[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #12 | 8 February 2017
Michael Karanicolas
michael at law-democracy.org
Fri Feb 10 06:45:20 UTC 2017
Thanks for that feedback Christopher.
I'm not sure what you base your comment that increasing transparency will
generate a "culture of distrust" between ICANN and the community on, since
all experience suggests that the opposite is true - and indeed I believe
the desire to build trust and accountability are key to why this process is
taking place.
As we've discussed, we look forward to hearing from ICANN on these
recommendations, and will certainly factor their feedback in.
With regard to the duty to document - I responded to this when you raised
it previously. I'm not sure if you're reading these responses, but that's
not what Recommendation 2 says. I think that it's fairly self evident that
documenting "decision-making processes" and "essential
transactions" doesn't mean documenting every single conversation. You've
also misinterpreted (again) DIDP Recommendation 5, which mentions complying
with requester reasonable preferences when another form is *available*. So
it doesn't mean staff has to file multiple versions of the same document -
which would of course be silly. Rather, what it means is that if the staff
has the document as a doc file and as a pdf file, and the requester asks
for a doc file, they should send them a doc.
I think the document is quite clear on these points, and doesn't lend
itself to the reading you suggest. That said, it would concern us if others
were viewing the document in the same way, so we very much look forward to
the public comment phase, and can certainly adapt it if things need
clarification.
Best,
Michael
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:17 AM, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> Good evening:
>
> Further to our recent conference call, please find below my comments on
> the current draft report regarding transparency.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
>
> On 09 Feb 2017, at 22:46, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting
> #12 – 8 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.
> org/x/56jDAw
> A copy of the action items and notes may be found below.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With kind regards,
> *Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
> Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Action Items*
> · *Staff to include Good Faith document for second reading at
> next plenary.*
> · *Staff – to publish Jurisdiction questionnaire and advise the
> list.*
> · *Staff to arrange for public consultation on Transparency
> document*
> · *Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion
> within the next 10 days.*
> · *Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using
> remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year.*
> · *Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering
> organizations regarding potential extension*
> · *Co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to
> face*
>
> *Notes (Including relevant portions of the chat):*
> 25 participants at start of call
> *1. **Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of
> behavior, *Thomas Rickert: Audio only Jeff Neuman. No changes to SOI.
>
> *2. Review of Agenda*
> Alan Greenberg: Good faith before the top of the hour.
> Greg Shatan: same as AG.
> Thomas Rickert: will do so if Lori is present.
> Sebastien Bachollet: would like to present a short update on Ombudsman.
>
> *3. Administration*
> *• Review of action items from previous meeting*
> Thomas Rickert: Encourage all rapporteurs re timeline updates.
> *• Update on ATRT3 (5 minutes).*
> Thomas Rickert: ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC have replied positively. Waiting on
> GAC and gNSO.
> *• Travel funding for ICANN59 (5 minutes)*
> Leon Sanchez: No objections to use previous rules, 1 round, starting
> Friday next week (17 February) and closing 19 March.
> *• Working Methods (10 minutes).*
> Leon Sanchez: presentation of new methods. No objections.
>
> *4. Legal Committee Update*
> Leon Sanchez: no pending requests.
>
> *5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups*
>
> * • Human Rights – Update (5 minutes)*
> Niels ten Oever: Thanks to co-chairs regarding the advice re scope
> especially for using Annex 12. The sub-group has decided to submit a single
> document and as such the sub-group will need some additional time to
> complete the work. Sub-group asks that the plenary cancel the publication
> of the FOI for HR for public consultation *(decision)*. Do not think this
> will have a major impact on our timeline.
> Kavouss Arasteh: at this stage we should avoid to insert new ideas.
> Application of HR to policies - gNSO is not subject but GAC is - strongly
> disagree.
> Greg Shatan: Do not remember anyone stating HR would not apply to gNSO
> policy work.
