[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Jan 14 10:01:53 UTC 2015
Dear Kavouss,
Thank you for pointing us in that direction. Could you please confirm
whether you refer to section 4 of the ICG Guidelines for decision making ?
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-guidelines-decision-making-17sep14-en.pdf
Mathieu
Le 12/01/2015 21:43, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
> Dear All,
> We in ICG have spent over two months with more than several hundreds
> of message exchanged on consensus building and in particular points
> raised in this message.
> May I recommend you to kindly look at that document in ICG drop box or
> ask Patrik or Mohamd or Alissa ,if still available to provide that to you.
> It would be a useful element to consider
> Kavouss .
>
>
> 2015-01-12 18:26 GMT+01:00 Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>:
>
> 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 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000>
>> Direct: +45 3529 1013 <tel:%2B45%203529%201013>
>>
>> Mobile: +45 2072 7131 <tel:%2B45%202072%207131>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
>> 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 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
--
*****************************
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/20150114/8ccf186f/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list