Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability Meeting #95 - 21 June 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ECOOAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items * Action Item TR - it would be great if SE could get back to the list on this. what about applicable law? * Action Item TR - for the time being I would suggest we see the written contributions from Sam Eisner to the list before deciding if there is a need for change * Action Item - Forward budget to Chartering Organizations for review. Notes 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI (5min) * No one on audio only. Roll call will be taken through virtual meeting room. * Congrats to all for NTIA milestone (June 9th). 2. Articles of Incorporation (25 minutes) TRickert * Steve DelBianco to present * Do the co-chairs intend to submit a comment to the ICANN public consultation on the Articles of Inc? * TR - to be consistent we should do the same as we did for the Bylaws. * SDB - end of consultation should be 6 July. * Going through the side by side comparison document (will only note issues) * CWilkinson - Applicable Local Law - would be helpful to have legal advice as to what that means in practice (originally meant that ICANN would respect European law on privacy - which has been an ongoing issue with ICANN over the years). SDB this sounds like it is an ongoing process - possibly this would be relevant under the WS2 item under jurisdiction. * David McAuley (RySG): Steve, IMO, the CCWG proposal did not mean to undo the current Article's use of "applicable" as relating to both international conventions and local law in new section 3 - I think we should retain that.TR we should ask the lawyers about the impact of these changes. * KArasteh - Should not use applicable law - we should spell out exactly what we mean. Future is also an issue. TR let us hear from the lawyers before deciding if this in an issue. * Greg Shatan: Jorge, in my experience "from time to time" is typically used in legal documents (contracts, bylaws, articles) when something can happen at any time (rather than at regular periods). * Becky Burr: Sorry - "applicable law" has a very clear meaning in a legal document, and this is a legal document. * SDB - "shall" vs "May" seems to be an issue which we should ask legal. GShatan - if we were to make a change we would be adding a new requirement to the articles - currently there is no such requirement. This is beyond our recommendations. "time to time" is not colloquial and is used in many legal documents. SDB Greg makes the argument for "may". * BSchaeffer - when it is determined we need to use a bottom up multi stakeholder process to determine it. * Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: our report said it would be determined in a bottom-up manner. NOT that it "may",, which also means "may NOT" - have the same old debate all over again! * Becky Burr: I don't think this permits the global public interest to be determined unilaterally by ICANN without bottom up multi-stakeholder process * Avri Doria: we need something that says it outright, not something where some one can argue that maybe it does and maybe it doesn't * Avri Doria: Becky it needs to be stated explicitly. this was one of the decisions within the CCWG. * SEisner - "shall vs may" issue of sentence constriction. Will have a look at this. SDB MAY or SHALL is not needed? SEisner could be a solution. * (Action Item) TR - it would be great if SE could get back to the list on this. what about applicable law? * SEisner - proposed language makes it a cleaner read given there are no clear treaties which apply to ICANN. Kavouss Arasteh: AGREE WITH EXPLANATIONS BEING PROVIDED. wE SHOULD NOT PUT APPLICABLE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AS WE THEN HAVE TO FIND OUT WHICH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION WOULD BE APPLICABle.SEisner - new wording is simply cleaner but does not change the meaning. On Further vs. Future - there is little distinction between the words - if there are significant concerns it could be changed back. * Kavouss Arasteh: rETAIN FURTHER AS IT IS AND PLS DO NOT PUT APPLICABLE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL * Brett Schaefer: In the new Article 2, I also suggest replacing "organized" with "incorporated" in the second sentence and adding an additional sentence affirming the current location of the headquarters of ICANN. These clarifications provide greater certainty regarding ICANN's legal jurisdiction and ensure that future changes of jurisdiction are not taken lightly. These changes to Article 2 would not preclude a change of jurisdiction of incorporation or relocation of ICANN's headquarters if Work Stream 2 so decides. The more explicit wording, however, would ensure that these changes will be subject to due scrutiny by requiring approval of the Empowered Community under the new bylaws because they would require an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation. * (Action Item) TR - for the time being I would suggest we see the written contributions from Sam Eisner to the list before deciding if there is a need for change. * Brett Schaefer: Could we get an explanation for the deletion of the old Article 5(e)? SDB please read the explanation at the bottom of the page - given here is no legal requirement it is being proposed to be removed. BSchaefer - why was it there in the first place since 1998? SEisner - At the point in time when ICANN was incorporated - it was unclear if ICANN was public charity - but it is now. So some of this language was drafted awaiting the determination of the IRS as to the final status of ICANN (Foundation vs Charity). BSchaefer - why not replace this provision with equivalent protections for what ICANN is. SEisner - ICANN being incorporated the laws of the IRS must apply to ICANN. * TR - Sam can you circle back with Rosemary and post something to the group on this - and if there is no problem with keeping it maybe you could consider this. * Brett Schaefer: I would also point out that the CCWG did not request this change. * Kavouss Arasteh: We should have strong and valid reason to delete it * Kavouss Arasteh: In 5. I suggest to keep it for the good explanation which enshrined in the provisions. * TR - let us not take a decision today if we are going to file comments to the public consultation. Let us wait to the papers from SEisner and see how this meets our need for explanations; 3. Budget Update (25 Minutes) MWeill * KArasteh - is this consistent with WS1 - MWeill - yes. * No other comment or questions. * Action Item - Forward budget to Chartering Organizations for review. 4. Staff draft papers on WS2 Topics (15 minutes) TRickert * GAbuhamad - presentation of the document formats. Working on getting these ready for Helsinki or immediately after but we have to coordinate with a number of other internal groups that are relevant to those topics (such as ATRT reviews etc.). If you have any suggestions, please send them directly to me. * KArasteh - should be a section OUTCOME. GAbuhamad these are the introduction papers to the sub-groups and the results of the sub-group work is the OUTCOME and is up to the sub-group. * TR - This is just to get things going. * BSchaeffer - when will these be distributed? GAbuhamad - trying to get them done for the meeting but not before. some may be after. * AGreenberg - would be great to have those that are ready distributed before we travel to Helsinki to read on the plane. TR - we will try to do this for those that are ready. 5. Helsinki Agenda and Status of Lightning - MWeill * Talks/Expressions of Interest (45 minutes) MW * Maximum of 3 persons per topic not to overburden any one topic. * Please sign-up to speak on a topic - we want diversity. * Review of expressions of interest in the slide deck. * Anne Aikman-Scalese: Will there be any discussion in Helsinki as to how to train the community in the procedural aspects of the Empowered Community? (Thisi essentially an implementation question I guess.) Do we need an Empowered Community Procedure Manual? * KArasteh - Should allocate time so we can deal with the subjects properly. * MW - Presentation of the agenda in the slide deck. * Samantha Eisner: A point of clarification - the item on Standards for Board Conduct seems to be mislabeled. This item is supposed to be the identification of standards of good conduct for community members in Board removal discussions, to allow the protections of indemnification to be provided * MWeill - this will be important. * Kavouss Arasteh: Please extend the allocated time for the second lightning in the afternoon to be at least 90 minutest * GShatan - will we know in advance which topics will appear in which lighting talks? * MWeill - will do our best on this but it may be short notice. 6. AOB (5 minutes) LSanchez * LSanchez - Any AOB? - None. 7. Adjourned.
