[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 15:02:28 UTC 2015


Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by
the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort
that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems
like an awful idea.

On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
wrote:

> Mathieu,
>
>
>
> On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board
> consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
>
>
>
> Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2
> recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
>
>
>
> On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole
> Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s
> assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest
> (whatever that is).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work
> stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for
> your information, although it’s still work in progress.
>
>
>
> The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition
> bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus
> recommendations are effectively implemented.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt
> a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to
> implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with
> creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not
> limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional
> provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1,
> prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>
>
>
> I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that
> Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
>
> promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may
> be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as
> organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up
> multistakeholder community process,*
>
>
>
> This should also strengthen our  WS2 efforts.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *De la part de* Jyoti Panday
> *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52
> *À :* Kieren McCarthy
> *Cc :* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I echo Kieren's concerns here.  In addition I would like to ask if there
> is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have
> been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they
> have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would
> be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could
> also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and
> sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
>
>
>
> Jyoti Panday
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren at kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote:
>
> A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working
> group?
>
> Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN
> accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is
> handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
>
> And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been
> lost until years later when another group is formed.
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1
> limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that
> would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work
> completed.
>
> Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
>
>
> Kieren
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that
> are currently assigned to Work Stream 2.  In both cases, the "scope of
> work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2
> happening as we envision it.  This in turn depends on how well we defend,
> protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
>
>
>
> I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
>
>
>
> The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and
> re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I
> take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in
> self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC
> reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups,
> staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
>
>
>
> I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that
> would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma).  Work
> Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so
> that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement.  WS2 is
> basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
>
>
>
> Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we
> agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the
> "leverage" of the upcoming transition.  This has to be absolutely
> re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and
> there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on
> that point.
>
>
>
> If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if
> we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future
> chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2
> is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just
> an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring
> all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
>
>
>
> *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for
> this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20151102/65196918/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list