Hello all, Sorry for the delay. The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Face to Face - Paris - Day 2, Session 1 (18 July)will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/EoFCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim Action Items Action: Lawyers answers need to be written and sent to list Action: Lee Bygrace to assist with drafting text for Core Values Action: clarify the requirements based on Stress Test 18. Delve in further in the Bylaws drafting stage. Notes Presentation by external counsel. Answers to questions from Tijani Answers to question from Seun Answer to Chris: Logistics to be taken into account with the sole member? As a sole member, basically none. It will act on paper, recognising the member has acted. It will have to exercise the rights given in the bylaws, nothing additional and administrative. If a SO/AC wants to act, do you need legal status? The sole members has the ability to enforce the bylaws through and IRP, and enforce the decision of the IRP panel in court. Individual SO/AC may exercise specific rights, they have access to the IRP to enforce those rights. And the community could go to court on that SO/AC behalf to legally enforce as necessary. Only the community mechanism will have the statutory rights. The ability to create new advisory committees is in the current bylaws. If a new AC/SO is created, assume it automatically become part of the community mechanism and the voting weights will change. Keep the changes to voting arrangements in mind. The model is contemplated as being open. And these issues of voting rights and thresholds will be the focus of drafting and implementation. How to deliver their votes will be at the judgment of the SO/AC, flexible arrangements. Tijani: the question was can a single SO/AC can take ICANN to the courts. Answer: Can write in the bylaws that any dispute must go through the IRP process. And avoid other forms of litigation. If the outcome is the sole member model, then may start with a clean sheet when designing its modalities. Note the key difference is that the council is a forum for discussion, voting happens at the SO/AC level. There are statutory rights for members. Only the sole member is a member. The SO/AC are not members. The SO/AC do not have statutory rights, those rights are only collective rights. And there will be a truncation of rights in the bylaws to reinforce this arrangement. A power initiated to block a bylaws change. A petition from the threshold of SO/AC to initiate. A discussion within the council forum for some period of time. If the outcome it to cal for a vote, then the vote is made at the SO/AC level. The implementation detail by CCWG Tuesday July 21 call. Objection from Eberhard Lisse extended from CCWG meeting #41 to #42. Where we are * Positive feedback on the membership model yesterday * Answered questions today to best of ability * Lots of support in chat for sole member model * Sam and Alan preferred designator model * No objections CONCLUSION: new reference model -- community mechanism as sole member model Action: Lawyers answers need to be written and sent to list Larry blog post indicated need for documentation of all the models Suggestion to communicate that no new formal structure will be created as the community forum - the forum will be an open forum for discussion. 09:45-10:30 - Review of government input / concerns and way forward * Consideration of government comments. * Noting the contribution of there government of China.(sent this morning to list) In document on screen, black text is from ICANN's current Bylaws. Red text is proposed by CCWG. Action: Lee Bygrace to assist with drafting text for Core Values More common ground on requirements. Bylaws drafting to take place after the requirements are agreed. Action: clarify the requirements based on Stress Test 18. Delve in further in the Bylaws drafting stage