[CCWG-ACCT] Co-Chairs Statement Leading into ICANN54 in Dublin

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Thu Oct 15 09:56:09 UTC 2015


Hi all,


In case you haven¹t seen this yet, please find below a statement from the
CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs leading into Dublin.

Original Link: 
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-co-chairs-statement-lead
ing-into-icann54-in-dublin


CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Statement Leading into ICANN54 in Dublin
 
Members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability are on their way to
Dublin for a full week of intense work and engagement with other ICANN54
attendees. A list of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability-related meetings is
available here 
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56134263> .
 
As co-Chairs, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, advisors and
independent counsel who put up a tremendous effort to prepare for these
meetings. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and
the deepest recognition.
 
We are very pleased that the analysis of the 93 comments received in the 2nd
Public Comment period is now complete. Work Parties (WPs) have produced
summaries, analyzed the content of submissions and identified options for
the group's consideration. You can find these essential inputs here
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56136438> .
 
In anticipation of the various meetings, we are providing a rough assessment
of our progress through a Scorecard, which can be found below:
 
Report SectionSubtopic WP OwnerStatusRelationship with CWG-Stewardship
Requirements
3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core valuesRefine wording of mission &
core values based on public comment feedbackWP2To be refinedRepresents the
standard of review for the IRP, which is a requirement from the
CWG-Stewardship
3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core valuesHuman rights bylaw
articleWP4To be considered
4. ³Fundamental Bylaws²ScopeWP2SupportedFundamental Bylaws are a requirement
of the CWG-Stewardship
5.1. Independent Review Panel enhancementsWP2To be refinedIRP is a
requirement from the CWG-Stewardship
5.2. Reconsideration process EnhancementsWP2To be refined
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or
other)Implementation model discussionWP1Some disagreementThe mechanism is
necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or
other)Community ForumWP1To be refinedThe mechanism is necessary to provide
for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)Decision
making mechanismsWP1Some disagreementThe mechanism is necessary to provide
for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
7.1. Reject Budget/strategyPC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also
pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredThe
CWG-Stewardship requires community rights, regarding elaboration and
approval of the budget, especially with relation to IANA
7.2. Reject Bylaw change Details are pending community mechanism
discussionsWP1To be refined
4.5. Approve ³Fundamental Bylaw² changeDetails are pending community
mechanism discussionsWP1To be refinedCWG-Stewadship requires fundamental
Bylaws mechanisms to protect against future changes of accountability
mechanisms
7.3. Individual Board Director removalPC2 received some proposals to adjust.
Also pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredCommunity
rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board
7.4. Recall of the ICANN BoardPC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also
pending on community mechanism discussionsWP1To be consideredCommunity
rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board
9. AoC reviews transcription into the BylawsRefine
detailsWP1SupportedCWG-Stewardship requires an IANA Function Review as a
³Fundamental Bylaw²
10. Bylaw changes recommended after stress testsDiscuss ST 18 and
refineST-WPSome disagreement
10. Stress Tests (Based on WA 4 and ST-WP work)Some comments received on ST
29 & 30ST-WPTo be refined
11. Items for consideration in Work stream 2 Scope to be defined versus
continuous improvement itemsCo-chairsTo be considered
8.3. SO/AC AccountabilityConsider SO/AC AccountabilityWP3To be refined
12. Implementation Plan including TimingCo-chairsTo be refinedReviewed draft
started
 
Download a PDF of this Scorecard here
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWGACCT%20Scorec
ard.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444831465505&api=v2> .
 
A significant number of items have a status of ³To be refined,² but we are
confident that these refinements can be provided shortly to meet stakeholder
expectations. Our hope is that many of these will turn into a ³Supported²
status by the end of the Dublin meeting.
 
Areas where more work is needed to reach consensus are in orange and red.
Several of these items are related to community powers and have received
broad support in principle. However, the implementation model for these
powers remains a fundamental discussion. Until a solution is found that does
not raise any significant level of objection, these issues cannot be
finalized.
 
There have been significant discussions in the last few weeks, on the
mailing list as well as during the face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chairs-statement-from-the-cross-community-w
orking-group-on-enhancing-icann-accountability-meeting-in-los-angeles> .
These discussions were useful to better understand the various perspectives
and the areas where views were diverging.
 
As co-Chairs, we would describe these discussions as follows:
*  Views in the community differ on the level of enforceability that is
Strictly required for the community powers, in light of the CWG-Stewardship
conditions 
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816>
(beginning at paragraph 106).
* The CCWG-Accountability has requested legal input to provide more details
on the practical differences in terms of complexity, delay or cost
associated to the various levels of enforceability.
* Significant concerns were raised regarding the weight of the various SOs
and ACs in the community mechanism, as well as the ability to opt-in or
opt-out of this system. Alternative decision making mechanisms, such as
consensus or rough consensus, are being investigated.
* The requirement of SO and AC accountability to the global Internet
community as a whole has been a key theme of the comments received, although
few concrete suggestions are offered (see WP3 documents
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents> )
* A 2-phase scenario to implement community empowerment is being
investigated, which could help accommodate some of the concerns related to
the significance of the changes proposed by the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
Draft Report.
 
The CCWG-Accountability is fully mobilized and committed to make great
strides during the Dublin meeting. We are aware that the finalization of our
recommendations is the last missing piece in the IANA Stewardship Transition
puzzle and we take this responsibility very seriously. We will welcome in
Dublin all contributions to this bottom-up, multistakeholder, consensus
driven process.
 
All hands on deck! Looking forward to a productive week in Dublin!
 
CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
Thomas Rickert
León Sanchez
Matheiu Weill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151015/28fb8d5f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151015/28fb8d5f/smime.p7s>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list