[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #36 - 9 June

[Kimberly Carlson]

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #36 - 9 June will be available here:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778746


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

Thank you

Best regards,
Kim


ACTION Items
Notes

Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;

Review of how we will approach our work
We agreed to an initial run through by the whole group of public comments received. Before allocation to the sub-groups, so all see where were are.

So were will go through the public comment (PC) review tool, and see how to allocate those areas to the working parties (WP) The recommendation is:

Revised Mission, Commitments & Core Values
Fundamental Bylaws
Independent Review Panel Enhancement
Reconsideration Process Enhancement
Mechanism to empower the Community
These to WP2

Mechanism to empower the Community and powers to WP1

The section of Bylaws Suggested by Stress Tests to the stress test team

Public Comment Input, Framework and Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 will be reviewed by the whole group.

We will build consensus in an iterative fashion. From topics where we have convergence to work on the topics where we have divergence.

You will see in the review tool that all comments received for a particular question have been grouped together.

ASO representatives have described in the past how we interact with our community, generally through the RIR meetings.  The most recent RIR meeting was last week, and we received some comments, both verbal and in email.  We still need to deliver those comments to the CCWG, more comments to insert into the process.  For transparency purposes, how best to do this?

Understand groups have their own processes and timelines for meeting.  Suggest you add to the comment process and follow the deadline for other language comments which is Friday June 12  at 23:59 UTC.

General discussion

Who responded to the comment period?

Question: is the distribution of comments telling us something?  Is it covering the stakeholders we were seeking, is it lacking?

>From SO/AC, from GNSO constituencies.  Significant number of governments, and of ccTLDs.  Strong from US business organizations and some international.

Personal comment:  that while there are comments from the US-led private sector, European business seems missing.  Comments from 4 advisors.

>From outside the direct ICANN community - IAB and some comments from organizations in India.

ICANN focused.  External observers might say outreach not sufficient.

What parts of the report drew the most comments

The Mechanism to empower community  and unincorporated associations (UA).  Comments on IRP, and some good recommendations on improvements.  Comments on votes and voting powers.  Divergence on the introduction of a fundamental bylaw on location of ICANN HQ in the US.

About the need for greater participation and inclusion.   The need to maintain the multistakeholder community.

But it seems the comments reflect debates we had in our group, which suggests we are anticipating the broader concerns and interests.

General comments

Tighter principles and core values are important.  The community's own accountability and participation was noted.

Need to take specific steps to ensure Board/ staff adopt what the CCWG recommends

Focus on the board. Need a deeper look at management and staff, which also need to be held accountable

ICANN must be clear and transparent in all aspects. Comments suggesting implementation in full before the ending of the IANA contract

Need to broaden ICANN to become an international organization, and representative of the global public

Non-supportive statements, identify substantive issues and flag these. Introduced and then share perspectives

Most general comments are supportive.  Exceptions.  Including from .NA - that the whole process is in contradiction with our charter.  And Roberto Bissio, advisor, who would have liked us to move to considerations of an international organization.

See general support for the building blocks and the general approach

How to deal with issues raised in a factual way.  What comments are being made and who is associating with them.  The weight of the comments.  Criticisms, suggested improvements.

Look at level of support.  Example support for the building blocks, except for one suggestion that an additional block for staff was necessary.  If we have agreement on the building blocks, can we ask for consensus support for this.

There are calls for enforcement, and is clearly an area for further work.

Same comments repeat in contributions:  member model, enforceability, role of staff.

Categories.  Another sub-category.  e.g recall the board.  For, against, and then with or without any improvement.

Look at the source of comments - outreach is not what we expected.

Lack of issues with our approach.  The way we went about the overall project was not criticize the way went went about the work except Namibia .NA Eberhard Lisse.

Criticism about the shorter public comment period.  Note there is a second opportunity to respond to work product in a second 40 day PC period

Suggest that great outreach needed.  And should acknowledge this.  And analyze what groups and regions were reached, etc.

Request about jurisdiction. Unless you disagree, suggest we defer jurisdiction to other areas on the report.  And we would be working on jurisdiction in WS2. And that should be our response if you agree. Await the group's decision on this.

Approach on jurisdiction, can't just be move to WS2.  Should review in light of comments, and perhaps the decision would be the same.  If WS2 then an explanation as to why and how is will be dealt with.  Something for the whole CCWG rather than within a WP

The role of staff and the community, how can the community be held accountable? Comments on this by our advisors. Need more thought on this.

Staff accountability, we were thinking this came under board accountability.  Views of the group on this would be useful.

Some discussion of what the staff does, our discussion was that the board is responsible for staff and accountability would be backed up by the IRP and reconsideration process.

Community accountability needs more work.  Comments on the role of Governments, and this is also referred to in other sections of the report.  Some requests for definitions of the terms we use, such as "public interest"

Definition of public interest could take all of our time.  And to not look at staff accountability, this goes to micro-management.

A limited mission statement could provide limits to what ICANN addresses in terms of the public interest.

Comment on stress test.

Impact analysis vs stress test, a request from the board.  Should it be a separate action item from the group

Community seems to like what's being done, in general terms.

Impact analysis.  When adopting the powers in the community mechanism, this would have impact on the whole community,  Would the member structure introduce new stresses on the organization.  Think minimal as only enforcing devisions not revising.

