[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #12 on 2 October

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Fri Oct 2 14:07:00 UTC 2015


Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #12 held on 2 October will be available
here:  https://community.icann.org/x/5Z5YAw

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

 

para 187 vs contract enforcement is a misunderstanding which can be corrected.

Propose a clarification that any voluntary commitments (contracts) and consensus policies can be
enforced.

Need to better understand ALAC comment on this.

AG- discussions about PICs and with NCSG that the TLD and domain names themselves are content and
cannot be controlled and this could be interpreted by some as restricting ICANN from limiting things
like confusingly similar.

BBurr - a clear reference that consensus policies are within the ICANN mission would fix this
concern?

AG - ideally yes but practice no

DM - issues is more about domain names vs TLDs.

BB - need to clearly describe what is consensus policies. 187 had a lot of support when
drafted.Removing it could cause major issues. Would be good to have volounteers to work on language.

DM - Would be good to group issues. 187 may  relate to Stress test 29 and 30.

KA - does not support 187 language is not clear

BB - This text has been present for a very long time.

Asha H - what is absolute prohibition.

BB - ICANN has enumerated powers, if not listed it is not in ICANN powers..Intends to say ICANN must
act within its mission.

GS - There are some issues with the language - Bylaws drafting is an issue how we get from this to
bylaws language - may be more useful to look at this more as properly defining the concepts (BB
agrees).. In this language AS REASONABLY APPROPRIATE - unclear on relationship between mssion and
bylawws - gives broad rights. Second sentence - regulation not defined. usually a unilateral act
over what is covered - inherent flaw is that ICANN cannot regulate anything. Do regulation and
enforcement overlapp etc. Willing to volunteer to improve this as per consensus.

Avri Doria: we recommend:  "ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to regulate services that
use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that they carry or provide."

Kavouss Arasteh: icann shall act in accordance with its mission and shall not be engaged in or
attempt to regulate the services that use the Internet ;s unique identifier ,or the content that
they carry or provide

BB - need language to instruct lawyers drafting.

KA - does not support HAVE NO POWER. needs to be simpler.jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): Please add
for the record in the Notes of the meeting: I have an issue of process. According to the Roadmap
distributed by the Co-Chairs up to Dublin we should identify areas of consensus, areas of
refinemente, areas of divergence and potential options. We should do this in writing.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): Otherwise, as has happened before, the decisions taken by this WP
are not traceable for people not able to participate.

AD - re NCSG proposal - If we are considering changing it we should consider all proposals.

BB - summary - The approach of enumerated powers has no oppostion. There is concern with the
language itself regarding complexity and possibly of implementation. There are several suggeestions
for modifications. There are concerns that the language could be interpreted as limiting ICANNs
ability to enforce consensus policy and freeely entered into agreements.

GS - agree with summary. also issues around definin=g content and what ICANN does with respect to
content currently. Willing to volounteer.

BB - GS, KA and DM to work on reviewing vs comments.

BB - move on to not having imported the entire affirmation of comm. text into this.. Need a decision
to take the text out of here and put in the Review section - which seemed to be the best way to do
this - there were several comments regarding this. Need to review the purpose this language serves
and how to handle it. 

SDB - your description is accurate - have separated out AOC reviews into commitments and Bylaws.

BB - will produce document on this point for the group to consider.

AG - ALAC commented on removal of consumer trust.

KA - 1 deterministic language is not acceptable - 2 private sector issue - there are 4 categores of
the community Private sectror, Civil society, Tech. comm- academia and govts.

BB - noted

BB - consumer trust issue was in there and will be included in the write up.

GS - Missing a sense of concordance bet AOC and our text. Need to understand where each aspect of
the AOC has ended up in our propoal. Need to demanstrate clearly what has happened with the oriianl
AOC.

BB - concordance would be useful.

AG - re Private sector defn - this list was created becasue there are many defns of private sector
being used..

