- Ccwg-accountability4 - lists.icann.org

For 15-Jul ST-WP call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2015

July 13, 2015

As promised on our 8-Jul call, I updated our section on Stress Tests to reflect our discussion: Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California courts. See pages 25-26. Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention. Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl in public comments. See pages 27-28 Added a stress test on “rogue voting”. See page 29 Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests. See pages 30 - 33 First attachment is the updated ST doc for discussion on our next call, in prep for our presentation in Paris on Friday afternoon. Second attachment is redline from ST section we published on 3-May for public comment. Third attachment is the public comment notes document we discussed last week. Still need to review the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>). At our request, Adam Peake went thru the memo and found many potential stress tests: 1. SO/AC Membership Model Q1. ST NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants? Q3. ST NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of capture? Q4. Might build conflict of interest considerations into ST NTIA-2. New test considering member powers (once known) and mitigate for. Q5. ST NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if SO/AC opt out. Q6. See new test mentioned in Q4, consider ST NTIA-4: Unintended consequences. Also Stickling's statement also says "How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?" which could be the basis of a new stress test or stress tests: does the proposal interfere with security and stability of the DNS test, and, a second test: does the proposal a create a different set of accountability questions. Q9. Suggests need for a test on the affect of member rights/powers (first identifying what those are). See Q4 above. If still relevant with the new model being considered? Q10. Q11, See Q9 and Q4. Q12. ST NTIA-2 and also new tests suggested in Q9 and Q4. Q14. ST NTIA-1 Q15. ST NTIA-1, consider adding concept of member dispute resolution to the test, and recommend to create such a mechanism if found relevant Q19. Proposed test, what if GAC advice is accepted by the board and rejected by the community mechanism (test was mentioned some months ago) 2. Community Right to Cause Reconsideration of or Reject Board Approved Budgets and Strategic/Operating Plans Q1. - Q5. See Q6 section above re security and stability. Voting thresholds in the community mechanism (council) may provide the answer, but if not new test. 3. Community Right to Reject Changes to "Standard" Bylaws and Approve Changes to "Fundamental" Bylaws Q1. See Q9 in section 1. Suggestion for a new test. 5. Community Right to Remove Entire ICANN Board Q1. Existing test on reputational risk? 6. Independent Review Process Enhancements Q1. New test on: potential ramifications of assigning "due process rights?"

2 1

For 8-July call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Just a note to the Stress Test work party about tomorrow’s call (11 UTC) and preparing our next draft for public comment. The attached document notes stress test items gathered from queries, requests, and filed comments since 3-May. This is a very manageable task. However, there are many stress test items in the ICANN Legal/ICANN Board letter that came to us on 19-Jun (link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>). Have not yet had time to analyze those, and welcome your help there as well. Also, Malcolm Hutty wrote us about Stress Test #23 and the various enforcement models under consideration (Member, Designator, etc.) See Malcolm’s note below and his attached analysis. Would be great to discuss on our call. Best, Steve From: Malcolm Hutty Date: Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:09 AM To: "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Subject: [ST-WP] Analysis for Stress Test 23 Dear all, I hope you had a safe and comfortable trip back from Buenos Aires, those of you who were there. On my way back I spent some of the time writing up an analysis of how the CCWG proposal performs against stress test 23, under each of the models currently being discussed. The heart of this is a process diagram flow-chart. You may have to use zoom to read the text on the diagram; there is table of notes that explains each box on the diagram. I hope you find this a useful, Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

1 0

Analysis for Stress Test 23
by Malcolm Hutty June 29, 2015

June 29, 2015

Dear all, I hope you had a safe and comfortable trip back from Buenos Aires, those of you who were there. On my way back I spent some of the time writing up an analysis of how the CCWG proposal performs against stress test 23, under each of the models currently being discussed. The heart of this is a process diagram flow-chart. You may have to use zoom to read the text on the diagram; there is table of notes that explains each box on the diagram. I hope you find this a useful, Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

