Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Working Session 1 (PM), 19 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-Accountability+Workin... A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to liaise with relevant groups on timeline ACTION ITEM: Issue to clarify with ICG ACTION ITEM - Staff to find a slot with SO/AC ACTION ITEM - Staff to recirculate program and crosscheck rooms Notes Part 3 NOTES Part 3 A collection of requirements To what extent we think the requirements are being met by the various models? The chart attempts to capture key concerns mentioned during the morning's presentations. Mapped this on screen to see what we may have missed, comments please. Presenting the requirements we heard about in the presentations. No single point of failure. Separation of powers. Provide leverage to the community, through removal of directors or through the community having authority. The ability to adjust, to be open to newcomers, to desperate interests. Diversity requirements on all parts of ICANN, diversity requirements that would be enforceable. U.S. legal not dependent on the US legal system as little as possible. Not to delay the transition. Answer the CWG requirements. Issue of ICANN HQ Over complexity. Continue with what works. Avoid creating new entities, and unknown territory. Avoid acting outside good governance mechanisms. Goodwill is not sustainable. Call about diversity - an absolute standard or more than the status quo. Is it open, is the requirement to improve on the status quo. The requirements best treated as starting points, not yet close to adopting. Sync with the IANA stewardship, noting the quality of our work but aware of the need for progress. Saying open to new participants, should also be mandated as open to all current participants. Feel that should have the bylaws passed by the end of the calendar year. Which suggests a tight timeline. Impact - on CWG requirement. Note, the mind map is a checklist of what was heard this morning. Take on board the notion of improving diversity. And recognizing the existing participants Structure discussion around the models. Look at a model, member model with UA. Designator model. Cooperative model. etc. caution about ICANN not losing it not profit status, importance of strengthening diversity. Pros and Cons of each of the models, Pros and Cons of each of the models. Complexity, the watch the watchers, perceived implementation challenges, unintended consequences, openness. As the goal is a successful transition, does the proposal meet NTIA requirements. Empowered SO and AC. Pro, it gives new powers to existing structure. Once in place, the IRP may be easier to use. Watch the marchers, no better or worse than today. Unintended consequences such as issues of the staff legal memo. Adoption of the proposal. Lower overhead for implementation with this model. Complexity to implement: seems very low? Swimming pool of complexity: the member model came from legal advice. Status Quo is to build on what we have today. A member model based on unincorporated associations. The UA not intended to make decisions, but the be a delivery mechanism of decisions made by the SO/AC. Cons: inspired fear. Complexities need to be resolved. Watching Watchers, no worse than today. Perceived implementation challenges seem long. Flexibility and openness, diversity - as good possible. Implementation time: simple and short it can be established in the same time as So/AC model If empower the SO/AC then don't believe the stick of removing the directors is necessary Was noted that when we spoke this morning reconsideration and IRP not mentioned, but assumed they were there. Sense that a number of this morning's speakers were saying similar things. Sometimes different terminology, but overall common ground. inspired irrational fears. Turns an American system into an intensely American system, based on courts in the governance system. New structures when created. Some hesitation, complexity in the member model, where all SO/AC are given an extra power. What is the equalization effect on the GAC: equal footing etc, do we give GAC beyond superiority if they also have their own special bylaw. RSAC and SSAC have chosen to stick to their advisory role, and GAC might do the same. So avoiding some of the complexities we are offering them Empower designator: lack of complexity. Flexibility and openness, But does not offer tight control over the board. Becky's model, with mid-term board replacement and spilling of the whole board. A form of rep democracy here. Issues on SO and AC, not just the At Large, which picks up the many diversity requirements. Easy to messages. Similar to what we have, but unintended consequence of people reacting to a fear of being replaced. Marry the diversity point with the empowered SO/AC. Con of designator model is lack of power over the budget and plans Open membership. All powers we are proposing go to the SO/AC. members of the public can join ICANN, and enforce the bylaws. No change of status required. It is an enforceable model. The least American solution. Cons: everyone member of ICANN, give rise to unwarranted expectations of what the members can do. Complexity. Implementation issue is to now allow the members to gain additional powers. Anyone can join ICANN. Note, anyone can participate in ICANN. People have to apply and meet some criteria, so join is not true. Con Malcolm member model. Could be high admin cost, an organizational burden, complexity and admin burden. We didn't represent the member model tightly enough and the fears come from that poor explanation. Any model based UA will prevent some from participation. Some will sue and therefore be sued. Escalation is to the courts, and model should not be managed by the courts. test here will the community