Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #11 - 16 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897025 Notes WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards Links: WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Starting from 6.5.6 Recalling the entire ICANN Board comment: regarding petitioning power, on the basis of 2 or more SO/AC. Suggest a much higher bar. Create an extreme measure because everything else hasn't worked to that point. What higher threshold: 2/3 of all SO/AC in ICANN (of 7 total, 3 SO and 4 AC, 2/3 cannot be reached by the AC alone). In a group that broadly works on consensus, 75% to remove the Board seems low. Some earlier comment that did not want 1 SO or AC to be able to block this power. Is there any voice for the NomCom in removing their directors? As a whole board removal the question is about removal not appointment. WP1 does not need to address the mechanism for doing this now. Using options to describe these thresholds would allow the community to see why certain % have been offered, including an explanation of thinking behind the options. Suggest creating a table to represent thresholds. 3rd paragraph. Internal mandate and discussion. Can it be unbolded? Yes, Agreed 6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws Stress test 14. After the contract with NTIA's gone there is nothing holding ICANN to stay within the AoC. To answer the test, to retain the commitment and reviews, add the AoC to the bylaws, as a WS1 item. 1st preserve 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the commitments cited in the section 9 reviews. Para 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not reference commitments made by ICANN, not of concern to the CCWG Noted that "Other parts of the AoC are either preamble text or commitments of the US Government, so these have not been proposed as additions to the ICANN bylaws." Left column is the commitment to the community, the right column is how to approve on this commitments in the core values. suggestion to add "and approval" to para 3 to "Ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the global public interest and are accountable, transparent and bottom-up in their formulation" [and in their approval] Need care when adding to the bylaws, to be sure we know what we mean. further caution: the word "global": has been added so needs to be underlined. bottom-up in their formulation is loose language for bylaws. And not all ICANN processes are bottom-up. Note: the text will get further scrutiny. Add to the chapeau: that text being added to the bylaw is understandable and implementable. suggested change: "and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of ICANN". Accepted. Chapeau, remove "the following..." (and in other sections) Financial and non-commercial are not two sides of the same coin. The text was intended to refer to broad financial impact. Non-financial impact might be considered. Para 7. Using reasonable has been defined over years of law, adequate doesn't the same legal clarity. Suggest that what trying to do is propose the sense of the change we desire, and too much close text editing gets away from that goal. Para 8b, should, be considered by the CCWG. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material, 4 recommendations. The first text box is from the ATRT2 report. Avri to draft standalone paragraph about the CWG review mechanisms. SSR review. Suggestion to hold more frequently than five years, "This periodic review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years" New gTLD expansion "Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" AoC is proscriptive, new text tried to simplify. WHOIS/directory services Addition of reference to the OECD guidelines (remove, note text) Periodic review of the IANA Function Information now in CWG. First after 2 years and subsequently every 5. Packaged as an AoC review. Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests Force the board to respond to SO/AC advice. So that the board has taken a stand on advice, which then would be subject to review. Next Steps: New version 3.2 will be sent to the list immediately. Later, a tidied version, with comments and table for the voting threshold as clean document and track changes will be distributed, this version will be open for any changes. Final version responding to last comments will be sent to the CCWG (as directed by co-chairs) END