1 0

Analysis for Stress Test 23
by Malcolm Hutty June 28, 2015

June 28, 2015

Dear all, I hope you had a safe and comfortable trip back from Buenos Aires, those of you who were there. On my way back I spent some of the time writing up an analysis of how the CCWG proposal performs against stress test 23, under each of the models currently being discussed. The heart of this is a process diagram flow-chart. You may have to use zoom to read the text on the diagram; there is table of notes that explains each box on the diagram. I hope you find this a useful, Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

1 0

Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco June 20, 2015

June 20, 2015

After discussion with Cheryl, I’m alerting the Stress Test work party about our upcoming work in preparing the next draft for public comment. The attached document notes stress test items gathered from queries, requests, and filed comments since 3-May. This is a very manageable task. However, there are many stress test items in the ICANN Legal/ICANN Board letter that came to us on 19-Jun (link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>). Have not yet had time to analyze those, and welcome your help there as well. Those of us here in Buenos Aires can discuss next steps, and Cheryl is contemplating when we will have our next ST WP call. Best, Steve

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #37 16 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #37 - 16 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53780174 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Action Items ACTION ITEM Clarify title of agenda item #4 ACTION ITEM: Staff/CoChairs to finalize 19 June agenda ACTION ITEM: Read legal counsel's memos in preparation for Buenos Aires ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to sit down with firms in BA to clarify process going forward to manage costs 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. Thomas Rickert, Greg Shatan are on phone only. Reminder to update your SoI per Charter requirements. Agenda for CCWG working session - 19 June Goals for this meeting: 1. Agree on assessment of comments and drafting responses 2. Define key message for community engagement 3 Refine working methods in anticipation of public comment period #2 Reading list will include WPs' documents. Freeze deadline is today - 23:59 UTC. WPs are currently summarizing comments. It will be key substance for the 19 June meeting. We will identify items which require further discussion. We would like to try holding a debate on enforceability, cooperative model vs. membership model. Call for volunteers: supporter for cooperative approach (internal Bylaws) and vice versa. Objective is to obtain better understanding of perspectives. This meeting will also be opportunity to start reflection on response to NTIA letter We will prepare for set of meetings we have scheduled and agree on messaging. - Request to change layout of debate and title - set of tools and options can be considered. Sebastien volunteers for agenda item #4 ACTION ITEM Clarify title of agenda item #4 - Presentation of perspectives - we should not be polarizing the debate ACTION ITEM: Staff/CoChairs to finalize 19 June agenda Deadline for documents is 23:59 UTC --- Feedback on the legal advice Is it mandatory to file the statement with the State Department for forming UA: answer no, recommend as evidence, we do file, but not mandatory. Filing fees are $25 dollars Question - Obligation UA reports, or assemblies, administrative issues, structures they need to fulfill. UAs have no obligation of informing anyone about their activities unless they are active. Question with regards to taxation: other duties that may be required by law to be fulffilled - answer: no obligation to file any tax declaration unless UA had economical activities - subject to filing tax declarations as needed. No intention of looking into multiple jurisdictions Any UA would be an envelope carrying the message to enforce powers. Consequences need to be considered. Can we have a membership organization where SO/ACs are indicated to be members in Bylaws without having them be a legal entity? Would it be an illegal construct? --> It is not possible. As a threshold, members must be a legal person - What enforceability means and how it would be used in practice. - Suggestion to stop discussion and to discuss all 3 options in BA once we have big picture. - ACTION ITEM: Read legal counsel's memos in preparation for Buenos Aires - We need to look at requirements - how requirements are different according to models and prioritize based on that. Think deeply about underlying requirements as that will be key for the debate. - Idea that building something to handle worst behaviors. We need to assume that people are not doing what they need to do. - How can we ensure the person is following SO/AC instructions? AOB - We have reached out to all SO/ACs - we have responded to all requests and have not turned down any requests. It is still possible to accommodate requests. - Worry about the number of lawyers that we have participating in calls and the money that is being spent. 1 from each firm is enough. ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to sit down with firms in BA to clarify process going forward to manage costs.