Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT Face to Face Meeting in Marrakech (#86) are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/URWAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items · ACTION ITEM Display composition for each subgroup. · ACTION ITEM Relabel with CCWG review instead of approval. Notes Chartering Organizations' Update ccNSO Sessions will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday. Each ccNSO appointed member will be invited to provide a summary of whether or not they recommend approval. Session on next steps will take place on Wednesday. SSAC SSAC was the first Chartering Organization to approve the report. SSAC went through a deliberate process. GNSO GNSO is holding its working session this weekend. Draft motion suggests adopting all 12 recommendations. GAC Planning 5 sessions to review document and plans to finish by Tuesday. There still are issues to discuss. ASO No issues with initial Third Draft Proposal. Supplemental report was shared. Only issue was explained in minority statement but has nothing to do with substance of report. Our accountability is based on SLA for numbering function. We don't expect issues. Positive feedback was given. Expect to close on March 6. ALAC 2-hour briefing sessions were conducted. ALAC hopes to finish process this weekend. Some are suggesting providing a statement along with the ratification. On ratification, CCWG CoChairs strongly discourage combining approval with conditions. Be conservative with any additional language. Feedback: - There might be remarks about Bylaws drafting and implementation. à This might cause issue for approval and process. Be conservative. à Statements run risk of creating conflicts in interpretation between Chartering Organizations. Flesh it better if considered internal to Chartering Organization. It would be better if separate. à One of our objective is to know how we are going to implement. ICG update We have received confirmation from CWG that dependencies are met. We have already prepared a draft letter and authorized the Chair of ICG to send it to the Board on March 10. We will wait for Chartering Organizations to approve the CCWG report. Board update All-day meeting of Board yesterday. If COs sign off, we will be able to process report quickly. Team on Board was formed to work closely with CCWG Team on getting Bylaws completed. Engagement Objective is to have better view of how organizing WS1 implementation and WS2. Find a strawman approach for next month. WS1 implementation Way forward: · IRP Team led by Becky · IOT - comprised of CoChairs and Rapporteurs Suggestion to break Work Stream 2 into subgroups. Feedback: - How do you see approval of language that will emerge from oversight process? à Implementation oversight team - IRP Team. Will break Work Stream 2. Completely independent. - Generally acceptable. Drafting of Bylaws and a specific number of Bylaws is going to be critical. Statements were made along the way. à We need process to be important and transparent. Opportunity to track process but lawyers are strongly cautioning us against process that is too iterative. - ACTION ITEM Display composition for each subgroup. - Reconcile with recommendations and turn around for CCWG approval as each section comes along. AOC bylaws is just one recommendation. - Concerned that this is a fait accompli. No opportunity for group to reopen issues. Criteria for checking is whether or not wording adequately implements what has been decided. We should be given proper opportunity for review. § ACTION ITEM Relabel with CCWG review instead of approval. - Writing should be in compliance with recommendation. We should look into availability of projects. Address these issues. - You were elected for three/five years - we want respiration and check whether CO members want to stay on board and/or if need more people. Is it time to change them? à We will need to discuss how we organize work. It is a probability that renewed energy is needed. It will be discussed as part of WS2. The intent to write to COs to ask for confirmation/renewal of members if find it appropriate and have confirmation that group is planning to play in terms of implementation. It is opportunity to liaise with Chartering Organizations. - Certify requests instead of topics. - Make sure lawyers understand what you want. It is key. Let them do the drafting. - Maintenance of budget should be considered. - Will there be observers on mailing-list? à Calls will be recorded and potentially transcribed. We want to avoid lawyers interacting with a large number of people. Objective is to channel input to lawyers through fewer individuals. - Push mailing-list. à Group is very sensitive to make sure Bylaws are consistent. Flag issue. Check whether requirements make way - What will interaction be with ICANN lawyers. à Exact flow to be determined. - Board: subset of directors facilitating process and communicating with wider Board. Board will be using Jones Day to provide advice. Work collaboratively with CCWG. Goals of both groups is common goal. à Board has fiduciary role. It needs to be collaborative. à We need to ensure we respect duty of Board to publish for comments. Transparency for Chartering Organizations. - By end of week Board will provide timetable to share. All bylaws to review. - Setting up a list so that everyone can observe this process. - Leadership group that would be coordinating effort between different groups. CONCLUSION Overall process set up on slide will be agreed process and include refinements (e.g. insertion of CCWG review/ratification). Initial drafting will be directed to independent counsel working collaboratively with ICANN legal. We are continuing with IRP group set up so far and will use CoChairs/Rapporteurs to oversee the drafting for rest of Bylaws. These groups will operate under same transparency standards. What is at stake here is ensuring we have compliance between report and Bylaws. We will get key milestones from process Board is drafting. It will drive project plan. The IRP group https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP-IOT+-+IRP+Implementatio... includes lawyers and non lawyers Engagement slides Run-through of engagement slides. WS2 Discuss how this would fit with ATRT review. We need to decide whether we want to combine efforts with existing efforts. Are there topics we want to work on in parallel or separately? Jurisdiction is multi-facetted. We need to understand how to involve resources. An agreement with strawman project plan is needed. There could be first phase of work where we create inventory of existing tools and establish requirements of what should go into report of these subteams. Do we want to consider a public comment period? We should phase out work irrespectively of when it starts in comparable manner for all work items. Feedback: - - Issues in WS2 are important. Public comment will be important for vision at plenary level. It could be good to have a view of what each of the groups are doing. We have to consult - important to have vision at plenary level to know what each group is doing at each level. - Important that we take into account what has already be done at ICANN. For jurisdiction, large amount of doc through presidential review teams are available. Ask people who were participating in these discussions. Subgroup is a must. Diversity should be ensured. We need to take into account what ATRT is doing and its remit. What is current remit of ATRT? Do we want to outsource to other groups for instance human rights? Do we want to have working group with Ombudsman? - We need to pitch ATRT implementation. This group has absolute priority. At any time, if we have to choose between WS2 - WS1 has priority. - Work Stream 2 items are pretty close to ATRT remit. They could be handed to the next ATRT in a normative way. Step back and be descriptive on how we organize work. - What is the envisioned timeline? An estimate of required resources is needed. In terms of working methods, use documents/practices and see how deeply we want to go. - We need clear understanding of budget ceiling and to identify process to organize workload. - We have no time limit. Urge to get WS1 totally finished and to start with individual projects. - ATRT is the natural home for transparency, accountability. We should not hesitate to take an approach. We need limits. - WS1 was mandatory step. We need to take this into account. We need certain role. We need to have idea of when we want to deliver. - Human rights - might be self defeating to have in parallel. - When the ATRT is convened - we need to be careful in way we do subdivision. - Crucial to finish WS1 first. Agree that there is no time pressure. No more than three subgroups should be set up along with set deadlines for purposes. Before subgroup starts, we should agree when delivers work. All subgroup working same time. - There should get 12-month limit on WS2 to make sure issues were addressed. - There is expertise on human rights etc that could be helpful CONCLUSION There are fundamental items on which agreement needs to be reached as a group. Announcement ASO has signed off on supplemental report. Review Team work Presentation delivered by ICANN staff on review work. Accountability includes topics of continuous improvement - work does not have end point. It is important to evaluate to what extent that work has been affected. It is helpful to have shared understanding between Board, community and staff on desired outcome and to measure how that could be accomplished. There needs to be direct and clear outcomes quantified for the community. Recommendation has to be measurable. Another attribute is considering resources Questions to ask: What constitutes a successful outcome? What frameworks or tools would be useful to design outcomes? How should various teams look at that and define what constitutes desirable? ATRT3 is scheduled to kick off in January 2017. Once Board takes action on implementation - one of improvements will be to have continuity: RT members to participate in implementation work with staff and Board. Preparatory work that was undertaken from CCT-RT should be considered. Starting work with tremendous amount of work. Feedback: - How do our Work Stream 1 recommendations affected the line presented to us? à Slide based on current mandate. - See what changes will bring to schedule. There is ongoing work. Avoid duplication. - It is key to understand where we are. - Each team will look at prior reviews. - Do we wait for ATRT to finish? Discuss post ATRT3 - we can give them baseline. - Do we want to feed into ATRT, post ATRT or both? - We should refer to ATRT - not feed into ATRT. - 10 months/22 months is kick-off date from now on to transfer to a group that may not exist for a review. They may or may not have desired focus to work on list. We need to make decision once informed. - Concern about mixing ATRT3 and Work Stream 2. ATRT is evaluation group - changes how accepted/reviewed. It is a different work basket. - We have to limit shortcomings. CONCLUSION Let's not make assumptions