Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kieren, as we have seen, the most effective way of doing this is be to make ALAC to renege themselves. That said, I am on record in front of a number of witnesses, as saying when we started with this: "This will be an enormous workload on the volunteers, and in the end ICANN is going to take the report and do whatever it wants, again". (I was a member of the gNSO Delete Task Force and the Exchange of Letters Task Force, where if I remember correctly not even waited for the final report). el On 2015-10-30 16:53 , Kieren McCarthy wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren [...]
Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren@kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg, The phrase is used multiple times in the 2009 AoC (Affirmation of Commitments) between ICANN and the US government. I thought that the decision had been made to incorporate all of the AoC commitments (with some concern over treatment of the WHOIS part) into the bylaws. I don't think that it would now be appropriate to cherry pick those parts that should be included and those parts that should not be included. If that possibility is opened up, it will certainly delay this process very significantly. George
On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren@kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I'm not objecting to the phrase or the the concept. Only the attempt to try and pin it down and define it rather then leaving it as a flexible and "living" and evolving phrase. Geeg On Monday, November 2, 2015, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
The phrase is used multiple times in the 2009 AoC (Affirmation of Commitments) between ICANN and the US government. I thought that the decision had been made to incorporate all of the AoC commitments (with some concern over treatment of the WHOIS part) into the bylaws.
I don't think that it would now be appropriate to cherry pick those parts that should be included and those parts that should not be included. If that possibility is opened up, it will certainly delay this process very significantly.
George
On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org');>> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I agree that we not try to pin down the meaning at this point. Frequently we have discussed understand an intrinsic meaning and associating it with the the Bottom up multistakeholder process determinations that the ICANN community and it is a major aspirational goal of the organization - or so I thought. I am in favor of including it in the bylaws as part of incorporating the AOC into the bylaws. To be said to have explicit excluded concern the global public interest in the bylaws could as big a problem as re-committing ourselves to this as an aspirational goal. avri On 03-Nov-15 00:18, Greg Shatan wrote:
I'm not objecting to the phrase or the the concept. Only the attempt to try and pin it down and define it rather then leaving it as a flexible and "living" and evolving phrase.
Geeg
On Monday, November 2, 2015, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greg,
The phrase is used multiple times in the 2009 AoC (Affirmation of Commitments) between ICANN and the US government. I thought that the decision had been made to incorporate all of the AoC commitments (with some concern over treatment of the WHOIS part) into the bylaws.
I don't think that it would now be appropriate to cherry pick those parts that should be included and those parts that should not be included. If that possibility is opened up, it will certainly delay this process very significantly.
George
On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org');>> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest/_, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,_/
/_ _/
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren@kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
Hi all, I dont read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established. This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context. Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Boards duty to serve the purpose of the organization. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote: Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, Id prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Boards assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett _____ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFa Q&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m =zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=6fp27Fy8ArKn4mSz_6dtjgfLpIf 2bmuYkgunRrbzgCY&e=> heritage.org From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann .org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann .org');> ] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although its still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icanns purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann .org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann .org');> ] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren@kierenmccarthy.com');> > wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');> > wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISp CUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISp CUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "*as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*" appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest." Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is. I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission." Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a **definition** of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Burr, Becky *Envoyé :* lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 *À :* Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
*Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
*Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory AffairsMargaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
As a point of information, ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) has already started conversations within the community on how to define “public interest” within ICANN, with the anticipation that this multistakeholder definitional work will proceed in earnest soon. This has been forecast in ICANN’s Strategic Plan. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest." Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is. I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission." Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Hi all, I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established. This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context. Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
Sam, Thanks. I was aware of that, though others might not be. Nora Abusitta, who is leading the DPRD, came and bri efed the IPC in Dublin. My concerns are now better informed, but unabated. Greg On Monday, November 2, 2015, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
As a point of information, ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) has already started conversations within the community on how to define “public interest” within ICANN, with the anticipation that this multistakeholder definitional work will proceed in earnest soon. This has been forecast in ICANN’s Strategic Plan.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "*as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*" appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."
Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.
