Hi all, In case you haven¹t seen this yet, please find below a statement from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs leading into Dublin. Original Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-co-chairs-statement-lead ing-into-icann54-in-dublin CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Statement Leading into ICANN54 in Dublin Members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability are on their way to Dublin for a full week of intense work and engagement with other ICANN54 attendees. A list of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability-related meetings is available here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56134263> . As co-Chairs, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, advisors and independent counsel who put up a tremendous effort to prepare for these meetings. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and the deepest recognition. We are very pleased that the analysis of the 93 comments received in the 2nd Public Comment period is now complete. Work Parties (WPs) have produced summaries, analyzed the content of submissions and identified options for the group's consideration. You can find these essential inputs here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56136438> . In anticipation of the various meetings, we are providing a rough assessment of our progress through a Scorecard, which can be found below: Report SectionSubtopic WP OwnerStatusRelationship with CWG-Stewardship Requirements 3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core valuesRefine wording of mission & core values based on public comment feedbackWP2To be refinedRepresents the standard of review for the IRP, which is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship 3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core valuesHuman rights bylaw articleWP4To be considered 4. ³Fundamental Bylaws²ScopeWP2SupportedFundamental Bylaws are a requirement of the CWG-Stewardship 5.1. Independent Review Panel enhancementsWP2To be refinedIRP is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship 5.2. Reconsideration process EnhancementsWP2To be refined 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)Implementation model discussionWP1Some disagreementThe mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)Community ForumWP1To be refinedThe mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)Decision making mechanismsWP1Some disagreementThe mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship 7.1. Reject Budget/strategyPC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredThe CWG-Stewardship requires community rights, regarding elaboration and approval of the budget, especially with relation to IANA 7.2. Reject Bylaw change Details are pending community mechanism discussionsWP1To be refined 4.5. Approve ³Fundamental Bylaw² changeDetails are pending community mechanism discussionsWP1To be refinedCWG-Stewadship requires fundamental Bylaws mechanisms to protect against future changes of accountability mechanisms 7.3. Individual Board Director removalPC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredCommunity rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board 7.4. Recall of the ICANN BoardPC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredCommunity rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board 9. AoC reviews transcription into the BylawsRefine detailsWP1SupportedCWG-Stewardship requires an IANA Function Review as a ³Fundamental Bylaw² 10. Bylaw changes recommended after stress testsDiscuss ST 18 and refineST-WPSome disagreement 10. Stress Tests (Based on WA 4 and ST-WP work)Some comments received on ST 29 & 30ST-WPTo be refined 11. Items for consideration in Work stream 2 Scope to be defined versus continuous improvement itemsCo-chairsTo be considered 8.3. SO/AC AccountabilityConsider SO/AC AccountabilityWP3To be refined 12. Implementation Plan including TimingCo-chairsTo be refinedReviewed draft started Download a PDF of this Scorecard here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWGACCT%20Scorec ard.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444831465505&api=v2> . A significant number of items have a status of ³To be refined,² but we are confident that these refinements can be provided shortly to meet stakeholder expectations. Our hope is that many of these will turn into a ³Supported² status by the end of the Dublin meeting. Areas where more work is needed to reach consensus are in orange and red. Several of these items are related to community powers and have received broad support in principle. However, the implementation model for these powers remains a fundamental discussion. Until a solution is found that does not raise any significant level of objection, these issues cannot be finalized. There have been significant discussions in the last few weeks, on the mailing list as well as during the face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chairs-statement-from-the-cross-community-w orking-group-on-enhancing-icann-accountability-meeting-in-los-angeles> . These discussions were useful to better understand the various perspectives and the areas where views were diverging. As co-Chairs, we would describe these discussions as follows: * Views in the community differ on the level of enforceability that is Strictly required for the community powers, in light of the CWG-Stewardship conditions <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> (beginning at paragraph 106). * The CCWG-Accountability has requested legal input to provide more details on the practical differences in terms of complexity, delay or cost associated to the various levels of enforceability. * Significant concerns were raised regarding the weight of the various SOs and ACs in the community mechanism, as well as the ability to opt-in or opt-out of this system. Alternative decision making mechanisms, such as consensus or rough consensus, are being investigated. * The requirement of SO and AC accountability to the global Internet community as a whole has been a key theme of the comments received, although few concrete suggestions are offered (see WP3 documents <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents> ) * A 2-phase scenario to implement community empowerment is being investigated, which could help accommodate some of the concerns related to the significance of the changes proposed by the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report. The CCWG-Accountability is fully mobilized and committed to make great strides during the Dublin meeting. We are aware that the finalization of our recommendations is the last missing piece in the IANA Stewardship Transition puzzle and we take this responsibility very seriously. We will welcome in Dublin all contributions to this bottom-up, multistakeholder, consensus driven process. All hands on deck! Looking forward to a productive week in Dublin! CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Thomas Rickert León Sanchez Matheiu Weill