Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #70 - 26 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-sBYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. Confirmation of Mission language No discussion. "Agreed on mission text as presented By Becky Burr, with the clarification of the use of the 'in service of text' in place of 'in furtherance of' Confirmation of decision threshold Feedback: - Disatisfaction - there are other ways to get around the problem. We should be addressing Fundamental Bylaw in easier way. --> This threshold and this fix apply to the Budget power, Fundamental bylaws power and Board recall power CONCLUSION: Keep this proposal as part of third report. ST18 Determination of process was made before NTIA statement. No alternative proposal to text that was in Second Draft Proposal Feedback: - What is the position with respect to definition of consensus --> We would use Second Draft language in Third Report - Proposed way forward is not acceptable. No consensus was achieved with respect to Second Draft language. Many governements have expressed objection to that language. It cannot be ignored. There was clear support for Co-Chairs proposal on Tuesday. - We cannot support current proposal. - There is no consensus on right way forward. There are two divergent views on what GAC role should be. Chartering Organizations' test might be needed. Imperative to determine where balance is. Second Report language does not satisfy anyone as no clear definition of consensus. Vague language in Bylaws is a risk. - GAC efforts to reach compromise are being ignored - This proposal should be made readable. - We cannot have ambiguous issue. It is not a viable solution. Advice needs to be consensus. language has to be fixed. GAC need to accept it has to be full consensus advice. - We deliberately backed off of a specific definition to address GAC concerns. - Statements would need to be clarified in this proposed draft. They are not factually correct. On call 69 - 17 agreed to facilitation proposal and 8 opposed - consider diversity and representation of this temperature call - We need to move forward with defining consensus as current practice. We need to acknowledge that the GAC still has ability to refine its operating procedures and to be creative when defining consenus. We cannot have a path forward without defining consensus. Consider replacing significant with "formal". - It will be misunderstood if we try to regulate what governments can do. We have a balanced relationship between governments and stakehodlers. It is clear from NTIA statement that this matter should be negotiated in GAC and not CCWG. - Considering a supplemental proposal would be very unfortunate. Reconsider language proposed by Finn. - Notion of 2/3 instead of simple majority. - Need clarity on what flexibility means. - The proposal that was put forward by Steve is worth considering under the condition that there is flexibility for GAC to define what formal objection means. Is flexibility as laid out in Keith Drazek's email something we can consider? - Support clear acknowledgement that GAC operating principles are its own business and that flexibility is warranted. GNSO is uncomfortable with 2/3 but in interest of compromise, we need to consider it seriously. There is an opportunity to reach a proposal for COs to consider report. - We have a process for changing fundamental bylaw. - Formal objection is plain language. - Suggestoin to agree on conceptual level and wait for reacton in third public comment perod. Include a note that it is a concept and that Bylaw language will be refined - Words "absence of formal objection" would be in Bylaws. - 2/3 vs. full consensus Review of Finn's proposed text and Keith's note It needs to be spelled out very clearly if we want to reach level of consensus we have not reached so far. CONCLUSIONS - we will review ST18 recommendation against Finn and Keith's lines, send it out in writing asap noting that during this call that was no formal objection was lodged against it. We will move forward with this for third report. Board Comments Intention is to respond to comments summarizing input from our group and to explain why these comments are taken into account or not in a factual manner. Survey & Outreach Survey put together to facilitate process of offering comments on our Third report. Three levels of response: Yes/No/In spirit of compromise I will support this. Box will be included for each question. Two webinars organized on 2 December. Report appendices available on wiki. Feedback: - Caution against using mid-level response in survey. It won't bring valuable input. - "Is this a solution that is acceptable to you" - Important to draw out difference between those who are happy with proposal and those who aren't. CONCLUSION: 2 webinars to be held on 2 Dec. AOB / Action Items /