Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #21 call on 07 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894988 Action Items Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. Notes This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Links WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx> http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e> http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Notes/Action Items 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest Tijani Ben Jemaa on the call only. 2. Update on sprint by various groups Work Party 1 (WP1) WP1 team of drafters formed following a work plan adopted April 1. Content further reviewed at calls on April 10 and 13 with a view to completion to allow for a 2nd reading by CCWG reviewing community powers mechanism, stress test on GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, and recall of board members. Update and process. Questions arising from drafting. In terms of removing directors looked at removal of individual and the whole board. Focus from Singapore was the whole board. Advice from lawyers, suggests removing individual directors more consistent with other mechanisms being considered by the group. Should this be WS1? Agreement noted in the chat. Caveat that if more complicated than anticipated then it may be delayed. Some objection, that is may be a more difficult thing to do. And a question if this is necessary for the IANA transition. Removal of the board should be exceptional and stringent. Where an SO or AC appoints a director they should be able to remove them. And WP1 is discussing options for NomCom appointees. Following legal advice, likely that it should be the appointing organization that removes them. Comment that members have argued that Director removal was not needed for the transition. Keep WS1 light. Concern that removal of the whole board might introduce instability to ICANN. Recalled that L Strickling suggested that removal of the Board may be a useful mechanisms. And removal of the whole board was WS1. Legal advice suggested that removal of the board may be difficult and take time, which caused removal of individual directors was reintroduced as potential WS1. Removal of the whole board and the potential difficulties needs to be discussed with legal advisors. Q. sending back a strategic plan and budget to the board: to avoid a repetition of the process, documents can only be sent back once on the same issue. Or more restricted, perhaps once per budget or strategic plan cycle. And some suggestion that the Board have a requirement to take feedback into account. Points of view on this? If the board does not adequately pick up on these concerns on request to "re do". Will already have an idea of community's view, and if sent back by the community then the mechanism to remove the board my come into play if the community view is ignored. Are there teeth in remanding back to the board? Or it becomes a meaningless power. If a single opportunity per cycle to send it back, then it indicates the importance of the action. If sustained disagreement then ICANN could continue to operate under the previous year's budget spending. No introduction of new issues in later rounds of objections. Continued operation on the basis of previous budget To invoke the process so the community has sufficient power and the power has teeth Community should voice all concerns in one submission Community may consider to removing the board in parallel WP1 issues: Mechanisms ro reject changes to ICANN bylaws. To be an approval body for the fundamental bylaws. Board recall, all/individual. Work Party 2 (WP2) Independent review and on mission, commitments and core values. The ombudsman process, questions being drafted and enhancements to the process. And development of templates. Community standing, and potentially affected parties: parties who would be affected if a particular action taken, but not affected in advance of any party. Someone who would not be harmed until the action was taken, would those people have standing? What is the standard of independent review. Under ICANN current arbitration standard, have been cases where the panel has issued a stay preventing ICANN taking an action. Question will be sent to the group. Reconsideration process will be updated. Comments welcome. IRP, reconsideration, mission and core values, and update of ombudsman process ready for the next call. Review of the ombudsman process will be considered as WS2. Stress tests Test 18, GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, wording for potential bylaws wording for went to WP1. Looking at addressing topics the CWG are requesting. Test 18. "With respect to GAC advice that is supported by consensus" The condition is that the advice is consensus. A change to the bylaws that is proposed as WS1. Full debate on this topic during next weeks call. 3. Legal group update To inform the group's deliberations. How to interaction with the legal advisors. Sidley is the coordinating firm. They will work based on memos drafted by the legal sub-group. The legal advisors will work with the work parties. Are CCWG's proposals adequate and legally viable. Greg Shatan coordinating legal sub-group this week. Formally assigning questions to the legal advisors, how is this done? Only if through memorandum through the legal sub-team. Circulating on the legal sub-team list shows the issue will be on the agenda of the sb-team and consideration for forwarding to the advisors. 4. Timeline To the target of 21 April, our date for finalizing for public comment. Under our current call schedule this only allows 4 hours of CCWG call for discussion of proposals, suggest need more time, and we want to add additional calls,: Tuesday April 16, Friday 17, April 20 and April 21, to close the last round of discussion. Translation time needs to be factored in. Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. New timelines documents. F2F before BA, June 19. To have informed conversation with SO/AC in BA. Second PC after BA, to address outstanding items from the first comment. How to get interim commitments. First public comment period is the main comment period. Second public comment is to address issues outstanding from the first comment period. Important the first round be treated as most important. New during the second PC might be any new powers or mechanisms that are suggested in the first public. The second public comment also an opportunity to comment on details. Some of the implementation work should start as quickly as possible, and need to engage with Board and Staff. June 19 meeting. ICG has been informed, they meet on 18-19 June. Coordinating to adjust our agendas. ICANN will support travel for members and liaisons 5. correspondence, ICG) 6. CWG input Correspondence from Sidley on internal accountability and hybrid models, and what the CWG --according to Sidley-- is requiring as accountability mechanisms from CCWG. This Sidley memo has not yet been discussed by CWG. AOB. Call with GAO, Mathieu and Thomas. Spoke as individuals as c-chairs trying to reflect the current state of the group's deliberations. Comments in line with public statements. The same questions have been asked to a range of community members. Their report will be shared before publishing to check reflects what was said. Once approved the report will be published.
