[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #16 10 March

Tue Mar 10 13:49:41 UTC 2015

Hi Brenda Brewer,

Thanks for the listed items.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the *CCWG ACCT **Session #1**6*
> call on 10 March will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890271
> *Action Items*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Mathieu to report back to the CCWG on conversation with
> Thomas Schneider in due course.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Jordan to touch base with Keith Drazek on WP1-5B.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week.
> (Feedback on CCT-RT)*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week.
> (Feedback on WHOIS)*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Review the WP2 document **https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Work%20Item%20List%20and%20Principles%20WP2%20PDF.pdf?version=4&modificationDate=1425965515000&api=v2
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Work%20Item%20List%20and%20Principles%20WP2%20PDF.pdf?version=4&modificationDate=1425965515000&api=v2>*
>   *and socialize with your respective groups before the next call to
> ensure the Group is fully aligned with WP2 suggestions.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 rapporteurs to synchronize to avoid duplication
> and clarify where the principles discussion is taking place.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: CCWG to review ST-WP work - **https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425965091000&api=v2
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425965091000&api=v2>*
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Report on contingencies we cannot mitigate. *
>
> *ACTION ITEM: ST-WP to identify stress tests for discussion on 17 March.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 to provide legal questions to Legal Subteam.*
>
> *ACTION ITEM: León to confirm legal subteam decision*
>
> * ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to include agenda item regarding next steps for
> the group and timeline in last section of Istanbul agenda. *
> *Notes*
>
> 1. A substantial number of colleagues have not submitted their SOIs.
> Co-chairs have reached out to them and reiterated the need for
> accountability and transparency.
>
> 2. Activity Reports
>
> *WP1*
>
> Jordan invited the Group to review the current work status document -
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-WorkStatus-CCWG-ACCT%202015-03-10.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425966317000&api=v2 and
> reported that: 1) the WP is making progress on elements; 2) the WP will
> discuss outstanding items and how it will arrive at consensus on WP1 call
> on Thursday; 3) the WP will have a consensus call agreement meeting next
> week and circulate documents for consideration in Istanbul.
>
>
>
> *WP1-4A Defining GAC consensus for ICANN *
>
> Mathieu informed the Group that Cochairs have engaged with Thomas
> Schneider to further discuss the question raised during the stress test
> analysis about decision making rules for GAC advice – see
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891502 and are
> in the process of finding a time slot with Thomas to provide more context
> and have an initial discussion about how to proceed.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Mathieu to report back to the CCWG on conversation with
> Thomas Schneider in due course.
>
>
>
> *Work Status*
>
> Jordan walked the CCWG through the Work Status spreadsheet -
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-WorkStatus-CCWG-ACCT%202015-03-10.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425966317000&api=v2 .
> Orange items will be discussed WP1 meeting #4. WP2 confirmed they will not
> be conducting work on last table.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Jordan to touch base with Keith Drazek on WP1-5B.
>
>
>
> *AoC Reviews*
>
> Steve del Bianco walked the CCWG through Competition, Consumer Trust and
> effectiveness of WHOIS Policy reviews -
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%20Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v5%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425509039000&api=v2 -
> and informed the Group that text is mainly from AoC. Amendments include
> Review Team designated by Community (SO/AC/SG), independent advice, access
> to relevant documents at ICANN and non-disclosure, "consider approval and
> begin implementation within 6 months of receipt" language. It was noted
> that WHOIS review due to start in 2015 and that EWG work should be
> considered along with inherent implementation timeline this could imply.
>
>
>
> *Feedback on CCT-RT *
>
> - Start of New gTLDs was subject to heated debate at GAC: it should also
> take into account lessons learned, difficulties.
>
> --> Feedback needed on Kavouss Arasteh's suggestion that subsequent rounds
> of new gTLDs should not be opened until the recommendations of the previous
> review required by this section has been implemented.
>
> --> Wouldn't we be interfering with other process? We should not use
> accountability work to force decision on ICANN about nature of rounds
> system and whether rounds or not can happen until review done.
>
> --> Writing is based on assumption that there will be successive rounds.
> There might an option where no rounds but an ongoing flow of applications.
> This might create inconsistencies in the future. It is important to have a
> regular review but no need to have it connected to rounds.
