Dear Colleagues,

Please consider this response as a contribution from Afnic, definitely not from me as a co chair. The proposals below are "strawman".


Le 08/07/2015 22:45, Jan Aart Scholte a écrit :

Hello All

 

Excellent, productive calls. Thank you, Leon. In response to Paul's urgings for a practical agenda for action, the main suggestions that I have taken from the first two conversations are:

 

Workstream 1

 

*to make explicit commitments regarding diversity (minimally geographical, perhaps also cultural, linguistic, age and gender) in the proposed new accountability bodies (in particular the SO/AC community empowerment mechanism and the IRP)

I agree with Jan and would propose the following :
- to set Icann into a continuous improvement path regarding diversity, ATRT reviews could be expanded into Accountability, Transparency and Diversity Reviews. The review team would be tasked to assess and make recommenndations regarding diversity across all Icann bodies. This is a simple step, that remains flexible so that diversity remains focused on the goal of making Icann as representative as possible of the wider Internet community.

- to protect against undue influence from 1 Region in the groups, instead of imposing a strict 1 vote, 1 region rule, we could set a limit that each SO or AC could appoint (to the community council or review teams) no more than 1/3 of its representatives from a single Region. This ensures in the community council that no Region reaches by itself the 1/3 threshold which is sufficient to block certain votes.
 

 

*to indicate how SOs/ACs in holding the board accountable through the new community empowerment mechanism are themselves also sufficiently accountable in the exercise of these powers (partly this might be demonstrated by listing relevant points from existing SO/AC rules and procedures, partly it may be secured with new measures such as the suggested MAR or adherence to the INGO Accountability Charter)

 

I also agree with Jan and others we should start by listing existing mechanisms. The Mutual Accountability Roundtable is also an idea which I fully support.

I also would suggest that we set the continuous improvement loop in motion in a more formal mannner. To that end, we could update the Structural Reviews of SO/ACs (as defined in article IV of the Bylaws) and transform them into Structural Accountability and Transparency Reviews of SO/ACs, under the Board's supervision. These reviews would lead to recommendations for imrpovements that would have a similar status as the AoC review team recommendations has to the Board (SO or AC MUST deliberate whether or not to implement, and this decision can be challenged in front of the IRP).

I believe this would provide greater strength to the notion of "Mutual Accountability", and remains a simple and flexible recommendation, with very little complexity of implementation or lead time.

Best regards
Mathieu

Workstream 2

 

*to include in the CCWG report (and carry over into the ICG consolidated proposal) an itemised list of specific issues and objectives regarding diversity, SO/AC accountability, and staff accountability; progress towards these objectives to be evaluated two years down the line as part of the IANA transition review - this undertaking would seem to imply a continuation of the CCWG Accountability or some successor construction

 

No doubt others can articulate the points more precisely, but it could be helpful to have a concise synthesis to move us forward in the limited time available?

 

Greetings

 

Jan

 

 

 

Från: wp3-bounces@icann.org <wp3-bounces@icann.org> för Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com>
Skickat: den 8 juli 2015 19:12
Till: Sébastien Bachollet; wp3@icann.org
Ämne: Re: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group
 
Hi Sebastien

I agree with other members of Wp3 on our last meeting that the geographic diversity is only a priority for our work in the next couple of weeks in ensuring that the customer review bodies etc of the IANA transition model are forced to be geographically diverse in their make-up.

But the bigger strategic issue of ICANN always pushing itself to be reflective of the Global Internet Community, including geographically, as you point out has not had a time frame put on it.   I think the work of the WG upto June 2013 was fine in its own context - but that context was limited.   I am not against the Board acting on the WG recommendations, but I do worry that will be seen as the end of the matter - while I think it is only the beginning.    And I am worried that we have little time to get ahead of this issue before it comes up on us.

I am interested to hear others' thoughts as to how we get this issue on the practical agenda for action.


Paul

On 7/9/15 2:13 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
Hi Paul,
As you know
" the ICANN Board at its Public Meeting in Cairo (November 2008)7 , authorized the formation of the proposed working group. The Board subsequently approved the Working Group’s Charter on 26 June 2009. »

The world has change since 2008/2009 and even since the publication of the final report of the WG in June 2013.
ICANN is doing SO/AC reviews within a certain time frame. The same for AoC reviews.
This one (one of the few with global remit) as no timeframe.
It is time for the Board to act diligently on the improvement proposed in this document.

But we may also add this review in the regular ones or add this issue as an additional topic in another one already discuss (like ATRT for example).

Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>

De : <wp3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com>
Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2015 10:46
À : <wp3@icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>, <pam.little@zodiac-corp.com>
Objet : Re: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group

Hi Alice

I would also note that the working group responded to the task it was given by the Board:


"The Working Group was formed by the Board to

(1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN’s Geographic Regions are used;

(2) determine whether the uses of ICANN’s Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet

the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and

(3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Region"


There was no real discussion of the global strategic challenges facing ICANN in a world where Internet activity and power is shifting dramatically away from the hubs of the late 1990s which underlie ICANN's present structures.


The sections on page 15 talking about change in number of regions say to reduce the number would be too burdensome on travel for some members of the community and to increase them will increase the costs of the support.   Hardly a strategic analysis.


I think this issue is a very important one for the strategic viability of ICANN and for that matter the general acceptance of a single Root.


Paul




On 7/8/15 8:01 PM, Pam Little wrote:

Hi Alice,

 

I have a couple of questions regarding this report.

 

1.       The report is dated June 2013 and it refers to the ICANN Durban meeting. Could you clarify what has been done since Durban?

 

2.       Your note mentioned: “It is intended that the report will be submitted to the Board prior to the Dublin meeting.” Could you clarify if the following steps stated at para #87 on page 24 of the report have been completed. If not, what are the time lines for those:

 

“Before these recommendations can be formally transmitted to the ICANN Board,

the next step in this process consists of a final community review of the Final

Report document and its recommendations by ICANN’s various SO-AC structures.

Footnote 15 above outlines the specific process steps for this review and

consideration of the Working Group recommendations. The Working Group has

determined that community review should extend for a full 90 calendar days after

the conclusion of the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban.”

 

Thank you.

 

Pam Little

From: wp3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:05 PM
To: wp3@icann.org
Subject: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group

 

Dear all,

Further to the request made on call #1, please find below the link to the Final Report prepared by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group for consideration by the ICANN Board (June 2013): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13-en.pdf 

It is intended that the report will be submitted to the Board prior to the Dublin meeting.

Please note that this document has been added to your WP3 reading list - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List 

May I also take this opportunity to inform you that three dedicated wiki pages have been created for all three subgroups. These pages will be the repositories for volunteers, documents and reading lists.

Kind regards

Alice 

 

 



_______________________________________________
wp3 mailing list
wp3@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific 

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com
_______________________________________________ wp3 mailing list wp3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3 

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific 

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com


_______________________________________________
wp3 mailing list
wp3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3


-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************