Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #13 call on 17 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889460 ACTION ITEMS Action: CCWG colleagues to provide feedback on the template, and on processes for further work and our standardized approach. Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr) Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk? NOTES 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI Cheryl Langdon Orr on the audio bridge 2. WP1 &WP2 Jordan Carter and Becky Burr Recognized the need to ensure clear demarcation between WP1 and WP2 and structuring of their work. Proposing accountability and escalation mechanisms and how those could be achieved. These accountability mechanisms would be triggered and non-triggered. There are things that happen as part of ICANN's normal process (non-triggered , e.g. budget processes) and those that get triggered by an action or lack of an action by ICANN. Building into the process the opportunity to re-adjust as required. Close coordination between the two groups including on deadlines. And will provide a full list of these powers and mechanisms. "Volunteers" any member and participant may join, observers status remains unaltered (note, observers can change their status) - Accountability mechanism template: Template to set out the basic parameters for accountability mechanisms. Action: request feedback from colleagues on the template and our processes for further work and our standardized approach. Not a one size fits all decision-making body, needs to be able to reflect different interests and balance of skills, regional diversity, gender. In some situations might be people from the community. Other cases complete independence might be desirable in the decision making body. What are the voting mechanisms for this decision making body/bodies? How are the decisions makers themselves accountable? The chairs will suggest a test case with the group to see how the process works, adjust if necessary. Caution against using the term "CCWG" for the entity, a pre-defined term. Solution needs to be simple, easily understandable and usable by the community. The division between community powers and mechanism is intended to enable this. Description of what the power is needs careful identification. Simple outcome, but complicated work to get to the solution. Jordan: suggest closing the documents in 4 weeks. By face to face mtg, expect to see a set of templates, on triggered and non-triggered mechanisms. 3. WP-ST (Cheryl Langdon Orr & Steve DelBianco) Consolidated inventory of 25 contingencies are being stress tested against the consistent methodology, review of progress and continued examples from those presented in Singapore. Call for comments on: 14, Termination of AoC? None 16. ICANN participation in programs beyond technical mandate? None 22. Failure to comply with bylaws or refusal to accept a decisions of a redress mechanism (remedy, threat of board recall). First reading, carry over to CCWG call #14. Note, the proposed measures are still highly provisional. Example, stress test 18. GAC advice to the ICANN Board. Changes in GAC voting processes. Suggestion that if GAC moved to majority voting, this would not carry the deference of consensus. Suggests a risk capture of ICANN processes by a single stakeholder. Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr) Stress test 19. Redelegation of gTLD, with the action challenged in court by the registry. Which instruction does the root zone maintainer follow, IANA/ICANN process or court? Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk? How does recognition of national governments help provide ICANN with broad protections? 4. Timeline (inc. F2F) F2F 23-24 March, details by the end of this week. At the close of f2f meeting, there are 12 working days in which to ready the document for public comment. Public comment of 30 days. 2 weeks to respond and submit a final document to the Chartering Organizations for their comment for 21 days. Submit to the Board prior to ICANN 53. CCWG 23-24. CWG-Stewardship to meet at the same location on March 26-27, with 25th for coordination between the chairs. Less than 5 weeks to the F2F and need to complete work in a very short timeframe. 5. Update on definitions & scoping document (after feedback from Advisors) A new version reflecting comment from the external advisors and CCWG colleagues will be distributed this week. Jan Scholte suggested looking at the accountability of accountability mechanisms themselves (will the new layers be accountable). He will provide best practice. 6. AOB None. 7. Concluding remarks END