Content Comparison

Attendees:

Members: Sebastien Bachollet, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Leon Sanchez, , Athina Fragkouli, Izumi Okutani, Eberhard Lisse, Roelof Meijer, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, James Bladel, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, Thomas Rickert, Bruce , Julia Wolman, Alice Munyua, Bruce Tonkin, Samantha Eisner, Julia Wolman

Participants: Avri Doria, Edward Morris, Rudolph Daniel, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Kavouss Arasteh, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Wolf Ludwig, Jonathan Zuck, Martin Boyle, Vrikson Ivan Acosta-Velasquez, Eric Brunner-Williams, Olivier Muron, Finn Petersen, David McAuley, Keith Drazek, Isaque Joaquim,

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer

Apologies: Olga Cavalli

**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

...

Proposed Agenda:

...

Action Items

Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8j0v2k2ntq/

The audio recording is available here:

...

1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI

2. CWG update and high level principles

3. WS1/WS2 recap

4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion

5. Contingencies : finalize list

6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting

7. AOB

8. Closing remarks

1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI

On the call: Alice Munyua, Julia Wolman
No updates to Statement of Interest
Six advisors have been appointed by the PEG. A call between the co-chairs and advisors to get the advisors on-board is scheduled later this week. One advisor, Jan Scholte, will join the F2F in Frankfurt. A search for an international legal expert is ongoing.
Independent legal advice on California law - discussion with ICANN staff ongoing, the action is in progress
Apologies from Olga Cavalli

2. CWG update and high level principles

CCWG high level principles and CWG intense work weekend. 4 CWG calls over the weekend 10-11 January
Updates from CWG members
Avri Doria: CWG reviewed the surveys of members and participants and others to gauge impressions on aspects of the public comments received for all customer standing committee (CSC), MS review team (MRT), the independent appeals panel (IAP) and Contract Co and alternate proposals.
Discussion of various points of agreement and disagreement.
On CSC, MRT and IAP, consensus not agreed but some agreement on how they may be set up. On Contract Co, strong lack of consensus, with one notion of alternate proposals being worked on.
A list of the various accountability issues that came up in the CWG discussion is being drawn up. Hopefully in time for CCWG Frankfurt F2F. And how the accountability requirements may differ for the different proposals.
Do not expect consensus by January 15.
Would have been better if CCWG Accountability were further along. Some catch-up required and alignment of work of the two groups.
Greg Shatan: new sub-group has been formed to look at an "internal to iCANN" solution that does not involve a Contract Co. And the required accountability measures that an internal solution would necessitate.Cheryl Langdon-Orr: suggestion to add possible agenda item for Frankfurt to speak to ongoing work of CWG and new working group RFP3B.

3. WS1/WS2 recap

WS1, mainly about the community prevailing over ICANN
What do we mean by consensus? What is the "community"? Who would the community itself be accountable to? (Russian dolls or balance based on separation of powers)
Balance of different types of powers (judicial, legal, executive).
What happens if some ICANN accountability mechanisms disappear with the transition.
Affect of CWG discussions.
Inventory of WS1 and WS2 items (WA2) is being reformulated.
Question for the group: what would we consider "committed to", in what form the commitment might take. Will require further work.

Action: Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition.

Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to.

Action: Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work

4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion

Who are the stakeholders in directly affected, indirectly affected, and parties affecting ICANN?

The purpose of ICANN's accountability: (1) compliance purposes, (2) acceptable to achieved certain level of performance. In addition (3) that ICANN should be accountable to comply with relevant legislation. (4) ICANN accountable to ensure its decisions are in the interest of all stakeholders.

Preferred mapping of stakeholder and whether to use NETmundial?

The NETmundial definition is not felt as appropriate for CCWG work. Need to clarify wording in the document. Appropriate categorization of indirectly affected parties and others, particularly the impact on ccTLDs.

Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list.

Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt.

5. Contingencies : finalize list

Discussion in WA4. Stress tests and whether certain items should be taken off the list if the contingency was felt very unlikely to occur. The Charter does not suggest probability of a contingency - Should we take into account probability of a contingency when including or not in the list?

Importance to understand the likelihood opt something happening, for binary issues or other. Some scenarios seem to re-state the same problem set, e.g around financial issues. Suggestion to discuss what success conditions might look like.

The list is not finite and new items can be added via sub-group WA4. With discussion in Frankfurt.

6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting

Progress on scope
Progress on WS1 and WS2
Conclude the work on the inventory of current ICANN accountability mechanisms

Action: Include time for an update from CWG

Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies

Volunteers to provide what they think as the ideal outcomes, 2/3minutes. 4 or 5 "pitch visions" of that the post transition accountability might look like.

Action: Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like.

Action: ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process.

7. AOB

Issue of independent legal advice. Ongoing discussion, and the independent expert advisors may also be able to advise. Goal to provide legal advice in Frankfurt.

8. Closing remarks