BB - correct. We continue to have objections froms some govts about this language. Also strong
objections from commentors who took excxeption about how we addressed govt concern re how to address
how GAC advice was inconsistent  with Bylaws.  (mutually acceptabe solution text). Propose to write
this up as a whole that would clarify that at no time can ICANN act in a manner that is against the
Bylaws. Volounteers?

Alan Greenberg: When re-writing, please factor in ALAC and other comments related to "civil society"
and users.

AG - Like private sector civil society has many definitions.. There is enough confusion that it
requires clarification.

BB - solution to this would be to add end-users

jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: Dear Becky and Staff: please include the following suggestion in the Notes:
jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: We support a wording in Commitment number 5 that recognizes in that
Commitment that Governments participate in the bottom-up public policy process and provide their
advice to ICANN Board

BB - last issue for today - Global public interest issue. Heard a lot about this in LA face to face
that the ICANN Board is required to act in the global public interest. Need to recognize that this
is defined by the bottom up multistakeholder model.. Have been clear as to how to define the globabl
public interest.

GS - many efforts ongoing to define this in the context of ICANN. Sceptical about the exercise as
this will always be subject to interpretation. At best this will be difficult.

BB - very encouraging.

AG - there is no defn. public interest in the Bylaws. Suggest we do not define but give examples.

BB - we do not have a defintion but in the core values we say that the bottom up Ms process is used
to acertain the global public interest aaand have remove3d the other referrences to global public
interest. Uncertain how we could define the global public interest - would the current approach be
satisfactory

AG - what we have is troublesome because the MS bottom up process to determine what is global pulic
interest.

BB - no the polcies developed by the bottom up MS process as the articulation of the public interest
in the particular case.

AG - as clarified this causes him to fully reject..

BB - providing the Board with a global public interest Trump Card would not be acceptable to
many.given it may go against polcies developped by the MS bottom up process.

AG - Board could not change the policy but could refuse to implement it because of global public
interest.

KA - Remove bottom up references in all text - any effort to constrain the GAC in any way.. cannot
subornitae any category of  stakeholder in any other

GS - public interest includes the interest of the public and private sectors.. If we want to avoid
giving the Board the trump card - then do not give it the last word on deciding what is public
issue.

KA - Why in 5 we do not mention Govt. 

BB - Private sector leadership has been in the ICANN Bylaws since very early days. But the wording
was the subject of consensus but several govts have pushed back on. We need to have this discussion
based on the comments

jorge cancio (GAC CH) 2: Dear Becky: this organisation has evolved since its inception. At least the
Government role should be included under Commitment number 5, as I suggested before

Kavouss Arasteh: That was written many years ago and by one single government wthat wanted to be the
sole stewwardship of the whole process but we are changing that process

BB - public interest issue - 

RG - Use the ICANN Bottom up process to determine public interest.

BB - re public interest 

AG - bottom up process is fine but you need a level bottom up process - those with commercial
interest can participate more.

GS - We are all trying to accomplish the same thing,. By defining it we may be tying the Board
hands. We should not limit the list - but for those things tahat are identified we should not go
against them.

 JC - he bottom-up process is our way to ascertain the public interest within ICANN, but the right
mix and the right balance is key, including the fair consideration of civil society interests and
public policy issues as fed in by the GAC

BB - Will work on text for this part. Recap of the issue of  public interest.. AND WILL CIRCUTLATE
TO THE GROUP

bb - rECAP ASSINGMENT gs AND dm  PUT TOGETHER A DISCUSSION ON ENUMARATE DPOWERS

BB - consumer trust - re concordance - will work with staff for next meeting.. DM will work on the
Private Sector leadership and GAC consideration advice.. BB will work on global public interest
(note KA request to participate)..

BB - appreciate participation.

AG - interested on public interest and consumer trust

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151002/fcf3db1a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151002/fcf3db1a/smime.p7s>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list