[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT Working Session 1, 19 June - AM

[Kimberly Carlson]

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Working Session 1 (AM), 19 June will be available here:

https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-Accountability+Working+Session+1+%2819+June%29+Buenos+Aires



A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Thank you

Best regards,
Kim


ACTION Items

Notes

Part 1
Agenda
1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)
2. Drafting response to public comment received (08:15-10:10)
Break (10:10-10:30)
3. Drafting response to public comment received (10:30-11:15)
4. Debate on enforceability: for and against (11:15-12:15)
Lunch Break (12:15-13:15)
4. Drafting response to public comment received (13:15-15:15)
Break (15:15-15:30)
5. Drafting response to public comment received (15:30-16:15)
6. Responding to NTIA query on timeline (16:15-17:15)
5. Preparing for community engagement at ICANN 53 & establishing Buenos
Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)

Roll call:  no remote participants.

Robin Gross attending.

Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us to
consider as a reply.  The public comment tool has been populated.  CCWG
meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear from
the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,

Review, and then a dive into details.

Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting.
Questions received in the comment need to be explained.  We as a group are
deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of the
community.
The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step.  The
board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying,
rather than the community trying to work together of solutions.  This
process has brought to community together in seeking consensus on
improving ICANN.  And this reflected in the comments and review of the
powers we want to bring to the community.  A lot of consensus on the basis
proposals.

Shared goal.

Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN.
co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group

We should review the models we have been considering.  The reference
model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we are
asking those who want to speak to a particular model for community
empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented.
plan for the day:Review of the public comment:  hear the models; and
review these in the afternoon.

Order of speaking for the models:

Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan,  Sam, Greg.
The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues point
of view.

Request to hold a random draw for speaking.  Request that new voices make
their thoughts about the model.  New chairs of working groups and open the
membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership

A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reform
was top-down, the initiative of a few board members.  The process not yet
process but we have moved a long way forward.

Review of public comment report.

WP2

Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the comments
Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support
Need work on ICANN's defined powers.  Suggestion to consider Human Rights,
a  sub group working on that.

Contract compliance should part of the core values.  A balancing test.:  A
change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core values
against each other

Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead,
but may need to be reconsidered.

Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening

Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical part
of public interest.  Some new ideas and some missing aspects.

Notion of fundamental bylaws.  Some major themes.  String support for
having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental,
and some additions.  Clarification on who can change and how.  Question if
the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.

The headquarters issue important for the group.

IRP:
The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process more
accessible.  Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.
Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound by
binding arbitration.

Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment

Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be
independent.  There needn't be a compromise of independence, and group
needs to rethink this.  And also comments about the selection process.

Reconsideration:
Roll of the ombudsman.  The board reviewing itself, and conflict of
interest issues.

To avoid frivolous requests.

Next step:  the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.
And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do a
consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.
Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our further
deliberations this week.

Comment:  Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.
Some issues about the binding nature.  About the number of panel. About
the way selected.  And the issues of diversity of geography.

Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP.  Anglo-saxon dominance of
ICANN processes.  Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.
Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation

Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational.   A
critical task to seek out the right persons.  Agreement on the need for
diversity, but how to achieve is out challenge.

Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground
of what we agree to and move forward.
On the issue of the IRP, further consideration of enforceability.

The impact assessment review from the Board received last night.  And need
for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal
to explain what they think the answers are.  So the answers can be shaped
into the public comment.

As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passed
on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which will
cause the group to rethink.

The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this.  The board
does not have answers to those questions.  And the Board has no
preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was no
intention to be anything other that constructive.

Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking for
answers.  The point of the questions was to say how you considered from
this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers.

Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not the
board itself.

What do you as the board think the answer's should be?  As they have just
read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions?

Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday
3pm.

WP1.  High level community feedback was positive.  Responses on the
community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions were
on the webpage until late in the process.

Amendments to the planning  process to make sure concerns taken into
consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned.  The
response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable.

Standard bylaws:  request for more time to review.  Something for the
group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review

Fundamental bylaws.  Mostly in favor.

Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have a
consistency of process and thresholds.

Real of the board.  Request for higher threshold.

AoC:  concern about location.  What happens in the future to the AoC,
should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition.  And
composition of the groups and to ensure diversity

Mechanisms:  generally supported direction.  But comments show need
decisions around enforceability.
1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2.  The model
presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable
approximation of the community.  Members favored over designators.
Concern about implementation.  Concern about the voting weights.  RSAC and
SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice.

The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power.

The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power.  And hard to judge the range of around the model, further
discussion by the CCWG is needed.  Importance of avoiding insider capture.
Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who
watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for a
forum.

Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policy
process, and ensure that the responses address accountability
specifically.

Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view of
accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go
to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want.  GAC unsure.
Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might it
look more and more inward looking.  End result may be a devaluing of the
ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.

If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. But
community feedback doesn't suggest that.

