[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Nov 2 23:20:33 UTC 2015
Hi,
I agree that we not try to pin down the meaning at this point.
Frequently we have discussed understand an intrinsic meaning and
associating it with the the Bottom up multistakeholder process
determinations that the ICANN community and it is a major aspirational
goal of the organization - or so I thought. I am in favor of including
it in the bylaws as part of incorporating the AOC into the bylaws. To
be said to have explicit excluded concern the global public interest in
the bylaws could as big a problem as re-committing ourselves to this as
an aspirational goal.
avri
On 03-Nov-15 00:18, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I'm not objecting to the phrase or the the concept. Only the attempt
> to try and pin it down and define it rather then leaving it as a
> flexible and "living" and evolving phrase.
>
> Geeg
>
> On Monday, November 2, 2015, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> The phrase is used multiple times in the 2009 AoC (Affirmation of
> Commitments) between ICANN and the US government. I thought that
> the decision had been made to incorporate all of the AoC
> commitments (with some concern over treatment of the WHOIS part)
> into the bylaws.
>
> I don't think that it would now be appropriate to cherry pick
> those parts that should be included and those parts that should
> not be included. If that possibility is opened up, it will
> certainly delay this process very significantly.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <http://heritage.org/>
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list