Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #15 03 March
Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #15 call on 03 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889640 Action Items Action (co-chair) Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal Action to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report. Notes CCWG - Call # 15 - 3 March 2015 This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 1. Welcome, roll-call & SOI Becky Burr and Barrack Otieno call only 2. Activity reports WP2 * followed the triggered and un-triggered format, and this demarkation broadly work On 2 calls and coordination with Jordan WP1, moved work on ICANN limited scope to WP2. * Tasks between there 2 groups compared and allocated. * Document transparency, all are part of WP1 * WP2 includes modifications, enhancements, review of exist triggered mechanisms. * These include Ombudsman, reconsideration independent review and suggestions from the community related to these. * Plus covers the compact with the community and statement of ICANN's mission and standards to carrot mission, as discussed in Singapore. * Holding weekly meetings, planning sub-group calls, and possibly a meeting on Sunday afternoon in Istanbul to prepare for the week.. * WP2 will enhance existing mechanisms, ensure that the Board can be held to its bylaws, prevent mission creep etc. * Question: When do we ask for reconsideration, what do we mean by redress, and need to agree on a definition of "community". * Definitions will be in the final report, build on initial discussions in Frankfurt * There are attempts to define "community" in the scoping document: communities are being discussed in respect at standing, and other with decisions making power. * WP2 proposing 5 new sub-groups. Work of the groups will be on the WIKI, and referred to in transcripts and notes of WP2 calls * Light-weight structures might be preferred. WP1 * Weekly meetings. Discussions about, removal of directors and defining GAC consensus. Draft templates available for most, where not they are topics transferred to WP2 or in progress. * Looking at mechanisms that make these powers work: issue of statutory members, members, supervisory board etc are the right way to make the powers work being discussed. * Example: removal of directors (note yet discussed by the working group) * Any number or all Directors might be removed. * Assumption controlling is whatever is recommended in terms of CCWG * A new mechanism * The effect of a director being removed. * Standard of the decision, objective standards are often not specified. Suggestion should follow same standards as the ICANN Board currently has to remove a Director. * Do not expect resolution before F2F * Contributes to all accountability dimensions, makes the Director more aware of all accountability mechanisms and contingencies. * A director appointed by a particular community, should that electing entity be the only one able to remove the director? Or removal by others with the support or no objection by that SO/AC * NomCom appointed directors, may require a modifies process Action (co-chair): Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal * What infringement might trigger the process? That this is a measure of last resort * With each power there will be different triggers. Suggest powers should be attached to existing mechanisms, or one shared new group. * Initial proposal was to spill the entire board. Extreme and very difficult to trigger. Threat of use, presence enough Now making a simple concept complex, picking off single directors, objective standards of the community rather than super-majority. * WP1 will distinguish between pilling the board and powers if the individual SO/AC. Need to have graduated scale, or risk the only option is to escalate to the higher standard. * Notion of the "big stick" for WS1 topics. Recall of whole board is that big stick. removal of individual directors left as WS2. * GAC advice and how the bylaws require the Board to consider this advice. * GAC set out its own operating principles., is able to lower or raise the threshold for advice. * Suggestion of the current wording of GAC principles about consensus advice, that it is that consensus advice that triggers this reconciliation by the Board. If the GAC then changes its standard of advice, how that advice is considered by the board is a matter for the community. Codifies the status quo in the ICANN bylaws. Stress Test WP * Stress test 1 and 2, combined. * Note: intention to apply a test against a package of proposed accountability measures, so premature to apply, but is proving useful to apply to these drafts. * 1 and 2: IANA root zone change authority/delegation authority fails to function. Need to engage with the CWG. Action: to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. * Test 24. Mission creep, CEO expands or extends ICANN's mission, lacking community consensus * Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. * Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. If in strategic plan or budget then community non-binding comment, and CA AG has authority if an organization acts outside its mission. What powers doe the CA AG have? * \Under a majority or supermajority, the community might block the budget. Mid-year, if the the community power to veto a Board decision. Or triggering an independent review, but to what standard. Collectively the proposed mechanisms seem adequate. * Is the golden bylaw is addressed by WP2 in mission and standards * Test 15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation in response to litigation. * community standing to veto a board decision could prevent the board on moving. AoC in the bylaws would mean ICANN is subject to legal action by another party. Seems adequate protection against the contingency Legal Subteam * Legal scoping document, working through a number of drafts. Expect to narrow the issues and questions down by the end of the week. * Particularly aware of issues of interest to the ccTLD community * External law firm, prep calls with a short list of firms, two more interviews this week * Anti-trust issues will be considered in the scoping document. * Jurisdiction: expect further discussion with Advisors Timeline * Working towards f2f in Istanbul and readiness of the draft for public comment on April 6. * What is the structure of the F2F Istanbul, so we can play the work of the subgroups. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report.. Documents Presented WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Timeline - http://tinyurl.com/kd2u3b7