about ATRT3 until it has not started. As soon as it is up and running, important coordination will be needed to avoid duplication of efforts and optimize resource management, including volunteer time and resources. OTHERWISE WOULD BE MADE BY THIS GROUP THAT WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY - Agree with conclusions with note that should CCWG deal in Work stream 2 identify activities - understanding on remarks Are there objections to initiating Work Stream 2 before finalizing Work Stream1? - Human Rights should be prioritized - Work Stream 1 and 2 are things that would happen before and after We adopted rationale for those we needed leverage of transition. Anything else that needed leverage could be deferred to WS2. We have discovered issues. Up to CCWG community members to say whether can wait - Clarifying question - Work Stream 1 is critical path. Limited window - how do we do this in parallel; and keep enough energy to get Work Stream 2 done - most concerned about getting transition done in time. à Getting WS 1 implemented is our highest priority. New calls for volunteers might be needed for these exercises. Group needs to take that decision. - How does the group ensure that the energy does not get sucked up from implementation?. There is strong commitment that CoChairs commitment is highest priority. Delivering on task - Wait until majority of implementation work it s done - Not in favor of doing two things at same time. - We should do background work in the 6-month window. - It should not be strictly time bound. We should, however, work on strict scope. - Ombudsman invitation to attend session on role of Ombudsman. - Transparency should be given priority in Work Stream 2. CONCLUSION Many are keen on prioritization and pre-work. We will discuss sequencing of the work later today. Decision not to bundle any of the items, but the sequencing may have a natural effect in building on outcomes SDB - not more than 3 at the same time? GA we had up to 5 running simultaneously. KA - Hope these would not compromise the openness and inclusivity. PTwomey - Why 10? GA these were guidelines. GA = outside expertise was brought in as required from staff. ASullivan - explanation of IETF DTs. Like the idea. GA - CWG work was more specific. AGreenberg - CWG reality was less about experts and more about interest. They were designed to be short lived but this was not always the case. KA - experts or interested could be used. TR - this should inspire us. Seems CCWG likes the concept. We need to specify if need experts or not - timing should not be an issue. Some WS2 items could have sub-groups. KA - no need to go into great details as to what the wg does. TR - Presentation of the 5 step approach: 1. CCWG 1.1. Establishes a working group for a Work Stream 2 topic 1. Working Group 2.1. Working group selects a WG coordinator (Cannot be CCWG co-chair, rapporteur or coordinator of another WG) 2.2. Establish inventory of material available on topic in CCWG. 2.3. Check work under way or previously conduced outside of CCWG 2.4. Propose scope and work plan 2.5. Establish list of requirements 1. CCWG 3.1. Review and adoption of working group scope and requirements 1. Working Group 4.1. Prepare a draft for CCWG and public comment. 1. CCWG 5.1. Review and adopt draft. 5.2. Conduct a public comment on the draft (linked to ICANN meeting schedule) 5.3. Analysis and consideration of results of public comment 5.4. Define next steps for working group TR - questions or comments of this basic project plan for all the WS2 topics. SDB - Could staff do more than schedule calls? TR - We could have staff do and issue report as per the gNSO for PDPs. SDB - Time could be variable *TR - could staff give us an estimate on the time required for each WS2 topic? SEisner - RE SDB request re timing - part of it depends on sequencing and parameters. TR - correct JCarter - Include ICANN meetings in planning to gather face to face input. TR - We like the approach combined with the Design team approach seems supported. We will send a request for volunteers soon. EL - limit number of wgs a single person can participate. TR - yes JScholte - how do we get new blood involved? TR - let communicate to chartering orgs about this including social media. MHutty - agree with EL - not prevent people who wish to participate from participating. BTonkin - Board has similar challenges for Board committees - limit size of committees and the number of committees a Director can be on. JCancio - Any provisions regarding involvement of CCWG advisors? TR - good point - advisors present seem to agree - WGs would decide how to u se the advisors. We will come back to the group with a proposal on a way forward with respect to this. LS - Scoping of the various WS 2 issues. How should we approach these and flesh them out. First topic is Diversity. EL - which order should we look at them. LS - Human Rights PTwomey - Need to know what we want to implement. Neils Ten Oever - We have a clear way forward as listed in Annex 12 - We need a Human Rights Impact Assessment - then we can see what would be the best way forward. AGreenberg - Really important that result gets overall buy-in so we need to be able to communicate it properly by everyone especially non-experts. LS - Agree with AG. ADoria - Things said I agree with. Regarding groups outside the CCWG which work on some of these topics and possible mergers to not reinvent the wheel. However we need a group in the CCWG to meet the needs of the CCWG given these other groups often have much large