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 #14 - 14 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting#14 - 14 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777770 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Review CENTR comment on Q10 ACTION ITEM: Tag "Recommends that ICANN's mission, commitments and core Values be fundamental" as confusion and remove it from area of concern in summary ACTION ITEM: Develop a process flow for fundamental Bylaws change ACTION ITEM - Volunteer to recut analysis document ACTION ITEM: Ask question on enforceability in next public comment period ACTION ITEM: Volunteer who has read comments to double-check summary with fresher eyes ACTION ITEM - Reflect implementation of reviews as area of concern ACTION ITEM: Provide clarity on recalling Board process ACTION ITEM: Focus on caretaker ACTION ITEM: Jordan to confirm approach with CCWG leadership ACTION ITEM - Jonathan Zuck to produce key issues draft document ACTION ITEM: Jordan to ask Matthew Shears whether he would volunteer to double-check summary with fresher eyes ACTION ITEM: Staff to send latest additions to all WPs and to incorporate into g-DOC using new cell-color Notes NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Approve Changes to Fundamental Bylaws - Question 10 CENTR: is it really divergent or highlighting a concern? It raises the question of possible extra layers and inefficiency causing problems for process flow. This requires more review. ACTION ITEM: Review CENTR comment on Q10 More a question of timing --- Recommendation that ICANN's mission, commitments, and core values be made fundamental - is this a potential confusion? --> We clearly state it would be a fundamental Bylaw but example cites it as currently unfundamental. Example drafting failure led to this confusion ACTION ITEM: Tag "Recommends that ICANN's mission, commitments and core Values be fundamental" as confusion and remove it from area of concern in summary Clarify that power would kick in before changing Bylaw ACTION ITEM: Develop a process flow for fundamental Bylaws change Power: Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN "standard" Bylaws - Question 9 Suggestions to insert counterpoints in document. Board will propose Bylaws changes with knowledge that possibly will be blocked in future. Community will have ability to comment. This it framework that was started. There is a clash between those who wish a longer timeframe and initial view. Diagrams in next version of report should show how it fits into the timeframe. It should show how much time community would have to consider Bylaw change. Mechanism to empower the Community - Question 7 Identification of themes in quantitative look document is available. ACTION ITEM - Volunteer to recut analysis document Most concerns are focused on implementation ACTION ITEM: Ask question on enforceability in next public comment period We should make it clear in next round of comments (if still applicable) that for membership model and powers itself, UAs are not needed - only if we require enforceability. Suggestion to circulate a chart that assumes SSAC, RSSAC not in the mix. Stress test on enforceability and Courts. In addition, stress test will discuss complexity and rogue voting: what mechanisms would we have to fix the vote? Voluntary model: relying on Board to enforce powers. We can't have membership without legal persons. If no legal persons, no enforceability, no Court. We can put into Bylaws the powers we foresee including voting to be applied to existing SO/ACs but if we want legal enforceability, then we need to move to legal structure where SO/ACs need to be entities. If we want legal enforceability, we need membership structure, we need SO/ACs to be legal entities: Clarify that with community. ACTION ITEM: Volunteer who has read comments to double-check summary with fresher eyes Clarify that we would not have all powers with designators model Incorporation of AoC into Bylaws - Questions 13-14 Articles of incorporation have not been discussed yet as to whether membership model would require changes. Legal advice needed on this. No explicit definition of diversity. Risky to include explicit text in Bylaws on operating procedures. How are we going to compose operating procedures and where are we going to park them? There ought to be opportunity to challenge Board if don't agree with review implementation - can't have it as mandatory ACTION ITEM - Reflect implementation of reviews as area of concern Removing Individual ICANN Board Directors - Question 11 / Recalling Entire ICANN Board - Question 12 JPNIC has 2 points: 1) asking for circumstances; 2) would then be procedures for temporarily filling in for Board. Paragraph does not reference conditions under which Board is recalled. Care-taker, continuity of CEO Etc. - we need to add more detail through that. We have asked for legal advice on caretaker. ACTION ITEM: Provide clarity on recalling Board process Do we leave it to supermajority of community or do we add conditions? We should not specify criteria. ACTION ITEM: Focus on caretaker CCWG Responses - Respond to every comment (vs. individual letters). - Difficult to produce individual responses but could provide a summary of responses to a group of commenters In addition to full document, provide document that copies out individual summaries of questions for easy-read as well as assemble key points for debate that would identify most contentious items for discussion and for each set out issue and propose CCWG responses. I.e. enforceability, role/nature of UAs/membership model, differences of powers between 3 models, processes (limited disruption) ACTION ITEM: Jordan to confirm approach with CCWG leadership We need consolidated draft on 15 June (23:59 UTC) Volunteers ACTION ITEM - Jonathan Zuck to produce key issues draft document ACTION ITEM: Jordan to ask Matthew Shears whether he would volunteer to double-check summary with fresher eyes New Comments 4 in EN, 1 in FR, 1 in ZH ACTION ITEM: Staff to send latest additions to all WPs and to incorporate into g-DOC using new cell-color A.O.B /

