[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

Mon Nov 2 17:34:02 UTC 2015

As a point of information, ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) has already started conversations within the community on how to define “public interest” within ICANN, with the anticipation that this multistakeholder definitional work will proceed in earnest soon.  This has been forecast in ICANN’s Strategic Plan.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM
To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN.  I am saying that "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," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."

Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"?  Maybe, at least most of the time.

Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"?  Maybe, at least most of the time.

But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.

I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."

Greg

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM
To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:202-608-6097>
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=6fp27Fy8ArKn4mSz_6dtjgfLpIf2bmuYkgunRrbzgCY&e=>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto: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
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 [mailto: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
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> 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> 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
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_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/3d9cfb3e/attachment.html>