[Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Thu Jul 9 06:44:57 UTC 2015


Dear Colleagues,

Please consider this response as a contribution from Afnic, definitely 
not from me as a co chair. The proposals below are "strawman".


Le 08/07/2015 22:45, Jan Aart Scholte a écrit :
>
> Hello All
>
>
> Excellent, productive calls. Thank you, Leon. In response to Paul's 
> urgings for a practical agenda for action, the main suggestions that I 
> have taken from the first two conversations are:
>
>
> Workstream 1
>
> *to make explicit commitments regarding diversity (minimally 
> geographical, perhaps also cultural, linguistic, age and gender) in 
> the proposed new accountability bodies (in particular the SO/AC 
> community empowerment mechanism and the IRP)
>
I agree with Jan and would propose the following :
- to set Icann into a continuous improvement path regarding diversity, 
ATRT reviews could be expanded into *Accountability, Transparency and 
Diversity Reviews. *The review team would be tasked to assess and make 
recommenndations regarding diversity across all Icann bodies. This is a 
simple step, that remains flexible so that diversity remains focused on 
the goal of making Icann as representative as possible of the wider 
Internet community.

- to protect against undue influence from 1 Region in the groups, 
instead of imposing a strict 1 vote, 1 region rule, we could set a limit 
that each SO or AC could appoint (to the community council or review 
teams) *no more than 1/3 of its representatives from a single Region*. 
This ensures in the community council that no Region reaches by itself 
the 1/3 threshold which is sufficient to block certain votes.

> *to indicate how SOs/ACs in holding the board accountable through the 
> new community empowerment mechanism are themselves also sufficiently 
> accountable in the exercise of these powers (partly this might be 
> demonstrated by listing relevant points from existing SO/AC rules and 
> procedures, partly it may be secured with new measures such as the 
> suggested MAR or adherence to the INGO Accountability Charter)
>
I also agree with Jan and others we should start by listing existing 
mechanisms. The Mutual Accountability Roundtable is also an idea which I 
fully support.

I also would suggest that we set the continuous improvement loop in 
motion in a more formal mannner. To that end, we could update the 
Structural Reviews of SO/ACs (as defined in article IV of the Bylaws) 
and transform them into *Structural Accountability and Transparency 
Reviews of SO/ACs*, under the Board's supervision. These reviews would 
lead to recommendations for imrpovements that would have a similar 
status as the AoC review team recommendations has to the Board (SO or AC 
MUST deliberate whether or not to implement, and this decision can be 
challenged in front of the IRP).

I believe this would provide greater strength to the notion of "Mutual 
Accountability", and remains a simple and flexible recommendation, with 
very little complexity of implementation or lead time.

