- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call Wednesday, 29 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 23, 2019

May 23, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 29 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yxda2eek The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/dIWjBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/194010492 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 23, 2019

May 23, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 29 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yxda2eek The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/dIWjBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/194010492 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 22, 2019

May 22, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 22 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yy4ex2pr The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/VZiGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/575653135 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 1

EPDP Update
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2019

May 22, 2019

Attached please find two new documents. The first is a draft of the solicitation for SG/SO/AC input on the EPDP Phase 2. PDP procedures call for an "early input" opportunity and this is it. The solicitation will be finalized by next week and issued on or about 30 May. Replies will be due prior to the ICANN meeting (tentatively 19 June), so there will be a very short window for replying if we choose to do so. The other document is the revised version of the Chair's proposal for proceeding. It will be discussed at the EPDP meeting tomorrow. Alan

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2019

May 22, 2019

Evan that is not at all what I said. We are under no obligation to comply and in fact we should not if there is a general feeling that this is a useless exercise. I personally think that it is useful. As much as I believe that we need some structural change, I do not believe that will happen in the short term and this work may well help, and as I said, may reverse other things that could make matters worse. That is purely my opinion. You are right that we can say whatever we wish whenever we wish. I personally think that advice we give should be useful and implementable, but perhaps that is just me. But doing that does not preclude also working on shorter term measures. You know how well your white paper was received. But it is a very different ICANN and specifically ICANN Board now. That means parts of the organization might be more receptive now. But let's not pretend that if we come charging in on our (proverbial) white horse, the rest of the organization will all quickly support it - that is a far more difficult challenge than just writing a paper. Alan At 21/05/2019 06:50 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: Hi Alan, Marita, and the WG. Evan, as much as some people (and I count myself among them) feel that the overall ICANN model needs to be changed to address the types of issues you list in your bullet points below, that is not what this exercise is about. This sentiment infuriates me. "We all know that we really need A but they're telling us they want B so we must comply". WHY? What prevents ALAC from actually expressing your accurate instinct, that all this tweaking and searching for inefficiencies is a diversion from what really matters? If you and others agree that the ICANN model needs to be changed, who has stolen your voice to say that? Exactly what objectives of our mandate do we serve through such self-censorship? Playing the game of the status quo maintainers simply validates their power and confirms they can screw over the public interest with impunity, not even a quiet reprimand. Heaven knows accountability elsewhere is in short supply. I remind, once again, that ALAC is empowered by the ICANN bylaws to advise the board about any issue at any time intended to benefit end-users. We are indeed less constrained than the GNSO in scope. There is nothing ever binding us to react to the initiatives of the those working against the public interest, except our own timidity. Perhaps one day it will occur to ALAC that we are not, and never were, obligated to follow an agenda that repeatedly and consistently harms our cause. We've tried so far and have regressed as a result. Even the little victories such as domain tasting are a distant memory. WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF? Why not at least try -- even as an experiment -- to establish the priorities of end user interests and assert them? That's why ALAC exists. ICANN staff and the domain compact can't possibly ignore us more than they do now (beyond diplomatic patronizing), and we might just gain some respect for having discovered a backbone and the voice we were elected and funded to provide. Everyone reading this email involved in At-Large, please ask yourself: Is this what ALAC exists to do -- identify inefficiencies and tweak ICANN around the edges, because that's what staff and the domain compact want us to do? Is this what the massive cost to ICANN, the substantial infrastructure, and most importantly the cost of your own time and money to participate, is for? We're better than this, and we need to show it. Maybe, just maybe, the next time ICANN's bell rings instead of salivating we should consider growling. If we can't speak truth to power, who within ICANN will? - Evan

3 3

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2019

May 22, 2019

Evan, as much as some people (and I count myself among them) feel that the overall ICANN model needs to be changed to address the types of issues you list in your bullet points below, that is not what this exercise is about. As the name implies, this is evolution to increase the effectiveness of the current model and not a complete reorg. That may make it less than useful in the minds of some, but that is what it is. It is not the only such exercise going on. There is one purely within the GNSO which addresses some of these same problems but has the potential for worsening some things (including participation of non-GNSO groups/entities which some view as impeding the PDP process). Is this current process sufficient to address the larger problems? No (in my mind). But can it provide useful change without increasing the overall structural problems? I hope so. Alan At 18/05/2019 01:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: Hi Marita, I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted. As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or address its many fundamental breeches of public trust? There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best. * So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of us are essentially powerless. * So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy. * So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to act impartially. * So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye. ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls whenever intention tries to turn to execution. This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work..... What's different this time? - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

3 4

Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
by Marita Moll May 21, 2019

