Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #42, Session 3 - 18 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FoFCAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. Board recall: entire broad individual directors * Hold over model, Directors stay seated until the replacement is found * Alternates, selected when the original Director appointed; * Ex Officio Model, people involved in certain positions would become these positions * Interim at the time of recall, only long enough until a "real" board in place my usual processes * Each has he same fiduciary duties as the typical board. * Strict bylaws provisions around the time-frame, act as fiduciaries, but a community expectation of caretaker mode * Shadow board, sitting in the back of the actual board a bad idea. * Ex Officio: already a burden on the chairs and community leadership * Everyone who casts the vote, should bring names to the table as replacements, i.e. preference to option 4 * It is possible to go for a smaller board, ignoring concerns of representation. * A board as small as 1 is possible * Diversity requirements in the bylaws could be put on hold in the interim * Staggered terms, the replacement would step into the term associated with the seat they take. * Backstop under California law, if only one Director, must inform the California Attorney General that they are to resign, who may appoint an interim board. * Are there any restrictions on who can be appointed? * Suggestion of a preference with option 4, with implementation details to come. * Note. NomCom is developing practices for a casual vacancy, which are becoming more regular * A consultation process must be in place before a Board recall: petition and consultation * Preference for option 4. * Not requiring the NomCom to immediately seat interim Directors * NomCom will not be required to bring names to the table * Time span in which the new Board should be seated. * WS2 a set of standards for Board members * Discussion at the next CCWG mtg July 21st Mission, commitments and core values * Comments on the balancing test. In the proposal too complicated and too U.S. law centric * Consistent with human rights standards * Suggested commitment to adhering to human rights. Intent: what ICANN does not negatively impact on human rights * Is there a standard or framework on human rights being suggested? A group to examine this, and its policy implications and practical affects, but now not the time to implement * Further discussions about the human rights aspects. * Core value 5. From the AoC and movement of the commitments into the bylaws. The nature of the language in the AoC suggested this different place in the bylaws. . Words left out from them AoC text, the parenthesis 'issues including...' may be useful to discuss (taken to email).