Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #54 - 22 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/8otYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model 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. CLO and Greg Shatan are not connected to the AC room. Public comment Tool 2 You are all encouraged to review the PC tool 2 in preparation for LA. A common understanding of comments received is a prerequisite for the LA meeting. It can be agreements, issues etc. Community forum discussion will also be added to Los Angeles readlng list. Memo prepared by lawyers on MEM (to be circulated) will also be material to review for LA. Note: we are expecting a communication from SSAC shortly. Comments are also in translation. Feedback: - Statement from ASO on whether plan to participate in model would be helpful. ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model Legal team will be sending us a comparison of MEM and our model. LA Face-to-Face Meeting Review of intro slides put together for the meeting. Work Stream 1 relates to accountability requirements needed for transition. Accountability enhancements the community feels need to be in place to replace backstop. We should provide recommendation that offer implementable solutions. It may be good to clarify that we need final set of Bylaws drafted with our final report. Review of slides prepared Feedback - We should not be reopening model discussion from bottom-up. We should be looking at tweaking model. We can't sacrifice designing a good governance model. We need to be primary. We should be improving what we have. --> This overview is meant to assess what needs ot be made. It is not a judgement on criteria - We need to distinguish between shape of community powers and what is best legal vehicle to implement them. - Chart should compare sole model and MEM. Stick to Paris model. - All should be encouraged to review comments on model and step back from perception that is only Board who raises concern about model - We need to be more open-minded - Concerns about simplification of our processes - real burden lies in ability to communicate model. Communication skills to explain solution and not solution itself that makes it understandable. Mixed points regarding using Ease of Explanation Tijani suggest use Simplicity and Clarity vs ease. AG - in line with Tijani - Ease of explanation should not be an overall criterai. Simplicity is a major factor. JZ - My point is simply that we need to prioritize the measures. Ease of implementation can be a criteria but it's still comes AFTER a comparison to community powers. The sequence here is important GS - Ease of operation and implementation are important. Any system that is easily operationable should be explainable. KA - SMM vs MEM - no need to take strong general positions, need to judge vs requirements - look for areas of reconciliation Izumi O - rephrase to minimum changes to meet CWG requirements to avoid unexpected consequences and for ease of operaiton. Also must be conscious of the time line - we must meet the time requirements. TR - should go offlist with this. TR - Political dimension - how would a model vs another would be received by Congress - very sensitive point given our group not tasked with meeting political requirements - should we have this as a criteria? Full disclosure - co-Chairs will be talking later this week with an ICANN political advisor regarding this.If the group feels it necessary we can pursue this more than this. HG - two staffers that have deep experience and insight on this if necessary. TR - need to understand if the CCWG needs to take the political aspect into account. PK - re political acceptabiltiy - should not be a big issue. the .COM act is not yet passed. Focus on having a plan that has strong accountability and broad support. KA - not criticize ICANN for late comments. would like a comparison table of IRP in SMM and MEM. TR - JC notes on political sensitivies beyond the US is a good point. Just looking to uderstand what is required for the US to approve the proposal. WSIS is important. Understand that some feel political aspect less important. Does the group want to be informed on this in LA? (no support for this- continue discussion on list). TR points 3 and 4 can b e discussed on the list (identify your priorities.....) TR ends this section. LS - point 4 memos from lawyers - high level memos to come today. 3 documents comparing various points. HG - it has been difficult given the Board proposal is spread over a number of documents. 2 calls have taken place with Jones Day for more information. Still a bit of a struggle. JD and ICANN legal wanted to review matrix prior to publication (agreed by co-chairs). they should reply by 5PM today. LS - thanks for the great work. Tijani - support approach but need documents before we leave to LA. Would also like TR slides. LS - ends this section. MW - AOB - we n eed to make progress. IraM and LS will be participating in person in LA meeting. KA - wish to report on ICG meeting RoloefM - request, given he cannot join, but many will participate remotely - it would therefore be very useful to have an early and fixed agenda would be appreciated. MW - we will have a best effort on this given we will need some flexibility. Interest of remote participants will be considered. Comment from HG - all lawyers should formally be itnroduced at the meeting. MW - KA update on ICG meeting. KA - ICG discussed all comments received - modified part 0 of the proposal. some points to raise to CWG - note being sent anon - CWG requirements must be met. CCWG output for Dublin is not probable - ICG waiting for results of LA meeting. MW - meeting closed