[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #7 (8 July)
kimberly.carlson at icann.org
Thu Jul 9 13:02:49 UTC 2015
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #7 - 8 July will be available here:
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Action item: Para 76 discussion, need to get text to the list to continue discussing.
Action item for Becky and Malcolm to deliver text.
Two main areas for the group to review, 1 the mission and core values and commitments statements, some significant comments to review, and, 2 significant issues on the IRP.
Today focus on the mission and core values and commitments statements portions. Discussion of the issues we saw.
Malcolm, review doc " WP2: Categorising Public Comment Replies" To index and access comments we received, don't miss comments. Organize thinking.
Seeking common topics under discussion, even opposing points of view.
Sub-topics on page two and groupings. Each had multiple comments. page 3 discusses what the topics were
ICANN powers should be defined powers. Including that ICANN should not undertake activities outside the powers, and comments that ICANN should consider Human Rights.
17 spoke to the idea of enumerated powers. 19 spoke about ICANN to have a general regulatory power. Or spoke to HR and freedom of expression as outside the powers. Contract compliance issues, mainly from those in the intellectual property community
Need to reconcile views, for example over those of the human right community and IPR community.
Core values and balance against commitments
ICANN and govt and the law.
Concept of private sector lead, vs public policy lead etc. Deference that should or should not be given to the GAC and GAC advice.
The requirement to comply with local law or international law.
Some concerns or divergence or new ideas about what the core values should be. Multistakeholderism, and adherence to that. Use of the phrase public good or public interest. A technical section about consumer choice, and ref to para 60 and para 337.
Issue of enforceability. Mutability and ability to change the core values, should they be fundamental bylaws etc.
The non DNS elements of ICANN's role: numbers, protocols, relationship with ccTLDs. Mainly comments about preserving their independence from
No specifics, mainly to the proposal as a whole.
Some issues about what the process should be, methodology etc.
Comment, in WP1 working by piecemeal comment analysis, and much harder to update. Very easy in this consolidated form. And we all need to update the PC tool and explain to commenters what we have done
Comments on the categories being proposed?
Big groups of comments: concern that the balancing test needs to be refined and thought about more carefully, and this goes to the issues of public good and public interest. Needs discussion.
Difficult when we do not know the reference model. And we are in some state of flux. For the group today, they are model neutral. The underpinning will be the mission and core values
The threshold question, we didn't explain why we are suggesting change. Is it in the document?
See para 68 of the proposal. When we discussed this, the discretion given with respect to balancing is very broad, and in an IRP etc, there will be deference given to the decision maker with respect to the balance. Are we comfortable with that? Are there some matters that they are so fundamental that they balancing should take note of that.
Responses: looks like you are sacrificing these values to the public interest.
Some responded positively, that we were saying those core values must be met. And others who said that this was importing a very US jurisprudence approach. Suggests that the language too specific.
The test is commonly used, but in Canadian and European law there's an approach abut commonality. But the criticism was to not model too closely on a legal approach from some specific jurisdiction.
Remove the specific language and make higher level, that ensures fundamental commitments are adhered to in all cases.
Keep 71 or something like. Replace 72-76 with a more general statement. In carrying out its work ICANN should strive to fully adhere to these commitments and core values. What examples can we think of to test this?
Commitments, not core values. No read off in the fundamental commitments.
Para 76 needed or a general para 76. In relation to core values need to retain para 76.
In terms of commitments they shouldn't need a trade off, though not sure its always possible, so we might need kind of para 76.
Sense an appeal to the approach, but need to see text to feel comfortable with it.
About para 76 discussion, need to get text to the list to continue discussing about this. Action item for Becky and Malcolm to deliver this.
Public interest, concern about how to identify this, and then that it wasn't getting enough attention. The public interest would be identified through the bottom up process. para 105.
Competing concerns. that the public interest wasn't getting enough focus, and that it was too vague a phrase. Views on this?
Para 105: No comma before identify, which means we believe the bottom-up process inherently leads to the public interest. Looking for ways to constrain the ICANN mission.
Not sure how either of the 2 sides could be made stronger.
The public interest takes on what is perceived by the eye of the beholder. A platonic ideal. Don't know how it will be applied.
A number of comments to say that the inclusion of public interest should not be an excuse to expand the work of ICANN
Suggestion of bottom-up process and within ICANN's remit. Strengthen, by including reference to ICANN's remit. Agreement?
If that's the way then several commenters have suggested language to do that.
Private sector led language, with the explanation of what it means. And some govt want to remove that. Some noted link to the NTIA requirements. Some governments felt it would reduce the leverage of non commercial interest. Clarifying text?
Para 110. Adding new language. Comments supported the red text. Important to the Board and IRP panel to give support to say no to GAC advice.
Govt notion of sovereignty and public policy knows no bounds. So a different way of saying it, that there are limits to this.
Concerns were about deference to the govt.
Concerns about capture. Square bracket language about avoiding capture, Text we should write or the outcome of a process. Avri: get the right wording and include it
Steve: not explicit, but many places in the proposal that seek to avoid capture.
Para 111. Leave as is?
Many comments starting Para 60 and 337 consumer choice. From the AoC. OK in some of this in terms of competition, security and stability, but didn't address other issues in the same way. We brought in the reviews, and that the first para commitments of the reviews should be brought into the bylaws.
Starting with malicious abuse and rights protections seem to be issues people were concerned about being missing.
But what are the issues being referred to when saying what sovereignty concerns, malicious abuse and rights protections actually mean. They were omitted for these lack of clarity issues and no easy place to put it. Perhaps context is needed, and it is in the AoC. As it expands is unclear, ways to make this clearer.
Then commitment would be in expanding the top level space, its expansion this things will be addressed.
Rewordsmithing the AoC language is a concern. Not ambiguous. Says what we need it to say. Care not to renegotiate the AoC, when we are importing.
Suggestion: ICANN will ensure that its expansion of the top level domain space will adequately address issues of, etc.
Greg against change to text. And the suggestion actually changes the proposal's intent.
OK with Becky's language? Get back on the list?
Mission statement and avoidance of doubt.
Monday's call - focus on the IRP. Comments not organized quite the same way. And hope to circulate another version of the core values, mission etc before the next call. Also the stress test party test #23 related to the IRP. And will be on the agenda. Has question and will send by email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community