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 #13 - 1 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting#13 - 13 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777768 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Notes NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. How are summaries been written, checking how these are being drawn up? ready for the CCWG mtg on Friday in BA Fiona has covered 11 and 12. If time look at the updated comments from Steve Agenda accepted Looked at WP2 for consistency of approach. Present an overall impression of the comments and the an overview of the comments: No negative operational impacts, and did want a budget and plan that takes into account of all relevant community input. This a first draft review. Roelof: what are we seeing in the document? All comments of WP2 or a part? Only a summary of the 22 comments lodged for Q8. Suggest to prepare the same style of comment for each section of questions. Q. And additional elements that could be helpfully added? Next. Question 9. Any comments? Was there a more strongly worded objection in the previous - and suggest need to not bury such strong divergence. Surface and deal with out-right opposition, and address. When summarizing, please highlight outright divergence. Anyone noticing such an issues/omission, please go in and enter a note using track changes. For example 278 stands out. There areas where the commenter may have mis-understood our question. But an example, R Hill, the staff summary does not capture the whole of his comment and the level of divergence. How to capture that? Reading the comments reveals subtleties that are otherwise missed from the summary documents. Summary of Q11. The comments have been tagged, but more detail to summary impression would be helpful. Yes, will do before next call. 335. USCIB. Talking of spilling of entire board at 80% so is misplaced. Not about removal of individuals. If in the wrong place then highlight in yellow. And inform Adam/Alice/Jordan and where to move it to. Summary of Q12. Noting that this was a mechanism of last resort. Will go back and add summary for each of the comments. Reasonable for the drafters to add a CCWG response for each comment. We will be publishing a review document. 359. Concern was around the issue of threshold. AoC material. Steve second draft that expands on the material. Q13 and comment 373. Retaining Avri's language and took additional from the proposal. Summary at the top yet added. R Hill, if CA does not law give full powers then US may not be best location? Yes, to a person who is member and a legal person. So not a disagreement or concern, there is no problem with CA location. Differentiation between what Richard means about full-powers and what we mean of the 5 things we want to do. 376, mistaken notion, that reviews are not proposed as being brought in as they are. And misunderstanding about the timing. 379 Govt of Spain. Termination of AoC after the transition. Do we make changes in our next draft? And this may be an issue for the agenda item for Friday in BA. Reg group. Inconsistencies. Want the ability to sunset reviews, with WHOIS a good candidate. Do we think a community driven review is sufficiently bottom-up? Trickiness on full bottom-up process, to some means the PDP process rather than the review and AoC process. Check what registries mean. 381. JH. Mistaken notion. And mistaken notion that 8b was driving changes, when it's in the current bylaws. Not a disagreement or a concern. 382. Explicit. 383. Increase the time between reviews - does UK want further apart? USCIB. Not feasible and appropriate, those words are from the AoC. Do we cut words as we bring them over from reviews 386 - Mistaken notion Action: Avri and Steve will continue. Action: Request to begin on the summary area. 223. Asked for words from Sidley, and been provided. Clarification added. Individual persons are legal persons Once the summary is completed the collective process is more useful. Review this content on Sunday 18:00 UTC call. Agree? Sunday: Look at AoC in corporation. Look at summaries on Director remove section. Look at the bylaws material. And proposal section for CCWG to look through in BA AoB? If you need to work in Word Doc, please work in track changes. END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 #12 - 11 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting#12 - 11 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777766 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEMS - Ensure Legal link is available for comment 223 ACTION ITEMS - Call notes to be circulated to Counsel in addition to CCWG Notes NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Working methods - analyses PC - summary and impression test, analysis of content, action steps and what might be published Recap on wp2 approach. Looking for themes that wasn't thought of. Once we had done granular analysis, we need to produce a summary, similar to what WP2 is creating. Example will be circulated. Do a thematic summary. Further work on summary. Overall summary box will be added to the gdoc - New edits will be made on shared Google doc. Jurisdiction is recurring theme - whether or not new issue. Proportionality must be discussed WP1 - using: agreement, concerns, confusion, divergence - for each comment - Avri briefed group approach wp2 is taking. Looking for trends, teams assigned to each trending topics...trends that were already known like 8b, jurisdiction, have teams looking at these already. Then will go comment to comment. Suggested to use the same approach as WP2 to make understanding more concise. Be concise in allocating, be specific - so not to be accused of being biased, also why more than one person is used to evaluate. Encouraged to look at document to add precision, accuracy and neutralize any comments that you feel are not fair - so we have the most accurate record -- Summaries will be addressed during next couple calls, but by working through some of the specifics give us a sense of how it's working and if we want to make any changes. Avri will discuss comments she has already started 373 - marked as "confusion" "divergence" disagrees with idn being incorporated in us, did come up in the aoc - comingles issues, like 8b (trending), jurisdiction and incorporation, wants inclusion of 8b in bylaws, Jurisdiction and incorporation - will be taking up in WS2, add to fundamental bylaws, actions - covering its trending. What is the "Theme" whether ICANN should not be US, or issue of location of idn in bylaws or fundamental bylaws? Is it a concern by mostly govts? Etc. 8b isn't even on the table, not addressed. Article 18 of bylaws states company shall have headquarters in California. Question is fundamental or non-fundamental. New idea, not WS1. Merit not addressed at this time. 374 375 are similar and have been given similar answer. 374 - Govts given appropriate representation in an ATRT. AoC does not get into the proportion of representation. Moving proportionality into Bylaws of these Review Teams. Our view is that all SOs and ACs should be represented in the AOC reviews as set out in para 305 of our Public Comment report. The CCWG will consider how to incorporate this matter more specifically in the next version of the proposal. Is there any other area of government concern? This will be determined after review and summaries will be posted. Perhaps this needs to be specified in the bylaws as it was in setting up ICANN implementation of the reviews All reviews will be conducted by a volunteer community review team comprised of representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations, Stakeholder Groups, and the chair of the ICANN Board. The group must be as diverse as possible. Proportionality has not been completely addressed? Be specific on numbers? 375. Response - thank you 376 - WS2 to review as a longer term process. Doing so now seems less so, but folding them into the bylaws does seem important, especially if we want to dissolve the AOC. 377 - Agreement - response thank you 378 - Agreement - response thank you 379 - (Govt of Spain) more detail, a plan needs to be put into place, looking for detailed time scale on termination of aoc. Trend: govt saying headquarters is an issue) AoC states ICANN should be HQd in US, do not believe this should be incorporated into a fundamental bylaw of ICANN subj to Cal law is not fundamental to the global internet community, - question of how much detail to include in bylaw. Suggested that - Not really a trending issue. Spain is just answering our question about Article 18 as a Fundamental Bylaw. They prefer it not be. Just record the answer. Opposing view whether it's a fundamental or not. Need more attention than to just answer the question; cover carefully. WP1 went through assessments of comments and suggested actions and did live editing. Splitting larger comments will occur at a later time. Working method, and how to categorized - read details, so when summaries are complete, people with different takes, perspectives have all worked through and feel the summary is fair. 380 - Agrees with enshrining accountability. Concern of inconsistencies, Agrees with putting in ATRT, Flexibility of reviews. WHOIS work stream 1 or 2? Was RySG agreeing with ability to sunset including WHOIS? Accountability and Transparency Reviews must be incorporated. - We recommended that the ATRT team could recommend sunset of reviews like WHOIS. Keith to confirm whether it's the ability to call for sunset vs an explicit call for sun setting. 381 Unreasonable to incorporate all principles of AOC into Bylaws (US incorporation). Issue of implement ability is important. IRP either confirms or mitigates decision. Put some appropriate principles of AOC into ICANN Bylaws would enhance ICANN's accountability. Calls for re write. Consider vs forcing. Can use IRP. Strongly explain rationale without being dismissive. Coupled with powerful mechanisms to challenge. - 382 support for it to become fundamental bylaw, believes article 18 should be designated a fundamental bylaw, so it would require 75% community voting approval for change; hopes to rely upon statutory powers to recall the Board and other actions, as necessary, to ensure that the ICANN Board and staff remain accountable to the community. 