I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a **definition** of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Burr, Becky *Envoyé :* lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 *À :* Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
*Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
This is Groundhog Day. I can recall almost the exact same conversation two years ago, four years ago, and seven years ago. Now you can take that to mean that a bad idea keeps reoccurring. Or you can view it as something that has to be done rather than repeatedly put off because there is no perfect solution. Seeing as it is a fundamental element of ICANN's role that it act in the public interest, I would argue that constantly trying to avoid the issue is at some point going to prove more damaging than finally grappling with it. Kieren On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:45 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam,
Thanks. I was aware of that, though others might not be. Nora Abusitta, who is leading the DPRD, came and bri efed the IPC in Dublin. My concerns are now better informed, but unabated.
Greg
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
As a point of information, ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) has already started conversations within the community on how to define “public interest” within ICANN, with the anticipation that this multistakeholder definitional work will proceed in earnest soon. This has been forecast in ICANN’s Strategic Plan.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "*as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*" appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."
Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.
I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a **definition** of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Burr, Becky *Envoyé :* lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 *À :* Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
*Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I am not sure "consistently trying to avoid..." describe the currently situation especially after reading what Samantha wrote in this thread. This is sure a difficult task but If you have a definition that can be easily derived, it may be good to contribute it to that particular process. There is a lot that this CCWG is trying to achieve and I wonder whether it's not becoming too much to swallow. If there are other initiatives/groups that has been created to do the job, then we should just get it off the CCWG to do list. IMO the major goal of the CCWG is to propose mechanisms that will ensure that recommendations that come out from existing and future working groups are given due consideration and implemented as when applicable. The work of this group cannot continue for so long, at least not at the current pace! Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Nov 2015 05:59, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
This is Groundhog Day.
I can recall almost the exact same conversation two years ago, four years ago, and seven years ago.
Now you can take that to mean that a bad idea keeps reoccurring. Or you can view it as something that has to be done rather than repeatedly put off because there is no perfect solution.
Seeing as it is a fundamental element of ICANN's role that it act in the public interest, I would argue that constantly trying to avoid the issue is at some point going to prove more damaging than finally grappling with it.
Kieren On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:45 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam,
Thanks. I was aware of that, though others might not be. Nora Abusitta, who is leading the DPRD, came and bri efed the IPC in Dublin. My concerns are now better informed, but unabated.
Greg
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
As a point of information, ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) has already started conversations within the community on how to define “public interest” within ICANN, with the anticipation that this multistakeholder definitional work will proceed in earnest soon. This has been forecast in ICANN’s Strategic Plan.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "*as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*" appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."
Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.
I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a **definition** of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Burr, Becky *Envoyé :* lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 *À :* Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
*Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM *To: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Cc: *Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest*, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,*
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hang on … there is NO WAY that the rest of the world (RoW) will accept that the global public interest may be determined through the SD, bottom-up or otherwise. CW On 02 Nov 2015, at 17:53, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."
Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.
I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
We should not be doing this Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:59, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest." Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is. I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission." Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Hi all, I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established. This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context. Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
Very much agree, Becky. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Mathieu Weill; Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 We should not be doing this Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:59, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest." Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time. But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is. I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission." Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Hi all, I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established. This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context. Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea. On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Mathieu, On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear Colleagues, After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2 Dear All, I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. Jyoti Panday On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote: A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group? Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists. And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed. I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed. Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did? Kieren On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zPNwe9zNUP5C--BllzISpCUUxiSekUmlAVmsMfyx7os&s=59CzYObRnD2QGS4K-81_zfjdzwsXOJw1sgPSRWtrSoM&e=>
Becky + 1 Cheers, Chris
On 3 Nov 2015, at 04:52 , Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
We should not be doing this
Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:59, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not saying that there's a sentence which defines "global public interest" in the context of ICANN. I am saying that "as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process," appears to mandate or endorse a future multistakeholder process to define the "global public interest."
Could one say that the sum total of the community's policy decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
Could one say that the sum total of the Board's decisions tend to contribute to an understanding of the "global public interest"? Maybe, at least most of the time.
But it's a far leap from acknowledging that the ICANN ecosystem's actions and decisions are relevant to considering what the "global public interest" might be, to saying that there will be a multistakeholder determination of what the global public interest is.
