Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability "Review of Draft Bylaws" Meeting - 11 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FDuAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Opening Remarks (LS) * These sessions are not for reopening any issues. * KArasteh - (from chat) There was discussion regarding addition of a qualifier to a text relating IANA Function. Since such addition would have made the legal text weak and subject to a judgement, it was said that such qualifier was not necessary. One participant from the North America supported by other participants from that part of world surprisingly stated that since the ICANN Bylaws is US document thus must be written according to the US style. * KArasteh - against this position * GShattan - ICANN is a California corporation and its Bylaws will be interpreted in US courts and as such should be drafted for this. * LS - KA can pursue this on the mailing list if necessary. 2. Second reading of question responses agreed on previous call (TR) * List of approved questions circulated Friday 8 April is approved in second reading with no questions. 3. Resolution of remaining questions (TR) * Presentation via slide deck listing three categories: * Issues for discussion * "uncontested" comments * Questions from our group * Q1 and AQ13 - Root Zone - Approved as is in slide. * Q2 - Grandfathering - Agreed as is in slide. * Q6 - Removing colleagues by the Board - Agreed as presented. * Q29 and AQ22 - Removing NomCom Board Members - This point is moot anyways. Lawyers should not make any reference to the carve out when implementing this recommendation. BSchaefer disagrees but if we are going to be strict it should also apply to the carve out - KArasteh ref to carve out and his email. Accepted as is. * Q33 and AQ5 - Mediation and Community IRP - BBurr and lawyers will discuss. * AQ1 Selection of IRP panel - Agreed as presented in slides. * AQ2 - IRP Rules and Procedures - Rules of procedure changes can be discussed and proposed by the panel but must be approved by the community * AQ8 - PICS - Lawyers will reply to Jorge on the list * AQ10,15,17,18,20,21 - RR/IRP - * BBurr HR cannot be brought to IRP before the FOI is complete for HR. DMcAuley notes his questions was not presented properly. This should really debated in WS2. * disputes vs resources for protocal parameters - Go with Andrew's recommendation "disputes relating to protocal parameters" * definition of staff ambiguous - Rosemary has drafted some language addressing this in another section and could be imported here. * Cost shifting - Agree with recommendation in question. * Shall Decisions be suspended pending Resolution? - BBurr should apply to both and we will ask that the lawyers make it clear it applies to both. no arguments against. * 4.3(x)(ii)(B) Can anyone or just the EC start a court action to enforce an IRP decision if the Board rejects - should be made clear? - BBurr Any party to an action can start an action to enforce. The IRP rules will confirm this. no arguments against. * 4.3(x)(iii) Lawyers to refine language re interplay of arbitration in Ry or Rr agreements - BBurr drafting glitch registry and registrars have binding arbitration in their contracts and these should be used for contract disputes. It was not intended that registry and registgrars can use the IRP. no arguments against. * Additional question from TBenJemaa - BBurr the 6 month language will be in the Bylaws. What happens if the 6 month is not respected this will be addressed in the IRP implementation. The Bylaws should leave the door open if cases cannot be resolved in the 6 month period. Lawyers will implement this. * AQ11 - Carve Out - TRickert have asked the lawyers to revise the language in the Bylaws to more clearly reflect the recommendations. The Carve out must be implemented in the Bylaws according to the CCWG recommendations. * AQ12 - Mission & Regulation - BBurr has asked lawyers to go back and consider some of the alternatives proposed by herself. MHutty happy with results so far and waiting for what lawyers will come up with next. BBurr there were serious anti-trust concerns vs Regulation. * AQ16 - defn of Global Internet Community? - ASullivan suggest defining WHO is supposed to take the decision vs the GIC. In public counsultation type processes where anyone can participate should remain GIC. KArasteh same as the global multistakeholder community? MHutty agree with KA. * AQ19 IANA Bugeet and IETF VS IAB. We should pick the IAB unless instructed otherwise. * AQ23,24 - section 25.2 Fundamental Bylaw needed for compostion of SO/ACs? This was not foreseen in our recommendations. Copy and paste glitch at the end of 25.2 (e) and (f) should be fixed. 4. Next Steps * We will need a call tomorrow at noon UTC where we should be able to complete answering questions for the legal teams. 5. ICANN 56 - Helsinki * Request was presented to Board Finance Committee last Tuesday. Response received. * Meeting will take place on Sunday 26 June * Members who have existing funding through ICANN for ICANN56 will receive an extra hotel day. Others are recommended to attend remotely or at their own expense. * Sebastien Bachollet: request that core leadership team receive support to attend. * External legal counsel will not be attending or requested for that meeting since the goal is WS2 kick-off. 6. AOB * None -- close of call Action Items -none