Notes #4

1. Roll Call

Will be taken from Adobe Connect attendance

On phone only: none

2. Welcome - objective of call #4

Review accountability issues and linkage with CCWG

3. Review Survey 2 - Accountability

Accountability - Green items (convergence)

Ideally, the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability (question 3)
Ideally, the CCWG-Accountability would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA, so that the groups could work in parallel (question 4)
ICANN should formally link the CWG and CCWG processes to ensure tha tthe work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution. (question 6)
Enhanced accountability (regardless of who the IANA Functions Operator is) must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition (question 7)
Following the publication of theh CCWG's draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG to determine whether the outcome of the Accountability Process provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism (question 9)
A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized (question 10)

4. Operational accountability

NTIA transition comes with oversight of operations and oversight of ICANN's broader accountability and governance. What is work of this group and what is linked to the work of the CCWG. CWG must provide accountability mechanisms for operational aspects (ensuring continuous improvements / SLAs, rebidding if operational agreements are not met). Operational accountability to be supervised by the CSC and MRT. But also factor in how CSC and MRT are accountable themselves. Solve issues at the 'lowest' level possible (principle of subsidiarity) - See also notes from yesterday's meetings regarding CSC and MRT. Consider reviewing SAC69 for applicable principles. Possible accountability steps (as suggested by Bertrand): 1) transparency, 2) direct request to the IANA operator by the entity conserned, 3) complaint to the CSC; 4) appeals; 5) annual review by (CSC or MRT).

5. Broader accountability / Linkage with CCWG-Accountability

It is still possible for CWG to provide input to the scope of the CCWG
What, if any, components of CWG proposal are conditional on the CCWG's work - needs to be communicated to the CCWG

Review CCWG-Accountability High Level Statements / Conditionality components

Response to request from CWG identifying three specific items and requesting feedback and input for the intensive working weekend. CCWG responded that it is not in a position yet to provide any work results yet and provided some high level statements. Consider what needs to be communicated back to the CCWG.
How can CWG help steer the work of the CCWG?
What conditions of CWG proposal may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG and what is the feedback loop? Consider giving them specific items to address, for example, the ability for a registry operator to appeal a delegation decision (which happens before it gets to IANA in the case of gTLDs). Consider pulling out items from this weekend's work to build a list of items to be provided to the CCWG. What is the dividing line between the accountabilty issues that need to be dealt with by CWG and what issues have to be dealt with by the CCWG before a transition can occur. List could be divided into issues related to internal and external option. Consider also whether general statements should be communicated to CCWG - in cases where it is not clear whether an issue should be dealt with in ws 1 or 2, put it in ws 1 to be on the same safe; consider creating a ws 3, needs to be a guarantee that a recommendation needs to be implemented, but does not need to be finalised by date of transition. Possible poll questions: should the CWG recommend that the CCWG exercise caution when placing items in WS1 and WS2, and in case of doubt err on the side of caution and put in WS1. The CWG recommends that the CCWG consider a sub-workstream to ws 1 that would inlude issues that need to have implementation guaranteed before the transition but that can be implemented after the transition (this may also be relevant for RFP4).

Action item: Alan Greenberg to develop first draft of list of possible items for CCWG consideration (with idea to finalize list during next meeting on Thursday)

6. Wrap up / Moving forward

Chairs Statement following the weekend meeting communication critical points as well as links with CCWG, timeline
Timeline - initial objective was to have sufficient input coming out of this meeting to prepare a final proposal during next week. This timing needs to be reviewed - what remains a realistic timeframe considering where the CWG is in its process. Revised timeline needs to be conditional on obtaining legal advice, achieving community support for proposal in the event there is no further public comment forum, obtaining approval from SO/ACs in timeline set (consider asking chartering organizations how much time they need). Need to identify dependencies. Chairs will need to have a dialogue with ICG on these possible changes to the timeline as it also affects their timeline .
Legal advice - important component both for internal as well external to ICANN solution, will also have an impact on timeline. Immediate priority.
Singapore meeting - need to be able to show where progress has been made and what areas are still open.

7. Confirm next meeting

Thursday 15 January at 14.00 UTC. Other meetings to be confirmed shortly after this meeting.