> Kavouss Arasteh: I hope this statements you made , YOU WILL FOLLOW Grec
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Greg, that is what I understood from the
> HR call
> David McAuley (RySG): I was on HR call yesterday and agree w/Greg’s
> comment – must have been miscommunication
> Kavouss Arasteh: Look at the drat of last night which you prepared or you
> were involved in its preparation is totally different from what you said
> Leon Sanchez: this is for the sub-group.
> Tijani Ben Jemaa: Support LS.
> Kavouss Arasteh: Tijanii, you did not say anything last night about
> exclusion of GNSO policy from conformity to HR but for GAC was mentioned to
> have advice which should consistent with HR this is not fair and you did
> not say anything last night
>
> * • Jurisdiction Questionnaire update (5 minutes)*
> Greg Shatan: Expecting translation back today and publication soon on the
> ICANN Public comment page as a note. To give adequate time for responses it
> closes 17 April. We will review responses as they come in. Everyone is
> welcome to participate in the work.
> Kavouss Arasteh: Openness to be noted. Face to Face meeting like other
> CCWG-Accountability are open to anyone who registers and has an SOI. We
> need to come up with a methodology to process the questionnaires in the
> sub-group.
> Greg Shatan: Kavouss, If there's something in the document that appears to
> say that I am not aware of which statement that is. Perhaps you could
> point that out in an email on the Jurisdiction subgroup's list. I should
> note that I am only one of several members of the drafting team.
> Kavouss Arasteh: Pls then kind KINDLY observe the equal treatment between
> GAC and beloved GNSO
>
> * • Good Faith Guideline – First Reading (document - 30 minutes)*
> Lori Schulman: after a successful pre-reading at the last plenary the
> sub-group is now happy to present their recommendations for a first formal
> reading. ICANN Legal has commented the document without any issues where
> they also confirmed that the recommendations are in conformity with
> California Law. Any questions?
> Kavouss Arasteh: why call them guidelines - are they not requirements.
> Lori Schulman: this is from the WS1 report. This are not hard and fast
> rules - it is up to each SOAC to decide if they want to follow it.
> Alan Greenberg: Agree with LS, they are guidelines. If an SO or AC does
> not follow them then they may not be indemnified.
> Leon Sanchez: Any objections to this document? (none). This concludes the
> first reading with the plenary accepting the document with no comments
> *(decision)*.
> Lori Schulman: Support AG.
> Alan Greenbers: Many thanks to all but especially to LS for getting this
> done.
>
> *• Ombudsman (5 minutes)*
> Sebastien Bachollet: Update from Ombudsman Group - have replies to the RFP
> for evaluation. Re timeline - will not be able to give feedback until we
> complete the review work.
>
> *• Transparency – Second Reading (Document – 30 minutes)*
> Chris Wilson: Since the last plenary call we have received feedback re
> govt-ICANN Interactions re Formalized or not. Because of this we have
> revised the recommendation if that interaction is about ICANN policy or
> administration. Hope that this clarification satisfies the concerns raised.
> Michael Karanicolas: Last call there was request to see if there were
> overlaps with HR or Ombudsman. None for HR but have received two comments
> from the Ombudsman group re tracking and oversight and review of frivolous
> or vexaious requests for DIDP that these should go to the complaints
> officer - and as such have left it open - now have received objections to
> both of these and looking for a temp check at this meeting.
> Kavouss Arasteh: Title issue. Issue re GAC (govt interactions).
> Michael Karanicolas: Review of changes to recommendation 13 and 19 and
> govt interactions.
> CW: Since I originated some of these changes, I am printing the draft out
> and will read it thoroughly and comment to the List as necessary. CW
> David McAuley (RySG): With respect to the document overall, some on the
> subgroup (e.g. me) have reserved comment on a couple of matters based on
> what ICANN’s input turns out to be on those matters – I understand ICANN
> has committed to submit some comments and am looking forward to them.