I look forward with fear and trembling to the "CCWG on Defining the Global Public Interest Within ICANN's Mission."
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Hi all,
I don’t read the sentence as a *definition* of global public interest but rather as providing indication that, when consensus is reached in the bottom up, multistakeholder model, a sort of presumption would be established.
This does not contradict any effort to clarify what this notion means in the Icann context.
Remember that this sentence was discussed in Dublin as a way to better align community consensus and Board’s duty to serve the purpose of the organization.
Best
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Burr, Becky Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2015 16:32 À : Greg Shatan; Schaefer, Brett
Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
I agree, this could lead us down a very tortured path.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Mathieu,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is).
Best,
Brett
BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear Colleagues,
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented.
Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state :
promoting the global public interest, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts.
Best
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <>] De la part de Jyoti Panday Envoyé : samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 À : Kieren McCarthy Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Dear All,
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past.
Jyoti Panday
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <>> wrote:
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <>> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think Greg is correct. Besides which, you can redefine any terms you like, a court will still construe them in accordance with the law. On 02/11/15 15:02, Greg Shatan wrote:
Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Mathieu,____
__ __
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? ____
__ __
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together? ____
__ __
On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global public interest (whatever that is). ____
__ __
Best,____
__ __
Brett ____
__ __
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2____
__ __
Dear Colleagues, ____
__ __
After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress. ____
__ __
The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. ____
__ __
*Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition.____
__ __
I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : ____
promoting the global public interest/_, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,_____/
/______/
This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. ____
__ __
Best____
Mathieu____
__ __
*De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *De la part de* Jyoti Panday *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52 *À :* Kieren McCarthy *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2____
__ __
Dear All, ____
I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the recommendations as it has in the past. ____
__ __
Jyoti Panday ____
On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren@kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote:____
A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working group?
Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.
And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work completed.
Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
Kieren____
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:____
All,____
__ __
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.____
__ __
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. ____
__ __
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). ____
__ __
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.____
__ __
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. ____
__ __
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.____
__ __
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*____
__ __
__ __
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Brett,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
I would expect about 14 days.
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations?
Same as Work stream 1 – 2/3 vote to reject and then dialogue to resolve issues. See resolution from Los Angles in 2014.
Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
Up to the CCWG. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
hi Bruce, all Bruce: is the Board prepared to accept the existence of WS2 and to honor it? The public comments on the second draft report indicated no. If there has been an acceptance of the need to complete the project, that would be helpful to know. thanks Jordan On 3 November 2015 at 22:47, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Brett,
On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board consideration after the community settles on its recommendations?
I would expect about 14 days.
Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2 recommendations?
Same as Work stream 1 – 2/3 vote to reject and then dialogue to resolve issues. See resolution from Los Angles in 2014.
Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
Up to the CCWG.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
I fully support and re-emphasise Greg's position in this. On 30/10/15 14:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.* * * * *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Greg, While I support WS2, I see it as a blunt instrument. The definition of WS 2 is "All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided the mechanisms in WS1 are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board." I believe we have reached a point where WS1 does not provide mechanisms that are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. While I understand that the community may want to spill the board if it rejects WS2 recommendations in toto. But I do not see the community spilling the board if (i) the board only partially implements WS2 recommendations; or (iii) the board implements a modified version of WS2 recommendations Would we topple the entire board if the board accepted all recommendations in WS2 except for just DIDP reforms? Would we topple the entire board if the board implements a modified version of DIDP by selectively adding just one additional restriction criteria? Would we topple the entire board because the board agrees to give advance notice of board meetings by 2 days instead of 5 days as demanded by the community? As Avri pointed out, we will create a system of confrontation by adopting the designator model wherein everyone would need to be prepared to spill the board at the drop of a hat for any kind of enforcement. Instead, the membership model would have avoided confrontation by distributing responsibility to the community thereby promoting cooperation and the multistakeholder model. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point.
If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
*We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (17)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
CW Mail -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
George Sadowsky -
Greg Shatan -
Guru Acharya -
Jordan Carter -
Jyoti Panday -
Kieren McCarthy -
Mathieu Weill -
Nigel Roberts -
Samantha Eisner -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji