Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #50 - 25 August
Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #50 - 25 August will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/049CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 2. Preliminary ICANN Board Comments Board is scaling up efforts and involved in this. They announced steps that are important for us to be aware of: 1) seeking external counseling input that will be inserted into forum; 2) reaching out to third party experts on governance to assess impact of proposal; 3) they will be using these briefing materials to build their comments. They provide useful examples of concerns e.g. change of role of ACs and new powers that are being granted, risk of paralysis and IRP related concerns. We have been trying to organize calls with the Board but have not been able to find a time. Concerns that dialogue is not taking place. Board announcement might turn discussions into expensive battle of experts instead of dialogue. Feedback: - Part of comments are positive. The fact that they are seeking advice should not be criticized but their comment is a warning: we should not be destabilizing delicate balance. - Impression of feedback should have been given earlier in process. Why did they not seek experts feedback earlier? This may delay in process. What are we negotiating? - Board proclaimed desire to discuss issues in BA but no follow up in Paris. What of Bruce's attendance to calls? We need an open and constructive discussion with Board. There needs to be understanding behing report before submitting additional comments. - It is normal for the Board seek its own advice. If it implements what we propose and somehow it does not work, ICANN will crash. Important not to create a biased. - Can't argue with wish to have solid and capture-proof model. What we have come up with needs to be looked at carefully. Board taking that on is a good thing. How we deal with problems they identify will be interesting. - There is a problem of misunderstanding - we have always had Board members with us. They understand what we are doing and it is their responsibility to evaluate. We need to dialogue with Board. The Board has no interest in collapsing our work - they have concerns. - We have to determine how we can improve dialogue with Board. We can't ensure we will come with a stable proposal to the end. We have minority statements, comments in disagreement etc. We need to see how we will honor that. - Next steps is to bring together group to start working on IRP and rules of procedure. Expert report could be extremely damaging and counterproductive. - It can be extremely helpful if Board comes up with feedback to identify gaps (e.g. staturory rights on first proposal). If the Board comes back to us with counter proposal, based on misunderstandings or information they did not get access to, it will be disastrous. We need to be careful about overall impression of dialogue. We should avoid that Board signals to outside world is that it is derailing transition or community discussion. Suggestion to get back to Board to make the door wide open for dialogue. We should be forthcoming and we suggest writing the Board a letter to avoid complications. On corporate advisors, we should share concerns we see with the Board that ICANN has come us with idea of public experts. We did not go far enough in eyes of some advisors with our proposals. Two scenarios can happen: 1) external advisors agree we have not been far enough; 2) external advisors say we went too far - it will be perceived as Board asking for less change. - It is legitimate for the Board to seek advice but there is value in scheduling a meeting with ICANN Board's legal experts to avoid misunderstandings. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. 3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG - Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? Feedback: - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. 4. Human Rights discussion Progress includes two discussion starter documents: first draft on high level objective and background briefing. We are in process of closing doodle poll for call this week. Feedback: - We should be concise and high level. Progress accomplished in upcoming weeks will be shared with CCWG. 5. Feedback received by group Members on Second Draft Proposal Opportunity to relay initial feedback. Feedback: - Simplicity of community mechanism. IPC discussion on contract enforcement. Discussion happening on unintended consequences which is a good sign. --> We identified potential ambiguous reference in revised mission. Edit proposed to Core Values. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. - Preliminary discussions within GAC: core value 7, voting power of work (participation or not), unclarity on what it is being suggested. Working on ST 18 and core values language. - Current model is not ALAC's preference but can live with it. Comparison between current bylaws and changes is needed. --> Synopsis is on its way. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions 6. ICANN 54 CCWG-ACCT 16 Oct Friday 09:00 - 17:00 Possible engagement session on Monday afternoon either in conjunction with ICG or CCWG alone CCWG-ACCT 22 Oct Thursday 08:00 - 10:00 --> Touch-base to see where we stand with chartering organizations 7 A.O.B /
Hello All, Just a general update on the process that the board is using: - There is a two day workshop this week for staff and available Board members to do a deep dive review of the CCWG proposal - The Board is planning to then have a phone call amongst the whole board to review some of the outputs of that workshop and hear from all Board members - The Board will then meet with the CCWG to get a briefing from the CCWG, ask questions and share any thoughts Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2015 5:50 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #50 - 25 August Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #50 - 25 August will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/049CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 2. Preliminary ICANN Board Comments Board is scaling up efforts and involved in this. They announced steps that are important for us to be aware of: 1) seeking external counseling input that will be inserted into forum; 2) reaching out to third party experts on governance to assess impact of proposal; 3) they will be using these briefing materials to build their comments. They provide useful examples of concerns e.g. change of role of ACs and new powers that are being granted, risk of paralysis and IRP related concerns. We have been trying to organize calls with the Board but have not been able to find a time. Concerns that dialogue is not taking place. Board announcement might turn discussions into expensive battle of experts instead of dialogue. Feedback: - Part of comments are positive. The fact that they are seeking advice should not be criticized but their comment is a warning: we should not be destabilizing delicate balance. - Impression of feedback should have been given earlier in process. Why did they not seek experts feedback earlier? This may delay in process. What are we negotiating? - Board proclaimed desire to discuss issues in BA but no follow up in Paris. What of Bruce's attendance to calls? We need an open and constructive discussion with Board. There needs to be understanding behing report before submitting additional comments. - It is normal for the Board seek its own advice. If it implements what we propose and somehow it does not work, ICANN will