[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Nov 2 16:15:36 UTC 2015


Hi all,



I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but
rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the
bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be
established.



This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in
the Icann context.



Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better
align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the
organization.



Best

Mathieu



De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Burr, Becky
Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32
À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2



I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.



J. Beckwith Burr

Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer





From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM
To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2



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



  _____

BrettSchaefer
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

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFa
Q&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m
=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=6fp27Fy8ArKn4mSz_6dtjgfLpIf
2bmuYkgunRrbzgCY&e=> 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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISp
CUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>

_______________________________________________
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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISp
CUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/6aeaebd4/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list