Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #5 - 18 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892452 Notes WP1 Meeting #5 18 March 2015 This call is being recorded Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards These high-level notes are prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Review of CCWG meeting and any actions arising If the various mechanisms go forward, what process is there to ensure the time to schedule implementation before the transition or before the submissions to NTIA at start of July. Substantive Content to Review: Matthew Shears: AoC incorporation: AoC incorporation: other articles on the AoC than those in the AoC reviews. Document include comments from members Asks for two new core values in the bylaws. a changed values and changes text in the bylaws AoC Para 23. Decisions made in the public interest and accountable and transparent. The intent behind the text is not explicit, Ask for a new explicit item in the bylaws to clarify this commitment. Further enhancement on consumer trust and choice. Enhanced transparency: performing impact assessments on the impact of ICANN's decisions, with a second paragraph addressing a range of transparency mechanisms. The bylaws do not commit to ICANN remaining a not for profit, the articles do but indirectly, whether there should be direct reference in the bylaws should be discussed Jurisdiction now being discussed at the CCWG level. Some of these issue will move into the amendments being proposed by WP2. Care taken not to allow the Board to use the global public interest as a way to avoid issues, or to give powers to smaller, self-interested groups. community council and powers. Proposed that it may exercise powers when petitioned by 2 or more SO/AC. 3 strawman if removing the board. Malcolm Hutty: 1. Original proposal. community my spill the board. High level of consensus needed to initiate and to execute. Spill the board as a power of last resort. 2. Same mechanism as the original proposal. Same high threshold to spill the board, but lower threshold to initiate process to consider whether to do so. To encourage the board to be more responsive to the community. 3. Different mechanism. Any SO could spill the Board by a vote of 'No Confidence' (if carried by consensus of SO). Would mean Board has to command confidence of each SO Steve DelBianco: Implementation of WS2 requirements. WS1 gave the powers to implement the mechanisms that may be more complex or longer term implementation. Full details of WS2 mechanisms will not be defined in detail ready for implementation. Some will be in a state that will allow ICANN board to commit to their implementation at the time of transition. Others will need continued community work. Keith Drazek: To prevent ICANN imposing obligations. WP1 looking at 4 factors: mission, powers, and restrictions. 5b is a restriction and a non-triggered, In this cased some contracted arrangement would seem to be a possibility, or a bylaws provision that accomplish the same thing. This is a new provision, both staff and board form imposing new obligations on contacted parties and these include obligations that flow down to registrants. These would be obligations outside of PDP or existing processes. Ed Morris: Statutory Delegates. Allows picking and choosing the powers we want. Membership scheme: standards under membership are derived from the statute, we would not be able to set thresholds for example to call for a super majority or very high standard, the standard would come from the statute. Topics for consideration by external legal advice. Jordan Carter Community council, revised adjusted the appointments section. accountability, added bullet to cover removal of a council member. What is the difference between the community council and a permanent CCWG? WP1-7b, creation of permanent CCWG. The difference is in the way in which the way in which such groups are constituted. CCWG: the powers would need to come from the bylaws, rather than an chartered organization which would not be permanent. For a CCWG, appointment would be by each chartering organizations, between 2 and 5 members. Voting arrangements would need to be considered. Concern regarding ICANN regional balance.
