Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #12 call on 12 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188 Action Items * ACTION: to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors * ACTION: Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki * ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? * ACTION: for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving ICANN's variable fees and amend the stress test example Notes Notes CCWG meeting #12 (Thursday, 12 February, Singapore) Item 1. Welcome, roll call & SOI No updates Item 2. Input received during the week ASO. Discussed with the NRO AC. 1. any proposed solution should not be a delaying factor for IANA trans 2. simple with minimal change 3. not interfere wont the IANA number function 4. not interfere with the consensus based decision of the operational community ALAC no formal discussion. Pleasure speed of work. AFRALO statement (Aziz Hilali) (see CCWG meeting #12 page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188) Accountability mechanisms should be 1. based on MS approach including genre and other diversity 2. must be implemented once adopted 3. avoid bringing ore changes to the organization 4. preserve the MS modeled, make sure the community remains accountable 5. no prove of one party of anther 6. preserve the security and stability of the Internet LAC RALO * Must be mindful of cost * Mindful of not creating excess bureaucracy GAC. From Communique < <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COM> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMMU...> 1. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to develop the proposals for enhancing ICANN¹s accountability, with reporting back to the GAC and guidance on major issues from the GAC as a whole; 2. The GAC will work to identify particular issues for governments as both individual or collective participants in any new or enhanced mechanisms; 3. The next stage of the GAC input to relevant work streams will include public policy principles that could guide development of any new or enhanced accountability mechanisms; 4. The GAC will contribute to the work of the CCWG towards a consensus proposal for submission to the ICANN Board. Both processes will have the highest priority for GAC inter-sessional work, the GAC being mindful of the updated timeline." ccNSO CCWG ccNSO members engaged in an information session. Some concerns raised, not necessarily a position of the ccNSO: 1. need for complicity and not adding complexity 2. risk of adding bureaucracy and paralyze ICANN 3. case where ICANN might relegate a ccTLD outside policy 4. need for coord with the CWG 5. one member expressed the view that the CCWG was in wrong direction, and shield reconsider its approach * CCWH co-chairs engagement with the 2 advisors here Jan Scholte and Ira Magaziner. need for simplicity, that the outcome will be widely read and so needs be easily understandable * inclusiveness of the ICANN model should be on our radar as a key goal. * Legal contingencies, * Financial contingencies Input on the scoping document from Jan Scholte, Willie Currie and Nell Minow ACTION: to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors GNSO briefing - Engagement session Feedback suggests CCWG in control and asking the right questions Input (ICANN Fellow) keep accountability procedures and improvements as simple as possible. How to create simple and precise accountability procedures. Canadian remote hub: include recommendations from the At Large Summit, London ICANN meeting (this has been done) - Other sessions Item 3. WP1 / WP2 way forward New slide deck on working process (see CCWG Meeting #12 page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188). To explain how the work of the group was sticking together There is a difference between doing something simple and doing something simplistic Principle and bylaws: there are some things that won't fit in the bylaws. The process presented is consistent with the messages from the community which were strongly in favor of simple clear processes. And appreciated the graphic representation. Concern that it was rapidly moving in the direction of a solution A skeleton to enable the minimal changes we need to move forward GAC. Presentation triggers a few questions: What is the role of governments in all this. And underline the importance of inclusiveness. Presents a clear story of what we are doing About feedback. To archive simplicity might not mean making minimal changes. More effective mechanisms might mean a significant program of change to leave the organization better off. Care that not everything may fit in the boxes, it is a story-telling tool, and not prejudge ongoing work. Contacts are the only truly binding acc models to date and not captured in the diagram. Chairs' intention was to guide you through the presentation Not just bylaws buy bylaws policies contracts. Not just about splining the board. Escalation only if all other fails. Role of governments, not included as proscriptive to single out any particular stakeholder. Suggestions on how to organize our work: Based on the straw man document. ACTION: Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki Refer to standard rather than principles. Creating and normative statement of how we want the community to inter-related. WS1 is before the transition, WP1 and WP2 may need to disappear and wrap the work into the new recipe and templates. Start work early on mechanisms on how the community empowered. A consistent community structure that exercises these powers, ensure consistency in structures. Item 4. Legal group update Legal sub-group met, Robin Gross holding the pen to draft the first scoping document on questions for external legal advice Item 5. WP-ST progress review of the 5 stress test examples Examples: Test 14. Termination of the AoC by ICANN or NTIA. ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? Test 16. Does ICANN engage in programs that go beyond ICANN's narrow mission. A non-trigger action might be to reject that part of the budget. Or, a trigger action to prevent an action. And would require a bylaws amendment. ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? ACTION: for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving ICANN's variable fees and amend the stress test example. Test 22. ICANN Board fails to comply with the bylaws. How does the community react to Board inaction. For example if IANA is not functioning, and the Board is not taking action, what is the remedy? 6. Timeline Update on the next call 7. Next steps F2F Information in a few days, coordination call with the CWG chairs. Communication 8. AOB None 9. Closing remarks