Dear all, The notes and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability Meeting #6 call on 13 January are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414987 Also here is a summary of the action items: Action: Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. Action: Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list. Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. Action: Include time for an update from CWG Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies Action: Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like. Action: ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process. Agenda and Notes: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI 2. CWG update and high level principles 3. WS1/WS2 recap 4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion 5. Contingencies : finalize list 6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting 7. AOB 8. Closing remarks 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI * On the call: Alice Munyua, Julia Wolman * No updates to Statement of Interest * Six advisors have been appointed by the PEG. A call between the co-chairs and advisors to get the advisors on-board is scheduled later this week. One advisor, Jan Scholte, will join the F2F in Frankfurt. A search for an international legal expert is ongoing. * Independent legal advice on California law - discussion with ICANN staff ongoing, the action is in progress * Apologies from Olga Cavalli 2. CWG update and high level principles * CCWG high level principles and CWG intense work weekend. 4 CWG calls over the weekend 10-11 January * Updates from CWG members * Avri Doria: CWG reviewed the surveys of members and participants and others to gauge impressions on aspects of the public comments received for all customer standing committee (CSC), MS review team (MRT), the independent appeals panel (IAP) and Contract Co and alternate proposals. * Discussion of various points of agreement and disagreement. * On CSC, MRT and IAP, consensus not agreed but some agreement on how they may be set up. On Contract Co, strong lack of consensus, with one notion of alternate proposals being worked on. * A list of the various accountability issues that came up in the CWG discussion is being drawn up. Hopefully in time for CCWG Frankfurt F2F. And how the accountability requirements may differ for the different proposals. * Do not expect consensus by January 15. * Would have been better if CCWG Accountability were further along. Some catch-up required and alignment of work of the two groups. * Greg Shatan: new sub-group has been formed to look at an "internal to iCANN" solution that does not involve a Contract Co. And the required accountability measures that an internal solution would necessitate.Cheryl Langdon-Orr: suggestion to add possible agenda item for Frankfurt to speak to ongoing work of CWG and new working group RFP3B. 3. WS1/WS2 recap * WS1, mainly about the community prevailing over ICANN * What do we mean by consensus? What is the "community"? Who would the community itself be accountable to? (Russian dolls or balance based on separation of powers) * Balance of different types of powers (judicial, legal, executive). * What happens if some ICANN accountability mechanisms disappear with the transition. * Affect of CWG discussions. * Inventory of WS1 and WS2 items (WA2) is being reformulated. * Question for the group: what would we consider "committed to", in what form the commitment might take. Will require further work. Action: Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. Action: Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work 4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion * Who are the stakeholders in directly affected, indirectly affected, and parties affecting ICANN? * The purpose of ICANN's accountability: (1) compliance purposes, (2) acceptable to achieved certain level of performance. In addition (3) that ICANN should be accountable to comply with relevant legislation. (4) ICANN accountable to ensure its decisions are in the interest of all stakeholders. * Preferred mapping of stakeholder and whether to use NETmundial? * The NETmundial definition is not felt as appropriate for CCWG work. Need to clarify wording in the document. Appropriate categorization of indirectly affected parties and others, particularly the impact on ccTLDs. Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list. Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. 5. Contingencies : finalize list * Discussion in WA4. Stress tests and whether certain items should be taken off the list if the contingency was felt very unlikely to occur. The Charter does not suggest probability of a contingency - Should we take into account probability of a contingency when including or not in the list? * Importance to understand the likelihood opt something happening, for binary issues or other. Some scenarios seem to re-state the same problem set, e.g around financial issues. Suggestion to discuss what success conditions might look like. * The list is not finite and new items can be added via sub-group WA4. With discussion in Frankfurt. 6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting * Progress on scope * Progress on WS1 and WS2 * Conclude the work on the inventory of current ICANN accountability mechanisms Action: Include time for an update from CWG Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies * Volunteers to provide what they think as the ideal outcomes, 2/3minutes. 4 or 5 "pitch visions" of that the post transition accountability might look like. Action: Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like. Action: ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process. 7. AOB * Issue of independent legal advice. Ongoing discussion, and the independent expert advisors may also be able to advise. Goal to provide legal advice in Frankfurt. 8. Closing remarks * Please provide feedback on the documents to be discussed in Frankfurt. Comment or Edits. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best regards, Brenda