[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG Meeting with Advisors - 31 August

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Meeting with Advisors - 31 August will be
available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/mYJYAw

 

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript. 

Advisors on call:

*        Nell Minow

*        Lee Bygrave

*        Willie Currie

*        Jan Aart Scholte 

*        Valerie D'Costa

Questions/Feedback

- How does the feedback from Jones Day fit into the CCWG-Accountability process? Was it requested by
the CCWG-Accountability? 

--> The analysis was requested by the ICANN Board. The paper is intended to inform the Board but
does not represent the Board's views. We have asked our legal counsel to look at the analysis and
will examine the paper to see if there are areas that require action. A call with ICANN Board, NTIA,
legal counsel is scheduled for today at 22:00 UTC. A second call will take place on 2 September at
22:00 UTC

- On overall presentation of community mechanism: could it interfere in everyday operations or not?
It is referred to as the ultimate authority: if there are no effective checks and balances on that
mechanism, could it go out of hand? There still is unclarity in the content as well as presentation.
Those who will inherit the mechanism could inherit something you had not intended. There is
ambiguity.

- If you look at social theories of contingency, there are concerns about how to balance sanction
based accountability and trust based accountability. You can' t predict future. It is important to
have accountability sanction for referral.

- Happy with general framework of community mechanism. Escalation in terms of sanctions is very
graduated. Litigation is CA courts is very unlikely unless we have stakeholders who wish to
undermine balance. Agree that there are some ambiguities that need to be explained (voting
mechanisms, balance of powers between SO/ACs). 

- Concerns about setting up a mechanism that will be so specifc it will be restricting instead of
enabling. Concerned about implementation and ambitiousness of proposal for getting it on time.
Concerned about transparency: actions and roles of ICANN and various supporting entities is unclear.
Emphasis on outreach is needed. 

- Empowered community is ambiguous. Empowered community as SO/ACs doing activties on one hand and
there is empowered community as community mechanism. Is it the mechanism as legislator or is it the
activities within ICANN? 

--> Whoever is interested in the ecosystem can join respective SO/ACs - SG/Cs. Good point we need to
be clearer about what we mean. 

- Fundamental Bylaws is a good approach. 

- On IRP, ambiguity on what ICANN is: is it Board/Staff, community empowerment, SO/ACs? Could it be
used when community mechanism violates mandate for instance?

--> IRP focuses on Board/staff actions/inactions. We should specify. 

- On standing: could the Board use an IRP to hit back at the community mechanism? More details need
to be put into explanation. 

--> Voting threshold 

- There is a conflict of interest between Board nominating panelists. IRP should nominate panelists
for true independence. 

--> The panel would be nominated by community and confirmed by Board under current proposal.
Individual decisional panel: claimant would choose one member, ICANN the second one and both ICANN
and claimant would choose third member. Panelists would be accepted by community and Board. 

--> Standing panel is selected by community and Board. There is no conflict.

- In favor of request for reconsideration enhancements

- How to get a widespread representation of community into this mechanism remains a challenge

--> The whole community will be represented. This will need be addressed in implementation

- Is it safe to send to NTIA without specifying voting process? We want to make sure there is no
capture. There are gaps that might make the proposal vulnerable. Process of voting - paragraph 310
seems to imply it will be worked out. 

- In favor of model. It resolves a lot of concerns that have been raised in public comment. 

-  Jones Day states the Sole Member is not a tested model, however these social models are not
something you can test like a scientific model and instead this should be a constitutional moment
for a new model 

- How would decisions be taken concretely. What would be relationship between community forum and
empowerment mechanism? 

- What would the voting structure look like? 

--->SO/ACs to define voting mechanism in their own manner and representatives to report voting. 

- Should there be a threshold for mechanism to come into play? Would it be capture if not enough
SO/ACs?

*        .  - Will GAC listed as voting mechanism open up concerns of capture? 

- Stress tests are a way of conducting impact analysis. 


Documents Presented


 
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56132249/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINA
L%20%281%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1441029883000&api=v2> XPL_CCWG Proposal_Visual
Summary_FINAL (1).pdf

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150831/308a7209/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150831/308a7209/smime.p7s>