Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #65 - 03 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xbJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion. ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss' refinement edits ("ICANN shall act in accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333. ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language. ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback. 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. Mission, Core Values & Commitments IAB IAB proposal raised concerns regarding provisions in the mission statement and suggested three edits. Concern is largely related to changing coordinating to supporting. For CCWG, issues of timing. Can we make an adjustment at this stage to address concern. Is there a word between coordinating and supporting that people would be comfortable with? It is a significant change. Is this required for the transition to happen? It could be undertaken under Work Stream 2. Feedback: - Concerns with coordinate but bitter concerns with chapeau i.e. changing to "collaborates ... of Internet". It is a bigger focus. It should be accurate description. - IAB raised question in ICG. Sensitive issue. We need to import minimal changes to meet requirements. On 1) "coordinate and support where necessary" - remaining unchanged. On 2) Domain name including associated root zone - remaining unchanged. 3) coordinate and support where necessary" - remaining unchanged. - Purpose of this revision is that on any part that needs more clarity it needs to be reflected accurately. Language suggested in IAB proposal would describe role of ICANN in a more accurate way. Like Becky's suggested language that refines and add clarity. - Fail to understsand why we are dealing with this. Community taking advantage of change and pressure of time. Stop conversation and move to Work Stream 2, if needed. - It is a serious problem for IAB. Second comment period highlighted that it is a critical issue. Proposal creates significant accountability measures that are founded on mission statement. Mission includes things ICANN does not do. It is IETF's legitimate purpose. We propose language that outlines ICANN's role as understand it to be. ICANN has a policy by virtue of contract but no role in rest of DNS. In addition it is going to be made fundamental Bylaw which is also a concern. Find a way to circumscribe ICANN's role. It is a serious problem for our real work on Internet. We need to make sure mission statement is limited to what ICANN really is. There are registries ICANN does not operate and there is some that it does. - While current mission is accurate for names, it is too broad for numbers and protocole parameters. Why do we unified scope? CONCLUSION - Continue discussion offline. Use Becky's suggestion as reference model. Base discussions with requirements. ACTION ITEM - Andrew to provide rationale around IAB's suggestion. Contracting issue In Dublin, we came out with consensus that ICANN should have clear ability to enforce his contracts with recognition that ICANN could use last minute imposition to bypass consensus policy development. This is language to be given to lawyers. Notion would be that contracts are enforceable. Language intended to capture degree of consensus. Feedback: - In accordance with? What is reasonably appropriate? - Proposed language does not capture discussion in Dublin. Delete exceeding ICANN's mission and add "in service of its mission" ACTION ITEM - Becky to consider inserting Greg's language ("in service of its mission") and Kavouss' refinement edits ("ICANN shall act in accordance with Bylaws and article of incorporation to achieve its mission"). Transparency proposal In Dublin we discussed the need to ensure provisions related to transparency inherent to membership model would be addressed in designator model i..e right of inspection. Documentary disclosure has been on table as part of WS2. Update DIDP policies within two years. Transparency of interaction with gov. Feedback: - There is an undue influence of governments on policy decisions. Purpose is last bullet point is to know whether there is governments' undue influence. It would also help address mission creep. - In Second Draft Proposal, we have AoC provision for document disclosure. It is already part of Work Stream 1. - Do we have bandwidth to deal with this now? Does that mean we don't trust WS2 to deal with significant issues? Major concern that any contract between government and ICANN could be larger than intended. - What is needed beyond what is currently report in quarterly financial report? - There is a recognition that DIDP policy as currently implemented ACTION ITEM: Change "6310-3 and 6330-8" to 6333. - Bullet point 3 would give assurance against government capture. It needs to be Work Stream 1. - Find a credible way to have WS2 happen. - Transparency as WS1 is slowing us down. We need to have in WS2. CONCLUSION: Bullets point 1 and 2 will be WS1. Bullet points 3 and 4 will be Work Stream 2. Decision-Making We need a clear way forward. We need a rationale for why making change in model. Call for objections on summary of recommendations Sebastien Bachollet objects to a). Feedback: - When rough consensus is achieved but still objections, those who have consensus should look into whether objections are meaningful in a way that would require reconsideration. - Concerns with including GAC. We don't know if they are going to participate. You need to proceed with two scenarios (1 with 4 - 1 with 5) --> Stick with 5 as recommended. All get to participate in adhoc system. - We may require support but not objection. CONCLUSION: We consider these recommendations and third table as basis for our third report. They will be used as basis for drafting going further. Human Rights Proposed Bylaw text that suggest running by lawyers. Transitional Bylaw gives timeframe to develop framework of interpretation. Feedback: - NTIA has said that more you leave to future the less confidence we have is what we are approving is a package. - Succinct framework on p3-4 that will be fleshed out in WS2. It provides enough meat on bones to satisfy Strickling test. - Bylaw language should be run by lawyers ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to check proposed Bylaw language. CONCLUSION: We will have lawyers check Bylaw. This is our reference model moving forward. A.O.B Samantha Dickinson has joined writers Team. We should have materials to review next week. ACTION ITEM: All should reach out to SO/ACs to report progress and ensure we have timely feedback.