May 21, 2019

Colleagues, in last Wednesday's CPWG call, I offered the following suggestions with respect to the comment on evolving the multistakeholder model: I grouped all 21 issues presented to us on the previous call inside 4 categories -- explicitly recognizing that some of these things fit into various categories. 1. Structural issues -- Wholistic view (20); Complexity (2); Roles and responsibilities (15); Terms (21); Accountability (11);Transparency (12) 2. Process issues -- Precision in scoping (10); Prioritization (4); Efficient use of resources (16); Work processes (19); Costs (13); Consensus (9); Timing (1) 3. Participation issues -- Demographics (5); Recruitment (6); Representativeness (7); Inclusiveness (8); Volunteer burnout (17) 4. Intergroup relations -- Cultural issues (13); Trust (14); Silos/tribalism (18) I then suggested that we take each category and present our thoughts on how we can address these issues -- paying attention to the fact that addressing one group of issues will impact issues in other groups. This way of proceeding seemed to meet the approval of those who were on the call. In continuation, during the call, we focussed on the "low hanging fruit" here -- namely category 4: Intergroup relations -- i.e the perceived lack of trust, tribalism and silos, etc. which can result in stalled processes that can go on forever and eventually lead nowhere or sometimes result in time consuming and unproductive negative interactions between groups and/or individuals. Here are some suggestions offered for potential recommendations on how this group of issues might be addressed: – that training in multistakeholder processes be an important part of onboarding activities – that consensus be clearly defined and that all parties to a policy process commit to the the goal of achieving consensus – that a culture of trust be supported by consequences for publicly disparaging other groups – a commitment by ICANN to fully address the resource needs (both financial and human resources) of volunteer groups working in the SO/AC communities I have not yet had an opportunity to go back to the recording of the call so not all suggestions are reflected here. However, in the interests of moving the process along (deadline June 4), please use the suggestions offered here to begin a discussion on how we should respond to this call for comments. Thank you Marita

5 5

resources for multistakeholder discussion -- CPWG mtg
by Marita Moll May 21, 2019

May 21, 2019

Colleagues -- here is an expanded slide deck to support our multistakeholder discussions in the CPWG meeting tomorrow. Suggestions from last week's meeting have been added. I would only be dealing with a subset of these slides tomorrow -- namely the slides around category 2 -- process. Just as a reminder -- I boiled the 21 issues down to 4 issues: structural, process, participation and intergroup issues. The suggestions around intergroup relations that were made in the last meeting are in the slides but here they are waiting for further input: -- that a definition of multistakeholder processes be developed and that it be a key part of on-boarding activities -- that consensus be clearly defined and that all parties to a policy process commit to the the goal of achieving consensus -- that a culture of trust be supported by consequences for publicly disparaging other groups -- such as referring incidents to the ombuds office -- that power inequities be addressed (too vague and would need more detail if we keep it) -- a commitment by ICANN to fully address the resource needs (both financial and human resources) of volunteer groups working in the SO/AC communities (this might be too contentious – making ourselves a target -- yet does indicate our desire for fairness across the board) Marita

1 0

Questions for multistakeholder model diiscussion
by Marita Moll May 21, 2019

May 21, 2019

Tomorrow in the CPWG meeting, we will be looking for ideas on how the multistakeholder*processes *currently in effect can be improved. The following broad issues were identified -- I have thrown in a few questions to promote discussion -- but we need some real suggestions about how to move forward. Precision in scoping -- too wide/too narrow? Prioritization -- evening out the work flow, identifying which issues are most important? Relating that to the cost of implementation. Too many urgent items on the table at the same time, not enough volunteers to carry the load Efficient use of resources -- time, money and people -- is there a lot of wasteage? How can that be improved? How to ease the volunteer burnout problems Work processes -- do we have adequate tools to do the jobs required? Is engagement sporadic? Are team members well briefed and supported? Does the MS model, as it is practised at ICANN adequately deal with language and cultural barriers? Costs -- not just financial, but also volunteer time. Would more financial resources improve things? Is there enough transparency around costing? How are costing and priorizing related? Marita

1 0

EPDP: “Access” vs. “Disclosure”
by Greg Shatan May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

All (but esp. Alan & Hadia), I have noted the ongoing discussion of “access” vs. “disclosure” on the EPDP mailing list, most recently involving Alan Greenberg, M3 (Mighty Milton Mueller) and Alan Woods. Two suggestions if Alan G decides to reply: 1. The EC, in their letter (which many are parsing closely and believe to be of great import) refers (approvingly) to the “unified access model.” If “access” is good enough for the EC, it’s good enough for us. This can be pointed out. The EC also implored the EPDP to focus and get its work done quickly. Arguments like this are the opposite of that. 2. If the EPDP wants to maintain a distinction between access for data subjects and for everybody else, it can use the terms “data subject access” and “third party access.” The UAM can become the UTPAM (which is also a variant spelling for a delicious Indian dosa-like dish (but thicker and typically served flat with toppings)). Everyone should be happy at this point. Greg -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*

1 0