Hello all, The recordings and transcript for the WP1 Meeting #22 held on 28 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/tYVCAw Thank you. Kind regards, Kim Action Items * Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member * *Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate) * Action (Jordan): review this document to do updates based on discussion and chart from lawyers * Action (Jordan) add clarification in text re: voting for SO/ACs in the mechanism * Action: Alan suggests in para 3 to add the Board and staff reference for completness * Action: clarify paragraph 6 & 8 (para 6 helps deal with Public Comment concerns) * Action: Amend the report in the following way: * Bring up the 15 day period on CCWG call * Add note in paragraph 10 about replacement directors time not counting against them (term limits don't apply) Action: amend the 2nd paragraph on page 2 to include update on threshold Notes 1. Review of Agenda No editing or proofing on this call. Focus on bringing these documents to frozen state for Public Comment. 2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h) Outstanding actions: *Action (Jordan): edit the sentence to clarify the language: "... and the approval of community mechanism as sole member *Action (Jordan): remove asterisks in voting mechanism document or clarify their purpose (where each AC stands at this point in their decision to participate) 3. Final Review of the Following Documents Fundamental Bylaws (3B) Steve inserted the language from the Articles of Incorporation on page 3. --> document complete from WP1 perspective Community Mechanism description (5A1) page 4 -- * Add: "unless otherwise specified" *Malcolm's suggested lanuage: "In circumstances where the Bylaws provide for the resolution of disputes between ICANN and otherparties through the IRP process, the CMSM will also have the ability to require ICANN to enter intothe IRP process and abide by its outcome, should it not do so voluntarily. This power to requireICANN to abide by its Bylaws arises automatically from its status as a member of the corporation andcan, if necessary, be further backed through judicial proceedings" * lower threshold only for enforcing the bylaws in respect of participation in the IRP? Yes Action (Jordan): review this document to do updates based on discussion and chart from lawyers Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- *Alan's comments (via email): Voting Mechanism: As mentioned on the CCWG call, If an AC/SO wants to withdraw from participating, there should not be a delay. If there is, their lack of voting should not count against the action. Otherwise they may effectively block the action by making it impossible or almost impossible to achieve sufficient votes. Alternatively, the counting method could take this into account (as I think Holly suggested in the chat). But what is harm in making withdrawal immediate? Action (Jordan) add clarification in text re: voting for SO/ACs in the mechanism Jordan's text on quorum/voting: "The CCWG-Accountability proposes that for the purposes of the simplest possible administration of the voting system that the thresholds expressed for each community power should be absolute. This means that if a threshold is 66%, then 66%+ of the votes that could be cast by participants in the CMSM at that time need to be 'yes' votes for the threshold to be met. No votes, abstentions or non-participation would all be treated the same way." "An alternative approach that adjusted the thresholds based on the number of yes/no votes compared with the number of abstentions or non-votes was considered, but adds significant complexity and so is not the CCWG's preference at this time." Agree with proposal on screen: Ticks (Yes): 5; Crosses (No): 3 Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3) Action: Alan suggests in para 3 to add the Board and staff reference for completness Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) * Added reference to CWG Stewardship proposal in paragraph 3 * Added reference to WS2 process for improvements *Alan on budget: I am still uncomfortable with the concept of there being two separate budgets, one for IANA and one for the rest of ICANN. Normally, from a fiscal point of view, there is only a single budget which encompasses everything. Surely the funds to be used for IANA come from the same revenue pot as the rest of the expenses. Do we have confirmation from ICANN FInance that the words we have there make sense? Action: clarify paragraph 6 & 8 (para 6 helps deal with Public Comment concerns) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) No comments. Can move on Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Main changes to this doc were to add clarity Alan's Comments: *Rarely can we convene a new teleconference and get all of the necessary people together in a 15 day window. Is what we are proposing possible, and what happens if the 15-day delay is not met (para 5). *In section d, is the 3/4 vote of the "5" votes of the community mech, or 3/4 of whatever internal voting the AC/SO has? *Para 7d The 3/5 requirement seems to be lowering the threshold from other votes (according to the newly proposed vote-counting mechanism). * Lastly, should we specify whether a replacing term counts against the 3-term limit on directors? Action: Amend the report in the following way: *Add note in paragraph 10 about replacement directors time not counting against them (term limits don't apply) * Bring up the 15 day period on CCWG call Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4) *Comment from Alan: Is the NomCom prepared to name interim directors PRIOR to the vote? If the vote fails, that means they have compromised their secrecy of potential but not-yet-named candidates. * Action: amend the 2nd paragraph on page 2 to include update on threshold Staff -- within next 6h: * All powers in one doc * All mechanism related stuff in one doc 4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1 5. Any other matters BRAVO JORDAN! BRAVO WP1! No WS2 for Jordan (unless we convince him)