When discussing replacing the old mechanisms.  Remember the community
mechanism we are seeing up.  The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, and
key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all.  The community
mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa

There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need to
address those.  The models are complex and there must be clarity.
Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at.  Now
should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, more
accessible to outsiders.

Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model.  A different analysis now
and what we would do in a crisis mode.  In a crisis model, where we
question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such a
time.

Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all those
other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, which
has some similarity.  Private international organizations, such as FIFA, a
negative example.  And then the key question of who is the global
mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to.  Can the IGF set
iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that represents
the global public interest.

There are general ares of agreement.  We are arguing around details.  Now
we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.

Break - thank you


NOTES Part 2


Items for WS2

Suggestions made by contributors:

- Assess efficiency of proposal (our mandate or ATRT2)

- Bylaw that would require ICANN to disclose Goverment related activities

- Timeframe


General comments

- Vast majority of comments were supportive

- Recommendations are seen to be improving accountability substantially

- 2 commentors are opposed to process: Roberto Bissio (provide a clear rationale) and .NA (challenges process)


Methodology

- Criticism for truncating comment period (40 days for second comment period)

- Specificity needed on public interest term

- Impact analysis request from Board


---

Turning tables around:  presentation of perspectives regarding membership / cooperative approach

We need to bring ICANN's accountability to a level that is sufficient for transition to take place. We need consensus on proposal.

Two rules for this discussion: 1.Timing (5 min) - 2 Factual (avoid slogans)

This agenda item is an opportunity to explain benefits of options.


Greg Shatan

Fundamental differences between models where we see authority sitting whether with community or with Board. I have worked with not-for-profit both with members and without members. Without members it is Board centric - with members it is members centric. Membership is a natural tool to give power to community. Speaking as member of CWG, change between CWG models puts greater reliance on ability to give authority to the hands of global multistakeholder community. Accountability needs to flow through ICANN to the community. Model that uses members is the tool that provides community with real basis in governance to exercise and to obtain ultimate judgement we believe the community should have. If we don't trust community, none of our models will yield results we want.


Alan Greenberg

We have been working with set of Bylaws up until now that probably should not have existed. They don't follow any pattern in not-for-profit. I propose that we continue with same model where we put proposed powers in Bylaws. Budget power would be similar to what we do with GAC. Enforceability that I am proposing is removing Board directors. Process would have to follow agreed processes. Recalling Board will give us accountability we want but how do we remove Board without individual members? The threat of removal should give us everything we need. What of ACs who choose not to participate in membership model? We have small part of community calling all the shots and will look bad. Tying our entire governance structure to California law does not serve us well. Concerned about timeframe.


Robin Gross

Empowered designator model: we talked about powers - agreements we want these powers. 2 of these powers (strategic plan and budget approval issues) will be challenging but they are not enough to cause upheaval and great change we are going to have to go through. There is going to be a lot of issues before we can get to membership model. It is not enough to push in the other direction. We can have ways to require way for community and Board to work on these two items together. Board also has knowledge that may be recalled which creates a strong incentive. The membership model does not work for those outside of community. Empowered designators model can be more open. We risk making mistakes we would be stuck with if go for membership model.


Jordan Carter

Fundamental understanding about nature of human society: when we have something that is important, a separation of powers is needed. We divide authority. We take steps to protect our organizations by distributing powers by ensuring no one has single point of authority. This is a constitutional point. We will distribute it through SO/AC structure. It changes where authority lies away from Board of Directors and bakes it into community. That is what will make it trustable. We should embed the authority. I support membership, designators. Membership: we are going to rely on all.


Roelof Meijer

It is very clear that most community members agree to foreseen powers. We are looking too much at things that already exist. This industry has become what it is not because of all legal processes but because of lack of processes around it. We have to be very careful about situation that might not happen but we need to protect ourselves. We won't get enough people and structures that will agree with this and we will end up empty-handed. Let's be creative.


Samantha Eisner

I don't come here with answers. We are working through proposal along with you and have questions. We have characteristics of a model (designators, membership, creative etc). It is important that ICANN not for profit does not get affected. We need to look holistically at ICG's proposal. There should be further looking if membership model that we understand it is model to use when collective interests. We need to ensure secure, stable internet. Membership model makes sense in organization of interest. Any model we go to needs to leave open pathways to new participants. We need to see what membership model is to a new participant: do you have a voice? Can you meaningfully participate? Are there pathways without immediately aligning themselves with a group? Model that needs to be tested. We need to make sure that we are holding up values and stability of certains part of organization. We need to hold out to global community that we are a stable organization. Does this mean membership is off table? No - there are still questions we can answer - if lesser changes that wind up not giving results the community wish to see happen.


