[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting | 8 October

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Thu Oct 8 17:11:38 UTC 2015


Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-3 meeting on 8 October will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/VKJYAw

 

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments
relationships.

      - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are
options put up by drafter of analysis?

ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments.

ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community
empowerment.


Notes


Review of drafts

Diversity

Presentation of the analysis document produced by Carlos. See wiki page:
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.docx?version=1&modificati
onDate=1444293034000&api=v2>
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.docx?version=1&modificatio
nDate=1444293034000&api=v2

Feedback:

- Bullet points on conflict of interest may be more appropriate in SO/AC accountability paper.

ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document.

- On inclusion of diversity into ATRT - is silence assent? Splitting it up in two votes may not be
representative.

--> Worthwhile to consider asking ATRT alumni if this would overburden work.

---> It depends on work in front of ATRT time at a particular time. There was a short timeframe for
narrow focus. ATRT2 had additional burden to look at implementation. ATRT should be in position to
ensure that this is done by itself or ad hoc group as required.

Staff accountability

Presentation of the analysis document - see
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountability%20Public%20Comment
%20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2>
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountability%20Public%20Comment%
20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2 

Feedback:

- It might be worth looking at Board to examine if not worth analyzing at all or as part of WS1.

- Comment for more transparency on Board management and governments relationships. Fadi suggested
that there is a catalogue of public meetings. Having this evidence may address this comment.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments
relationships.

       - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are
options put up by drafter of analysis?

ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments.

SO/AC Accountability

Presentation of the analysis document - see
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56141553/56141616/SOAC%20a
ccountability%20PC2.docx>
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56141553/56141616/SOAC%20ac
countability%20PC2.docx

Feedback:

- No mention of comment by Jan-Aart Scholte who suggested SO/ACs be subject to IRP. This is not
reflected in document.

---> This will be added.

- Note structural reviews are conducted as two-part process.  First goes to stakeholder then
independent examiner. It is a good way moving forward.

--> This two step process could be built into that proposal.

- Level of detail should be added to structural reviews. Accountability to whom has answer in second
report. It is not only to participants but also to community they are designed to serve. Fine-tuning
of question may be added if we need to reinforce but should not reopen the question. For question 2
- Jan Aart Scholte's suggestion was helpful. IRP could watch the watchers.

- Ambiguity around "community" generates confusion. If message is fine-tuned, objection will be
removed. Transparency is not accountability.

- Clarify that we did not get concrete options.

---> This clarification will be added.

- Proposal about SO/ACs act in community empowerment mechanisms should be referable to IRP. If
existing SO/AC refuse inclusion of new SO/AC there would be no way to hold this SO/AC to account

ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community
empowerment.

- Make sure not to forget two bullet points flagged in diversity discussion.

- If IRP commenced asserting that it was not within jurisdiction to bring it, it would be a valid
defense. Within IRP there is no new action that we would need to take to enact that.

- We need to offer specifications as to how proposals will be held to account. Bits of stress tests
should be incorporated into discussion of SO/AC accountability.

- We should also consider whether something other than (or before) an adversarial arbitration should
be put in place when an SO/AC accountability issue arises.  Rather than just jumping to an IRP.

Next Steps

Penholders to include suggestions.

Oct 09 - deadline to complete documents

Oct 12 - Last comments to be included for Oct 13 call.

A.O.B

/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/0280a030/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/20151008/0280a030/smime.p7s>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list