[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Fri Dec 26 16:49:22 UTC 2014

Thanks Bruce, and glad you found the feedback useful.

And thanks as well for referencing the minutes of the 10/28 Board meeting. That is more detail than I have seen in the past. But the community would still benefit from knowing more about the views expressed by Board members during the discussion, and why Gonzalo Navarro and Mike Silber ultimately voted against the Resolutions.

I agree with your view that " It would certainly be helpful if the CCWG on accountability did articulate what they would like to see in terms of transparency from Board meetings.", and I intend to make that a focus of my participation over coming months. I recognize that certain subjects may not be appropriate for full revelation, and that redaction of the transcript or a simple notation of an omitted portion of the discussion may be acceptable for some subjects.

 More challenging will be how to deal with the fact, as you describe it, " that in many cases significant discussion on a controversial topic occurs over several months - with much of the dialogue occurring in Board workshops...In many ways the Board functions like a GNSO or IETF working group - with numerous discussions, before a topic reaches decision.   The current chair - Steve Crocker - tries as much as possible to ensure that a Board resolution has matured to the point where it can be approved unanimously." That seems like an efficient way to operate, but it results in a situation where " the community sees the end product, and not the intermediate steps". We don't want to inhibit candid Board discussion and proper extended consideration and deliberation on some matters. 

I suspect that there is a middle ground between present Board disclosure practice and a revision that satisfies the community's need for greater understanding of the basis for Board decisions without disrupting or unduly circumscribing candid Board discussion.  Let's see what the community can come up with over the course of this CCWG in regard to a procedural reforms that can enhance the transparency base for accountable decision-making.

Best regards,
Philip    

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-accountability1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:01 AM
To: ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Hello Phil,

>>   hopefully the final recommendations will be so broadly supported within the community that Board cherry-picking will be limited or nonexistent.

Yes - that is the Board's hope also.

>>  What is most concerning is that the community has little or any information by which to judge how the Board has reached difficult decisions on public interest matters in the past. As you note in regard to the .XXX decision, "Several directors spent considerable time preparing their own personal statements on that matter that were delivered in the public forum." Similarly, I remember a vigorous public debate and statements when the Board voted to let the new gTLD program proceed and accept applications. But we no longer have public Board meetings, and the materials released pertaining to Board meetings are quite opaque regarding how decisions are reached or whether dissents took place, and of course we have no transcripts of Board meetings or access to other relevant communications related to Board decision-making. I do note that the October 16th resolution further states that a rationale will be provided for any Board rejection of CCWG recommendations, and a further dialo
 gue initiated, but that is still inferior to being able to witness or at least read the full Board debate on such matters.

>>  It has been widely recognized that transparency is a fundamental requirement for accountability, yet the transparency of the Board's decision-making process is greatly lacking at present. I know that view prevails within the Commercial Stakeholders Group, and my perception is that other parts of the community share it as well. It is my hope that this CCWG process will lead to much greater transparency in that area and that the Board will recognize that such transparency is very much in the global public interest.

That is good feedback.   I was at one time the Chair of the DNSO and then later chair of the GNSO.   Over the time I was chair we put  in place transparency steps including making recordings of the meetings available publicly and also transcripts.   In my time there was only about two people in the community that ever listed to the audio recordings - but in principle they were available to everyone.    I personally support that approach in principle, but it is not yet a Board view.

I just reviewed the minutes of the Board  meeting of 28 Oct 2014:
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2014-10-28-en

The minutes state with respect to moving the meeting location in Feb 2015:

" The Board engaged in an intense conversation on the topic, with some Board members noting their personal preference that the meeting proceed in Marrakech as scheduled, given that it is difficult to know what the situation will be in Marrakech in February. However, even with a personal preference to keep the meeting location, there are risks to proceeding with that decision that may require the meeting to be postponed."

The minutes also note that the decision was not unanimous:

" Twelve Board members voted in favor of Resolutions 2014.10.28.02, 2014.10.28.03, 2014.10.28.04, 2014.10.28.05, 2014.10.28.06 and 2014.10.28.07. Gonzalo Navarro and Mike Silber were opposed to the Resolutions. Markus Kummer abstained from voting on the resolutions. Kuo-Wei Wu was unavailable to vote. The Resolutions carried."

In that meeting I recall that nearly every Board member spoke on the topic - some in favour of moving the location, and some in favour of keeping it in the original location.  There were well articulated views that could have been made public in my own personal view.

It would certainly be helpful if the CCWG on accountability did articulate what they would like to see in terms of transparency from Board meetings.   Note however - that in many cases significant discussion on a controversial topic occurs over several months - with much of the dialogue occurring in Board workshops   (for example the Board holds at least two face-to-face workshops during the year, and also meets on the weekend prior to the ICNAN public meeting week, as well as during the week in workshop format).   In many ways the Board functions like a GNSO or IETF working group - with numerous discussions, before a topic reaches decision.   The current chair - Steve Crocker - tries as much as possible to ensure that a Board resolution has matured to the point where it can be approved unanimously.      I agree however that the community sees the end product, and not the intermediate steps.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14