Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Ask for volunteers on list - Staff to draft email.

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.

Opening remarks

There are two areas where consensus still needs to be reached. Remarks that we should publish an executive summary
without addressing these. There was also public comment that we should extend public comment. We clarified that
outstanding items would be moved out of the summary but that we would still proceed with the publication. We agreed
that we would produce a shorter document that summarizes and explains recommendations in plain language. Document
reflects plethora of comments and concerns from CCWG-ACCT and Advisors. We will not create impression that final
summary of report. We will not discuss timeline today. We suggest continue our work to have closure on outstanding items.

Mission, Core Values & Commitments

There has been consensus with respect to proposition that ICANN has limited mission. It was our goal to carefully clarify
mission with respect to names, numbers, protocols and root server. With respect to name function specifically there has
been agreement that ICANN has a specific mission and act within and consistent with that mission. ICANN should not
seek to regulate areas that are outside of its mission. Consensus that ICANN should have ability to enter into negotiated
agreements with contracted parties - these should be enforceable and ICANN should have ability to impose certain policies
on contracted parties in limited circumstances as it always has. We agreed on a concept that ICANN should not regulate
services. At high level there has been consensus with respect to that concept. There has also been a robust debate about
the terms that are used, the potential for unintended consequences to reach shared vocabulary with respect to what we
need. Shared vocabulary has been focused on what the term "regulates" mean and could that be interpreted. A question
about what we mean about "services" in unique identifiers. A concern has been expressed that ICANN does enter into
contract and ICANN should have ability to enter into these contracts and enforce them in furtherance of their mission. We
have had continued debate on how that concept is articulated. Debate on wording has continued. Proposed language to help
reach closure

Focus on content, not wordsmithing. It is a concept more than language.

Feedback:

- There seems to be divergence in what was meant by services. Two divergent threads: 1) class of businesses that
offer services ; 2) technical process that is connected to the Internet and uses the DNS. A process that runs on a web server.

Two threads/dimensions that are not reconcilable.

Is there a third component? Has the term not been accurately described?

- ALAC expressed concern that explicit exclusion note needed that identifiers are not deemed to be content for the purpose of this mission

- ICANN has enumerated powers.

--> Correct. Definition of services is only item that we need to close on.

- Difficult to define service as broad term. We should not define but describe

- Every computer connected to the Internet

CONCLUSION:

Comfort with general direction of Greg's proposed language (date 12 November). Tweaks might be needed to ensure it is
technologically neutral. We are not referring to class of businesses but rather technical processes. We are looking for neutral
language. We could have examples of technology to illustrate what we mean by the definition.

Stress Test 18 Status Quo and Way Forward

There has been long history of debates on stress test 18. We need to acknowledge contributions from Work Party in trying
to adjust various positions on this topic. Rationale is now clarified. Brazil has introduced a proposal. Discussions took place
during IGF. We need to reach a decision on this topic.

Way forward: Convene a subgroup to assess current options, areas of agreement/disagreement so the CCWG-ACCT can be provided with clear list of options for discussion. Set up small group to prepare clear, comprehensive document.

Feedback:

- GAC has expectations that his concerns are reflected in the third report. GAC consensus input to the CCWG via communiqué
should be part of solution on ST18. Build on language proposed by Brazil.

- Issues are more around drafting. Unsure a drafting subgroup will help much

- Brazil proposal has been made with intention to translate it into Bylaws language. Considerations have been based on
consensus. All governments agreed to that language. It was found to be acceptable. GAC communique specifies that GAC
members would continue to work within CCWG.

Volunteers: Steve DelBianco, Megan Richards, Brett Schaefer, Jorge Cancio, Greg Shatan

ACTION ITEM - Ask for volunteers on list - Staff to draft email.

Summary Document

We have tried to avoid duplication in first version.

Comments needed by 17:00 UTC TODAY - No line edits will be taken into account. We are looking for content related
comments (misrepresentation etc). http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/007923.html