[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 | 8 July

Phil Buckingham phil at dotadvice.co.uk
Wed Jul 8 23:31:47 UTC 2015

Hi Brenda,


My apologises for missing the call today . Thank you sending the

Please could you confirm the next WP3 call, BST.


Many thanks,




Phil Buckingham



From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Brenda Brewer
Sent: 08 July 2015 17:19
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 | 8 July


Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WP3 on 8
July will be available here:


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


Thank you.


Kind regards,



Action Items

Action: Leon's document to be uploaded to the wiki.


WP3 Meeting #2 -- 8th July 2015

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of
the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

1. Welcome and roll-call

Alan Greenberg calling in.

2. Review of Action Items from call #1

Please review the geographic review document, noted in the reading list and
recently sent to the mailing list.

The Board will act in Dublin, after a period of delay the document will be

acted on.   The final document hasn't yet be present to the board for

action.  Expected that will be implemented, included some degree of

self-selection for some small islands, but the overall structure of 5

regions will remain, with some self determination to be considered.

Asks why the paper is particularly relevant?  Perhaps in that it doesn't do
much to address diversity issues.

Comment: Was the large and populous region of the Asia Pacific fairly
represented? Could the number of regions be 
increased, perhaps to 7.  But this represents the current option on
geographic regions in ICANN.  But there is discussion of sub-regional

 Volunteers to populate sub-groups.

Haven't noticed any until an hour ago, when one participant asked to join
the staff accountability sub-groups.

sub-groups:  SO/AC accountability, staff and board accountability, Diversity

* Diversity -  <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity>

* SO/AC accountability -


* Staff accountability -


Please add name on the relevant wiki page or make your interest known to
staff:  <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org

What are the work stream 2 issue in regards to each of the accountability,
transparency, diversity issues.

We should not remain silent on diversity in the IRP panel or in the SO/AC


Presentation of a draft document on SO/AC accountability.  Based on a

review of documents on the reading list.  Identifying mechanisms already

in place.  Leon, "preliminary inventory of existing accountability

mechanisms for SO/AC".  Will be shared with the group.


Many of the AoC issues are targeting board and staff rather than the SO/AC


Bylaws, leaves open for each SO/AC to consider accountability/transparency

in their own procedures.  We might dive into these to see how they address

this. And make broad recommendations, but not in details.


SO bylaws must be approved by the Board.  ACs do not have to do this.


Jan S. The SO/AC gain very significant powers under the proposals, but

preliminary review see there are almost no provisions that hold the SO/AC

accountable to their own or the broader Internet community. This is a



Jan is right.  And we know that the groups in ICANN only represent a very

small subset of the larger community.  Can make sure that those

participating are accountable to their own membership.


ICANN talks about the need for diversity, but we don't do a lot about it.


What is different is now significant new powers are about to be given to

the SO/AC, and perhaps these issues cannot be put off further.  Even to



Identify and itemize issues, and relate to any WS1 issue.


Do we need to make each constituency accountable?  We are looking at a

complex path.  The problem is implementability.


When talking about SO/AC accountability, we talk about accountability to

the community (i.e. other SO/AC), then the community it represents.

Are we talking about accountability of the GNSO, or SGs or constituencies.

 Is it a self-governance issue, or to be dealt with by some outside agent.

 Do we really trust the "community".  We are empowering the community



We want to hold the Board accountable, but concern also about the

community.  We need to find a way to do something, but be careful about

where we put our trust.


Raise as objectives or questions.  So they are accountable within their

own community and the community as a whole


Sub group of WP1 and weighting mechanisms. ACs looks at broader issues than

Action: Leon's document to be uploaded to the wiki.

Meeting times for the WP3 calls, which are the correct dates and times.

The calendar invites are correct.  Next call Friday 10th at 06:00 UTC.

Staff confirm the calendar  invites are accurate.

When will we have follow-up discussion on the lawyer's presentation?

Homework for the group to review and a wider discussion in the group about
the models.  Build consensus is Paris. And on the call next Tuesday.

Calls scheduled to accommodate other CCWG calls and to, as possible, share
the burden of inconvenient call times.

If you wish please use the presented document of SO AC existing mechanisms
as a basic template.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150709/3b29113c/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list