[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #30 - 28 April

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

any you seriously consider sending out a document, so complex that
even the drafters and staff have difficulties without, a consensus
call?

I repeat my objection against sending out the corrected version so
late that depending on time zone and workload only minutes were
available to even look at this thing.  In my case 35 minutes.

The sheer arrogance to state in the call that some might not have
even received at all because of size and lateness but you would go
ahead anyway is unprecedented.


Just to make sure, this is absolutely not directed against staff,
who I feel are abused by this, in fact.

I again, and since you ignore me anyway, strenuously, object against
the rushing and am really starting to wonder about the motivation
behind it.

And, I again object for the record, putting it out for Comment
without Consensus Call and hence without opportunity for minority
viewpoint being attached.


And before you repeat the argument these viewpoints can of course be
made as (public) comment, but besides being obviously in violation
of the Charter, this is obviously not the same, the document will be
downloaded, printed, circulated, reviewed and whatnot and hence,
minority viewpoints *MUST* be attached, if any.


I would even have objection against something like adding a note to
it stating that consensus has not been achieved or called for, which
would be misleading, because you do have formal objection and there
is a minority viewpoint.

But then, what do we care about Bylaws, Charter, IDRP rules, due
process and procedure...


And for good measure I object to the call on Thursday 2015-04-30
05:00 UTC.

