[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #6 | 15 December

Thu Dec 15 22:37:20 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Transparency Subgroup, Meeting #6 -  15 December 2016 will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/-xK4Aw

A copy of the notes from the meeting are below.

Kind Regards,
Yvette Guigneaux
Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst.
ICANN
Email:  yvette.guigneaux at icann.org
Cell:  +1-310-460-8432
Skype:  yvette.guigneaux.icann

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Playa Vista, CA 90094

________________________________
NOTES
1. Roll Call
2. Welcome - Opening Remarks
Michael Karanicolas: Will go directly to document.
3. Discussion of ICANN CCWG - Transparency Report WS2 - DRAFT
Michael Karanicolas: Review of new version of draft.
David McAuley: thanks for drafting - a lot of good in this. A few concerns - would encourage us to encourage ICANN to get involved early (vs WS1). Non-disclosure - nothing should upset an existing NDA - if there is going to be a public interest override then the NDA should note this if it is subject to this. Disclosure of Board vs IRP - would this really qualify under the IRP Bylaws as written.
Michael Karanicolas: re ICANN good. NDA robust disclosure discussed in Hyderabad - much support for opening up contracting rules. As to applying it retroactively that is problematic and should not be done as it would not be fair. As such it is currently worded that current NDAs should not be modified.  Re IRP vs references - however we do not need a new enforcement/review mechanism for this.
David McAuley: IRP - agree we should not have another dispute resolution mechanism. However, they do not have to go IRP first - other choices such as the Ombudsman are available. However, we should not specify what is applicable to IRP, the Bylaws currently say what that is.
Michael Karanicolas: Given the time constraints could we get your written comments earlier.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Wow hang on Team it's called building consensus not a deadline driven end game

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): no contract penalties for slipping a deadline here we don't get revisions for updates easier if we hand homework in on time
Chris Wilson: looking to be on track1.
Michael Karanicolas: any other comments on the draft?
Chris Wilson: Maybe we could handle the CW comments made by email?
Michael Karanicolas: Good idea. discussing budget considerations is beyond our remit however we should ensure we are not recommending things that are completely unreasonable.
David McAuley (RySG): Budgeting could be handles by adding "reasonableness" to be judged ultimately by Ombudsman.
Alan Greenberg: The Ombudsman makes recommendations and never decisions. About budgeting - a statement about reasonableness should be included in our recommendations. Transparency of the volunteer part of the organization but this falls to the SOACs
David McAuley: Agree with AG.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Dissociate budget reasonableness vs anything to do with the Ombudsman - as I believe no Ombudsman would accept to do this.
Michael Karanicolas: Sounds like we include a reasonableness statement but leave out any mention of the Ombudsman (general support).
David McAuley: references to best effort or ASAP should be considered in context of reasonable costs.
Michael Karanicolas: Reasonableness is about helping identify priorities. How about As Soon As Reasonably Possible. Any further comments?
Vidushi Marda: Good draft. Support DIDP clauses about restrictions 7, 10 and 11. Uncertain the proposed replacement for 11 may not meet what we are trying to do. We should maybe be looking at asking ICANN to provide a reason why. Pro-Active disclosure we should add where they get their funding.
Michael Karanicolas: Re Proactive disclosure - Given we initially removed the proactive disclosure I would be leery of adding it in again. What we could do is sturcture the access to information stuff to make it easier to get that information. Number 11 should be rephrased but understanding ICANN has commercial interests which cannot be compromized would appreciate a suggestion.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Michael we need to be careful re our specific mandate within WS2...  other work later may of course but should say build on our foundations
Vidushi Marda 2: my analysis so far shows that as the most often used clause, and my concern is that the new amendment would not change much
Vidushi Marda 2: I will do so in the next week?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Important remark: ICANN per se does not have "commercial interests"; although some of its stakeholders do. I would avoid any expression tending to accredit the notion that ICANN is or should be a "commercial venture"...
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: No, ICANN does not have "commercial interests".
Philip Corwin: ICANN is non-profit, but not non-commercial
Vidushi Marda 2: in order to define ICANN's commercial interests, we need to know where it gets we need to know where it gets its money from :)
Philip Corwin: A third of a $billion in new gTLD application fees sure looks commercial
David McAuley: Interesting discussion - JJS should make his point and let people think about it.
Alan Greenberg: ICANN is not for profit but engages in a number of contracts such as renting office space - so I have no problem using this word.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, but the "commercial information" does not originate in, nor belong to ICANN. That belongs to the commercial interests of some stakeholders. I insist on this point, and would oppose the current wording.
Vidushi Marda 2: reposting, just for the benefit of discussion: https://twitter.com/VidushiMarda/status/656041061278609408
Philip Corwin: If commercial is to be omitted what term is to replace it?
Wale Bakare: The interest is about providing services but not-for-profit. The term commercial contextually may mean profit driven. My thought though.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Alan, ICANN renting space does not amount to "ICANN's commercial interests". It's simply part of their necessity to function.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, "the commercial interests of its stakeholders who have those interests".
Michael Karanicolas: Commercial interest of its stakeholders?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: of SOME of its stakeholders. Alan can confirm, inter alia, that ALAC does not have commercial interests...
Micahael Karanicolas: is this acceptable
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: "some" vs those who do.
Ricardo Holmquist: if you put some, and I understand ALAC does not have, it only causes controversy
Vidushi Marda 2: Can we have some time to think about wording? maybe on list?
Vidushi Marda 2: we might be benefitting some interests
David McAuley (RySG): Since this is about paragraph 11 I remain of view stated earlier regarding NDAs.
Michael Karanicolas. Can we ask for people to submit their suggestions in the next few days?
Philip Corwin: ICANN enters into enforceable legal agreements with contracted parties from which it derives tens of $millions in fees. How can that not be regarded as commercial arrangements in furtherance of its non-profit purposes?
Wale Bakare: "Some" carries maybe 70% of
Michael Karanicolas: Any other comments? Any comments on Board deliberations? (none).
David McAuley: My comments will include a number of questions about clarifications - eg we mention Human Rights in several places but this should not impact the work of that group or the Bylaws on this.
Michael Karanicolas: any other comments? (None) Adjourned.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161215/7b710352/attachment-0001.html>