Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #11 call on 09 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233184 Action Items 1. Work Party 1 and Work Party 2 rapporteurs to work on a proposal, in coordination with the WPs, on potential consolidation of streams or clarifications of work. 2. Legal sub-group to follow-up with legal counsel (JD) on there. 3. The Board Governance Committee is interested to know from CCWG if it is considering significant changes to the IRP and use of the panel, and it worth continuing down the path of creating a permanent panel. Notes 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI * No participants on the call 2. Interactions with CWG - update by Lise & Jonathan * A discussion document and slides available from the CWG Stewardship wiki: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404 * Focus on RfP3 which is the post transition work. With the goal of producing one model. * The goal is for the needs of the CWG in terms of accountability mechanisms are known to the CCWG * CWG asked questions on five issues: (1) Budget Accountability and Transparency. (2) Accountability for (re)delegations (3) Independent Review of Board Actions (4) Independent Appeals Panel (5) Control over ICANN Board decisions. Budget: * IANA costs are difficult to understand, including the ICANN overhead and how much is spent on serving other communities. * Reply to CWG of Jan 28 available on the CCWG wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accou...
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accou... Accountability for (re)delegations * Revised email of Feb 3. <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/0...> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/0... * CWG: response appears to meet the need. Independent Review of Board Actions * The CCWG response is in tune with the CWG needs and approach. * CCWG expects to provide some independent review mechanisms. Would be helpful standard of expect behavior in beginning an appeals process. * CWG to be specific and detailed. * Examples: service level agreements not being fulfilled. Keeping to procedure. 3 Legal advice update * CCWG meeting in Frankfurt developed some initial framing questions. Response from Jones Day. Not, to be seen as the external legal advice the group will seek, but informal to help the CCW G legal sub-group develop the scoping document for external advice. * Jones Day response available from the CCWG mail archive <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/0...> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/0... * CWG legal scoping document: * Type of counsel and type of legal expertise to respond to the types of questions arising from the CWG proposal. * Tight timeline - develop scoping document/questions by the end of February, and it is hoped the CCWG will be able to use the same firm as CWG, also end February. With expectation for response by the end of March, at the latest. * Noted that there was no disagreement to engaging with the same firm for external legal advice as CWG. * ICANN is committed to support the CCWG and will support outside expert legal advice. The engagement should be managed in a cost efficient way. 4 Update WP1 - Jordan Carter * Scope powers and mechanisms * Powers: the things the community should be able to do. * Mechanisms: ways to exercise those powers 5. Update WP2 - Becky Burr * Standard for review, redress and empowerment 1. An articulation of ICANN's mission that is actionable 2. Present and consider ICANN core values 3. Mandates: nondiscriminatory treatment, transparency, operational excellence, fiscal responsibility, avoid capture * To develop a clearly articulated standard against which ICANN's behavior can be evaluated. And the start of a roadmap to the bylaws changes that may be needed. * Suggested that the review and redress group would look at existing mechanisms and the empowerment group to look at new mechanisms. * Frankfurt Mindmap: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requir...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requir... 6. Update WP Stress tests * Rolled up the inventory of stress tests to a consolidated group to be applied to mechanisms proposed. * This exercise will be undertaken for all 25 stress tests. * examples: The consequences of canceling the AoC, including the conduct of community reviews: community mechanisms to challenge to a board decision bring the AoC into the bylaws board attempt to remove the AoC from the bylaws: community veto of bylaws change Directly related to the transition * Financial Crisis or Insolvency * Domain industry financial crisis, reduced revenues, threaten ICANN's ability to operate. Not directly related to the transition. Board and management could make dramatic cuts, but the community has no opportunity to comment and react. * A reserve fund could be used for some period of time. Community veto, community challenge to Board's decision. Some helpful existing and proposed mechanisms. But they do not go far enough. END