Generally supportive.   Some confuse the notion of jurisdiction and ICANN's location of incorporation.

2 GAC comments, that we parked stress 21. One GAC member differed on text 18.  Danish govt that we should look at potential capture of ICANN by other elements of the community.  Test 12 addresses, but deeper dive suggested.  2 new test: enforcing ICANN contracts.  What if the contracts have contradictions with the newly limited mission statement.  Suggestion to remove test 14.

Analyze if comments are supportive, are they repeating these already taken into account, to they add new elements and then how to incorporate those ideas.

There should be possibility of appeal process to be binding. Call should always be available. Handling binding decision without going to Court will be difficult.
We might need to distinguish governements or others in terms of resort. There are trade-offs we will need to deal with.
Several comments pointed to suggestion that a party would not have standing in front of IRP unless it has participated in comment period.
There is a WP2 call on Wednesday at 21:00 UTC.

Reconsideration Process Enhancement
Supportive comments. Relationship between IRP and reconsideration was raised. Composition of panel and independence from ICANN legal were mentionned several times. There was a comment asking whether we had considered decisions from external panels.
Some refinement will be needed. Reconsideration and IRP are complementary to each other - they do not replace each other. We should not go to IRP directly.
Clarification on how these interact is needed.

Mechanism to Empower the Community
Different comments received on mechanisms to empower community seem to be supportive. However, there is still discussion. Main concern is how will community mechanism will be held accountable to SO/ACs.
We have to be able to present a coherent explanation.
Leading community to Court is another concern that was raised. The fact that the proposal considers membership model as the most viable way to achieve powers was raised. There were calls for discussion on whether designators model is viable and whether Chairs of SO/ACs should be designated as members. There are many members that this will carry complexity.
Complexity is payment for process. Issue of membership has been properly mentioned in several legal assessments. If we want powers we need to go for membership models. There is no simple way.
Either way: designators or members - we would need to form unincorporated associations.
RSSAC and SSAC mindset that they want to remain advisory and GAC concerns about joining system that is member-driven. There are a lot of parameters we need to take into account. It is important to factually comments we are receiving and moving the discussion forward.
We should give ability to participate in all powers to whole community
In order to have powers, we need to have SO/ACs become UAs, it is for legal enforceability only. There are alternative possibilities: e,g, Bylaws. We should not conclude that UA is only way.

Power Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans
We have received a lot of support. Two caveats: 1) need for consultation process between Board and community to ensure it does not have to exercised (because it is disruptive) - we need to be clearer on that requirement; 2) There might be a back and forth between community and Board - we already have something in our proposal to prevent that but we might need to be more transparent on what it is.

Power: Approve Changes to "Fundamental Bylaws"
There are some concerns about time limits to 15 days to initiate. There are threshold related comments.

Power: Reconsider/Reject Changes to ICANN "standard" Bylaws.
Most comments are supportive. There are comments on whether should be implementable Bylaw.
Is the Board being descriptive ot today or endorsing the change we are recommending.  There should be some clarification.
It's not black and white - Board takes into account public comment.

Power : Recalling Individual ICANN Directors
Broadly supported power. There is a comment from .NA that is an overarching objection. A comment from AFRALO is not supportive. We have requests for refinement of process. Question of how to deal with NomCom appointed Board members still needs to be resolved.
AFRALO did not object but asks for recall to be done by whole community.
If we are to remove individual members it should be a community action. There is difference on which way it should be. We need clartiy from legal counsel on what is legal and what is not. We should only be removing people for cause that could be documented and presumably appealed. We need guidance from counsel on to what extent legal or exceptional.
Do ACs that do not designate are still called designators - do they have that power? We need a table to understand who exersice power on what conditions.
It is up to SO/ACs to decide if there should be any members or designators.
What is SO/AC position if they don't want or can't be a member? Could they participate or not?

Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board
Concerns about potential disruption: caretaker etc. We need to elaborate on this.

Incorporating AoC into ICANN Bylaws
Supportive comments but highlight to take into consideration different approaches and current situation. Some comments that need to be incorporated into Bylaws. Concerns with respect to ICANN being incorporated into the United States.
Wide support for incorporating review into Bylaws.
There are also comment with respect to language of ICANN being a private sector - governments have raised participation on equal footing.
We should talk about provisions.Voting capacity: director or SO.
How the AoC progresses - we may want to define that.

Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests
There is support but there is considerable discussion with respect to stress test 18. This work will be taken on by Steve and Cheryl.

Items for Work Stream 2
Work Stream 2 comments should that we need to be clear on demonstrating Work Stream does not mean we are putting a topic under the carpet.
Jurisdiction was highlighted several times as important.
Board - Staff was brought up several times. It was more about transparency than redress part.
Whether we should introduce the assessment of efficiency of Work Stream 1 mechanisms was raised. Abstract will be undertaken by Cochairs.

Three tasks for Work Parties:
- WP to go through allocated sections and draft responses for CCWG response/action items. Preparation of feedback
- Classify feedback received and state whether agreement or not so that we can take stock of that and proceed to consensus building.
--> These two items need to be completed before June 16 freeze.
- Digesting input.
Suggestion to move steps around.

17-18 July face-to-face meeting will be held in Paris.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150609/33686725/attachment.html>