Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors Meeting - 29 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777352 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period. ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms. Notes We will reiterate main changes that are considered interim proposals of the CCWG-ACCT. We will then open the floor for comments. Our proposal is based on an empowered community. We suggest incorporating principles that are in the AoC into Bylaws. Fundamental Bylaws would require prior approval from community before being changed. Our proposal reinforces the independent appeals mechanisms: IRP --> panel of 7 members, binding decisions on ICANN, enhanced accessibility/standing, decision will review merits of case. Instead of creating new layer of accountability above ICANN, we are spreading powers to have balanced powers between legislative, executive and judiciary. Reference model provides creation of a group of 29 representatives from different groups of ICANN (SO/ACs) and provides enforceability of its decision should the Board refuse a decision. The current reference proposal would be for SO/AC to each create an unincorporated association that would become a member of ICANN. This would not be an open membership. We are adding a touch of legal to the current SO/ACs in order to provide the right balance in terms of legal powers that would create enforceability of model. The proposal has a balance of influence in the empowered community that includes all SO/ACs various options. All of them provide for representation of governements. We are aware this may create concerns for governements to participate in this voting mechanism. Feedback - Are you expecting a collective position from advisors or do we have the right to comment individually? --> We welcome and encourage individual submissions through the official channel. If there is a common view, that can be emphasized as well. Both options are open. - Jan has submitted comments. This is to highlight comment #2 - how do you maximize correlation between the ICANN community and the evolving wider stakeholder community. The draft is arguing for participation to reflect diversity but there is nothing concrete being suggested. Functional diversity is being perceived but it is not clear how gender and geographical diversity is being represented. Also, how will SO/ACs be held into account? Work Stream 2 are going to be kept alive after transition: have you talked about this more explicitely i.e. CCWG to be maintained post transition? --> Your comments were not discussed with group before we published the draft report. Point raised on diversity is going to be an item for discussion after the public comment period. In terms of process, we have two work streams - we are focused on stream 1 and have started highlighting stream 2 issues. Our group might extend post transition - we are not expecting everything to be closed by transition. - What of accountability of how groups are selected? We can find ourselves in regression. It is important that we be more specific: groups need to demonstrate that their own mechanisms for governance and membership are sufficient. We need to be more specific with regards to transparency: what does organization need to do to make sure Bylaws changes are widely disseminated for instance? Inherent principle that this entity exists for public interest should be a principle that cannot be changed. ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period. - Has the working group discussed whether to include a commitment towards freedom of expression? One of accountability issues in the question of who is accountable to is to do with with accountability, democratic standards. Has this been discussed for inclusion in the revised bylaws? Some people are arguing for UA but there is also an argument that Chairs SO/ACs could assume that membership. --> We are ensuring ICANN is not used as a mean to restrict freedom of expression. UAs is an ongoing discussion. --> We have aspects in our draft that should raise quality of accountability: e.g. how many votes should be. 1 vote per world region. Some of parameters we have put in report were based on inclusiveness. Another example: cost of IRP. What level of details would you recommend we put into the set of recommendations for work stream 1? Our issue is two-fold: 1) we need to focus on narrow task of dealing with work stream 1; 2) our charter is not broad enough for us to make recommendations on the decision-making, membership processes. Could you clarify what aspects you deem essential? - Who has competence to make recommendations on proces if not the CCWG? --> We can hardly prescribe how SO/ACs should constitute themselves other than giving principles that they should be inclusive, diverse etc. - Roberto agrees with Jan - at essence of points: is accountability internal or related to external body? It needs to be clearly identified. Whenever you have external accountability (self defined international), what are the values from which you have mandate? You derive out of that freedom of expression. --> Take internal accountability issue into account. That might be an opportunity. - An explicit acknowledgment in report and a commitment to deal with it in work stream 2 would be welcome. INGO accountability charter addresses issue in detail for instance. --> This is something we need to discuss as a group. We need to make sure we are talking about same problem statement with regards to external/internal. ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability. ---> We have recently had some discussion about enforceability. It is my understanding we are tasked with improving architecture which includes robust mechanisms. Do you have any guidance on this? - DoC may be handing over stewardship but legal, judiciary accountability still remains, not-for-profit legislation. There is still judiciary accountability for ICANN. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period. ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum. The comment period will end on June 3. F2F meeting on June 19. We will discuss with community on date that will follow. The second comment period will be organized. We may turn to you when drafting second round of proposals especially if confronted with diverging views. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms.