Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for call #30 - 30 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896621 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thanks, Best regards Alice ---- ACTION ITEMS (see details in notes) ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11 ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2) ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed. ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes ACTION ITEM - # paragraphs ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language. ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40 ACTION ITEM - Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership ACTION ITEM - Remove "2 alternatives" ACTION ITEM - Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline. ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made. ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349 ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period ACTION ITEM - Delete 695 ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed. ACTION ITEM -Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception. ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC ACTION ITEM - CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC. ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation --- 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. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call Reminder: please complete your SoI on the wiki and contact staff if you need any assistance. 2. Review of Changes Sections 0 & 1 We have tried to incorporate all the changes that were made on Tuesday but please check your comments have been adequately reflected. We also ask that you speak to relevant section(s) of report for everyone to follow. The executive summary outlines the essence of what we have been working on. It sets the scene for the community. ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary 1-5 were moved to appendices - a summary was plugged into the report to provide the reader with context (section 1) Feedback: - We refer to the preferred community empowerment mechanism as reference mechanism. Instead of saying reference, clarify that it's the "membership model". - What does reference mechanism mean? There is no definition. --> We haven't moved any option - hence the wording "reference" - Membership model as an alternative might lead to confusion to some who might not read our report carefully about who the members would be. This would raise question of whether ICANN should have members or not. We could call it "SO AC Membership Model" - We should introduce both "AC/SO Membership Model" / "AC/SO Designator Model" --> Usual order is SO/AC - If we change wording, keep in mind that it is a reference, not a preference. - Recommendation to delete sentence on page 6 paragraph 16. --> Only SO/ACs would have member - paragraph 11 – clarify IANA functions - Should we cross check IANA functions and separability? --> It is not specifically an AoC review AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11 ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work Section 2 - Law firms working on line edits and remaining questions that will be sent within 24 hours. --> Legal "sanity check" - Comment made that we want IRP to be available for other claims: breach of fiduciary duty for example. Thoughts? - Suggestion to reflect Becky's proposal in report Feedback:: - p 17 para 56 - good addition but we need to strike consensus policies. Para 60: too much constraint is being put on ICANN - we want a multistakholder organization and will end up with dead multilateral organization due to constraints ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2) - Para 60 - ICANN's mission is defined and cannot change without decision - Legal terminology needs to be fleshed out - Capitalize mission. There are well-defined missions at start of Bylaws - as longer as interpreted in same way of Bylaws, no problem. We need to be aware of interpretation ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed. We plan to issue an updated version of this document as soon as possible after the call and will give the group the opportunity to go through the document for at least 24 hours. Comment will be invited: by 23:59 UTC on May 1. After that we will check for consistency, add final touches but will not edit content for final comment. --> Suggestion to wait for lawyers' edits - paragraph 95 - Change sentence to reflect diveristy of internet. paragraph 99 add "and its users" ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes Sections 2.6 Input from legal is coming. SO/AC membership model will be reflected. ACTION ITEM: # paragraphs Difference between recalling entire Board and removing individual Directors has been reflected. Feedback: - "rooted in private sector" objection - ICANN has had involvement with governements and users - roots are just as deep. Claiming that it is because ICANN is rooted in the private sector is incorrect --> Alternative A - Rational: more closely ICANN to existing structure and keeping ICANN in private sector. Suggest moving text in yellow to D. --> Suggestion to remove "and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector" ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference - We need to clarify in document 1) with regard to creating unincorporated association: SO/AC would not become UA and lose current identity but would create UA that would be alter ego of SO/ACs used to exercise functions; 2) Each SO/AC will be a separate class of member - If all members are in same class then right to spill Board is right of majoriy of member but if each in separate class we can have a higher threshold. ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language. - Language in 2.6.1.1 - 4C - will clarify language. - #178: what is intended by "tabled" - does it mean issues explicitely raised? ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40 ACTION ITEM - Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership - Paragraph 163 p 36 - We are talking about current structure. Specify that it's not meant to be that we won't evolve structure. - Paragraph 169 p 38 - 2 alternatives will be 4 solutions ACTION ITEM: Remove "2 alternatives" - 2.6.2: paragraph 174 Current planning to set up budget is very tight - we need flexibility on timing. Paragraph 175: open financials --> Timing is implementation detail. Financials is also WS2. --> Ask for feedback on this. ACTION ITEM: Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline. Section 2.7 Paragraph 262 p50: decision to approve is subject to challenge ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made. - Mismatch between CWG to have review fundamental and CCWG point that standard. --> p55 - periodic review of IANA functions - paragraph 326 we have verbatim of CWG comment that it be a fundamental Bylaw. ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications Section 3 Management abstract conclusions and how to apply stress tests have been added along with a handful of small edits. Feedback: - Paragraph 349 text incorrectly pasted ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349 Section 4 Item added: enhancements should be made to ICANN's whistle-blower policy Section 5 Significant changes have been added. Timeline has changed - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/R-CCWG_timeline_v0... . We have incorporated aspects that were described on Tuesday. Input on Bylaws approval was received and included. Feedback: - "only as required" - understanding that we would use second comment period to hammer out some of the details. We won't be putting out new issue. Make sure the text does not preclude ability to hammer out details. ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period - P88 paragraph 695 - No need for representative to speak for SO/ACs - reword so that it does prejudice that decision. --> 696 replaces 695 ACTION ITEM - Delete 695 - Have timeline in Word document - We are having meeting on 19 June - not intensive meeting. ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed. - Legal counsel presence requested at 19 June meeting Section 6 16 questions and IRP questions have been moved to a separate detailed appendix I Questions will be in a document for comment period: easier to provide/collect input - Specify in report that shorter comment period and second comment period and apologize. ACTION ITEM - Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception. - Suggestion to have the 40-day comment period. --> If we go to 40 responses will arrive on June 14 and we won't have time to review by Buenos Aires and have next steps discussion - Consider 40 days for second comment period - This work will impact future of ICANN - we don't have to rush. --> Intersessional meetings are hard to achieve. This would push the timeline even further. - There used to be rule that documents need to be published a certain amount of time before meeting. --> That rule is still in place - analysis of comment will inform Buenos Aires discussion. 3. XPLANE material presentation and discussion This proposal is in draft mode. 2 sections: 1) empowered community overview and details of individual powers; 2) improved IRP. This represents overview of empowered legal structure - it answers 1) what is it; 2) how does it work; 4) who gets to vote; and 5) how is it exercised. Key elements of community powers are described. Surfacing key elements of IRP that are new including details of new IRP panel, process flow of IRP, decision characteristics of IRP decisions. ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC Feedback: - It will help us to explain mechanism to our communities. Is this meant to be part of the report? --> Tool to help community understand our work - appendix to report --> Facilitate understanding of what we have been doing. 4. Next Steps We will be getting legal counsel's feedback today at 18:00 UTC. In the meantime, we welcome editorial comments on the version of report we have so far. We will strive to provide updated version including legal updates and any other updates received by 23:59 by April 30 to give final check for review. Deadline will be 23:59 UTC May 1st for final comment at that point will turn into mode to provide document for public comment on Monday. ACTION ITEM: CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC. We will circulate graphs from Xplane to the list - comments invited on whether graphics reflect proposals accurately and do not create misleading impressions. We invite you to send feedback on Xplane graphics by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC so that we can issue graphical explanations simultaneously We are also working on translation - hopefully we will receive them asap. We will start planning webinars with community and will put together engagement plan on Monday. ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week Request to include a before/after approach. --> Before or after will be not be ready for Monday but staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation