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
/