Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting#15 - 1 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782593 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Notes Process call not substance. What do we need to do in the next 4 weeks as we lead to the 2nd public comment report Might need to look at the tracker document, and the work Steve Del Bianco produced By end July: new content for the report. We will work through the WP1 sections of the scorecard. Steve will discuss work done on taking AoC into the bylaws. taking this work and the output of the paris meeting. Looking at new drafts of the report in Paris. Beginning with the controversial areas. Considering the public comment and the dialogue from BA Public comment tool has already replied to comments received. A freeze on July 14 for Paris, And then a rush to complete the proposal for the end of the month Kavouss: Suggestion to follow the CWG process and group connected issues and then address in design teams. And this mirrors how we developed work for the 1st comment proposal, with individuals and small groups working. We do not need all replies to the pubic comment by Paris, but the key and contentious issues. To develop specs and update the bylaws. With he AoC reviews and the first pilot, to see how the two legal teams can work together. Developing these species in parallel to the other drafting work. AoC alone, as pilot, or more? The answer is all of it should be as bylaws specs by the end of July. Will need to identify leaders for the chunks of work. From the scorecard, volunteers for the work identified. Some parts are not candidates for the bylaws as they are functional and operational. The AoC has been reviewed, and the 1st PC document presented that work. Coming to the 1st three elements of community empowerment, how does this fit with the larger issue of deciding which model we will adopt. Understand that this will come from a comparison developed by the lawyers and will be the core of discussion in Paris. There will not be a model group. First 3 items there seems to be overlap with the new WP3. Community empowerment where WP1 begins. The mechanisms etc, that is being done by the model group, and the other work, not WP2. The powers area, do need to be updated inline with all feedback received. And can be divided out, not as a single block. Individuals or smaller subgroups could take the drafting. Be aware of consistent language. Not spent as much team as needed on the community council. Need to revise composition given comments in BA, esp SSAC and RSAC and their role as advisory communities. Need to explore the composition, and if it is a discursive council or a voting counting body. And don't feel GNSO constituencies are not adequately represented. Weight of voting and nature of the council. And reminds to the accountability forum that was suggested in public comment. Alan: What Kavouss is suggesting with the CWG drafting teams is actual what we are doing as methodology. Greg's reference to the 2nd two A's at the bottom of the table. The first is a refinement of the model, if we are not going to do it who is? Is the representation concept viable without the SSAC and RSAC and possibly the GAC, with such a small number of representatives? If something needs 2 SO and 1AC, may not have more than 1 AC. Steve: my impression we had broad support for the community powers, and should incorporate public comment so we can update our document, and begin bylaws drafting. And those powers should be available to all SO/AC, regardless and if they become a designator or member. Means of enforcement not relevant to participation and example voting to block bylaws, still want to write up a voting scheme for all AC and SO. Participation in that voting doesn't rely on the model. Defer the enforcement question to a later section that will be drafted with the help of counsel in Paris. Community council is like a permanent CCWG of all SO/AC regardless of whether they decide to active designator or member. Jordan: SSAC and RSAC seem to want to have their influence in ICANN based on the quality and power of their advice. And not participation in the community power, irrespective of designator or member question. Suggest some confirmation with those two groups, SSAC and RSAC, do they want to participate, and how. When exercising the list over powers, there's a group who come together to discuss and cast votes, or where there's simply a relative weighting of influence between the SOs and ACs. And this doesn't replace the whole CCWG discussion about the empowered SO/AC model is the right way to go. Need to clarify roles with the co-chairs. Kavouss: not convinced GAC will favor membership. And not clear the community council is different from the model. Need to review all comments, public comment and from BA. There is disagreement on the member model. On the community council - concern about creating additional representative bodies, and not to create new structures. Examine the role of the GAC under each stricture, And add to that the role of the nominating committee, are the to be considered designators? If end with a member model, then their decision cannot be over ridden. If someone opts in to be a member or designator. If SSAC/RSAC do not participate in the council then the dynamics significantly changed. Room for a council for those who do not wish to be members, and groups then exercising powers in different ways. Are they exercising their own view or the view of some collective council. Look past labels, and see how the council supports the multistakeholder community End is the AoC reviews and transcription into the bylaws. Steve's work, to talk through and is this a working method for other parts of the report. 3 steps. 1. Analyze public comment, 2 update the document, 3. back to the public comment tool to explain what has been done Some questions and suggestions, some areas where we were not clear on the comments. Cut and past the proposal text. Provide context for each chapter. 6.2 assumes that reader has seen 6.1 The red text pulls context forward to explain why the AoC reviews were being moved to the bylaws. If only one comment, then continue with the consensus view. Removed the confusing word "member" and used SO/AC, nothing to do with the member/designator structure. Some were confused as to how the Affirmation could still be out there. Now saying the bi-lateral agreement should be terminated. Relatively easy, and work between 2 documents. And in the end will need to go back to the PC tool to explain to the commenter what has been done. Process discussion. If only one made a comment - then do need to make sure it is on an issue already discussed. Only reflect what we have said in our comments to the public comment tool. Do we incorporate the whole AoC and AoC, there may be some aspects that are left outside. Need to make clear the incorporation of the AoC need to be brought in, but some commitments, like those of the USG, will not be brought in. And may need to keep some aspects of the affirmation live. Just to keep in mind. The three steps: analysis public comments, and follow up if not clear (inc BA discussion). Update the proposal document. The update the public comment tool, to explain what was done. Will be separate section for each of the powers. And same process for each. And for the voting elements of the model. Jordan to set out the areas of work and call for volunteers. WP1 calls will need to be scheduled and there will be a number of them. Debating substance. Around the clock. And nothing decided in a single call. Prioritize difficult issue for early discussion. And people volunteer for those. If any of the powers rely on member/Designator, then those would be prioritized. Don't believe they do. Want them independent of the model so the drafting stands whatever model. Keep to the same WP1 list. Please review and comment on Jordan's email. Come up with a schedule of calls before the July 14 freeze. END