Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #59 - 13 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sKJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. WP status updates A google doc link - <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_kG... g> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_kG... - was circulated prior to the call to provide an overview of "where we stand". All subteams are working on analysis of PCs. Most visible area of disagreement may be community mechanism. This scorecard will help track areas of progress in Dublin. We need to concentrate on work. ACTION ITEM: Concerns on scorecard to be sent by 12:00 UTC tomorrow Feedback: - How are we reflecting comments on our first report? --> Rapporteurs of subteams should dig into history of documents WP1 We incorporated more recent discussions in addition to PC. Two papers produced: 1 compiles areas of consensus/disagreements etc - 2 compiles the options for consideration. In particular we need to resolve: community mechanism and decision making, as well as enforceability. Comes into equation MEM and plan B. Budget power - teased out conclusions. We are waiting for overall architecture to be resolved prior to fleshing out powers. ST-WP We are working on rationale for ST18. Our call is today at 19:00 UTC. ST 35 is area for refinement Feedback: - ST 18 needs to be discussed within GAC to have clear position. WP2 Issues involve refinement. We are delayed on circulating papers. Comparison chart of IRP and MEM is important. There are issues with respect to mission, commitments, core values - we need to get wording right. We have no clear consensus on retention of language regarding private sector leadership. Feedback: - On private sector, no need to emphasize a particular group. ICANN is multistakeholder. - Suggest that use multistakeholder instead of private sector. --> We will need to discuss and determine whether consensus. - There has been no opportunity to arrive at WP2 common positions. WP3 Documents have been added to reading list. WP4 Final version reflect different areas of consensus/divergence as well as different actions we took to provide language. Legal Requests Outline of overall legal costs was sent to list. We will be requesting meeting/travel costs. ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. Summary of outstanding legal requests. They are tracked on wiki - <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Feedback - Requests for single document that concentrates all advice received from legal counsel --> Unsure this would be best way to go. We will think of way to get quick reference doc. - We need reply from Board on clarifications needed for MEM ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM - Question 68 should not be closed. ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. Update on plan B Discussions It looks at enforceability required for community powers. This would consider a post transition mechanism that would allow us to conduct a governance review. If Board blocks move to membership, we would have opportunity to recall Board. We have tasked legal counsel to populate grid. Feedback: - Evaluate time it takes to enforce. There is a difference in terms of when community achieves results and time it takes. ---> Legal enforcement is looking into degree of enforceability and practical difficulties. - Should stress tests be applied to same chart (MEM and designators). Seeking guidance on whether should produce full chart and summary chart. - We are adding "current state of affairs" column to chart. - Do we need a row to deal with IANA functions reviews? --> This has been added. - When organizing agenda, provide opportunity to review our proposal against comments that come in. Our position should be baseline. We should have open opportunity for discussion. --> We will continue to analyze all comments received. Larry Strickling asked that we properly document options. We need to document that all options were considered. - Board to approve proposal - not just any stakeholder. We have to be very mindful of complexities we put into our work. Timelines Review of proposed timelines. Feedback: - Is there an in-between scenario? --> We will be updating timelines with NTIA information on process. Scenario #2 would still allow for transition to happen. - NTIA has renewed contract to next year and that process would take 5 months. It appears end of December would be new deadline for this to be finalized. Scenario 1 can work if no substantial deviation from second proposal. If there is, we need to go to third PC period. - NTIA never referred to accountability as key to transition - Face-to-Face in February for approval? No such plan for now. We will be able to flesh out plan by end of Dublin. It is imperative for community to understand what we are doing. Update on community Leaders Call Two topics discussed on call: 1) potential to make more time for CCWG discussions; 2) Slide-deck Fadi produced. SO/AC Chairs were gathered to discuss three options put together per SO/AC Chairs request. Preference was given to option B. SO/AC Chairs want to be certain we are making good use of time. On Saturday, break out will be used to flesh out options. On Monday we should bring community up-to-speed on where we are after weekend sessions with a view to presenting preferred options identified by subteams. We need to make sure these sessions are not taken over by individuals who want to make broad statement about accountability. These sessions need to be structured debates/conversations. On Tuesday we will have SO/AC discussions. On Wednesday we will work further on refinement. On Thursday we will take stock of week and finalize the work plan/timeline. Feedback - Question usefulness of plenary sessions --> We could use town hall to present findings of group, speak to changes after PC period. It would be a presentation of outcome of wkd. We should invite other community members to sit in with us. By Wednesday we hope to have visualizations of updated recommendations produced by CCWG. Supporting materials can be used for opening mics. - Plenary sessions could contain quotes that might later be used in hearings in a way that no one currently intends. We should make sure to educate them to make sure all understand. --> We need to consider whether we use morning session to report (educate) and Wednesday to give community opportunity to chime in on work result so that we have it further refined. - Seeking preference from community instead of new ideas would be preferable. - Risk some may skip Monday morning session. There has to be educate at top of each open mic session - Show more focus and restraint in email traffic. CoChairs should more actively interface. Conclusion: We will plan for meetings to be working sessions except for Monday morning session and Wednesday session. They will be sessions with community. On Monday, we will educate and go through chapter per chapter. Wednesday: we will educate and provide feedback on further refinements. On item 3, we have promised to work with Fadi on revised presentation that is more accurate. A.O.B - Board proposal and CCWG proposal - distinction in that CCWG asks beforehand who would participate. Opportunity to bring these two proposals closer. - It will be difficult for GAC to join Wednesday session. You should be collecting views on most controversial items and give floor to those who have not been able to speak through the CCWG.