Best regards
Mathieu
>
> Workstream 2
>
> *to include in the CCWG report (and carry over into the ICG 
> consolidated proposal) an itemised list of specific issues and 
> objectives regarding diversity, SO/AC accountability, and staff 
> accountability; progress towards these objectives to be evaluated two 
> years down the line as part of the IANA transition review - this 
> undertaking would seem to imply a continuation of the CCWG 
> Accountability or some successor construction
>
> No doubt others can articulate the points more precisely, but it could 
> be helpful to have a concise synthesis to move us forward in the 
> limited time available?
>
> Greetings
>
> Jan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Från:* wp3-bounces at icann.org <wp3-bounces at icann.org> för Paul Twomey 
> <paul.twomey at argopacific.com>
> *Skickat:* den 8 juli 2015 19:12
> *Till:* Sébastien Bachollet; wp3 at icann.org
> *Ämne:* Re: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review 
> Working Group
> Hi Sebastien
>
> I agree with other members of Wp3 on our last meeting that the 
> geographic diversity is only a priority for our work in the next 
> couple of weeks in ensuring that the customer review bodies etc of the 
> IANA transition model are forced to be geographically diverse in their 
> make-up.
>
> But the bigger strategic issue of ICANN always pushing itself to be 
> reflective of the Global Internet Community, including geographically, 
> as you point out has not had a time frame put on it.   I think the 
> work of the WG upto June 2013 was fine in its own context - but that 
> context was limited.   I am not against the Board acting on the WG 
> recommendations, but I do worry that will be seen as the end of the 
> matter - while I think it is only the beginning.    And I am worried 
> that we have little time to get ahead of this issue before it comes up 
> on us.
>
> I am interested to hear others' thoughts as to how we get this issue 
> on the practical agenda for action.
>
>
> Paul
>
> On 7/9/15 2:13 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> As you know
>> " the ICANN Board at its Public Meeting in Cairo (November 2008)7 , 
>> authorized the formation of the proposed working group. The Board 
>> subsequently approved the Working Group’s Charter on 26 June 2009. »
>>
>> The world has change since 2008/2009 and even since the publication 
>> of the final report of the WG in June 2013.
>> ICANN is doing SO/AC reviews within a certain time frame. The same 
>> for AoC reviews.
>> This one (one of the few with global remit) as no timeframe.
>> It is time for the Board to act diligently on the improvement 
>> proposed in this document.
>>
>> But we may also add this review in the regular ones or add this issue 
>> as an additional topic in another one already discuss (like ATRT for 
>> example).
>>
>> Sébastien Bachollet
>> +33 6 07 66 89 33
>> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>> Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com 
>> <mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>>
>>
>> De : <wp3-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp3-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
>> of Paul Twomey <paul.twomey at argopacific.com 
>> <mailto:paul.twomey at argopacific.com>>
>> Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2015 10:46
>> À : <wp3 at icann.org <mailto:wp3 at icann.org>>, Alice Jansen 
>> <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, 
>> <pam.little at zodiac-corp.com <mailto:pam.little at zodiac-corp.com>>
>> Objet : Re: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review 
>> Working Group
>>
>>     Hi Alice
>>
>>     I would also note that the working group responded to the task it
>>     was given by the Board:
>>
>>
>>     "The Working Group was formed by the Board to
>>
>>     (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN’s Geographic
>>     Regions are used;
>>
>>     (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN’s Geographic Regions (as
>>     currently defined, or at all) continue to meet
>>
>>     the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and
>>
>>     (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration
>>     relating to the current and future uses and definition of the
>>     ICANN Geographic Region"
>>
>>
>>     There was no real discussion of the global strategic challenges
>>     facing ICANN in a world where Internet activity and power is
>>     shifting dramatically away from the hubs of the late 1990s which
>>     underlie ICANN's present structures.
>>
>>
>>     The sections on page 15 talking about change in number of regions
>>     say to reduce the number would be too burdensome on travel for
>>     some members of the community and to increase them will increase
>>     the costs of the support.   Hardly a strategic analysis.
>>
>>
>>     I think this issue is a very important one for the strategic
>>     viability of ICANN and for that matter the general acceptance of
>>     a single Root.
>>
>>
>>     Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 7/8/15 8:01 PM, Pam Little wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Alice,
>>>
>>>     I have a couple of questions regarding this report.
>>>
>>>     1.The report is dated June 2013 and it refers to the ICANN
>>>     Durban meeting. Could you clarify what has been done since Durban?
>>>
>>>     2.Your note mentioned: “It is intended that the report will be
>>>     submitted to the Board prior to the Dublin meeting.” Could you
>>>     clarify if the following steps stated at para #87 on page 24 of
>>>     the report have been completed. If not, what are the time lines
>>>     for those:
>>>
>>>     “Before these recommendations can be formally transmitted to the
>>>     ICANN Board,
>>>
>>>     the next step in this process consists of a final community
>>>     review of the Final
>>>
>>>     Report document and its recommendations by ICANN’s various SO-AC
>>>     structures.
>>>
>>>     Footnote 15 above outlines the specific process steps for this
>>>     review and
>>>
>>>     consideration of the Working Group recommendations. The Working
>>>     Group has
>>>
>>>     determined that community review should extend for a full 90
>>>     calendar days after
>>>
>>>     the conclusion of the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban.”
>>>
>>>     Thank you.
>>>
>>>     Pam Little
>>>
>>>     *From:*wp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp3-bounces at icann.org] *On
>>>     Behalf Of *Alice Jansen
>>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:05 PM
>>>     *To:* wp3 at icann.org
>>>     *Subject:* [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review
>>>     Working Group
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     Further to the request made on call #1, please find below the
>>>     link to the Final Report prepared by ICANN Geographic Regions
>>>     Review Working Group for consideration by the ICANN Board (June
>>>     2013):
>>>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13-en.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>     It is intended that the report will be submitted to the Board
>>>     prior to the Dublin meeting.
>>>
>>>     Please note that this document has been added to your WP3
>>>     reading list -
>>>     https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List
>>>
>>>     May I also take this opportunity to inform you that three
>>>     dedicated wiki pages have been created for all three subgroups.
>>>     These pages will be the repositories for volunteers, documents
>>>     and reading lists.
>>>
>>>       * Diversity -
>>>         https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity
>>>       * SO/AC accountability -
>>>         https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783727
>>>
>>>       * Staff accountability -
>>>         https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+accountability
>>>
>>>
>>>     Kind regards
>>>
>>>     Alice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     wp3 mailing list
>>>     wp3 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Dr Paul Twomey
>>     Managing Director
>>     Argo P at cific
>>
>>     US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
>>     Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>>
>>     www.argopacific.com
>>
>>     _______________________________________________ wp3 mailing list
>>     wp3 at icann.org <mailto:wp3 at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3 
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Managing Director
> Argo P at cific
>
> US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>
> www.argopacific.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp3 mailing list
> wp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp3/attachments/20150709/5a7d71b6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the wp3 mailing list