Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #8 on 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895947 Action Items Action on the budget and strategic plan. New: cannot raise new issues, but can reject updated versions presented by the Board. Action: Jordan check direction with Board liaison. Action Robin and Jordan to amend text Action: Drafters clarifying the explanation in the text. 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. 1.Kavouss Arasteh joining on the phone, not in the AC room 2. Second draft of public comment report content (top of 2nd page) Action on the budget and strategic plan. New: cannot raise new issues, but can reject updated versions presented by the Board. new: 1st rejection at 50%, and 2nd 60% standing to bring a complaint? Issue of budget was discussed in Istanbul, review (from memory) that it was a complicated matter to add to the budget process. And it would be important to put process in place if a budget was rejected. Question to the call: can the bold and underline be removed to illustrate that there is now agreement on those issues.? Suggested that the maximum impact should be that the Board has to operate under the previous year's (agreed) budget. Escalation paths through these powers haven't been discussed. Nothing is stated about what happens next. The removing Directors power is left so it can be used with any issue of the core mission, bylaws etc. There is no direct connection between these mechanisms Is there agreement on removal of bolding 1st and 2nd (para 4 and 5), subject to discussion happening in the CCWG. Para 6 (page 2) keep in bold as CCWG not discussed and keep para 7 bold to emphasize powers being suggested 6.5.3 reject changes to ICANN bylaws Threshold proposal added. Not changed that there's no limit on the number of times a bylaw change can be sent back Batches of bylaw changes. Should be specific on which change is causing the vote to ask if it should be rejected. Same for budget, where there are batch of changes to the budget, be specific and explain why. Explain the challenge with specificity both for the budget and bylaw change, make explicit in the document. 60% threshold - to and the bylaws the board requires a 2/3 vote, suggest community should at least meet the same standard, or higher. The bylaws should be hard to change, is it logical to have a low threshold to block changes? An extraordinary remedy, and don't want smaller factions having influence rather than the will of the community. Propose 70% and keep it bold, for discussion with the CCWG? Amended to 70%. Footnote board is 2/3. Para 2 (page 3) can be unbolded. 6.5.4 approve changes to "fundamental" bylaws 6.5.5 Recalling individual ICANN directors added: any board member can be removed with 75% of the board with no criteria. Removal process: an internal process for SO/AC, and share the same majority requirement for any process, with the complication of the NomCom appointees. Not specified what the majority would be required, but until know the mechanism that is hard to know. Last para, assumes a member or designators mechanism, the trigger may be low, but high decision threshold, then it becomes clear if the Director maintains a mandate. ALAC also needs to be included. Whatever percentage, then adding "or equivalent" would allow the different SO/AC strictures to be accommodated. Concern over the NomCom mechanisms. To what extent do we proscribed one size fits all for the SO/AC. May be the call for the SO/AC themselves. To what extent do we proscribed one size fits all for the SO/AC. May be the call for the SO/AC themselves. A common threshold without specifying process, to represent that Directors are serving the broader community, not just the entries that selected them. Suggest on the last CCWG call there wasn't agreement on the power to remove individual directors. The principle of the appointing organization removing the director will be the subject of legal advice expected later 10 April. Should be the ability of a "designator" to remove their board member, but can add a minimum threshold and allow groups to move above that threshold. In some cases Board members removed by those who put them in place, GNSO contracted/contracted parties should be considered. Action: Jordan check direction with Board liaison. Different rule under the current bylaws for different liaisons, GAC and the others. Replace threshold from 66% to 75% (or equivalent). Petitioning threshold of 40%, but that there are suggestions ranging from 33% to 50%. Noting this is to start the discussion in the CCWG. Risk that a low threshold may lead to an abuse of the process. All bolding remains. 6.5.6. Recalling the Entire ICANN Board Whatever the mechanism, required a very high majority. Proposal of a two round process, with quorum requirement for the first round. Assumption of representatives, which is not yet agreed, amending text around directed voting. Anticipating the lawyers will make recommendations on the single mechanisms later today or on Monday Apr 13 call. Action Robin and Jordan to amend text And text remains bolded. 6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws, and 6.6.1 Preserving ICANN Commitments from the AOC . Placeholder for discussion on Monday's call. Should the drafters focus on material that has been moved to mission and core values, or all of the AoC. The latter provides an audit trail of how all the text of the AoC has been handled. 6.7 Stress Test: GAC advice and forcing the board to respond to Advisory Committee formal advice . Only emphasis this parts of the AoC where ICANN is making a commitment: paper 3,4 7, 8. The other text are commitment of the US Govt and other. And AoC para 9 stands alone. And can summarize why the text we selected or ignored. Action: Drafters clarifying the explanation in the text. Some of the ATRT recommendations have to deal with the requirement for transparency etc. But they are ICANN obligations to the AoC statement, can increase slightly the scope of the table to reflect the two ATRT recommendations. Where to put other elements, such as transparency reviews? Note that some recommendations made that are not captured by WP2 or others, and need to be in the document and should be bylaws changes. There is a section about issues to come on WS2, to show that issues will be considered and not forgotten. Drafting changes required, for Monday 13 Apr WP1 meeting. Google doc to comment mode. Core item of business on Monday should be a simple red-line, but main is discussion with the lawyers on their recommendations and the mechanisms. Not to CCWG before the call on Monday. To WP1, circulation of contributions from the drafters by Midnight UTC on 12th. Next WP1 Meeting is Monday, 13 April @ 20:00 UTC Kind regards, Brenda