>
> --> We are trying to perpetuate Aoc into Bylaws. In terms of drafting
> techniques, it would be inconsistent to make something work for years to
> come and highlight one specific event in there. The idea is to have outcome
> of reviews needs to be analyzed by Board and taken into consideration for
> next steps applicable to all sorts of reviews. This reminder could be
> placed in section on periodic reviews.
>
> --> Word this to not predetermine future rounds and scheduling and leave
> that up to Committees: i.e. set up periodic reviews as instructed and
> indicate requirements arising out of the upcoming review. -This group
> enforces accountability - no pre-staging of what responses need be.
>
> ---> Jordan's group will analyze discussion while proceeding with work. No
> request to embed this specific point in WS1. If objections, speak up. Let's
> keep it on radar for discussions and put it in bucket for WS2.
>
> - All the elements are not directly related to transition. This is overall
> accountability. The draft should go to full GAC for in-depth discussion.
>
> - Let's not spend too much work on drafting of implementation specifics –
> legal experts will need to review.
>
> - It is a pity we are losing two-step selection process because it is
> useful for balance. Balanced composition should be key criteria in
> selection process.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week.
>
>
>
> *Feedback on WHOIS*
>
> - Will the WHOIS work stay? It may be worth expanding discussion in light
> of work on New gTLD Directory Services.
>
> - Could just amend the "title" of the review : effectiveness of policies
> to meet legitimate needs of LEA, promote consumer trust while taking into
> account privacy.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week.
>
>
>
> *WP2*
>
> Becky Burr reported that: 1) WP2 sub teams have kicked off; 2) Independent
> review sub team is particularly active; 3) Lively discussions in the
> request for reconsideration sub team; 4) WP2 is planning to have a
> completed draft of compact mission on 20 March for in-detail discussion at
> Istanbul meeting as well as reports and updates from various groups.
> Independent Review may be further along than the others by that point.
> Becky has circulated resources on international ombudsman association and
> hopes to kick off that discussion shortly.
>
>
>
> *Feedback*:
>
> - Is the issue of binding/non-binding of the Review Committee concluded or
> being discussed?
>
> --> It is ongoing. Legal input will be needed on this. There seems to be
> strong support for making it binding although there are questions about
> what that means: e.g. binding in what way: sending decisions back to Board?
> Important questions that will need to be addressed in context of legal
> advice we will receive.
>
> - What is the legal nature of this compact mission? Will it be binding,
> actionable?
>
> --> The goal is to establish a standard for what kinds of actions are
> within ICANN's remit. Questions that would be relevant in any of the
> review/redress mechanism are: is the action taken within ICANN's mission
> statement; in carrying out its mission statement, has ICANN conducted its
> activities in accordance with its commitments to the community to respect
> multistakeholder model, to comply with transparency standards, to avoid
> discriminatory treatment, to reflect diversity etc. It is a standard
> against which ICANN's behavior would be measured procedurally. It is the
> nature of what people have called a Golden Bylaw meaning that some parts of
> it could not be changed without certain safeguards occurring: e.g.
> threshold for Board, community approval. How it will be binding and
> enforced is a question for the group itself. The notion that ICANN could
> expand its mission statement is something people are skeptical about.
>
> --> This goes back to 4 accountability components discussed in Singapore.
> This compact could be the test for spilling Board or other actions with
> sufficient grounds if violation of compact. Reminder from Bruce setting out
> mission in articles of incorporation and Bylaws: has that been addressed?
>
> --> It has been forwarded to compact mission sub team and needs to be
> factored into the process.
>
> - Compact mission are fundamental guiding principles/constitutional.
>
> - If a review is made binding, what would happen to an appeal to that
> decision?
>
> --> There is nothing that would necessarily change GAC advice: we will
> need to consider what opportunity GAC would have to respond if someone
> appealed ICANN's deference to GAC advice on the grounds that the GAC advice
> is violated. The general notion in the straw man proposal is that ICANN
> would reconsider GAC advice to the extent that that advice was consistent
> with compact.
>
> - If constitutional, need to be careful if amend anything as this may have
> considerable impact. How did you pick items you are suggesting now in
> compact mission, what are the inputs you are using? This will be an
> important aspect to inform SO/ACs. Need to focus on aspects that generate
> consensus.