powers be effective, under whichever these models. Need to be exercised. Importance of vertical accountability between the community and the board. Must be robust in terms of our requirements About the member model. Decisions takes place in the SO AC. Liability: only the UA gets sued, where today the SOAC and individual could be sued. Managed by courts is baseless. Court unlikely. Note it would the SO/AC that would have to decide to go to court. Notes part 4 CWG stewardship linkage * ICANN Budget: Feedback we are getting from public comment shows this is still very much an achievable goal * ICANN Board: While there were concerns about implementation, it is still on agenda * IANA Function Review: no issue there * CSC: we have had back and forth discussions with CWG-Stewardship and there are no objections * IRP: Consistent with CWG * Fundamental Bylaws: no objection either. --> We will suggest that the scorecard of our current progress against CWG conditions currently shows that we are on track and none of comments we have received would reveal serious concerns about feasibility and achievability and that should be revealed to SO/ACs as they consider CWG-stewardship proposal. - Concerns that we are not there yet (column 2) - All 4 mechanisms as fundamental Bylaws: clarify that it is not just about fundamental but carries a process based on weighting voting - CWG cognizant of implications of Fundamental Bylaws. - There have been concerns about ability to consider proposals. It is important that this message be conveyed throughout week NTIA letter ICG and CCWG were recipients. Details on timeline were received through ICG - there is a need for coordination. ICG discussed NTIA letter: the reply should not be in contradiction to CCWG response. It is important to consider proposed bylaws for public comment: will that be developed by CCWG or separately? We are aiming for approval by SO/ACs in Dublin - implementation to start at that point or maybe before. Conclusions will be reach in June 2016. We have received comments asking for more details but no comments on pace. WS 1 requirements need to be committed to but don't need to be implemented. We have changed our approach on what the community model is going to be and will need to check what impact on timelines will be. We will need to conduct more outreach to have concrete day. ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to liaise with relevant groups on timeline We could release pressure on timeline if ICANN were able to assign resources to working on language, details after this meeting. A suggestion made in ICG session considers that we need to wait to have full picture prior to starting drafting Bylaws changes. ACTION ITEM: Issue to clarify with ICG ICANN legal has started considering how can move forward with implementation ASAP - we are on same page. In terms of timeframe, we have constraint to have report for sign off by Dublin - that relates to degree of drafting - this is a project management related task. We need to keep in place the caveat that we are going to do our best to get to Dublin meeting. - Plan is not to provide final Bylaws wordsmithing as part of our final proposal. That is too challenging of a task. We are not in a position to fully assess implications of wordsmithing with regards to overally architecture or references to these Bylaws in contracts etc. We need to be careful that we don't set expectation it is going to be perfectly wordsmithed. Outreach during ICANN53 Board This session will be chaired by Markus Kummer. We have apologies from Bruce Tonkin. Discuss how we can communicate between CCWG and Board in efficient fashion, reach understanding and iterate around this. How can we move forward with questions we have received? How could the Board allocate resources to starting consideration of setting proposals into details as soon as possible so that we lower pressure on timeline for end of year/early next year? Final drafting of Bylaws is duty of ICANN. It is an issue that is separate from CCWG public comment. CWG/CCWG We are going to introduce history of our works, including technical proposal - brief background. We will then discuss where we are. Our group will be host of this meeting - we will be chairing everyhing. We update on progress made and will invite CWG Cochairs to talk about dependencies. GAC We will provide legal memo information and ask questions to inform our second public comment document. Working Sessions 2 & 3 Items on agenda: NTIA letter (substantial proposal by then), empowered SO/AC model (based on written submission), start discussing new items requested by public comments: accountability roundtable, SO/AC accoutability, Stress Tests, diversity enhancements, human rights, WP2 refinement, Board/staff accountability discussions, refine WPs work prior to public comment 2. We need a clear understanding of when WPs will meet this week. Timeslots are still open ACTION ITEM - Staff to find a slot with SO/AC ACTION ITEM - Staff to recirculate program and crosscheck rooms We have reached out to everyone and welcome any additional outreach suggestions the CCWG may have. Concluding Remarks Legal requested clarification on empowering SO/ACs. Steve to send remarks for communique. Communique reports: - Broad support for overall architecture based on 4 building blocks. Most comments consider it as an improvement - CCWG revisited various models being discussed and acknowledged commonalities of views - UAs viewed as too complex - CCWG worked on refined model. - CCWG considered comments on CWG dependencies. Each of items related received overall support from community - CCWG will share outcomes with other groups during ICANN 53 We have reviewed results of comment review. Specify that complexity of legal implications Communique will be published ASAP.