remit. KArasteh - Merge groups in ICANN on one topic? ELisse - Do not agree with KA - we have said we need to do this we need to do this. ADoria - These other groups have different concerns than the CCWG. EMann - Have been working on this topic for over 20 years and it is very tricky. We need valid legal expertise in this field. Agree with Avri. LS - void broadening the scope of this group. Now Jurisdiction EMann - 4PM (continued) Presentation by MW on management of CCWG going forward. CherineChaleby: Historically it is not in our DNA that CCWG's could spend this amount of money. The size of the expenses makes us think that we3 need to manage costs going forward - but this would be a change for the community - but we should proceed in a step by step fashion. To get any significant project going requires a real transparent process with adequate approvals based on reliable estimates. Reliable estimates are difficult to generate on an adhoc basis - we should proceed with a pilot project to look back at historical expenditures and analyze to produce better estimates going forward (4- 6 weeks to get this data). Once we have this data we should get back together with the group to consider the results. RMeijer - we need to ask consultants for estimates before the work is requested. MW - We have started this way of working with the legal team. Also having more time vs always working in a rush will also help significantly. TR - The proposed draft project plan presented earlier also help address this. RGross - who would the project managers report to? CC: At this point it would not matter given their work is to produce estimates. RGross =- they should report to the co-chairs. Jcarter - This proposal seems fine. What is unclear is where the Board is thinking this leads to. CCWG must be able to keep control to get work done. KArasteh - generally ok but a bit more careful on legal costs. We need to be effective and economical. CC - terms project manager and financial manager are inaccurate - we simply need people with skill to produce the desired outcome. MW - under these conditions we welcome the BFC proposal for the pilot project. MW - Going forward we will still need staff support. We will also need F2F meeting before the next ICANN meetings as this meeting has shown for WS2 and WS1 implementation. Legal advice may also be needed but should be less. Half the cost was due to us asking for very short turn-around. On some non-critical elements, it could be fine to use other legal resources such as ICANN staff legal. We will maintain the same approval process for submitting legal requests but manage the timing better to avoid rush requests. KArasteh - My comments were not a criticism of the past simply comment going forward. SBachollet - turnaround left to lawyers? We need some deadlines. MW - when asking for an estimate for a request we would also seek to have an estimate on time. XCalvez - add. Suggestion CWG process for working with legal seems to have worked well and we can assist with negotiations regarding charging for estimates. MW - Estimates are worthwhile only to significant requests. EMorris - Do we need two law firms? One is substantially cheaper. Therefore, do we still need the expertise of both firms going forward? LS - you are correct Ed - we would like the group to decide, uncertain if it is correct to simply rule out one firm. This should be considered or maybe even considering obtaining a new firm. MW - We should review our current legal setup for WS2 - WS1 is locked. MHutty - Suggestions reasonable and pragmatic. Leave time frame consideration to co-chairs. Concern about ICANN legal providing input. MW - trust issue which may evolve. MW concern noted. JCarter - we need the two firms. We should only ask questions to questions that are well developed and considered valuable. KArasteh - Bullets need improvements. Need to be clear that only co-chairs certify requests. BTonkin - In managing legal costs usually use in-house for low level simple stuff and can be used to frame questions for the specialized questions. Separation of Duties is required, Policy support is currently separate and is well provided currently under DOlive. This could really be helpful to the CCWG. TR - thanks Bruce - we will ask the group how they feel about this. ELisse - Do not agree with MH, 2 co-chairs are lawyers and could be valid for local questions. Do not think we need in-house counsel. AshaHemrajani - not looking for new lawyers just looking for good estimates. MW - yes we have agreed to this - but we were discussing going further. RGross - Suggestion to use the CCWG legal list. MW - better planning of costs going forward (presentation of the 5 circles) in an iterative process that is based on a discussion with the Board regarding the costs and estimates. Need better cost tracking linked to results. Then we could look at the value of keeping the process going. We have started working on the first circle with the proposal for estimates. This has to be a collaboration between the CCWG the chartering ORGS and the Board. CChelaby - support this approach that needs to be iterative. KArasteh - always a benefit to consult colleauges. ELisse - the main costs are legal - simply reduce legal and everyone will be happy. ADoria - this is a constant cycle and seems a big overhead. MW - lets do one iteration and see. We have a plan going forward. TR - 2 CO's approved, clarified WS1 implementation, details for WS2 and decided what would not be in these. We can signal to the world that WS1 is going. KArasteh - thanks
