Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #79 - 21 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/jJxlAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. Holly Gregory, Roelof Meijer on bridge. Update from Chartering Organizations - We are awaiting input from GAC and GNSO. GNSO Council call later today - accountability is on agenda. GAC had a call yesterday and is finalizing its input. Important to receive this input shortly to make informed decisions for way forward. Feedback: - Items to be discussed on this call (see chat). GAC is dedicated to putting feedback together. - GNSO: The GNSO communication will be a summary/consolidation of the SG and C statements. Timeline Overview of timeline and next steps slides Feedback: - We should reduce pressure. Disagree with supplemental report - we should have a revised proposal and should discuss with full CCWG whether changes require a public comment. Not in favor of public comment period but we should still discuss. Body of report should be submitted for comments for longer period of time to ensure there is consistency. ---> Supplemental means a new iteration of the report that takes feedback into account along with a description of the changes. We do not see need for another public comment period as specificities related to implementation. - Time to comment will not be sufficient. We will need to go back to our communities and make sure the bodies approving the report are comfortable with the final version. - Plan is consistent with Dublin plan. But what is the date of submission? --> Some discussions we will have trouble closing without GNSO, GAC input. There are still a number of gaps to bridge that will be closed next week hopefully. Issuing supplemental report in February. - Will timeline delivery date be discussed with NTIA? Need to ensure NTIA has sufficient time for their process. ---> Need for all to compromise to get report out in prompt fashion. - We should not initiate any coordination with NTIA but if they have questions or a need for clarification ,it is their decision to raise the questions and seek clarification CONCLUSION: We will move forward with supplemental draft but will re-discuss with full group for second reading. To preserve integrity of project, CoChairs will produce projections once they have a complete picture and will discuss with the group. Escalation timeframe Is there additional need to discuss this? Overview of conclusions. CONCLUSION: reading of rec 2 escalation timeframe is complete. Fundamental Bylaws Overview of conclusions. CONCLUSION: 2nd reading of rec 3 is complete. IRP & PTI IANA decisions We determined that PTI actions/inactions would be part of IRP. Concern raised that standard may not be limited to Bylaws only. Do we have agreement that the standard of review is different from other types and is there a preference for either approach? 1) Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction or 2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do so is covered by the IRP. Feedback: - Ask the CWG. CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to share this with CWG-Stewardship CoChairs for feedback. This item will be rediscussed next week. Scope of community IRP and separation power Carve out language to be added along with note that we should not use acronyms. Feedback: - Not allowing the rest of the community to disagree with something another set of community produced jeopardizes the multistakeholder model. - A PDP means a public comment period took place. Community could still elaborate a policy by ignoring public comments. What means would community have to stop this? --> There are iterative steps with the community and Board to see whether any recommendations made through the PDP are contravening public interest. - We should make sure we enhance accountability of SO/ACs. We should consider worst case scenarios CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: We will proceed with the conclusion and adopt this. Sebastien/Roelof invited to send thoughts on list and we will re-evaluate if it gets traction. Update on Board removal liability mitigation We will be adding clarifications: - Since any individual can petition, it will require a rationale; - There will be a dialogue with Board member; - Pre-service letters to be included. Legal counsel update: language shared with Jones Day on a waiver and we are working on indemnification. We will share in upcoming days. Feedback: - Can we assume that if there are discussions with ICANN legal we can expect change from the Board? Indemnification of whom? -> Legal counsel: No commitments have been made but we are discussing what sort of waiver/indemnificaton (if any) would be acceptable. Breadth and depth are being discussed. CONCLUSION: We will wait to hear conclusions from lawyers. GAC Advice Overview of conclusions. Feedback: - "This recommendation does not create" is not an acceptable wording. Use "shall not create". --> Intent for sentence is to provide directions for implementation where we will draft actual text. - Legal counsel: We are having trouble in having pieces of language consistent. We are uncertain how it is possible to act inconsistently with GAC advice and not have that reconsidered a rejection for example. We are planning to frame a high level concern about this. --> Highlight whether that is due to existing Bylaws or proposed Bylaws. - Rejection by 2/3 would trigger obligation to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. We did not change any of the other language. - This is moving in the right direction. With respect to ICANN needs to act in accordance with its Bylaws: it should be clarified that we are not suggesting that it be limited to Empowered community. - Problem arises in draft Bylaw: we are introducing concept of rejection that does not have this concept in; it adds complexity. - IRP is against action/inaction by the Board and not against GAC advice. Avoiding use of "reject" could address concerns about implied obligations. Need to point out aggrieved party. This is only supposed to restrict Board's obligation to find mutually acceptable solution. It is Board's responsibility to assess advice it received. 2,3,4 is trade-off appropriate? Feedback: - Concerns about 2/3 being unwelcome by congress in light of statement that was made by Fadi. Items 2, 3, 4 for discussion on Tuesday: CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to come back to use on concern that was expressed in consideration of Greg's comments. Items to 2, 3, 4 to be discussed. GAC as decisional participant Concerns expressed about GAC's role are not sufficient to jeopardize consensus of Third report but it is open for debate to see if any traction. Feedback: - In GAC there was discussion about definition. What are decision-making steps? Group needs to initiate petition is not decision-making. How could you prevent GAC from participating in forum. Step 6-7 are important. - NCSG still has concerns. GAC is not permitted to select Board members but we are now empowering GAC to remove Directors and approve budgets. GAC was never designed to do that. We are empowering them. We need to take will of community into consideration. - This may raise real issue as to whether or not ICANN is becoming intergovernment and in violation of NTIA criteria. --> 48 in support - 10 against - All the thresholds no longer work - the model disappears if go down from 5 to 4. CONCLUSION: We will keep report from language. This topic will be rediscussed next week. SO/AC Accountability Overview of discussion items. Feedback: - WS1 gives unilateral control of reviews to Board. It is not a bottom-up approach. CONCLUSION: Clarify process / outcome of structural reviews to address this concern that the Board can restructure at will. Concern with respect to the GAC to be addressed in second reading. Reconsideration Overview of discussion items. Suggestion: acknowledge these concerns and address in implementation CONCLUSION: Move forward with second reading. AOB - Share any views you may have on approaches to speed up process.