Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 4 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+4 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism Notes NOTES: Day 1 Session 4 Community Council - Composition of community council: comments on NRO and ASO being same but that is not the case. NRO is 5 RIRs and ASO is a representation of community - All constituencies within ICANN should be engaged in this body to which ICANN Board is accountable. This presents key question for role of Governments. Would governments be able to contribute to votes that underpin decisions? It is a migration from advisory to operational. Modalities of votes - would we in place of voting contribution be advisory? Obvious option for GAC to consider. Would want a formal liaison functionality in respect to council. Modalities will need to be looked at. - Anybody that has power to exercise this must be in a position to do so. - It is important to have group large enough for representation but consider efficiency: 1 instead of 2 or 3 - anyone that is a stakeholder should have legitimate representation body - it is arbitrary whether happen to advise, vote or develop policy - Work of ICANN to both develop and execute. there are dramatically different groups in GNSO. Should not restrict to SO/AC - - Equal representation needed - Need to discuss question of who gets the power -Constituency process to ensure representative is bringing in position well supported by community. Suppot IAB, NRO etc - as many different views as possible needed. We wont be increasing accountability if decreasing number of communities participating in process - With 2 people form organization, not representing diversity - Presence, input and making decision is different. ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder Independent Review Panel Is the a new process or enhancement? Is it a panel? Standing/non standing? Binding? Becky Burr walked the group through independent Review Panel template with a note that current process is inaccessible. Inconsistent decisions - no avenue for community to expression views. Objective: develop internal consistency. There is strong support in community in making decisions binding but in what manner? To what extent? Triggered/non-triggered: group in community. Board could follow procedure to challenge or overturn this. This process is designed to be flexible and could be used by others part of community. Substantive and procedural standards. Have recommended a standing panel of 15 (geographic diversity, maps different legal regimes) including fixed terms, prohibitions on post term appointments. Election, appointment process (variations). They could be recalled for specific cause - how removal would be initiated -> WP1 mechanisms could be used to provide that evolution. ICANN would bear costs of maintaining panelists (allocation of costs associated with proceeding, loser pay system). This would be included in bylaws as golden bylaw. Evolution of IRP, not creating a new body. CEP is a parcel of what needs to be fixed. Feedback included: - This increases access because more accessible and affordable. Experts are experienced. Work faster - Artificial surge in number of IRPs due to new gTLD program. Even if extending scope, waste of resources of time. 5 instead of 15. Rules and procedures have to be easily understood. Panel members who are able to steer things through need to be selected - without being capture by lawyers. Avoid getting process that is too legalistic because it will inaccessible. intervenor process; add couple of lines on parties invited to be heard. - Potential areas where this could off the rails. Standing: any decision. Binding nature of IRP is important but careful when concerns commercial. Don't want to poison innovation that drives this industry. - Quality of decision-making of panelists - to what extent will we ensure consistency in decision-making. To what extent is precedent documented? Traditional rule of law needs to be taken into consideration - documentation of decision-making. To what extent allowing for minority opinion to be expressed. Compromise agreement needed - Redress against panel is offtrack - doesn't follow process which creates delays. What impact delays having in community in terms of services. Affecting creation or support. Issue of accessibility and stressing importance of regular updates regarding particularly other affected parties. Simplify process to ensure it is understandable - Depending on powers of IRP, could make it mandatory to have panel size for envisionned outcome. Summary proceeding: preliminary injunction type or fast track. Suggestion to have expert in area do implementation as we do with legal advice, respecting prescribed principles. - Procedures for dealing with requests that have already been dealt with or - Possibility of response into RfP - clear about what actions are per panel. - not equitable to have binding decision on ICANN but not on applicant - Ongoing retainer for ability but paying for actual work. - Over time believe this will reduce the need to use it. - Call for consensus on IRP being in WS1. Implementation challenges are really high - How can it be binding? under what structure? - Proposals says standing panel members are nominated by Board and need to be confirmed by community - should we point community to mechanism discussed earlier? yes - Existing stress tests cover risks on party implications and unintended consequences. ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism - Beyond mission and values, there might be need for standing review to include contract dispute, also mention of applicable laws. - Stress test will define how much implementation will be needed. - Stress test #13 - - Standard would need be written by ccNSO (stress test #21 CONCLUSION DAY 1 We have confirmed WS1 proposals we have been working on - still working on principles, independent panels - in a process that is not reinventing itself. Starting to see more clearly mechanisms for foundation boxes. While still lot of details to work out, aiming for quality proposals but level of details can be margin maneuver to make progress on regular cycles. Discussions tomorrow - AoC, jurisdictions, value in discussing reconsideration process. Synch with rapporteurs to identify needs - timeline & next steps (how do we organize for public comment, level of detail - need for greater clarity)