383 - Agreement - thanks - although believes, the processes are slow, greedy on volunteers' time and cumbersome -384 supports inclusion fund bylaws, however the words "if appropriate" could be viewed as divergence. Para 269: The proposed text for insertion in the bylaws is "where feasible, and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms....." We feel that there is a large range of opinions on the role of the market. The AoC, however, is stronger in its support of the marketplace, so we would suggest deleting the words "and appropriate" - does not recommend deleting any words, look further at marketplace demands. Disagree with recommended edits. -385 - Support, response thank you - 386 Binding AoC into Bylaws. It's not appropriate to refer to AoC into Bylaws (Bilateral agreement) Instead of writing that ICANN will be committed to them. Instead of writing what is in the AoC in the Bylaws and producing duplicate description in two different documents, they suggest referencing relevant section of the aoc in the bylaws and bind reference sections by the bylaws. Proposing several enhancements to the AOC. Because OAC is a bilateral agreement, it is not appropriate for it to be referred to in the bylaws after the transition. Allows the affirmation to sunset. Something to be considered in next version of proposal. 387 - We understand the incorporation of a review system defined in AOC, and ability to start a new one. Response - yes 388 Explain our rationale rather change. This is incomplete, just first couple bullets completed. 8b trending issue, representation issue - ask to consider so/ac but to consider constituencies and by reference stakeholder groups. Representation issue at the bylaws level, up to each of the so /ac to house their internal apportionment. Clarification on 338 Batched round - guidebook is prepared, solicitation, non-batched round open, continuous round, but constant application. In the proposal on page 59, 338 The Board shall cause a review of ICANN's execution of this commitment after any batched round of new gTLDs have been in operation for one year. Used batched rounds on purpose. Requirement after at least every 5 years or after a batched round. --- 223 - Membership model is suitable, but that individual membership was suitable in a Swiss jurisdiction ideally. Mostly in agreement. Prefers individual membership (as in members of SO's and AC's) are the members of ICANN; Swiss jurisdiction; membership preferred to designator No action required. Pull out memo language to address this. Ensure link is included. Legal analysis on the Swiss framework indicates there are no significant advantages to such a model. ACTION ITEMS - Ensure Legal link is available for comment 223 ACTION ITEMS - Call notes to be circulated to Counsel in addition to CCWG --- 224 - Correlating the community with ICANN structure, ability to change preserved, the issue of how mechanism participants are held accountable to their appointing circles and how to avoid insider capture. (Insider capture - theme) -relevant name - More work on accountability for mechanism participants - Insider capture - comes up in a number of places, work as group. ST12 will be expanded to address insider capture and new stress test will be created to address rogue voting SO/AC representative. --- There needs to be a second phase of work to draw out comment themes and summarize at each top of section. Call for volunteers. Second phase, pattern recognition, draw out themes and summarize at top of section. AOC in bylaws have been given to ST. Community mechanism - Q7 and two related questions (13 pages): Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Robin Gross & Roelof Meijer Veto budget - Q8 (2.5 pages): Robin Gross Changes to bylaws - Q9 (~1 page): Keith Drazek Approve fundamental bylaws changes - Q10 (1 page): Keith Drazek Removing individual directors - Q11 (2 pages): Fiona Asonga Recalling the entire Board - Q12 (2 pages): Fiona Asonga Incorporating AOC in bylaws - Q13 and 14 (4 pages): Steve del Bianco & Avri Doria Work Approach: Go through summary materials to identify themes and determine how we will discuss these themes in BA Keep looking through document and add edits, proposed thoughts to make responses/summaries as fair-minded as possible. On the next calls, go through summary materials. Next call: Saturday, 13 June 2015 from 05:00- 07:00 (AM) UTC - custom is to have 12 hours to review material. Document freeze at 1700 UTC on the 12th. Jordan will circulate pdf, but edits can still be made on Gdocs. WP2 You can go into original comments - make it more possible - work issue by issue. Read comments in a structured fashion