>
> --> A significant part of document already exists in the mission statement
> and core values in the current Bylaws. Also reflected are: 1) a provision
> in section 3 of Bylaws; 2) a significant number of comments about public
> interest obligations; 3) comments about institutional excellence,
> competence and operational excellence. The WP2 is trying to capture
> disussions that have come up starting with Bylaws, general principles and
> using inventory of suggestions. Various suggestions about giving ICANN a
> human rights mission was not included: ICANN is not in the business of
> content and giving ICANN a promotion of human rights was problematic.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Review the WP2 document
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Work%20Item%20List%20and%20Principles%20WP2%20PDF.pdf?version=4&modificationDate=1425965515000&api=v2
> and socialize with your respective groups before the next call to ensure
> the Group is fully aligned with WP2 suggestions.
>
> - WP1 is also discussing principles. WP1 and WP2 should synchronize so
> that it is clear where the discussion about principles is taking place.
>
> ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 rapporteurs to synchronize to avoid duplication
> and clarify where the principles discussion is taking place.
>
> - Is there still a need for a position like the Ombudsman if community
> powers? And if so, what of conflicts etc.
>
> --> This should be revisited in light of big picture to determine whether
> it makes sense. The question will be answered in course of discussion, we
> should not prejudge if going in.
>
>
>
> *ST-WP*
>
> All Stress Tests templates are filled in for consideration.
>
> ACTION ITEM: CCWG to review ST-WP work -
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425965091000&api=v2
>
>
> Caveat that nothing can be finalized until WP1 and WP2 work is completed.
> The Group is welcome to join the ST-WP call on Wednesday, 11 March at 11:00
> UTC: the WP intends to go through all stress tests with objective of having
> documentation reading for CCWG discussion. The WP also intends to
> cross-check with stress tests proposed by CWG.
>
> Steve del Bianco walked through stress tests 3 (litigation arising from
> existing public policy e.g. Anti-Trust), 4 (New regulations or legislation)
> and 20 (Court order is issued to block ICANN's delegation of a new TLD,
> because of a complaint by existing TLD operators or other aggrieved
> parties).
>
>
>
> *Feedback:*
>
> - Are we dealing with people who are present and voting?
>
> --> Supermajority 3/4 - 4/5 will a necessary precision. For time being,
> not defined. It is not based on quorum. Working towards SO/AC/SG bodies
> that will be given sufficient time to respond on a decision that was
> brought forth to veto a management move: SO/Acs will have to review that
> and indicate support or non-support. This would required a documented
> process.
>
> - Current draft indicates there is a potential for ICANN community to
> require ICANN to take action considered unlawful in certain legislations.
> If certain legislation is in place and if ICANN were to violate laws in
> place, there could be lawsuits. How is that addressed in stress-tests?
>
> --> Community under a very high standard of supermajority could believe
> that ICANN should not fear implementing what was identified by a bottom-up
> process under pressure of law suits etc. Community could instruct ICANN
> what legal counsel believes is not in best interest of corporation. That
> possibility could occur in the future.
>
> --> If US congress comes up with legislation contrary to a certain ICANN
> policy, are you arguing that community should have power to force ICANN to
> act contrary to legislation?
>
> --> These are general community empowerment steps currently under
> discussion. Unaware of any effort to constrain or restrict the community's
> power just because one nation might disagree with implementation. It is
> possible that country could adopt measures that would violate notion of
> single root. We are going to have pressures. ICANN Board and management
> will do their best for corporation and community but community should be
> empowered to tip the balance towards community's will.
>
> --> This key aspect would need to be underlined. It is a risk. Is the
> underlying suggestion that we should accept the risk and live with it?
>
> --> To increase capability of giving community the accountability and
> empowerment on how to answer that risk. Not all stress tests are solvable.
> It is about giving the community the voice it needs to decides how to
> react.
>
> --> Enable community to have final word.
>
> --> There is a series of mechanisms that are suggested. Thresholds for
> disagreeing with and moving Board sit at different levels. Consider whole
> system in mind. There is a broad array of powers for community we are
> proposing here.
>
> --> Does it conflict with Articles of Incorporation?
>
> --> One scenario is where Board takes action presumably because law is
> created somewhere and informed by GAC representative. Legal counsel advice
> would be given on whether or not ICANN would fall under that law but
> government could take action under law enforcement. There is a difference
> between taking Board action on advice received from a government and taking
> Board action that is in breach of policy. Board approves community policies
> – one of mechanisms for community is to create policies around that law.
