Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #66 - 10 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/yLJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM - Define areas of consensus on this. * ACTION ITEM: Becky to write up language to include confirmed areas and discuss outstanding items on Friday * ACTION ITEM - Provide comments on executive summary by closed of business today. Comments should be submitted via email. Comments should not address wordsmithing. * ACTION ITEM - Jordan to send language on Fundamental Bylaws on list 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. Opening remarks - We are due to deliver first set of deliverables for public comment by Sunday. We need to close outstanding items - Extra call planned for Friday at 06:00-08:00 UTC to wrap up conclusions - Important to stay focused on discussion how writing is consistent with requirements instead of focusing on wordsmithing Revised Mission, Core Values & Commitments Agreement on notion and consistency with requirements is needed. ICANN should not use contracting authority to regulate behavior downstream in ways that are not within mission. ICANN should limit obligations to goals that within mission. We are having problems with word "regulate". Voluntary public interest commitments is an example of concern. Would prohibition on regulation get in the way? Post Dublin language - it is language intended to inform work to be undertaken by drafters. - Language on contract not constituting regulation - Language to enable or facilitate reachability over Internet nor shall it regulate - On Malcolm's language, suggestion so strike "strictly". Use "shall not regulate services". We don't have clarity of what services means. Consensus policy is outside of prohibition. Without in any way limiting the foregoing, ICANN shall not regulate services (i.e. those offered by web servers, mail servers and the like)that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that those services carry or provide. The prohibition on regulation of services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that they carry or provide does not act as a restraint on ICANN's authority to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements. Consensus Policy, as defined in "Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies Specification" in the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, is outside of such prohibition. --> Concern in public comment that this language can be interpreted as preventing ICANN from enforcing contract. Suggestion to proceed initial language with addition of sentence to address public concern. ICANN should not use contracting authority to regulate content and behavior of DNS registrants. - Clarify that ICANN is not using authority with respect to registries and registrars to regulate registrants. - Intent is to not influence how registrars deal with registrants - Point of confusion: we have not articulated in a granular way what we mean by ICANN shouldn't use its authority to regulate registrants' behavior. - Try to take stock of agreement within our group i.e. want to avoid ICANN making regulation AGREEMENT: - ICANN should stay within its articulated and limited mission. - In furthering its mission, ICANN has ability to enter into and enforce contract with registries and registrars - Specification 1 in registry agreement and specification 4 RAA as they are currently written include description of consensus policy that is within ICANN's mission. --> Concerns: specification 1 unclear for some. - ICANN should have ability to impose obilgations exceeding mission except for voluntary commitments. - ICANN should not use its contract with registries and registrars to regulate registrant behavior with regards to subjects that are outside of ICANN's mission as defined in the picket fence DISAGREEMENT: - Should ICANN have the ability to enter into and enforce volunteer contractual commitments that registry applicant has voluntary provided. ICANN must have ability ACTION ITEM - Define areas of consensus on this. Define what ICANN can do and not what it can't do and delineate areas of agreement. ACTION ITEM: Becky to write up language to include confirmed areas and discuss outstanding items on Friday Executive Summary ACTION ITEM - Provide comments on executive summary by closed of business today. Comments should be submitted via email. Comments should not address wordsmithing. Summary is designed for those who are not deeply involved in this. It has to be representative of our work and readable * * Is the content clear and does it represent our point of view? * If so, is there any way it can be more clear? * If not, how can we make this more clear and simple? * What isn't being communicated? * If the visual doesn't work for you, please say why, and also provide input, information or solutions so we can make it better. Feedback: - Term Designator will source of confusion --> We need to discuss branding. Would empowered community be more apprrppriate? - Suggestion to use "Empowered Community" - On Fundamental Bylaws, escalation process should not apply here. There should not be petition step. Approval has to happen as part of process. Keep conference call and potentially community forum but no petition step. It's a co-approval process. - What is official status of model? --> Sole Designator model is our model of reference. We should talk about empowered community. Designator is only term we can use in legal context CONCLUSION Comments will be needed by November 10th - 23:59 UTC on mailing list to enable us to make changes in time. This applies to feedback from lawyers and advisors. Focus on messaging, not wording. We have agreed to refine Fundamental Bylaws process and to use "Empowered Community" instead of "Designator Model" ACTION ITEM - Jordan to send language on Fundamental Bylaws on list Budget Xavier is working on framework for defining caretaker budget. Writing Team has summarized budget process. we have resolved all issues that were raised in public comment process. CONCLUSION: Agreement on budget IRP Implementation Oversight Call for volunteers to join oversight Team. This Team would be tasked to oversee lawyers work with regards to drafting of Bylaws, rules of procedures, selection of panelists etc. We are looking for 5-7 volunteers. Skill-based assignments. We encourage Omnudsman and representaton from ICANN Legal department to join this effort.This group would provide guidance to lawyers and oversee drafting. Any outcomes would go to full CCWG for discussion. Becky Burr has volunteered for this group. AOB - none