Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the initial conclusions of our deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached. 1. Clarify whether current drafting imposed mandatory voting from the Board and represents an unintended change to the current practice (see IPC detailed comment page 8 on http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) To address this concern, add this clarification to Rec 11 and Annex 11: This recommendation is intended to limit the conditions under which the ICANN board and GAC must try to find a mutually acceptable solution. This recommendation does not create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider and/or vote on GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA transition. This recommendation does not create any new assumption that ICANN is bound to implement any advice that is not rejected by the board, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA transition. 2. Confirm or discuss need for such a recommendation to change how GAC Advice is being treated by the Icann Board, in light of comments received. 3. Confirm or discuss recommendation that at least 2/3rds of the Board was required to reject GAC consensus advice to the Board. 4. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of formal objection and that the definition of objection/consensus cannot be changed. Others specifically supported this provision. 5. Add the requirement that a rationale must be provided for formal advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. The Board should determine whether the rationale is adequate. 6. Add a clarification that ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise – that is inconsistent with Bylaws: While the GAC is not restricted as to the advice it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take action that is inconsistent with its Bylaws. The empowered community will have standing to bring an IRP to challenge whether any board action or inaction that is inconsistent with its bylaws, even if the board acted on GAC advice. The discussion will be continued on call #79 (21 January). Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León