[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for W1 #16 - 6 July
Kimberly Carlson
kimberly.carlson at icann.org
Tue Jul 7 11:20:32 UTC 2015
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #16 - 6 July will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783015
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you
Best regards,
Kim
ACTION Items
Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews
Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7)
Action item. Avri to check language with CWG
Notes
CCWG ACCT WP1 #16 - 6July 2015.
Version public comment version 2, and the update on bringing the AoC into
the bylaws, and review of the next 3 calls.
Any other business?
Steve. Analyze public comment, update our proposal and the update the
review tool to explain what has been done.
How to compose the review teams the potentially controversial issue.
The red text explains the context. The blue text, explains that if the
AoC has reviews underway at the time of these changes coming into effect,
then how to handle that is considered. Not to imply that we should delay
the ATRT3 review due to begin 2016.
Both to explain the changes made.
Concern that we did not require the board to implement all
recommendations. And we explain that there may be reasons for not
implementing (implementability or cost,). And note that a reconsideration
or IRP could be brought if such a decision taken by the board.
Understanding that Board and staff we actually moving towards what we are
already suggesting, and ATRT3 is due to start 2017. As to the question,
the third is, are they implementing the intent of the recommendation?
Comment: Understand some wish to start pushing the ATRT3 to 2017, but not
in agreement with that. There are issues over the timing, if it is
beginning to beginning timing then we are not yet in agreement.
A proposal by staff to review the review processes, open public comment,
and some discussion of CCWG submitting a comment. But the default if not
clear direction from the comment period would be no change.
Opportunity to clean up the process, and use the accountability process,
perhaps thru a sub group or calls to do this.
Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews
The blue text describes an implementation detail for later.
Chapeau, applies to all four parts of the review. Shifts the task to
staff to provide updates every year. Requires lawyers on both sides to
work on this.
How specific do we want to be in specifying how many in a review team,
where drawn from, and whether they are voting. Come back to this. Not
the Board and GAC chair deciding on members, but the SO/AC, including
concerns about diversity etc.
Access to ICANN internal documents. Board comments noted concern about
the sharing of sensitive of confidential information, but who decides what
is confidential?
Some things that the whole review team might not be made privy to, but
some sub-set of.
If not ICANN's sole discretion, then may be asked to explain that process.
Past ATRTs have reviewed confidential information, a form of verbal NDA
used in those cased. May need another sentence.
Review team should say how they reached consensus and the degree of
consensus, and should respond to public comments.
Response on individual comments may be too hard, but all comments should
be reviewed. And the bylaws should include the degree of consensus.
Text: the review team shall assess the extent to which prior review
recommendations have been implemented. Past ATRT team had to check on all
4 review teams, comment this was too much work. So intent is to say each
review team assesses extent to each its previous review team implemented.
And this easier because of the transparency and accountability report
ICANN will publish annually.
Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7)
The ATRT has the special responsibility to terminate the other reviews and
if necessary and to recommend new reviews in the future as needed (e.g.
ending whois to be replaced by a review if directory services).
There were several public comments that were concerned an ATRT could just
terminate reviews with no observations for public comment on that. 3
observations: 1. The recommendation to end to start new review goes for
public comment. 2. If the board accepts/rejects that decision the
community can review and challenge. 3. to eliminate or add a review is an
addition to the bylaws, so are subject to community challenge and review,
Complete review within one year of initiation. Based on ambiguity in the
AoC. Some reviews are on topics with potentially unlimited scope, this
suggestion keeps the review bounded.
Is the word "initiation" defined? From the final selection of the
members. One year of convening (ok as revised text)
5 years from when the report is given raised concerns, stretched out too
long, the reviews being too far apart. Might also be mentioned in the
chapeau text.
Measure the 5 years from beginning to beginning (convene to convened),
rather than end to beginning. And this should apply to all four reviews.
Competition, trust, consumer trust. Ensure WP2 picks up the malicious
abuse, sovereignty concerns and rights protections, text and is carried
over to the core values.
Board concern that WHOIS locked in, response prepared for the PC review
tool.
OECD guidelines do not have the force of law. May need to ensure this is
worded properly. Not stating that this is binding, but just a body of
international expectations we should take into consideration, and could
say that this may not be binding. Are were binding ICANN to the OECD
privacy principles without any review?
Answer may be to take out "legal constraints". And perhaps best discussed
in a sub-group.
Not existing policy and seems ti be suggesting it is such. Needs to be
examined.
IANA Functions Review. Need more help from the CWG members to ensure we
have the right words as this becomes a fundamental bylaws, including the
chapeaus.
Fairly confident that meeting requirements, but Avri will check with CWG.
Action item. Avri to check language with CWG
Review membership. How to reflect diversity. How to represent the
interests of GNSO constituencies, would it unbalance the whole review.
The GNSO is very visible in their submissions. Talk to other and start to
hear regionalization issues, multilingual aspects, start to ask for
stakeholder rights. Get three votes, for example, but can subdivide them
as you.
How to keep diversity etc, but still have the SO and AC determine the
participants. And new text, that the group must be as diverse as possible,
this not from the AoC.
Diversity before expertise and willing to work, is problematic. There was
a triage for previous reviews.
Agreement on expertise and willing to work. Membership not rigidly
defined in the past. But is trying to be fully representative, then have
to accept that a single seat for a the commercial stockholders will not
achieve that. Need to focus on goals...
The proposal doesn't have the Board and GAC chairs, but passes to the
community. So the suggestion is for an open group like a CCWG, but one
that cannot be swapped by a single group.
Not reflected in public comment that some govt want a significant role for
the GAC chair in selection.
Need further discussion for resolution.
Status of work. Seeing volunteers (thank you).
Mix of volunteers looking at the balance of powers and weight.
1. Jonathan for budget and plans. Not for the others.
No sub-lists. just individual work, with work coming back to the lists.
Call one Wednesday was to address powers, if people have been able to do
the work.
Wednesday to address the voting balance and structure of the council
Friday, community powers. Monday, bylaws again.
Action item. Avri to check language with CWG
Action item: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text
(page 7)
END
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150707/fb30d1de/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list