Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #2 - 02 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890537 Action Items Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions Notes This call is being recorded Link to WP2 wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March - 5 work items were identified on Friday (refer to <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Principles%20For%2... 2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285125000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Principles%20For%2... .pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285125000&api=v2): 1 Contact with community on ICANN mission, core values 2 Refinement, improvement to ombudsman function 3 Refinement, improvement to reconsideration process 4 Refinement, improvement to independent review process 5 New Mechanisms Jordan and Becky have compared notes and decided new mechanisms should be moved over to WP1 Feedback: Principles for our Work: - No comments Work Item 1: - What do we mean by community? Definition needed. Suggestion to incorporate communities identified by ICG - Do you refer to mission understood to be Bylaws - have you considered AoC integrated in Bylaws? --> For volunteers to explore Is ICANN's mission other than technical? Define technical. --> Technical used to essentially limit role to reasonably necessary tasks needed to achieve coordination - How do we contact community? Would there be designated people? --> this goes hand in hand with what is the community Work Item 2: - Conflict between empowering community and giving powerful role to ombudsman - ombudsman would be a vector, not empowering. Do we need an ombudsman if we are empowering community? - Ombudsman connected with community through triggered/non-triggered Work Item 3 Work Item 4 - Suggestion to combine 3 and 4 --> Reconsider - change mind whereas independent review - assessment whether consistent with mission and core values. - First review then reconsideration - Reconsideration is made to BGC whereas independent review is more heavy-weight process involding outside arbitral body (time consuming, resources) - these are two different recourse mechanisms. Reconsideration is first step on road. Work Item 5 -- Times for regular calls will be circulated for reports on progress -- IAP-IRP CWG did ask the CCWG whether would have independent appeal mechanism for purpose of challenging delegation, redelegtions. CCWG responded we would have independent review mechanisms that might be usable by affected community but noted that some parts of community (e.g. ccNSO) feel strongly that it is their job to design any independent appeal mechanism. We might be providing tool they could use. Our task is to suggest IRP to create standards for ordinary policy issues. IRP could be used for IAP process but defining IAP standards is not within CCWG work. IAP was designed for only IANA related matters - it could be a subset of matters IRP currently takes on. ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions Volunteers Compact with Community David Post Alain Bidron David Maher Ombudsman Chris LaHatte Robin Gross Edward Morris Need: leader Reconsideration Chris LaHatte David McAuley Robin Gross Edward Morris Need: leader Independent Review Paul Rosenzweig David McAuley Jonathan Zuck Robin Gross Chris LaHatte David Post Greg Shatan David Maher Need: leader New Mechanisms Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader Standards Robin Gross Paul Rosenzweig Need: leader
