Dear all, Please find included the notes from todays informal Council call Notes Informal Council call 17 April 2015 On Audio only: Becky, Nigel, Lise Aplogies: Abibu, Leonid, Carolina No changes to agenda CWG IANA update ( Lise) Intense Wg days Conclusion of DT Focus on one model: Intenal model with legal separation of IANA Function Operator as affiliate And light weight board ( operational) Meeting with whole group. Finalise draft. On monday commetns from group to finalise draft for publi comment of 4 Areas for CCWg to look at: CCWG asked more details Jonathan Robinsom and Lise to particpate in CCWG meeting to discuss Webinar CWG 14.00 and 16.00 UTC Actual draft finalised, RFP 1, 2 and 3 RFP 4 and 5, Legat team to investigate RFP 4 and 5 CWG deliverable conditional on some aspects of CCWG work * IANA Budget * Community empowerment * Redress and review * Appeal Mechanism ( ccTLD delegation and redelgation excluded from appeal) : ccNSO should work on this at later stage. Will be mentioned in proposal. If more emphaises is needed ccNSO should indicate so Public comment duration 28 days, to allow for a more fullsome report 10 days to work on proposal Keith questions: given the large size of the group is their solid consensus? Lise: most of DT work is consnesus based. Hesitant re CSC. Issues around role with regard to role of CSC. Goal is to make it a technical group. Also need for a group that handles complaints. Direction of travel CSC will handle complaints, but not substively Another one is SLE work ( DTA ). Need for another SLA. IANA is performing much much better than current SLA To date no real objection to current model under discussion. Compomise between the differnt views and models discussed at earlier stage. In general no real objections Update CCWG Accountability (Mathieu) State of play CCWG working on WS 1 proposals. Porposal rely on 4 building blocks as described and presented during Singpaore meeting - Powers of community - Mission and vcore values of ICANN ( core principles against which - Board - Enhancement of IRP CCWG is evolving a full list of stress test ( contigencies/risk and evolving mitigating measures) CCWG now in phase, concrete proposals. Focus will be on requirements Public comments in a few weeks. Legal advise rasing additional issues Next week CCWG Intense working days Intention is to publish for public comment in week 27 April BA used to check findings, and changes if feasible Post BA second public comments round WS 1 ccNSO endorsement for WS 1 needs to happen after BA meeting. Unclear whether intersessionaly or at f-2-f meeting Not clear yet, whether consensus within WG Note: within ccTLD CCWG members. consistent opposition by one of the ccNSO appointed members Keith: Both CCWG and CWG are comprised diverse viewpoints, so if consnesus can be achieved. Keith: What could cause to recall the Board? Is their still a mechanism envisioned Mathieu: Mechanism is still on the tabel, but with high level thresholds to initiate, and high threshold to trigger (due to expected impact) Not a lot of push-back on pronciple as such, but focused on conditions: what could lead to Board recall. Avoid that mechanisms can be gamed. Becky: Notion that ccNSO would be able to recall its appointed Board members, Ibidem other SOs. Leaves issue around NomCom members Mathieu: two spearate processes: - recall of SO appointed Board mebers - Recall of full Board ( with other, differnt and higher triggeers and conditions) Interdependy of proposal CWG and CCWG interdepency (see above) ICG needs to look into potential interdependency between the 3 proposal Mathieu: Lise outlined the items that are necessary. In addition: confidence tha tCWG request will be taken on as requirements in WS1. Additional complexity, ccNSO Council needs to take into account in its decision making process these interdepencies. co-chairs are very willing to discuss with Council Lise: Echo MAthieu's point around coordination between the two groups, in particular around the proposals In addition: CWG mimicking the other two proposals to make it easier for ICG to compare the proposals. Lise: Important to know what are the expectations. from Keith: Outcome of this meeting will inform the meeting of Council. Letter of Council Mathieu: Council from March 27. List criteria. In particular need for broad consensus. Some may read into this that unanimity of ccNSO appointed members or consensus Nigel: interesting situation to be in. Matter for formal Council meeting Keith: Will be part of the call Letter was written to help CWG and CCWG NTIA Test is Consensus Nigel agrees with approach: important part is community Whatever comes foward needs strong consensus from ccTLD comunity Keith: while the ccNSO is fomal entity, only acting on behalf of ccTLD community. Mathieu: this a matter for Council. Stresses point that all are striving for consensus at different levels and in different circles. However Council needs to be aware this point in letter raised attention, both within CCWG and with other communities. Important to clarify position. Need for Outreach Keith: Question need for addiotnal resource? Further to be discussed at Council call AOB No other update Defer item 3 point 4 to council call