Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting with ICANN Board / ICANN 53 - 21 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53781357 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Notes Introduction Objective is to improve accountability. There is inaccurate perception that tension. ICANN Board is fully committed to enhancing ICANN accountability. There is more cooperation in this process than might be perceived. We are trying to understand how mechanisms will work, what consequences will be. Whatever perceived weaknesses, we are a much stronger organization now. We are impressed by effort that goes into this (phones, calls, physical meetings). CCWG Update Thank you for opportunity to discuss where we are. We had a session in Singapore. We note a lot of Board participation in this process. Level of specifity from questions show. Happy the Board can follow up with questions. Other parts of community does not know what concerns were. Many comments were supportive of our approach. Enhancements to review and redress are considered to be right way to go. We have spent a lot of time analyzing comments to determine action needed. All comments have been discussed individually and in-detail. Support observed for four building blocks, review redress, and powers. Major themes were identified by community: diversity (operationalize diversity), openesss (proposal easy to understand - no barriers for understanding). Level of complexity was challenged. Question of community mechanism is a question we entirely visited. No determination has yet been made on legal tool that would be used to enact powers. Reference Model: 5 votes for all groups except for SSAC RSSAC (2 votes). This has caused a lot of confusion: why this layer of additional entities? Who controls these entities? Who watches the watchers? There were multiple opportunities of options on how we could forward and we discussed this as a group through "salespitches". Common grounds were observed. We revisited list of requirements for accountability architecture to see whether this still stands after comment period. We determined there were options we could rule out. This reference model is now off table. We have entered discussion into new phase and are merging options. We are currently looking at leaving SO/ACs as they are - they would not register additional entities but they would express views when it comes to give opinion. Should they wish more formalized format, they can pass resolution to exercise community powers. That would be sufficient legal personality to have powers and authority. We would have staggered approach to firm up community powers. We are moving closer to consensus. It is important to understand how flexible we are in our thinking. Feedback - Appreciate openness and intention to keep it simple. We would like to make sure proposals remain as simple as possible while achieving what you are looking for. Detailed set of questions was given to identify questions that might arise in political processes once proposal gets submitted. Intent is to ensure there are clear answers to these questions. We recognize that questions will take time to consider. There is no expectation that all of them should be answered in a great deal of specificity. We would like to work in a collaborative manner with you. Objective is to focus on substance. There are parts that can be enhanced as we go forward. - Impressed with willingness to look at different models. Concerned about external review. Is external judiciary review a necessary part ? Is it a "show-stopper" if not in proposal? --> We have had assistance from Counsel on this subject to correction. Do we need mechanism of ultimate enforceability? The community is split on this. If you come up with options that gives enforceability what are your options. There are adaptive means of challenging disputes through that. Government don't have ability to enter into arbitration. That is not a done deal. But the scary process of spending in California Court should be taken off table. - What would the impact of this new structure be on ICANN? What about if structure of ICANN change? --> How could we do that without going into Bylaws? - It is based on current constituency - you need to think about future. --> This is an important aspect. It is something we need to consider. Key question will be how to safeguard when strong reform happens: should it be something the Board can do on its own? Or is it something the community can have a veto on. It is a discussion we will have in our group. --> Every single proposal on table involves revising current Bylaws. There is no proposal that doesn't involve that. Cannot imagine circumstance where Bylaws would not be amended to implement recommentation. --> CCWG participant expresses appreciation to CoChairs, staff. Congratulates Chair on reflection something does not work. For two areas of empowered community, independent review mechanisms, with 2/3 models we have - how can these powers be exercised? Without UAs, what are the modalities to make it possible? Mechanisms of independent review (selection, diversity) - it should be clarified whether ICANN selects or pre-selects. There should be changes to transfer Board power to community. If some or few of SO/ACs decided not to be part of mechanism, what is the status of SO/AC with respect to collective decision? --> Questions were initially perceived as hostility. They will help us move forward. Appreciate helpful nature of comments. - Restructuring is an issue for the future. Recommendation is to move foward step by step. Simplicity question was already raised. Have a good contribution for WS1 to enable transition. At end of WS2 could move to WS3 which could include restructuring. This will be a task for tomorrow - ICANN 2020. If you want to do everything at once, you will fail. --> There is no intention to restructure SO/ACs. It is not what we were tasked to do. -->The problems are not that challenging if we end up giving SO/ACs equal say in governance. If we invent a brand new construct, we will need to think carefully of where they fit. ---> We are looking at community input into Bylaws, strategic decisions, Board recall - three categories that are simple. If we have big picture right, we get everything right. Bylaws are natural home for organization - its changes is not a huge undertaking. - Thanks for hard work. Specific comment regarding proposal to reject budget - Concerns. I have not seen mechanisms on how this would work. There are three unintended consequences: 1) budget paralysis whereby members of community vote against each other to facilitate personal interest; 2) Threat to financial stability of ICANN - proposal gives rights without responsibilities; 3) Unfairness - final budget decisions will be made by community who do not act in interest of all global stakeholders. Food for thought. --> Budget operating plan are critical parts. We have to juggle requirements of CWG. All concerns that are being raised are important ones and we have already tackled part of them: thresholds, new issues to delay budget. More work needed. There will need to be adjustments. ---> Board is from community. It should be spelled out more often. The Board is still last resort. The community needs the Board since it will change the Bylaws. We need to work together as closely as possible. This organization needs to be as flexible as possible. - Triumph of multistakeholder model. If transition does not happen, we can always talk about this effort as example that it works. What we have built at ICANN is very delicate. As you enter transition, last thing we need is to destabilize delicate balance. It is designed to be a model that includes Bylaws but also people. What you do is critical: you are strenghtening what we have but please do it with care. Will the model be perfect at conclusion? No - this is a continous improvement. We should avoid creating special interest powers and some are trying. Let's not reanchor ICANN in a US jurisdictional by mistake. We are trying to globalize ICANN. Your work is important and we will support you for it. We will need to be responsible for what we are buidling. This is a model for generations. This model should survive scrutiny of time. - How do we want to reply to public comments? --> We are using same PCRT as is used for PDPs. We have populated answers and summaries have been produced. Next Steps & resources Urgent task to start amending Bylaws to bring them in alignment with CCWG-Acct work. --> Welcomes suggestion to have more regular calls and dialogues. Encourages Board members to participate directly. Outstanding contributions from Bruce, Erika, Chris, Wolfgang bringing value in flagging concerns and experience. We need to fully understand what underlying concerns are. We need dialogue as much as possible with as many of you. --> Drafting of Bylaws needs to be tackled as soon as possible. Some of proposals are very mature. Let's put them in next phase as early as possible in cooperation with ICG. We need to assess consequences of overall Bylaws when we change one single article. Our groups cannot have perfect expertise in all Bylaws. We will welcome technical assistance on Bylaws drafting. Useful to community to know that this is being kicked off. Conclusions --> We appreciate comments received and will incorporate them in next iteration of document. We look forward to working with staff - Technical assistance will be made available as soon as possible. Details will be announced. - We want to facilitate process. Our intention has already been in direction of what it takes to implement. There is concern that have procedure. We don't want to shortcircuit. We are equally focused on this at Board level. Nature of substance: we are willing to have extreme failure instances. There is interesting interplay. We have time pressure. Useful to move this forward as rapidly as possible. We anticipate this is not the last and final iteration process. There will a requirement to continue process - it is evolving. Impact is enormous.