[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Mon Feb 8 15:16:59 UTC 2016

As one who has no real opinion on the HR aspects of the work and where it
should ultimately come out, I would caution against chartering a second
group exclusively for that purpose.  First, as Alan notes, that would add
administrative complexity to the task.  More importantly, though, my
experience is that single purpose groups tend to be less successful.
Sometimes they err or the side of over-emphasizing a single issue without
due consideration for countervailing resource constraints and competing
values (the "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
syndrome).  More problematically, single topic groups have a tendency to be
marginalized and disregarded in the context of larger/broader concerns
(think how hard it has been for privacy issues to come to the fore in the
transatlantic discussions).  They tend, in my experience, to gain more
traction as part of a broader coalition of issues/events.  I don't feel
strongly, but I would fold the HR issues into a broader WS2 structure with a
separate substructure underneath


Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Cross
Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include
compromise text suggested by the Board

Let me resort to pragmatism. I know it may set a precedent, but I am willing
to risk it.

1. We are already pretty much locking in what will be done in WS2 in
Recommendation 12, including Human Rights.

2. As an AC Chair, I can definitively say that the workload associated with
chartering, populating and finding chairs for a new CCWG is daunting, and
not something we will approach frivolously.

3. Wearing my "I am not a lawyer" hat, but having spent a fair amount of
time over the last several decades reading, writing and interpreting Bylaws,
I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a specific CCWG or a sub-part
thereof. If they need to make a reference such as the one we are discussing,
they should say the work will be carried out by an appropriately chartered,
generally/widely supported, cross community working group.

Let's not devote more time and bandwidth to this and get on with substantive


At 08/02/2016 04:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>Hello Tijani
> >>  - The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable
>         I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
> From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering organisations 
> should have the option to split some of the work stream 2 topics into 
> separate CCWG's with perhaps different membership that is most 
> interested and/or skilled in the topic.
>As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that 
>each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs and 
>basically have the same ability for open participation as the CCWG on 
>I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability 
>would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every 
>meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the 
>mailing list and attend when available).
>The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the 
>work in work stream 2 - it is up to the  chartering organisations to
>consider  how best to manage the work.   All we are doing is 
>creating some flexibility.
>Bruce Tonkin
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list