[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

Mon Jan 12 17:26:21 UTC 2015

The definitions from the GNSO Working Group guidelines closely align with those in the charter:

Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree

(From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines section 3.6 (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf)

Best regards,

Marika

From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
Reply-To: "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>" <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>
Date: Monday 12 January 2015 12:11
To: Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

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<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://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> [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<mailto: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?
o    How 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.
o    If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented?
o    How 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<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150112/7421d362/attachment.html>