[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

Mon Nov 2 21:40:13 UTC 2015

Hi,

I am not sure "consistently trying to avoid..." describe the currently
situation especially after reading what Samantha wrote in this thread.

This is sure a difficult task but If you have a definition that can be
easily derived, it may be good to contribute it to that particular process.

There is a lot that this CCWG is trying to achieve and I wonder whether
it's not becoming too much to swallow. If there are other
initiatives/groups that has been created to do the job, then we should just
get it off the CCWG to do list. IMO the major goal of the CCWG is to
propose mechanisms that will ensure that recommendations that come out from
existing and future working groups are given due consideration and
implemented as when applicable. The work of this group cannot continue for
so long, at least not at the current pace!

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Nov 2015 05:59, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:

> This is Groundhog Day.
>
> I can recall almost the exact same conversation two years ago, four years
> ago, and seven years ago.
>
> Now you can take that to mean that a bad idea keeps reoccurring. Or you
> can view it as something that has to be done rather than repeatedly put off
> because there is no perfect solution.
>
> Seeing as it is a fundamental element of ICANN's role that it act in the
> public interest, I would argue that constantly trying to avoid the issue is
> at some point going to prove more damaging than finally grappling with it.
>
>
>
> Kieren
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:45 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>>
>> Thanks. I was aware of that, though others might not be. Nora Abusitta,
>> who is leading the DPRD, came and bri
>> efed the IPC in Dublin.  My concerns are now better informed, but
>> unabated.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 2, 2015, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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> on behalf of
>>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM
>>> To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>>> 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>
>>> 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] *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
>>>> 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=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
> 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/20151103/6a301c6e/attachment.html>