Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2
Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #7 – 19 January 2017 will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/xJ3DAw
A copy of the action items and notes may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Action Items
·
Participants to read A and B document by EOB Monday and provide comments for drafting team- JC to send reminder to list.
·
Staff to provide answer to sub-group on access to documents by 27 January 2017.
·
Klaus Stoll to draft answers to Staff Questions for consideration by group by 27 Janaury 2017.
Notes
(11 participants at start of call)
1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check
Jordan Carter: Avri Doria will not be able to join the call today.
2. Detailed discussion-seeking feedback on working draft Document A v 1.3Document, open to comments and suggested edits,
Jordan Carter: JC,AD and KS have cleaned up the document from the 5th of January - still needs a lot of tidying up to get it to first reading. Asking participants to post comments on the clean
version of the Google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wGRrJZ-i7WA0uYBIHaB5Q3ssqfRmbAcgHJwlQ6scHZY/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Klaus Stoll: Would ask everyone to read the document and comment so we can go into a final editing.
Jordan Carter: (presentation of the structure document).
Klaus Stoll: The first three sections are a rehash of existing document - as such asking a reader to go through 6 pages of introduction - so maybe we could bring our recommendations more at the
beginning could be better.
Jordan Carter: If a good idea we should be clear about what is standard and what is editorial from us. Anything on the Role Descriptions? (none). Anything on relationships?
Pam Little: 1.3.1 Root or just the DNS?
Jordan Carter: we should use standard language.
Jeff Neuman: Community does not implement policy - is this correct and we should note the gNSO work on this.
Jordan Carter: please share that link. So the language is not quite right yet. Back to Relationships section 2.
Jeff Neuman: I will try to find a good reference
Jordan Carter: Section 3 - any comments.
Pam Little: second para - ending - "some important differences" could be removed as we are talking about similarities here.
Jordan Carter: Section 4 - this needs quite a bit to tightening up. this gets close to the scope of this group and should be looked at in this light. Section 5 - Recommendations - I disagree with
the financial indepence recommendation (registries and registrars should not fund ICANN).
Pam Little: @Jeff - ICANN provided a detailed response to our questions.
Jeff Neuman: I agree with removal of that bullet point
Alan Greenberg: how would this funding recommendation work?
Klaus Stoll: This financial relationship sometimes leads to conflicts and so we should look at better way to fund us to avoid this.
Jeff Neuman: @Klaus - But you are assuming there is a problem
Jeff Neuman: where is the evidence of that?
Alan Greenberg: Agree there is an issue but would not resolve it this way. This resolution makes no sense as is.
Klaus Stoll: If we do the second part we would be out of the scope of this sub-group.
Jordan Carter: There is something there that could put pressure on staff to dealing with those participants who fund the company.
Alan Greenberg: No problem with identifying the issue but the recommendation does not make sense.
Jeff Neuman: We need to identify sources of information for sections 1 and 2 - otherwise causes confusion for the reader.
Jordan Carter: the original longer version of this did have that and we have to bring some of that back.
Phil Corwin: Agree that the financial recommendation does not make sense. Second the funds to come from registrants up though registrars and registrants. The funds are used to get a variety of participants
in ICANN. We need a document that will identify remedies for issues with staff.
Jordan Carter: That is for document A.
Klaus Stoll: It would be good to make these comments in the documents would be very helpful.
Jordan Carter: reminder to participants to please read and comment the document.
3. Initial discussion / seeking feedback on First Draft Document B - Avri is rapporteur on this
Jordan Carter: Waiting for access to documents.
Bernard Turcotte: Staff should have a response on thiss by the end of next week.
Jordan Carter: We will not go into detail on this document here while we wait for access to the ICANN documents which would inform our work in drafting this further.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnkJuukv0px-CfIDgLrjdDZa2CpBvSahPvAXdYYTeHk/edit
4. Volunteers for response to Staff Questions Avri has prepared a document for answers to the questions that staff asked the group
Jordan Carter: Who would like to volunteer to draft some further answers?
Klaus Stoll: The answer to these questions are mostly in sections 4 and 5 of our document. I could spend some time to attempt a draft answer for us to consider.
Jordan Carter: Great thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we need to send / resend the links to docs again to our
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): list with reminder to contribute
5. Schedule check
Jordan Carter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ftd-Ps_qF46pf_iXf5foGjdUfCq64-St_43inFetDN0/edit
--- this is our Next Steps
Jordan Carter: We are running a little late vs this schedule. We may not have docs A and B to the plenary prior to Copenhagen but should have one ready for Copenhagen.
6. AOB
1.
Jordan Carter: AOB (none) – Adjourned
Action Items:
·
Participants to read A and B document by EOB Monday and provide comments for drafting team- JC to send reminder to list.
·
Staff to provide answer to sub-group on access to documents by 27 January 2017.
·
Klaus Stoll to draft answers to Staff Questions for consideration by group by 27 Janaury 2017.