[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

[Mathieu Weill]

Dear Finn,

This is a good point you're raising.

Looking at our own Charter, I did find this definition of consensus in 
the decision making methodologies section :
>
> In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the 
> CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls 
> should always make best efforts to involve all members (the 
> CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be 
> responsible for designating each position as having one of the 
> following designations:
>
> a)Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified 
> by an absence of objection
>
> b)Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
>
I do not know whether Icann has a documented definition of consensus 
other than that ? Maybe there is within the gNSO for PDP purposes ?

Best
Mathieu

Le 12/01/2015 12:08, Finn Petersen a écrit :
>
> Dear Co-Chairs, colleagues,
>
> Thank you for all the work that have gone into advancing this key issue.
>
> Acknowledging that the discussion regarding the definitions of WS1/WS2 
> is moving fast, we would, however, like to raise a question regarding 
> the proposal submitted for comment by the Co-chairs and the wording 
> “consensus support” (marked in yellow). What would “consensus support 
> from the community” entail in this situation? For example, would it 
> mean that a proposal would be taken off the table if only one 
> person/stakeholder group/AC-SO etc. from the community (also a term 
> that is currently discussed) would be against it?
>
> WS1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would 
> provide the community with confidence that any accountability  
> mechanism that would further enhance Icann's accountability would be 
> implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it 
> were to encounter Icann management resistance or if it were against 
> the interest of Icann as a corporate entity.
>
> This is just another example of the importance of carefully 
> considering the Problem definition of our work.
>
> Looking forward to continuing our work on this important issue.
>
> Best,
>
> Finn
>
> Kind regards
>
> *Finn Petersen*
>
> Director of International ICT Relations
>
> *DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
>
> Dahlerups Pakhus
> Langelinie Allé 17
> DK-2100 København Ø
> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
> Direct: +45 3529 1013
>
> Mobile: +45 2072 7131
> E-mail: FinPet at erst.dk
> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>
> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>
> PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> *Fra:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af 
> *Mathieu Weill
> *Sendt:* 5. januar 2015 16:56
> *Til:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Emne:* [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> During our 30th December call, we had extensive discussions regarding 
> what our group would consider work stream 1 or swork stream 2. We 
> concluded with an action item as such :
>
> *ACTION:* Recap of definitions of WS1/WS2 for mailing list and discussion next week.
>
> As Co-chairs, we have attempted to summarize the various inputs 
> expressed on the list as well as during the calls on the matter. Below 
> is a recap, including a proposal for discussion, inspired by the WA2 
> proposal, and which, in our opinion, would be a good candidate to move 
> forward.
>
> This is for you review at this stage before we discuss it tomorrow 
> during the weekly call. Comments or alternate will be welcome during 
> the call or later on this thread.
>
> I'd like to once again thank Steve del Bianco and the WA2 team for 
> their essential contribution to this key piece of our work.
>
> Mathieu
>
> ------------------------
> Main inputs, comments and positions expressed so far regarding WS1/WS2:
>
> Problem statement from our Charter :
>
> The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the existing
> ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet stakeholder expectations. Recent statements
> made by various stakeholders suggest that current accountability mechanisms need to be reviewed
> and, if need be, improved, amended, replaced, or supplemented with new mechanisms (see for
> instance ATRT recommendations). Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it is expecting
> community consensus regarding the transition, a failure to meet stakeholder expectations with
> regards to accountability may create a situation where NTIA does not accept the IANA transition
> proposal as meeting its conditions. Thus reviewing ICANN’s accountability mechanisms was
> considered to be crucial for the transition process.
>
> Work stream scopes from our Charter :
>
> In the discussions around the accountability process, the 
> CCWG-Accountability will proceed with two Work Streams:
>
> ·*Work Stream 1* : focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN 
> accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time 
> frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
>
> ·*Work Stream 2* : focused on addressing accountability topics for 
> which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may 
> extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>
> The CCWG-Accountability will allocate issues to Work Stream 1 and Work 
> Stream 2. Some issues may span both Work Streams.
>
> Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, 
> but are not limited to:
>
> ·What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions 
> Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential 
> accountability concerns could this cause?
>
> ·What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or 
> committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition?
>
> oHow will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
>
> ·What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA 
> Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after.
>
> oIf the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, 
> how can the community be assured they will be implemented?
>
> oHow will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
>
> Work Area 2 proposed definition of WS1/2 :
>
> WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place 
> of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs.
>
> All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided *there are 
> mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items 
> despite resistance from Icann management and Board.*
>
> Paul Rosenzweig tentative defintiion of WS0 :
>
>     As a result, I think that part of what we should be doing in the
>     long run is focusing on the core/critical 3-5 items that are
>     absolutely essential to ensuring accountability.  In short, I
>     think there is actually a sub-category of WS1 (call it *WS0* for
>     want of a better term) that would be fundamental red-lines for the
>     community.
>
> Alan Greenberg's concern :
>
> Needs to demontrate why items in WS1 or WS2 are needed as a consequence of the NTIA transition.
>
>
> Comment from Becky Burr :
>
> Understands the community to say there were certain basic 
> accountability mechanisms that would enable them to feel comfortable 
> with the IANA transition, these may not be directly related to the 
> transition itself.  What we need from WS1 is the community feels 
> comfortable that tools are in place to continue the work to create 
> real and meaningful accountability.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Proposal submitted for comments (to be presented and initially 
> discussed during tomorrow's call):
>
> WS1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would 
> provide the community with confidence that any accountability 
>  mechanism that would further enhance Icann's accountability would be 
> implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it 
> were to encounter Icann management resistance or if it were against 
> the interest of Icann as a corporate entity.
>
>
>
> -- 
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr  <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************

-- 
*****************************
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/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150112/481d4253/attachment.html>