Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #6 call on 01 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894983 Action Items * Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call * Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls Notes CCWG-ACCT WP1 CALL #6 Wednesday 1 April 2015, 21:00- 22:30 UTC 1. Agenda review. None 2. Work Plan for the next sprint. Workplan for the "short sprint". Attempt to finish work as a complete proposal by 20 April. This will allow the CCWG to carryout a double reading of the proposal. Can expect additional calls to be added to WP1's agenda of meetings. Propose calls on the 8th and 10th April First set of work on powers, earlier work and new text to be drawn together over the weekend. Sections 6.5 and 6.6, too early for mechanisms, need legal advice. Activity on the AoC also moved off the schedule, for the time being leave the mechanisms to later. Some uncertainty of the overall workplan, and need adapt as work changes from discussions on the CCWG calls Finalize a draft close of play Monday 6th and discussion on 8th Keith Drazek and Robin Gross volunteered for review of text Difficult to know how legal advice will take some of WP1 proposals 3. Community powers mechanism Legal call -- 2nd call today was primarily procedural. No discussion of the arrangements, lawyers are likely say all are possible, but suggest working together with the lawyers to decide which is closest to ICANN's way of working and culture. Lawyers may join some working party calls. Sidley to coordinate between the counsels. Both will voice their expertise. The work parties are the clients in this arrangement. WP1 will invite the lawyer(s) on the calls to thrash out issues. Three classes of mechanisms: * group of people organized within the bylaws * a group organized with CA laws as member or delegate * a group of processes and flows Jordan: preference for a mechanism like the community council? Two points of view expressed: the group needs legal advice before drafting text, and, that the group should move forward in parallel and decide what we want rather than wait for the lawyers. Also noted that it's chicken and egg. Would be good to have something to put in front of the lawyers, but not going to fine detail. A balance needed. Powers set out in the 1st draft. Then invite the lawyers to the 8 April call for them to advise. Continue drafting based on that outcome. 1st draft, will not address mechanics don't have enough time to come to consensus, to have a lawyer on the 8 April call and the first item to be addressed will be mechanisms Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call 4. Stress test 18 paper: GAC operating procedures and consensus advice. "GAC advice that is supported by consensus" co-chairs have asked for feedback from the GAC, and individual responses from Thomas Schnieder, Denmark, Spain, USG. Jordan: suggests that this is a useful clarification to put in place, No other SO/AC can change their internal procedures and affect their influence on ICANN policy. Comfortable with the proposal. Greg: classic stress test. Doesn't affect the GAC's processes or ability to contribute collectively or as individual governments. As the bylaws are currently drafted it presupposes that GAC advice will be made on consensus. Not about the GAC per se. Comfortable that when the Board has to do reconciliation advice it is based on actual GAC consensus. 5. Individual Board Member Recall Individual board member recall. First draft was on recalling both the whole board and individual directors. If the only way to deal with a problem director is to remove the whole board then that isn't an effective accountability mechanism. And WP1 considers this issue in WS1. For SO/AC need to develop a mechanism for the appointing bodies. More complicated is how to deal with NomCom appointees. Problems with using the NomCom to perform the recall, not what it was created and designed for. Could ask the lawyers As NomCom appointees are there for the community as whole, then some recall might be based on some super-majority rule of the community mechanism. Not removed en masse, but likely singly (they don't act collectively, so why remove collectively?) * individual removal important * individual removal of any type of director (except CEO) * no consensus on removal of nomcom appointees, we don't know how to * approaching consensus on recommending that appointing organizations removing their director(s) (noting complexity of GNSO and house arrangement) 6. AOC reviews update Section 8b on jurisdiction and whether it would be brought into the bylaws has been discussed. Some sections might be left in the AoC. Suggest CCWG consensus needed on how to deal with this issue. 7. Next Calls Meetings April 8, 10, 13. Wed 8 April 21:00 UTC, 2 hours (with lawyers) April, Fri 10 (early UTC) and 13 (late UTC) - doodle poll on the best time. April 10 and 13, 90 minutes duration Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls 8. AoB Other groups contemplating bylaws changes the same issues. May need to reconcile. Future topic whether recommending removal of the AoC and inclusion on the bylaws or keeping it as a separate mechanism in some form Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls END