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for ST-WP #8 - 10 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Stress Test WP Meeting #8 - 10 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778752 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM - Agenda 21 The legislative power of where you are incorporated and where staff person is based are different. Board would have to decide how to respond. The community has role of developing policies and we have ability to challenge. Stress test asks how community has accountability in how it solves problem. Notes NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Suggestion made to Congress that they require NTIA to certify that Bylaws changes have been adopted. Discussion of the DOTCOM act. What time frame can we expect for implementation of the bill? The appropriations rider on spending is a different committee. The alternative might have been a GAO review of the CCWG proposals, which could have taken a year or more, so the DOTCOM act seems to present a more favorable option. Will this raise issues of jurisdiction? Are there any additional stress test scenarios based on the politics of the U.S. /The Hill? Probably not. Goal is simplification. ST call suggested work for the call: Review last week's call. Review the public comment input to the CCWG, relevant to stress tests. 1 action items: stress test for the FIFA scandal. Felt we had a test (9) that covered that, para 445 the remedy. Mathieu: perception that not only corruption, but many embers involved by re-electing he same officers. How do we prevent the corrupt insider? Suggest asking Mathieu in BA if he wants test number 9 added to. But right need more than that as he is going to the next level of how to address capture at the volunteer level Not the risk that capture can happen from the inside. And note that we will be recommending bylaws changes that will affect the SO/AC. We can recommend more transparency and stricter bylaws. Rogue voting: within the UA. Might be a way for the SO/AC to notify that some rogue vote had occurred and that a hold be put on that vote. And will develop a stress test on this. Pages from the public comment review tool have been sent by staff. Should we review at some point, and how do we best react to those comments? Present a scenario and then some fleshed out columns. What approach? R Hill example. Some confusion over jurisdiction and location of incorporation. Are they prior constraints or improperly used. CA or the US being able to create law that effects what you do has long been a concern, but it would be the case for any location. And is the reason people have suggested a host country agreement. So describe the distinction Should the stress test team do a deep dive on the pro and cons of Swiss jurisdiction? How do we respond? Can point out the distinction between jurisdiction and incorporation. Under any jurisdiction, how does the community power become implementable? Or ask him or legal what a response might be? We focus stress tests on adequacy of measures. ACTION ITEM - Agenda 21 The legislative power of where you are incorporated and where staff person is based are different. Board would have to decide how to respond. The community has role of developing policies and we have ability to challenge. Stress test asks how community has accountability in how it solves problem. Wednesday, 17 June call is cancelled. Next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 1 July.

1 0