Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #16 - 6 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783015 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Notes CCWG ACCT WP1 #16 - 6July 2015. Version public comment version 2, and the update on bringing the AoC into the bylaws, and review of the next 3 calls. Any other business? Steve. Analyze public comment, update our proposal and the update the review tool to explain what has been done. How to compose the review teams the potentially controversial issue. The red text explains the context. The blue text, explains that if the AoC has reviews underway at the time of these changes coming into effect, then how to handle that is considered. Not to imply that we should delay the ATRT3 review due to begin 2016. Both to explain the changes made. Concern that we did not require the board to implement all recommendations. And we explain that there may be reasons for not implementing (implementability or cost,). And note that a reconsideration or IRP could be brought if such a decision taken by the board. Understanding that Board and staff we actually moving towards what we are already suggesting, and ATRT3 is due to start 2017. As to the question, the third is, are they implementing the intent of the recommendation? Comment: Understand some wish to start pushing the ATRT3 to 2017, but not in agreement with that. There are issues over the timing, if it is beginning to beginning timing then we are not yet in agreement. A proposal by staff to review the review processes, open public comment, and some discussion of CCWG submitting a comment. But the default if not clear direction from the comment period would be no change. Opportunity to clean up the process, and use the accountability process, perhaps thru a sub group or calls to do this. Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews The blue text describes an implementation detail for later. Chapeau, applies to all four parts of the review. Shifts the task to staff to provide updates every year. Requires lawyers on both sides to work on this. How specific do we want to be in specifying how many in a review team, where drawn from, and whether they are voting. Come back to this. Not the Board and GAC chair deciding on members, but the SO/AC, including concerns about diversity etc. Access to ICANN internal documents. Board comments noted concern about the sharing of sensitive of confidential information, but who decides what is confidential? Some things that the whole review team might not be made privy to, but some sub-set of. If not ICANN's sole discretion, then may be asked to explain that process. Past ATRTs have reviewed confidential information, a form of verbal NDA used in those cased. May need another sentence. Review team should say how they reached consensus and the degree of consensus, and should respond to public comments. Response on individual comments may be too hard, but all comments should be reviewed. And the bylaws should include the degree of consensus. Text: the review team shall assess the extent to which prior review recommendations have been implemented. Past ATRT team had to check on all 4 review teams, comment this was too much work. So intent is to say each review team assesses extent to each its previous review team implemented. And this easier because of the transparency and accountability report ICANN will publish annually. Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) The ATRT has the special responsibility to terminate the other reviews and if necessary and to recommend new reviews in the future as needed (e.g. ending whois to be replaced by a review if directory services). There were several public comments that were concerned an ATRT could just terminate reviews with no observations for public comment on that. 3 observations: 1. The recommendation to end to start new review goes for public comment. 2. If the board accepts/rejects that decision the community can review and challenge. 3. to eliminate or add a review is an addition to the bylaws, so are subject to community challenge and review, Complete review within one year of initiation. Based on ambiguity in the AoC. Some reviews are on topics with potentially unlimited scope, this suggestion keeps the review bounded. Is the word "initiation" defined? From the final selection of the members. One year of convening (ok as revised text) 5 years from when the report is given raised concerns, stretched out too long, the reviews being too far apart. Might also be mentioned in the chapeau text. Measure the 5 years from beginning to beginning (convene to convened), rather than end to beginning. And this should apply to all four reviews. Competition, trust, consumer trust. Ensure WP2 picks up the malicious abuse, sovereignty concerns and rights protections, text and is carried over to the core values. Board concern that WHOIS locked in, response prepared for the PC review tool. OECD guidelines do not have the force of law. May need to ensure this is worded properly. Not stating that this is binding, but just a body of international expectations we should take into consideration, and could say that this may not be binding. Are were binding ICANN to the OECD privacy principles without any review? Answer may be to take out "legal constraints". And perhaps best discussed in a sub-group. Not existing policy and seems ti be suggesting it is such. Needs to be examined. IANA Functions Review. Need more help from the CWG members to ensure we have the right words as this becomes a fundamental bylaws, including the chapeaus. Fairly confident that meeting requirements, but Avri will check with CWG. Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Review membership. How to reflect diversity. How to represent the interests of GNSO constituencies, would it unbalance the whole review. The GNSO is very visible in their submissions. Talk to other and start to hear regionalization issues, multilingual aspects, start to ask for stakeholder rights. Get three votes, for example, but can subdivide them as you. How to keep diversity etc, but still have the SO and AC determine the participants. And new text, that the group must be as diverse as possible, this not from the AoC. Diversity before expertise and willing to work, is problematic. There was a triage for previous reviews. Agreement on expertise and willing to work. Membership not rigidly defined in the past. But is trying to be fully representative, then have to accept that a single seat for a the commercial stockholders will not achieve that. Need to focus on goals... The proposal doesn't have the Board and GAC chairs, but passes to the community. So the suggestion is for an open group like a CCWG, but one that cannot be swapped by a single group. Not reflected in public comment that some govt want a significant role for the GAC chair in selection. Need further discussion for resolution. Status of work. Seeing volunteers (thank you). Mix of volunteers looking at the balance of powers and weight. 1. Jonathan for budget and plans. Not for the others. No sub-lists. just individual work, with work coming back to the lists. Call one Wednesday was to address powers, if people have been able to do the work. Wednesday to address the voting balance and structure of the council Friday, community powers. Monday, bylaws again. Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Action item: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) END