Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Stress Test WP Meeting #7 - 3 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772767 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to flag that paragraph 439 addresses FIFA scenario. ACTION ITEM: Steve to check that Court is not in ST document ACTION ITEM: Steve to expand on stress test #13 to underline specificity of using IRP. ACTION ITEM: Send draft to STWP list followed by CCWG ACTION ITEM: Cancel June 17 call ACTION ITEM: Respond to couple additional scenarios Steve is putting forward Notes Stress Test WP Meeting #7 - 3 June 2015 This call is being recorded Links Public Comment Period - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201... Draft Report - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposa... Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 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. Public comment is starting to come in: there is a need to articulate additional stress tests: Mathieu, Avri Stress test text was sent to Chris Disspain. We reframed it based on dicussion last Wednesday. Two stress tests: 1) In line with Chris Disspain 2) In line with Jonathan Zuck 1) ATRT recommendation does not require PDP, it can be implemented. Scenario where Board rejects implementation. We have a recourse where we can recall Board, we can block budget or strat plan but a change to expenditures does not solve problem. You could go to Court to force ICANN to follow decision. How does the Court get involved in the first scenario? 2) Board follows community recommendation which is reversed by IRP. IRP has standard of review - it could cancel decision. We have ability to recall Board but we could block next decision. We could go to California Court and enforce the IRP recommendation. In neither of these cases is the Board involved in interpreting bylaws, it's implementing IRP decision. Nuances might still need to be discussed. - Underlying concern is that creation of members would give extra standing to go to Court directly and bypass IRP - What would Court say if ignore it? - Becky's slides show that use of IRP can be a binding part of membership with ICANN instead of going directly to Court --> Concerned that we have to keep doing tie-offs to avoid being overly Court driven. - We need to start ensuing that between BA and Dublin, anyone who flags a stress test should articulate it ----- Mathieu's proposed stress test: You may think I am obsessed with recent news, but with the recentspotlight on the FIFA scandals, I think we can reasonably expectquestions regarding how our proposed measures would avoid such a situation. Have we covered corruption? --> p 70 paragraph 439 Under proposed measure we could force the Board If the Board was involved in the corruption, can remove Directors or entire Board. ATRT2 recommendation on serious review about process was ignored. The measure reads quite well but would it be efficient? 442 is a weak point in measures. --> we can surface 442 information through ATRT3 Existing accountability measures are not adequate if ignored. ACTION ITEM - Steve to flag that paragraph 439 addresses FIFA scenario. ---- SO would inform members of community that votes were improperly cast (against instructions). That would have impact on vote that just took place. --> The association between SO and AC is one of them having legal relationship between them. It's the UA that is member not the SO. Voting of cross-community WG, members, not clear who would monitor that Where Board control AC/SO SO/ACs are defined and controlled by Bylaws. Any changes would go through review as part of accountability. The notion of UA is that it is an independent person but an independent actor. If the SO would become UA we would move its Bylaws - --> The UA is bound by ICANN Bylaws There aren't new individuals who would ignore will of AC SO they are representing - If it ignores articles or Bylaws we don't have recourse today but with enhanced IRP we do - if Board ignores IRP it can lead to Court and will lead to them complying i.e. following articles of incorporation - There' is a difference between establishing the court as the underlying authority and establishing the court as the mechanism for redress which we have studiously avoided Transparency needed on how votes are being cast. - Tools need to be applied hypothetically - Spilling the Board wont work if Court not behind you. We have created a system for better or worse. The multistakeholder process gets strong through reviews of each other in transparent way. The membership structure has created very to use legal opening so that when things go wrong: do you continue to go through hard process and finding consensus or do you take it to Court? It will change direction of system and makes it far less multistakeholder because it gives us an authority. It acts as a foil to multistakeholder processes. - It is my understanding that there is a great deal of frustration over process that exists because there weren't ways to review. We are creating more mechanisms for redress and more authority. There is less incentive. There is a growing frustration that Board doing something else. - You don't get to IRP if you did not participate in public comment process. IRP is key solution, not Court ACTION ITEM: Steve to check that Court is not in ST document - Concern of whether we need to have a catching net approach to everything Agrrieved parties abuse a new membership structure or community powers - We should expand it to suggest that they can't go to Court but rather news IRP. ACTION ITEM: Steve to expand on stress test #13 to underline specificity of using IRP. ACTION ITEM: Send draft to STWP list followed by CCWG ACTION ITEM: Cancel June 17 call ACTION ITEM: Respond to couple additional scenarios Steve is putting forward Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to flag that paragraph 439 addresses FIFA scenario. ACTION ITEM: Steve to check that Court is not in ST document ACTION ITEM: Steve to expand on stress test #13 to underline specificity of using IRP. ACTION ITEM: Send draft to STWP list followed by CCWG ACTION ITEM: Cancel June 17 call ACTION ITEM: Respond to couple additional scenarios Steve is putting forward