el


On 2015-04-29 10:24, Brenda Brewer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the *CCWG ACCT* *Meeting #30 -
> 228 April * will be available
> here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619%20>
>
>
>
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Brenda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:
>
>
>
> *Action*: staff to add glossary to the report
>
> *Action*: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to
> appendix and re-format for public comment
>
> *Action*: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable
> identifying text by line/paragraph
>
> *Action*: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors
>
> *Action*: number questions throughout the document
>
> *Action*: two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to
> explain group's reasoning
>
> *Action*: staff to add this comparison chart to the report
>
> *Action*: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?)  come up with language
> about the "same basis as the existing NomCom"
>
>
>
> /These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through
> content of the call and do not substitute in any way the
> transcript./
>
> 1.  Welcome, roll-call & SoI
>
> Alice Munyua , Jim Baskin and Becky Burr, on the phone.
>
> We will review the changes made the draft report, to be submitted
> for public comment soon
>
> Reviewed the comments gathered during our past sessions.  Today we
> will review feedback and the comments incorporated.
>
> First sections of the document: definition and scoping document,
> the inventory gathered from community.
>
> Circulated only a few hours ago.  See URL for the draft report at
> the top of this notes page
>
> 2.  Discussion of changes to the draft report following the
> intense work days
>
> Robin's edit "remains accountable" -> is accountable, Izumi's
> request to have the requests from the CWG highlighted.
>
> To make the document more readable will move sections 1-5 to the
> appendix and being with and executive summary then current chapter
> 6
>
> This change will be reflected in the next version of the document.
> Introduction of glossary.
>
> *Action*: staff to add glossary to the report
>
> Sense of support for the issue of moving the chapters to the
> appendix
>
> *Action*: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to
> appendix and re-format for public comment
>
>
> Concern that new text has been added to section 4, and this has
> not been discussed with the group.  Noted that the text we there
> for the frozen document used during the intense workdays last
> week.
>
> Suggestion to have the sections numbered - this will be done as
> well as as explanatory sections and working with XPLANE of
> graphical representation,
>
> Consider line numbers and ways to easily refer to text being
> commented on.
>
> *Action*: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable
> identifying text by line/paragraph
>
>
> If people find a term is too legalistic or subjective, please flag
> in the draft.
>
> External legal advisors request to be able to review the document.
>
> *Action*: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors
>
>
> Review of Section 6.
>
> Page 22.  Change to explain the graphic on the overall acc
> architecture.  New, so comment.
>
> Section 6.2 page 24.  Reviewed by Becky.  Introduced the notion of
> guarantees.  With consistency across all documents.
>
> There was disagreement about the use of "guarantees" in this way,
> agreed further consideration needed use of guarantees and
> commitment.
>
>
> Section 6.3.  Memo about fundamental bylaws.
>
> Section 6.4 Significant changes.  Outcome of the discussion of the
> intense workday, including possible outcomes of the IRP. And IRP
> cancels or changes an opinion of the board and its decisions would
> be final.  Some comment from legal advice that this was viable.
>
> Section 6.5.  Reconsideration: more agreement so fewer changes.
>
> Section 6.4.  Pointing to questions and open issues.  Should these
> be item by item, more readable if the questions are grouped at the
> end of the section or presented and numbered as reading thorough
> the section.
>
> *Action*: number questions throughout the document.
>
>
> What's meant by standard of review?  Standard of Review means the
> principles against which the instant case is measured to determine
> whether a complaint should be upheld.  A term in law.
>
> 1) we have always assumed the Community (Members) would have
> standing to file RR or IRP. It is not entirely clear in our
> document how we would establish standing for the Community.
>
> stress test 13.  redress mechanisms.  concern about blocking.  As
> yet not scoring well.  The proposed measure may need to
> distinguish between community power and those of individual.
>
> We as the community may need to have standing to challenge a
> decisions.  And have we done enough to restrain people from using
> them to block policy making.
>
> Operate for now under the assumption that the community does have
> standing.
>
> Section 6.6.  community mechanisms.  Discussion of the membership
> model, and the other options available such as the designator
> model.  With rational as to why this is necessary.
>
> The member model as the reference model that we feel will work
> given the legal advice received.  Language intend to support this
> reference model, but not to close off other models.
>
> Q. Is there place for an additional section to lay out the risks
> and benefits of the different models?  Are we currently giving the
> community to understand the pros and cons of models as they make
> their preference known?
>
> A choice: what is taken into the body of the report and what to
> the appendix.  The legal advice will be linked from the main body
> of the report.  Do members want to identify more of the legal
> advice in the document.
>
> There will be a second run-through of tress tests, to ensure that
> none of our proposal create additional contingencies.  ST-WP meets
> tomorrow.
>
> Additional explanation for the risks and benefits would be
> helpful, but not to the extent that we were have to do the same
> through every section of the document
>
> 6.1.1.1 (i) suggest this should be fleshed out, to say why we
> reached the decisions we have reached (e.g. legal advice has come
> back to say this is stronger, etc)
>
> *Action*: Two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to
> explain group's reasoning.
>
> New text to be added to note (1) that the all the groups
> requirements can be implemented under the reference model, and (2)
> it has advantages in terms of enforceability
>
> The stress tests and mechanisms do not stop an event happening,
> but the issue is does the community have the means to respond, or
> the means to challenge how the Board responds.
>
> Are our new accountability mechanisms creating new risks, for
> example capture, do the stress tests mitigate against these?
>
>
> Regarding fleshing out pros and cons, the short table on the
> powers would be helpful to have in the main document.  A
> comparison chart that was offered as one of the legal memos.
>
>
> *Action*: staff to add this comparison chart to the report.
>
> Have we made sure that we have updated the stress tests to
> evaluate the model especially around capture.  Member model to
> empower the community, but concern over individual member rights
> and collective rights.
>
> A question many will ask, people will ask what if the community
> gets captured.  Link between this and the question from Jan
> Scholte and the group should work on the accountability of the
> community.
>
> 6.6.1.1.  f. about designators.  Not fully explaining the
> designators model, something more explicit needed.
>
> Section 6.1.1.2
>
> Influence in the community mechanism.  Co-chairs have contacted
> the RSAC and SSAC about the proposals.  Given a rationale about
> the reference option, and the pros and cons.  Any adjustments
> needed?
>
> Para F. add, and in keeping with keeping with keep ICANN rooted in
> the private sector.  (add to the text)
>
> 6.6.2.  reconsider/eject budget or strategy operating plans
>
> Only change was on the grounds.
>
> 6.6.3.  page 56 Community power to reject/reconsider ICANN's
> standard bylaws.  Language better reflects what is meant by
> standard vs.  fundamental.  Examples changed, added the question.
>
> 6.6.4.  Powers to change fundamental bylaws.  No substantive
> edits, a question add.  And the fundamental bylaws now have a
> section in the report.
>
> 6.6.5 page 57
>
> Updated to reflect language around the nominating committee.  Keep
> the petition model, that the NomCom would be the option, but not
> to close down any other models.
>
> 6.6.6 Recall the Board
>
> NomCom.  Section g.  Both options legally viable.  Re-format
>
> "On the same basis as the existing NomCom" are we talking about a
> standing group, or on an ad hoc basis
>
> Suggestion to take offline to come up with suggested language.
>
> *Action*: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?)  come up with language
> about the "same basis as the existing NomCom".
>
> 6.7 Affirmation of Commitments into the bylaws
>
> Changes made.  Section 8b.  Section 6.7.2, incorporation of
> commitment reviews.
>
> (Current method of consensus in GAC Due deference refers to
> process of finding mutual consensus It was not meant to be
> fundamental )
>
> ICANN HQ in Los Angeles Commit or will to call,
> Financial/non-financial rater than non-commercial.  Review team
> must be as diverse as possible.  How were prior review teams
> recommendations implements
>
> (Connection lost.)  Normally one year after.
>
> *Action*: co-chairs/rapporteurs, recent discussion from list to be
> reflected in the report
>
> 6.7.2.  A. require the ICANN board to approve and implement.  Not
> requiring he board to review and implement/
>
> 6.8.2.  GAC advice.  The GAC chooses how it chooses consensus.
>
> ICANN bylaws would only allow due deference to consensus advice.
> Refers to the current arrangement.  That kind of deference would
> only be due to consensus advice.  Article 11 Section 2 bylaws
> change is being suggested.  Question: is this section of the bylaw
> suggested as fundamental.  (Ref 3rd column, page 73)
>
> Stress test review on next call, and have been updating both for
> the CCWG and the requests the CWG put put last week.
>
> Page 94.  Items for consideration in WS2:
>
> Diversity and language for consideration about transparency.
> Whistleblower policy missing, should be added.  AGREED:
> Enhancements to ICANN's whistle-blower policy.  And also suggest
> adding ICANN's conflict of interest policy.
>
> Committed to the "relevant" recommendations.  This language can be
> clarified.  More than investigate enhancements.  Should be
> stronger than that.  *Action*: Robin please send language.
>
> Conflict of Interest.  The policy is quite recent and seems quite
> robust, what is the rationale for the change, suggestion to
> discuss conflict of interest on the list.
>
> Support for improving the conflict of interest policy.
>
> Implementation plan and timeline.  Section 9.1.
>
> Updating the timeline for next steps 9.2, which includes input
> from the lawyers on their changes and from staff on the possible
> implication time for bylaws changes.
>
> New, next CCWG call Thursday Arp 30.  05:00 UTC, the call will:
>
> Hold a final review of text.  A new document version circulated as
> early as possible, with red-line as mentioned on this call Output
> from the Stress Test WP meeting.  Engagement material - easy to
> read tools and materials.  Glossary of terms Before or after
> diagram
>
> END
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/