[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:


A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Thank you

Best regards,

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


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


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


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


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)


-------------- 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