Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #73 - 22 December will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9ItlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction. ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up 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. Public Comment Period Staff update: 80 replies. 4 of COs sent in comments (GAC, ALAC, ASO, SSAC). Input from a number of constituencies received. Staff uses spreadsheet. Discussion * * Input on geographic regions needed. * ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics * On number of comments: less individual responses as requested to channel feedback through SO/ACs Update from Chartering Organizations * * ALAC: ALAC has 5 YES, 4 YES but with restrictions, and 3 NOs. * GNSO :The GNSO aims to have a consolidated position statement by the middle of January. The GNSO Council will have 2 calls in early January and plans to have a motion by January 14. Most GNSO SGs and Cs have submitted direct comments, but these will be consolidated in early January. * ASO: Positive feedback - we support Draft Proposal: model and recommendations. We intend to participate in community structure. Rec. 3: specify that talking about naming function. Rec 5 important to have reference to MoU. Rec 8 excluded Rec 11: support text that clarifies today's practices and can be supported by NTIA. * ccNSO: Call tomorrow. Possible to have input in next few days. * SSAC: SSAC has submitted one-page comment and deliberately not commented on individual recommendations as cannot comment outside limited scope. SSAC anticipates it will be able to support the final proposal on understanding that nothing changes between now and then. * GAC comment - <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n...> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... Work plan for CCWG Review of proposed work plan. Issues will require substance discussions to identify common way forward We will focus on easy-to-fix issues as a priority and then focus on complex issues. Draft analysis will help us structure our work. Per our Charter - we will need to consider whether supplemental draft, public comment needed. We should not wait for January 14 (foreseen GNSO submission) to conduct assessment. We already have received a number of submissions from GNSO constituencies. Irrealistic to expect that potential supplemental report will be published by January 7. We will need to consider whether there is a need to increase frequency of calls or need to set up subgroups to address topics. Discussion: * * Supplemental report should go to public comments. * Flexibility needed to start discussing * In flavor of plenary discussion and more calls. Content for plenary discussions should be concise * Discussion to be continued on list. * Treat Board comment properly and timely. Response on GPI question on Board members' criteria is pending. We are considering asking Advisors for input. Input on how to address Board comments is welcome. Intent in addressing Board comments is to be as constructive as possible. Board has two roles: 1) chiming into consensus discussion; 2) Adopting report. We need support of COs first to evaluate impact on consensus and to assess whether final form of recommendations raise concenrs with Board. It would be premature to edit recommendations now. We need to think how to deal with GPI and understand Board's concerns. We need to offer rationale why we think GPI is not affected. Discussion: * * Agree with comment that we should examine Board comments objectively. Agree with approach to categorize Board comments. There may be varying degrees. Clarify with Board on how strongly they feel with these suggestions * Disagreement with proposed approach. * There is agreed definition of public interest. It will be endless discussion. ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments CONCLUSION: Plenary of the CCWG-ACCT will need to discuss outstanding items. Mission, Commitments & Core Values - Summary of status quo With respect to Board comments, we have fundamental divide about potential unintended consequences. Bruce requested to see there is language the Board could offer to help us close this. ALAC comments boil down to unintended consequences of what this language will do with respect to renewal of registry agreement, ability to sign those agreements after language is adopted and PICS specifications. GAC has been asking for legal opinion. Two key questions: (1) what does the prohibition on regulation mean; (2) what is the scope of grandfathering Discussion: * * Careful analysis of sensitive PICS was done. * Grandfathering: difference of opinions whether long term/short term. Policy vs implementation come into equation. * Determine whether limited to grandfathering. Different camps: 1) ICANN should not engage in any activity related to content regulation; 2) ICANN must be in a position to do so. How can we reconcile these differences? Suggestion to consider attempt mitigation friction by adding language that limits risk of ICANN exercising monopoly. Where contractory voluntary offers limits. ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction. ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report Stress Test 18 - Summary of status quo Public comment period: We have softer support. Objections are dissenting. Discussion will be needed Discussion: * * Current Bylaw should remain as it is - sentence should be added: should GAC change consensus to majority then the text by CCWG could apply. * Revise language to clarify that all we are changing is 2/3 * In previous bylaw no mention was made on rejection. The Board may not always have used a formal decision. CONCLUSION: Only way to obligate Board is to have decision locked into consensus. ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up AOB Clarifications on CRISP notification on timeline: Board comments were listed as a specific example. Note intended for CoChairs but shared with full CCWG for full transparency