> Consider IRP and request for reconsideration.
>
> --> It does not change the conclusion. We are improving mechanisms to make
> them accessible to community at large.
>
> --> International law being subordinated to decision is outside mandate.
>
> --> There can be contradictions between national legal laws. It is outside
> mandate but should be considered as part of stress testing. It is not clear
> we should know what answer is but we should be aware of potential issue
> before going out for public comment. It is a key risk for ICANN to find
> itself in contradiction with international law.
>
> --> Exercise is not to eliminate risks – it is to ask whether existing
> accountability measures give the community the power to hold Board
> accountable to way it reacts to this stress-test.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Report on contingencies we cannot mitigate.
>
> ACTION ITEM: ST-WP to identify stress tests for discussion on 17 March.
>
>
>
> *Legal Subteam*
>
> León Sanchez reported that the Legal Subteam held one call last week to
> incorporate some of the concerns raised. Although the document was not
> shortened, language and questions were refined. WP1 and WP2 should provide
> questions to be incorporated into legal document. The jurisdiction issue
> was widely discussed: although all agree that concerns should be addressed,
> the Subteam also agreed that this would be an issue for WS2. If addressed
> as part of WS1, could be facing derailing of whole process. This agreement
> will be put forward for CCWG agreement. The CWG has announced engagement
> with law firm to provide legal advice. The Legal Subteam will hold a call
> with one of the shortlisted firms. The possibility of engaging with same
> law firm is high but the Legal Subteam needs to go through own process.
>
> ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 to provide legal questions to Legal Subteam.
>
>
>
> *Feedback*
>
> - Will question on jurisdiction be put out to the CCWG?
>
> - Explanation about California law limitations are needed.  Get started on
> the work asap.
>
> - It would simplify work moving forward if CCWG goes with same law firm.
> Recommendation to go for it unless good reason not to.
>
> ACTION ITEM: León to confirm legal subteam decision
>
> - Which areas of enquiry will be in WS1 and WS2? Once legal firm is
> selected, CCWG should have opportunity to determine WS1 and WS2.
>
>
>
> 3. Timeline
>
> Mathieu Weill stated that a common understanding of Istanbul meeting is
> needed. An agenda has not been produced yet because the most efffective way
> will be for Cochairs to build agenda on issues arising out of WPs and items
> we will need to reach consensus on so that can leave Istanbul with
> understanding of what will be put out for public comment. WP outcomes
> should be circulated a few days before the meeting so that the CCWG can
> review materials before the meeting. Ideas need to socialized prior the
> meeting as well, including compact mission, AOC discussion (what should be
> included and how), WS1 measures, review and redress. Aware that no legal
> feedback yet but need to work on initial feedback we have from past
> interactions and raise questions with legal doubts. It is a risk but no
> other option.
>
> The Group will discuss in Istanbul whether changing timeline or not.
> Objective is to get as much work done as possible: i.e. testing level of
> agreement in Istanbul rather than discussing extending timelines etc. It is
> important to focus on work and requirements - if go into details, will
> derail timeline. Compact will be on the Istanbul agenda.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to include agenda item regarding next steps for the
> group and timeline in last section of Istanbul agenda.
>
>
>
> *Feedback*:
>
> - We need to be careful about aligning expectations about what final
> output needs to be and what the output sent to Board is, what we are going
> to get public comment on in April etc. By end of Istanbul meeting, we will
> know if issues will closed: prepare enough details.
>
> --> There is no reasonable expectations from us to provide fully fleshed
> Bylaws changes.
>
> - Public comment is currently 30 days.
>
>
>
> 4. Proposed Structure of Public Comment Report
>
> The Co-chairs are working on a structure for the report, populating the
> sections and would welcome the CCWG's feedback. Thomas Rickert walked the
> Group through the proposed architecture.
>
>
>
> *Feedback *
>
> - We need to be mindful of readability of report: structure report in a
> way that is readable very quickly using appendices. Think about best way to
> get feedback from communities.
>
>
>
> 5.  A.O.B
>
> *Next CCWG ACCT Meeting #17 Tuesday, 17 March 19:00 – 21:00 UTC*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150310/a5a4ca7c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150310/a5a4ca7c/image001.gif>