[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Sun Jul 26 23:36:12 UTC 2015

Hi Jordan and Everyone,

One query from me regarding the ICA and any meetings it may have.  Sub-para d) of the ‘working methods’ para states:

d)    The ICA is expected to meet face to face at general ICANN meetings, and would otherwise work electronically unless four of the seven participating SOs and ACs called for an out-of-cycle face to face meeting.

My understanding is that, for the purpose of discussing the exercising of Community Powers, the ICA only needs to come together when a successful petition has been raised.  This may or may not coincide with ICANN meetings.  Chances are it would not.    

If the ICA  also assumes the role of the Public Accountability Forum, then I agree that it could/should be convened during an ICANN meeting.  On this topic, Jordan’s email of yesterday (26Jul15) stated:

From memory, the notion of the Public Accountability Forum was to bring together board, staff and the SO/ACs in a public exchange of views and questions and comments about accountability issues - a sort of open round table, done at an ICANN meeting once a year. The point was to help build mutual accountability across the ICANN system, not just vertical accountability - helping to solve the "who watches the watchers" conundrum.

This could easily be done under the umbrella of the ICANN Community Assembly, perhaps with supplementary attendance or speaking rights e.g. for more of the Board, maybe the SO/AC leadership as well. 

So I conclude for that for the more general purpose of discussing accountability issues, the ICA would only need to meet at one ICANN Meeting per year.

So I am confused as to the intent of sub-para d).   As it currently stands, it implies to me that the ICA is to meet face to face at every ICANN Meeting, and I don’t understand why it should need to.

Please advise if there is something I am missing here.  Is the intended meaning something like:

d)    For the purpose of discussing the exercising of Community Powers, the ICA is expected to work electronically unless four of the seven participating SOs and ACs call for a face to face meeting in response to a petition. Should the timing coincide with a general ICANN meeting, then the ICA should convene at that meeting.

	e)  For the purpose of exchanging general views, comments and questions about accountability issues, the ICA should meet face to face at an ICANN meeting once a year.

Many thanks,

Cheers,  Julie

On 27 Jul 2015, at 8:20 am, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

hi Ed, all

Thanks for the reminder about the number -  it was simply a mistake by me to put 7 not 8.

There is a misconception in your note that I want to highlight. There aren't "five voting members" of the ICA.

There aren't any votes in the ICA.

The ICA doesn't make any decisions.

It is a discussion forum only.

In terms of ensuring that the points of view across the community are teased out in advance of the exercise of any community powers, broad participation is good.

If we set the threshold for triggering an out of cycle face to face meeting high enough, then the chances of such a meeting and the associated costs remain low/unlikely.

My nomination of five was indeed based on the CCWG approach. I don't mind where we land, but the balance is between cost and completeness (if SOs and ACs insist on equal support in such matters, anyhow).

best
Jordan

On 27 July 2015 at 00:11, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having  up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity.  I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk  for a half hour each night following our meetings  through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one  (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck.  :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body. 

Thanks for considering,

Ed

From: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM
To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>, "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a)    Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

From: wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. Iâ€™ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards,
Keith

From: wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org> [ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
To: wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away!  I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best,
Jordan

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet 

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
         name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK"
 Comments.docx"
Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
 v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221;
         creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT";
         modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"
Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
 v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126;
         creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT";
         modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/3efc06c7/attachment.html>