Sebastien Bachollet

We need it to be holistic review. The solution does not have a name. Accountable, diverse, equal multistakeholder which give confidence - my gift to community. It is important that wherever we go, we need to make sure we don't put any legal characteristics between relationships between any groups of ICANN. We don't need US legal jurisdiction to be involved in setting discussions. We have to remember that all groups are us even Board. If we ask accountability, I want us to be accountable at all levels and that remains to be seen. Trust should be our motto. Important for us to find a solution where we can leave organization open to all, not just to those who know but open to creating/merging new structures. If too solidified (and we already are), it will difficult to have solution. We don't know what will be future - we need to be open to that discussion but how can we create it and who give agreement etc? Diversity is an absolute need - real diversity (culture, gender, age). HQs in US: one way to solve diversity problems is presidency from other region.


Avri Doria

I support the model Internet has been created on. It is the same one we have been using to find solutions for accountability. It has been a successful model. Like all models it is one that benefits from constant refinement and improvement (ATRT). If we get reconsideration improvements, fix IRP and can remove recalcitrant directors, then we have reinforced model. I believe in notion of perpetual refinement. By constantly doing outreach, we have a much better chance.


Malcolm Hutty

I would like to bring up variation that is worthy of exploring. We have got a group of people who think enforcement is key to process. For this group, it will be hard to build consensus. Those people have been told that ability to go to court is way to get enforceability through membership. It leads to strong membership model but it does not have to be membership model This creation of UAs is very complicated, creates new structures and unforeseen consequences. We need to address this. My suggestion is to have membership for everybody - under that model, Board have duties to their interests, they would have ability to go to Court. There may be other statutory powers we would need to look at. No harm in making that available to world at-large. We owe it to ourseleves to see if that can be resolved. A point of membership application e.g. accept that we don't get to wind up company if not 99% member. They would agree to a process, concept we create. It would not create complex structures but would allow for all to hold it to commitments.


Becky Burr

At time request came from US gov was very much focused on technical services, not on accountability issues - which were viewed as distracting. This community came together and insisted for accountability to be addressed. Concerns are real and persistent. We are hearing objections that accountability might delay transition. Nobody wants that to happen but concerns should not lead up to compromise our shared determination to resolve this. We can do both. It should lead us to bridge gaps between legitimate perspectives. Membership model is a complex model and who watches watchers? We have come up with empowered SO/AC model: essentially comfortable with SO/AC structure but let's empower bodies by giving SO/ACs authority - it does not involve creating new entities. To accomplish this, the only thing that needs to happen is for SO/ACs to articulate status quo (powers, authorities). This intention can be expressed in SOP for each SO/AC, it can be expressed at any time, whenever we are ready. Intention is to work together to accomplish goals.


Erika Mann

I like empowered SO/AC model but we would have to articulate principles. We should pay attention to HQs: California gives stability. Governements have concerns but there are no alternatives. We have to find best model - principles would have to fulfill global public interest. Governements in finding right model have difficulties in identifying the best way forward. Let's not confuse it with model we have to find.


Paul Twomey

Combination of Alan and Becky. Community has not done a bad job from changing discussions. This model strongly stands against Board membership model. Membership is not the same as participation.

Jonathan Zuck
Institutional resistance to accountability has shown itself in many different aspects.
Methods of dealing with problems and desire to drive through anecdotes is persistent through organizations
There are instances where high leverage - ATRT as part of AoC - agreement to make US have oversight role. If look at recent evolution at resisting - there was delay and resistance to process when talking about model in past.
It gave community leverage to sway Board and change course the organization is taking. Model I want to propose is one of leverage. If we want to empower overall community, there isn't institution that has arisen. Method of operation needs to be tested and leveraged from time to time. It is not goodwill that will get that done. I am supportive of leverage in hands of community.

We now have a greater understanding of where aiming at - will be extremely valuable for next steps.
Is there any statement that could potentially mislead?  Word of caution - not everything will work.
--> It is difficult to comment on underlying assumptions. All different models are workable in some fashion but devil is always in details.
Which requirements we are advancing with particular models so we can explain why we are making changes.

--> Have we considered hybrid of various models?
There is no assumption that we have looked at all models. We can call it creating model or hybrid. This discussion is not over.

--> There would be letter from Board members that would represent interest of community. How would we hold them to these commitments? How would you resolve paradox?
We will need to be clear about this. It is quite possible to have irrevocable letter to be signed saying that it will step down if certain characteristics are met. Contract that could be made enforceable.

Robin suggesting empowered designators model. It also required a UA or legal entity - it has same problem.
Empowered designators model - we would use UAs. What is difference between empowered designators models and empowered So/Acs
We are recognizing and empowering to SO/ACs by articulating intention to come together to exercise powers. It essentially creates entity you need for enforcing those. There is no requirement that anybody file a UA - they could do designation by same model - Get rid of middle man and who watches watchers. SO/ACs would have same powers.

If move forward membership model, please be careful about how you define what a member is
Let's not confuse open membership model

Empowered SO/AC gets rid of middle man - even when had those in place, - joining UAs was never part of proposal - it needs to stop being an issue. It would never have affected any of the powers, roles of SO/ACs - wherever we go, we have to be clear that in building accountability general principle should be that anyone can participate, remains free of obligations


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1376bc66/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1376bc66/ATT00001.txt>