crash. Important not to create a biased. - Can't argue with wish to have solid and capture-proof model. What we have come up with needs to be looked at carefully. Board taking that on is a good thing. How we deal with problems they identify will be interesting. - There is a problem of misunderstanding - we have always had Board members with us. They understand what we are doing and it is their responsibility to evaluate. We need to dialogue with Board. The Board has no interest in collapsing our work - they have concerns. - We have to determine how we can improve dialogue with Board. We can't ensure we will come with a stable proposal to the end. We have minority statements, comments in disagreement etc. We need to see how we will honor that. - Next steps is to bring together group to start working on IRP and rules of procedure. Expert report could be extremely damaging and counterproductive. - It can be extremely helpful if Board comes up with feedback to identify gaps (e.g. staturory rights on first proposal). If the Board comes back to us with counter proposal, based on misunderstandings or information they did not get access to, it will be disastrous. We need to be careful about overall impression of dialogue. We should avoid that Board signals to outside world is that it is derailing transition or community discussion. Suggestion to get back to Board to make the door wide open for dialogue. We should be forthcoming and we suggest writing the Board a letter to avoid complications. On corporate advisors, we should share concerns we see with the Board that ICANN has come us with idea of public experts. We did not go far enough in eyes of some advisors with our proposals. Two scenarios can happen: 1) external advisors agree we have not been far enough; 2) external advisors say we went too far - it will be perceived as Board asking for less change. - It is legitimate for the Board to seek advice but there is value in scheduling a meeting with ICANN Board's legal experts to avoid misunderstandings. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. 3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG - Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? Feedback: - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. 4. Human Rights discussion Progress includes two discussion starter documents: first draft on high level objective and background briefing. We are in process of closing doodle poll for call this week. Feedback: - We should be concise and high level. Progress accomplished in upcoming weeks will be shared with CCWG. 5. Feedback received by group Members on Second Draft Proposal Opportunity to relay initial feedback. Feedback: - Simplicity of community mechanism. IPC discussion on contract enforcement. Discussion happening on unintended consequences which is a good sign. --> We identified potential ambiguous reference in revised mission. Edit proposed to Core Values. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. - Preliminary discussions within GAC: core value 7, voting power of work (participation or not), unclarity on what it is being suggested. Working on ST 18 and core values language. - Current model is not ALAC's preference but can live with it. Comparison between current bylaws and changes is needed. --> Synopsis is on its way. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions 6. ICANN 54 CCWG-ACCT 16 Oct Friday 09:00 - 17:00 Possible engagement session on Monday afternoon either in conjunction with ICG or CCWG alone CCWG-ACCT 22 Oct Thursday 08:00 - 10:00 --> Touch-base to see where we stand with chartering organizations 7 A.O.B /
Hi All, For those of us who couldn’t make the call could the below section of the notes be elaborated on? Its not very clear if this is referring to the IFO/PTI separation process post-IFR or to some other process. If its referring to the SCWG as defined by the CWG I don’t understand why that would be a CCWG task rather than a CWG task. -James On 25 Aug 2015, at 08:49, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> wrote: 3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG - Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? Feedback: - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal.
Hi, It has to do with the results from a SCWG. Which while defined in some detail in ANNEX L (page 198 of the ICG proposal), also refers to the CCWG model. - the use of remediation as determined in the CCWG if the Board rejects an IFR recommendation for a SCWG - the approval of a SCWG determined new operator selection Beyond that there needs to be the fundamental bylaw that refers to both the IFR and the SCWG. I think that is an implementation issue. One thing I had forgotten about is the statement & conditional footnote in the CWG proposal that says:
The selection of a new operator to perform the IANA Naming Functions or other separation process will be subject to approval by the ICANN Board, and a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process.83 83 This community mechanism could include ICANN membership, if ICANN were to become a membership organization per the CCWG-Accountability work efforts.
We have not included this among the community powers of the SMCM. avri On 25-Aug-15 05:15, James Gannon wrote:
Hi All,
For those of us who couldn’t make the call could the below section of the notes be elaborated on? Its not very clear if this is referring to the IFO/PTI separation process post-IFR or to some other process. If its referring to the SCWG as defined by the CWG I don’t understand why that would be a CCWG task rather than a CWG task.
-James
On 25 Aug 2015, at 08:49, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> wrote:
*3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG*
- Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? _Feedback:_ - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 25-Aug-15 09:18, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
It has to do with the results from a SCWG. Which while defined in some detail in ANNEX L (page 198 of the ICG proposal), also refers to the
page 108
CCWG model.
- the use of remediation as determined in the CCWG if the Board rejects an IFR recommendation for a SCWG - the approval of a SCWG determined new operator selection
Beyond that there needs to be the fundamental bylaw that refers to both the IFR and the SCWG. I think that is an implementation issue.
One thing I had forgotten about is the statement & conditional footnote in the CWG proposal that says:
The selection of a new operator to perform the IANA Naming Functions or other separation process will be subject to approval by the ICANN Board, and a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process.83 83 This community mechanism could include ICANN membership, if ICANN were to become a membership organization per the CCWG-Accountability work efforts. We have not included this among the community powers of the SMCM.
avri
On 25-Aug-15 05:15, James Gannon wrote:
Hi All,
For those of us who couldn’t make the call could the below section of the notes be elaborated on? Its not very clear if this is referring to the IFO/PTI separation process post-IFR or to some other process. If its referring to the SCWG as defined by the CWG I don’t understand why that would be a CCWG task rather than a CWG task.
-James
On 25 Aug 2015, at 08:49, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> wrote:
*3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG*
- Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? _Feedback:_ - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Brenda Brewer -
Bruce Tonkin -
James Gannon