As I said (again) during the call today, I don't believe it is realistic or even humanly possible that we will have a draft report ready for public comment by 6 April. We won't have any legal advice back for another couple of weeks from now and our decisions will have to be based on that analysis. We need to take the time to do this right. There are so many different moving parts to this work. We are talking about major changes to ICANN and too many issues are still up in the air at this point to have a proposal out the public's approval in only a few short weeks from now. We will NOT be only "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" in Istanbul in 2 weeks - we will be just getting to the heart of the issues - IF we are lucky enough to have legal advice back before then. And the community should be consulting about setting deadlines on these important milestones. We really do have more time available to us, and we really should take more time to do this right. Thanks, Robin On Mar 3, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #15 call on 03 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889640
Action Items Action (co-chair) Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal Action to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report. Notes CCWG - Call # 15 - 3 March 2015 This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 1. Welcome, roll-call & SOI Becky Burr and Barrack Otieno call only 2. Activity reports WP2 · followed the triggered and un-triggered format, and this demarkation broadly work On 2 calls and coordination with Jordan WP1, moved work on ICANN limited scope to WP2. · Tasks between there 2 groups compared and allocated. · Document transparency, all are part of WP1 · WP2 includes modifications, enhancements, review of exist triggered mechanisms. · These include Ombudsman, reconsideration independent review and suggestions from the community related to these. · Plus covers the compact with the community and statement of ICANN's mission and standards to carrot mission, as discussed in Singapore. · Holding weekly meetings, planning sub-group calls, and possibly a meeting on Sunday afternoon in Istanbul to prepare for the week.. · WP2 will enhance existing mechanisms, ensure that the Board can be held to its bylaws, prevent mission creep etc. · Question: When do we ask for reconsideration, what do we mean by redress, and need to agree on a definition of "community". · Definitions will be in the final report, build on initial discussions in Frankfurt · There are attempts to define "community" in the scoping document: communities are being discussed in respect at standing, and other with decisions making power. · WP2 proposing 5 new sub-groups. Work of the groups will be on the WIKI, and referred to in transcripts and notes of WP2 calls · Light-weight structures might be preferred. WP1 · Weekly meetings. Discussions about, removal of directors and defining GAC consensus. Draft templates available for most, where not they are topics transferred to WP2 or in progress. · Looking at mechanisms that make these powers work: issue of statutory members, members, supervisory board etc are the right way to make the powers work being discussed. · Example: removal of directors (note yet discussed by the working group) · Any number or all Directors might be removed. · Assumption controlling is whatever is recommended in terms of CCWG · A new mechanism · The effect of a director being removed. · Standard of the decision, objective standards are often not specified. Suggestion should follow same standards as the ICANN Board currently has to remove a Director. · Do not expect resolution before F2F · Contributes to all accountability dimensions, makes the Director more aware of all accountability mechanisms and contingencies. · A director appointed by a particular community, should that electing entity be the only one able to remove the director? Or removal by others with the support or no objection by that SO/AC · NomCom appointed directors, may require a modifies process Action (co-chair): Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal · What infringement might trigger the process? That this is a measure of last resort · With each power there will be different triggers. Suggest powers should be attached to existing mechanisms, or one shared new group. · Initial proposal was to spill the entire board. Extreme and very difficult to trigger. Threat of use, presence enough Now making a simple concept complex, picking off single directors, objective standards of the community rather than super-majority. · WP1 will distinguish between pilling the board and powers if the individual SO/AC. Need to have graduated scale, or risk the only option is to escalate to the higher standard. · Notion of the "big stick" for WS1 topics. Recall of whole board is that big stick. removal of individual directors left as WS2. · GAC advice and how the bylaws require the Board to consider this advice. · GAC set out its own operating principles., is able to lower or raise the threshold for advice. · Suggestion of the current wording of GAC principles about consensus advice, that it is that consensus advice that triggers this reconciliation by the Board. If the GAC then changes its standard of advice, how that advice is considered by the board is a matter for the community. Codifies the status quo in the ICANN bylaws. Stress Test WP · Stress test 1 and 2, combined. · Note: intention to apply a test against a package of proposed accountability measures, so premature to apply, but is proving useful to apply to these drafts. · 1 and 2: IANA root zone change authority/delegation authority fails to function. Need to engage with the CWG. Action: to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. · Test 24. Mission creep, CEO expands or extends ICANN's mission, lacking community consensus · Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. · Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. If in strategic plan or budget then community non-binding comment, and CA AG has authority if an organization acts outside its mission. What powers doe the CA AG have? · \Under a majority or supermajority, the community might block the budget. Mid-year, if the the community power to veto a Board decision. Or triggering an independent review, but to what standard. Collectively the proposed mechanisms seem adequate. · Is the golden bylaw is addressed by WP2 in mission and standards · Test 15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation in response to litigation. · community standing to veto a board decision could prevent the board on moving. AoC in the bylaws would mean ICANN is subject to legal action by another party. Seems adequate protection against the contingency Legal Subteam · Legal scoping document, working through a number of drafts. Expect to narrow the issues and questions down by the end of the week. · Particularly aware of issues of interest to the ccTLD community · External law firm, prep calls with a short list of firms, two more interviews this week · Anti-trust issues will be considered in the scoping document. · Jurisdiction: expect further discussion with Advisors Timeline · Working towards f2f in Istanbul and readiness of the draft for public comment on April 6. · What is the structure of the F2F Istanbul, so we can play the work of the subgroups. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report.. Documents Presented WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Timeline - http://tinyurl.com/kd2u3b7
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Brenda Brewer -
Robin Gross