> Sebastien Bachollet: No issues with the document like this for the comment
> period. However some sub-groups are requesting something of an independent
> body - and currently there is only the Ombudsman. There are three ways to
> answer this, Ombudsman, new independent body with different mandate vs
> Ombudsman or ask staff to do some of this like the complaints officer. We
> (plenary) will need to have this discussion later on to see where we want
> to go with this. Open to discussing with anyone.
> Leon Sanchez: Are we good to approve this second reading.
> Micheal Karanicolas: DM has asked we consider input from staff first.
> ICANN Legal will comment at some point but am uncomfortable holding this up
> for that.
> David McAuley: I do have some concerns - vs public comment - up to
> co-chairs.
> Leon Sanchez: Any objection to accepting the second reading and publishing
> for public comments. (none). Staff to prepare for public comment *(action
> item)*.
>
> *6. Review of Schedule/Timeline (30 minutes)*
> Nathalie Vergnolle: Review of dashboard slides.
> Thomas Rickert: We believe we will not complete by the end of June and are
> seeking approval of the plenary to ask for more time (not money) from the
> chartering orgs. Any objections (none). Co-Chairs will draft a note to the
> chartering orgs. there is a potential issue with taking money from this
> fiscal year to the next. This is also the last time we can do such an
> extension. Any reactions?
> Kavouss Arasteh: Do you wish the plenary response now?
> Thomas Rickert: Just want ok to reach out to chartering orgs and the PCST
> to investigate if we can do this - if so then we will come back to the
> group. but we need concrete planning. Transparency is key.
> Keith Drazek: We need to ensure the Fiscal Year timing doesn't impact our
> ability to complete the work.
> David McAuley (RySG): Agree with chairs approach.
> Sebastien Bachollet: Please give me the time to come up with a realistic
> timeline after we know who will do the evaluation. We are looking to
> produce a first document to the plenary for the end of June.
> Kavouss Arasteh: Any extension should be well supported. Transfer of
> budget from one year to another is another thing - we need solid basis for
> doing this that is well documented. We need to do this once for all.
> Thomas Rickert: This is exactly what we are trying to do. In the absence
> of objections that the co-chairs can prepare a communication to the
> chartering orgs, the Board and the PCST about the potential extension.
> Kavouss Arasteh: We have to review our working methods before going
> forward with this.
> Thomas Rickert: We all agree we could of moved forward faster but
> sometimes this type of community work is cumbersome. Shall we note this as
> an objection KA.
> Kavouss Arasteh: no objection but we have to be effective.
> Thomas Rickert: Thank You KA. yes to improving.
> Sebastien Bachollet: In addition to WS1 for Ombudsman we had to take one
> ATRT2 work.
> Thomas Rickert: Ok so no objections. Action Item ask sub-team rapporteurs
> to come up with a realistic timeline to complete the work. *Action Items*:
> ·
> · Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion
> within the next 10 days.
> · Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using
> remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year.
> · Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering
> organizations regarding potential extension
>
> *7. AOB*
> Kavouss Arasteh: will there be a face to face in ICANN 59? We need to know
> for airfare reservations.
> Thomas Rickert: We need to consult with the ICANN meeting teams. *Action
> item* co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to face.
> this should be resolved prior to opening the trav
>
> *Adjournment*
>
> *Decisions:*
> · HR sub-group asks that the plenary cancel the publication of
> the FOI for HR for public consultation.
> · Good Faith document first reading accepted by plenary with no
> changes.
> · Transparency document second reading accepted by plenary.
>
> *Action Items*
> · *Staff to include Good Faith document for second reading at
> next plenary.*
> · *Staff – to publish Jurisdiction questionnaire and advise the
> list.*
> · *Staff to arrange for public consultation on Transparency
> document*
> · *Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion
> within the next 10 days.*
> · *Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using
> remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year.*
> · *Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering
> organizations regarding potential extension*
> · *Co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to
> face*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170210/71d40bfc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list