[CCWG-Accountability] Follow-up to the last call

[Thomas Rickert]

All,
thanks to all of you for your attendance and participation in the last telephone conference and on the mailing lists.

With this e-mail, we would like to follow up on the call we had on Tuesday. We plan to circulate comparable e-mails to you after every call to make it easier for everyone to keep track of the action items.

This e-mail contains the following:

I. Action Items
II. Welcome to advisors
III. Note to the CWG
IV. Refined outline of tasks for Sub Groups
V. F2F Meeting in Frankfurt
VI. Closing remarks

I. Action items:

1.     ACTION: group to go to Subgroup1 wiki page and provide comments on the document before the next call
2.     ACTION: Subgroup 1 will be repurposed to take on defining the term "accountability" in relation to the questions posed by Mathieu to the mailing list (David and Samantha are willing  to lead this effort)
3.     ACTION: review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list
4.     ACTION: Colleagues to help build a comprehensive list of contingencies by the next call.
5.     ACTION: Mathieu to identify a tentative Work Plan that will include timeline for legal review

Please note that all action items are also listed in the meeting notes, which are written in the notes section of the Adobe Connect room and which will be sent to the list for every meeting.

II. Welcome to advisors

You will have seen the announcement on the mailing list yesterday. The PEG has identified and appointed 6 advisors. In addition to the kind notes that some of you have already sent, we would like to welcome the advisors. Their expertise will be immensely valuable to our group's and surely help to make progress in our work. We look forward to their joining the list and calls very soon.

We do plan to invite the advisors to one of our next calls and agree on how we best interact with them.

III. Note to the CWG

We will send the following note to the CWG co-chairs Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson shortly:

Dear Lise and Jonathan,
thank you for providing us with the document outlining areas of overlap between the CWG and the CCWG. Rest assured that we will work on the items you identified with priority.   We acknowledge that time is of essence and we plan to get back to you with a preliminary suggestion in response to your points in the second half of January. Please note that this might be subject to change as the work of your group progresses and needs to be taken into account as well as our deliberations will evolve. This may also impact the determination whether certain items are to be dealt with in work stream 1 or / and work stream 2.


Kind regards,
Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert
Co-Chairs of the CCWG


IV. Refined outline of tasks for Sub Groups

A. WA 1

After the inventory of existing accountability mechanisms has been delivered for the CCWG’s review and adoption, the refined tasks to be undertaken are, for each mechanism identified, try to answer the questions of :
a) is the mechanism providing check and balance, review or redress (see Netmundial definition of accountability in our Charter) ?
b) to whom does this mechanisms seek to make Icann accountable ?
c) for what purpose does this mechanism make Icann accountable ?

This would then be a great starting point to assess which issues are most needed to be tackled.


B. WA 2

With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December.

It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following:
Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory).
Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter.
Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations.

As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations:

Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to:
 What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause?
What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition?
 How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after.
If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented?
 How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to:
What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition?
If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented?
How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested?
Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to:
What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role?
What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms?
What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed?
If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date?
C. WA 3

No changes.

D. WA 4

With regards to WA4, we have suggested to the group to try and expand the list of contingencies before we can focus on those with higher impact or greatest relevance related to the IANA Stewardship transition. Inspiration for contingencies can be found in generic risk management standards. All of them start with identifying a list of threats that are relevant to the organisation.

Specific suggestions have been shared on the WA4 list.

V. F2F Meeting in Frankfurt

A location has been secured for the Frankfurt meeting. Grace will send out details under separate cover.

VI. Closing remarks

We would like to close this e-mail by thanking you again for your involvement in the group. It is good to see a lot of discussion going on that helps the group and sub groups shape its positions. For those who have not yet spoken up or written, please do make yourself heard. All the input you might have is appreciated and welcome.

Also, please check the work results, papers that are produced to see whether the points you made actually made their way into the documents as they will be the basis for the whole CCWG’s review and our discussions.

Thanks again and kind regards,

Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert
Co-Chairs of the CCWG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141218/a7b0fbd6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141218/a7b0fbd6/signature.asc>