[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting | 8 October

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 8 October will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/Ip5YAw

  

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


Notes/Action Items

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

Community Forum

LA and mailing-list discussions were incorporated. Areas of consensus: There is substantial support
for function and purpose of forum including petition, discussion, decision process. Comment that we
need to highlight multistakeholder nature. General support for broader participation beyond ICANN.

Areas needing refinement: how would forum be triggered? Comment that it should be standing called on
necessity. Comment about need for adhoc meeting, virtual meetings, questions about timing etc.
Comments about complexity of issues. On composition/representation, the following was raised: would
individuals be selected from slate of candidates, would there be form of NomCom, whether it should
be modeled on CCWG, whether participation by SO/ACs should be mandatory. Should the form have
standing in terms of output and should it be a mandatory part of community powers process. There was
concern about contradictory input - how would it be processed and what would implications be.
Suggestion that forum would need to be moderated by neutral person (moderation). Concerns about
timescales: would some of them take greater time to resolve? Some queried whether forum needs
funding. In what way would findings contribute to decision-making. Questions regarding relationship
with accountability forum proposed by W. Currie. Would it be separate.

Areas of divergence: Biggest area was what the role the forum should have in decision-making
outcomes and what role should it play.

Options for consideration: Based on LA discussion: community forum could be used as a tool for
reaching consensus. With regards to standing/ad hoc - we will have to recognize that might be
standing committee called upon. We might be faced with situation where multiple ongoing processes.
Composition/representation: it might make sense to model forum with representation but we may want
to give it consideration (appointment, terms, charter?). Standing/outcome: outcomes of forum could
have specific weight in deliberations of SO/ACs. Moderation/outcomes: consensus and discussion model
may be needed. Timescales may  depend on issue/challenge in question.

Feedback:

- Concerns we may be complicating this. It is not meant to create institutionalized,
representationalized place. Original design was to have an open forum before decision-making. It is
valuable for number of reasons. Process as part of dialogue.

- Agree with previous comment as long as keep decision-making process of second draft. Forum needs
to be convened through telephonic methodology. If we change to consensus-driven approach - forum has
particular purpose we need to preserve.

- Agree with comments from Jordan. Forum is mandatory for exchange of views. It will be a
preparation to come to closure. It is not a decision-making body. We want it simple but it does not
mean we don't want it organized. Discussion/forum is mandatory. We have to stress it is mandatory.

- We are not giving specifics on who should go there and what happens if does not go there.

- If discussion is not mandatory, it will have implications - e.g. individual Board member removal.

Conclusion: dialogue comes first. It will not be made decision-making. For Dublin: whether we stick
with that model or suggest something else. Suggest answering questions.

Community Mechanism

51 comments submitted. Areas of consensus: support and appreciation for enforceability of community
powers, agreement it is improvement compared to first draft, consensus we should be as restrained as
possible in organizational restructure to create powers, consensus to organize mechanisms along same
lines as community as well as importance of community deliberation.

Needing clarification: Need for more information to confirm support for model, call for simplicity,
must be minimum number of SO/ACs.

Areas of concerns/divergence: whether community should take decisions through formal voting or
through establishing consensus, voting allocation, composition of community within modal and duality
of GAC, changes requires in ICANN to create model, proposal for narrowed powers could be provided
for binding arbitration to enforce fundamental bylaws instead of model.

Options for consideration: continue to evolve model while maintaining membership, explore how
maximum legal enforcement can be achieved, decide which powers can be enforced in a MEM based model
if sufficient to meet community powers and other requirements including specific assertions, move
away from voting and towards consensus, voting allocations more in line with balance appointments to
ICANN board, reconsider role of ACs in model's community forum, consider a fixed understanding or
who will vote or make decisions in community forum before decisions are made by CCWG.

Feedback:

- Confusion about percentages.

--> They come from tool.

- Areas of consensus/divergence match what saw in public comment. Present simple cases. 

- We have to replace percentages with numbers for comments in each direction.

- Need to identify issues that can be resolved by WP and which need to be resolved by CCWG in
Dublin.

- Three ACs may not participate in voting - this generates threshold issues.  Voting means you have
advisory that does not have decision-making power. Work with consensus.

--> There are two reasons why  you would need voting: 1) different levels of influence; 2) allow
each decision-maker to split decision. If we don't need either of those, we can move to consensus -
I.E. each SO/AC uses own processes to make decision and says what it is. If everyone is in line with
decision, powers gets exercised.

- We can add absolute numbers. It is important to make a decision of what path we want to go down.
Support suggestion to replace consensus with voting. We will need to understand which path we are
going down: fixing model or moving to model(s) and exploring those.

- No problem with SO/AC making decision with own process. How do we meld conclusions from community.
We don't have established mechanism.

- Not all SO/ACs would sign up to vote in model - they would be left out and letting views known in
community forum is not sufficient. Seeking methodology where no one is left out is what we should go
for. Do we require unanimity/abstentions?

---> Are there other key items that need to be determined?

- Include in doc --> For membership or Designator models the following points need clarification:  .
SO and AC participation in the decision-making mechanism;.  Voting or consensus basis;.
Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;.
Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making
mechanism;.  Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as
public interest) into the decision-making design;.  Ensuring accountability of the new structure to
the broader community and the global public interest.

- In favor of consensus instead voting. For some powers we need full consensus - for others we need
objectives. We have to discuss abstention.

Conclusion: send any additional points on list.

Fundamental and Regular Bylaws

No feedback.

Individual Director Removal

First discussion highlighted strong divergence of opinion: SO/AC appointed Directors make decision
to remove director; removal for cause/standards of behavior; multiple removals.

Options: explore combination of standard vs number of decision-makers, limit the number and stagger
time periods for individual Board removal to mitigate "batching"

Feedback:

- Collegiality is important. What are difficulties?

Budget

Discussion moved to Oct 9.

Any Other Work required to meet 12 October deadline

Tease out key conclusions for Tuesday call.

Doc 1: areas of agreement/concern/divergence/options. Doc 2 options by each section with priority

Decision whether further meeting required on 9 Oct

Yes

AOB


Documents Presented


 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5Bjsk/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5Bjsk/edit?usp=sharing
(google doc for Community Forum)

 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dzqIffVu9z--0UYvEji6KdIa-U3wHcrXS0E9lr0L_Y/edit>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dzqIffVu9z--0UYvEji6KdIa-U3wHcrXS0E9lr0L_Y/edit#  (google doc
for CMSM)

 
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139298/Power%20-%20RIB%20members-%20analysis%20o
f%20PC2%20DraftR1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444288964298&api=v2> Power - RIB members- analysis
of PC2 DraftR1.pdf  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/5a0f2f71/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/20151008/5a0f2f71/smime.p7s>