect of directed vote can be to hid the opinions of a wide range of people within a SO/AC. Is it the work of the CCWG's job to decide on details or the high level process. May not sign off on the unless there is an opportunity to ensure some detail is included. Creating accountability for the whole organization. Opinion: when board members are appointed they are appointed with responsibilities to the whole organization, which is why directed votes are not appropriate, and why a specific organization should be created for these decisions making roles. This not a complete list of community powers 15 or more powers in WP1's inventory. This will be the basis for the next steps in WP1. Do have concerns with directed/non directed, split votes/unanimous votes, but otherwise quite broad agreement. Now seem to know who the groups are who constitutes the community. WP1 task is to integrate the information they have. Acton: for WP1 to identify specific scenarios Slide should provide a single page to at a glance see what community powers are available. Recap and progress Confidence or doubt in our shared opinions Stress tests have highlighted where we need to act. The revised mission, golden bylaws, budget and strategic plan challenge, independent review process: does ethos architecture fit the overall expectation of the group? Switch to strategic approach. Linkage between diversity, participation, plurality and accountability. This bottom-up nature of ICANN distinguishes it from other international organizations. Importance of the existing community's accountability to those will join in the near future. Concern that if strong representation can't be found within the existing communities then it is time to pause for thought, look in the mirror If there's a group in ICANN that works on outreach, then they need to get busy. And express what is being done in a simple way. How to ensure WS2 mechanisms are implement once the levers the transition are passed. Anyway to internationalize the AoC. Anticipate stakeholders will expect mechanisms beyond WS1 recommendations, what is in WS2 and how those mechanisms will be protected and not swept under the carpet. An intention of WP1 is to deliver mechanisms that will guarantee WS2 mechanisms. Although this is not yet done by the group. Diversity important, but community accountability, is not just diversity alone. The community council or whatever it is: 1 it must communicate to the wider community, that is transparent. There is consultation: how did members consult and will consult back: that is community accountability. Telling that around this area they is little popular resistance, no protest in the street. Make sure WS2 are not sidelined (dealt with tomorrow, and then tomorrow) . WA1 did look at WWS1 and WS2 implementation. Where the implementation detail is known, possible to compile in a list and perhaps at transition pass to the bad to promise to implement these well described items. Harder will be the less defined items. They might be driven by a GNSO or ccNSO pdp. But many are administrative that might require bylaws changes. May need some bottom up generation of bylaws changes, WS1 should empower the community to pursue and implement WS2 after the transition. With difficulty in setting timelines for implementation. Still contingent on legal advice. Ho Govt will participate to community council, How to contribute in the community powers. The role of govt will need to adjust to the new world. Positive sense from govt, though like everyone concerned about timelines. Progress made noted by negotiators in New York. Suggestion of interim bylaw might address WS2. A list of mechanisms, mandate the process for the community to develop recommendations, and requires the Board to act. Precedent to doing this (ccNSO creation etc). Further options proposed for work stream 2, from consideration as part of an AoC or AoC like review (although noted concern about the creation of even more working groups. Outreach will become more active once our proposals are concrete. END
