SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - notes from plenary discussion on 25-Jun-2017
To: members of the CCWG sub team for SO/AC Accountability in Work Stream 2 (wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284>) On Sunday in Johannesburg, we discussed with the CCWG plenary the results of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en> on our first draft report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve...>. Cheryl and I used the attached slides and speaking notes to present. (Thanks to Bernie for starting the slide draft) Discussion lasted about an hour. Chat transcript is at bottom of this email. Some notes from the discussion and presentation and next steps: Track 1 and “Best Practices” Some prefer a label other than “best practices”. One alternative is “Good Practices” Not much support for having ATRT examine implementation of best practices. Found support for assessing best practice implementation in the Organizational Reviews. Track 1 and SOAC Accountability to the “broader community” Not much support for Board’s comment seeking accountability of the collective SOACs, when acting as the Empowered Community. "EC Decisional Participants should be accountable to the community as a whole, not just their respective SO/AC" No board or staff took my invitation to provide suggestions for how to do this. A Co-chair said we need ICANN-wide conversations, not just decisions within each SOAC. One speaker noted that each AC/SOs will consider broader community when they are deciding on escalation of EC powers. We should address Board comment with an explanation in our report. One speaker suggested Organizational Review also look at cross-accountability. Track 2 and [Mutual] Accountability Roundtable Several said don’t do Accountability Round Table – revert to our original draft recommendation. Note that SOACs can share best practices in their leadership emails and calls. Idea to start with the optional Accountability Roundtable, and if it works we could make it an annual requirement. Next Steps: Public comments and our discussions today will be taken on-board by CCWG Accountability WS2 to consider amending our recommendations and then publish a report on results of the public consultation. CCWG will also need to determine if any changes to our report are significant or not. If significant changes are recommended, CCWG-Accountability WS2 may have a second public consultation. If changes are not significant, CCWG-Accountability WS2 can forward final recommendations to Chartering Organizations for approval, and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. On Sunday, nobody suggested we need another round of public comments. We will re-convene our sub team for a few conference calls to discuss next steps. Schedule invitation to follow. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Chat transcript: Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:03) "Good Practices" sound better, sounds more sincere Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:03) Sec 4.4 on Organizational Reviews: The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders. Kavouss Arasteh 6: (11:08) I also recommand to endeavour to meet the concerns expressed by the Board Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:08) You can find the Board comment on these SO/AC accountability recommendations here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-soac-accountability- 14apr17/2017-May/000007.html Kavouss Arasteh: (11:12) In reply to Alan, I would say that is is a well known practice to say, " Best Practice " is understood and thden define that Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:14) that ICANN meeting planning staff take the following steps prior to each Annual General Meeting (AGM): (p. 9) ICANN staff should ask the chairs of all SO/ACs whether they want to hold an Accountability Roundtable to discuss SO/AC accountability. If a majority of SO/AC chairs agree, ICANN staff would schedule a 90-minute public session at the next AGM, open to all SO/AC/Group chairs, and joined by ICANN CEO and Board Chair. The ICANN board chair would designate a moderator for the session. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:14) Agree with Malcolm. Against MART for those reasons. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:14) As for mutual accountability; let us make it optional first, if it works well and at thenext review we could decide diffrently such as a need to do that matthew shears: (11:16) there may be occassion when sharing practices may be a useful exercise then we might consider that the ART (not MART) be an optional measure subject to the approval of the SO/AC Chairs, for example. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:16) In an earlier posting (a long time ago) I suggested Mutual Transparency Round Table. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:17) Perhaps the issue of doing it pin public comment to be separated from the main issue Malcolm Hutty: (11:18) "Roundtable discussion on cross-cutting issues" would be more what I had in mind. We need to get away from any sense that this is a body that SOAC leaders report to or need to satisfy Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:19) This conflict concerning mutual accountability could become unimportant, if on the whole the Community processes gradually move away from SILOs to Cross Community processes Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:21) We have done that for the use of the Community Powers, Steve - agreed. It's the broader picture of the organisation as a whole that we need to build into the process somewhere, and that I thought the MAR might be able to help with. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:22) For e.g. if we work towards making a 4 day meeting with one and a half days of independant AC/SO schedules and two and a half days of Cross Community meetings. Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:23) Thanks for that clarification, Jordan Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:23) Siva - yes the new meeting approach is helpful in breaking people out of the silos Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) Such an overall shift would postively reflect on the independant AC/SO accountability process, as each AC / SO bring their independant work invariably to the Cross Communitty table. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) or a Cross Community House Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Doing Mutual accountability on optional basis certainly would help but whether do it publicly or non publicly is another issue as I explained
Thanks to Cheryl for circulating an agenda for today’s call. To help folks prepare, I’m re-sending the notes and attachments from our Johannesburg meeting. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:07 AM To: "ws2-so_ac@icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac@icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - notes from plenary discussion on 25-Jun-2017 To: members of the CCWG sub team for SO/AC Accountability in Work Stream 2 (wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284>) On Sunday in Johannesburg, we discussed with the CCWG plenary the results of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en> on our first draft report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve...>. Cheryl and I used the attached slides and speaking notes to present. (Thanks to Bernie for starting the slide draft) Discussion lasted about an hour. Chat transcript is at bottom of this email. Some notes from the discussion and presentation and next steps: Track 1 and “Best Practices” Some prefer a label other than “best practices”. One alternative is “Good Practices” Not much support for having ATRT examine implementation of best practices. Found support for assessing best practice implementation in the Organizational Reviews. Track 1 and SOAC Accountability to the “broader community” Not much support for Board’s comment seeking accountability of the collective SOACs, when acting as the Empowered Community. "EC Decisional Participants should be accountable to the community as a whole, not just their respective SO/AC" No board or staff took my invitation to provide suggestions for how to do this. A Co-chair said we need ICANN-wide conversations, not just decisions within each SOAC. One speaker noted that each AC/SOs will consider broader community when they are deciding on escalation of EC powers. We should address Board comment with an explanation in our report. One speaker suggested Organizational Review also look at cross-accountability. Track 2 and [Mutual] Accountability Roundtable Several said don’t do Accountability Round Table – revert to our original draft recommendation. Note that SOACs can share best practices in their leadership emails and calls. Idea to start with the optional Accountability Roundtable, and if it works we could make it an annual requirement. Next Steps: Public comments and our discussions today will be taken on-board by CCWG Accountability WS2 to consider amending our recommendations and then publish a report on results of the public consultation. CCWG will also need to determine if any changes to our report are significant or not. If significant changes are recommended, CCWG-Accountability WS2 may have a second public consultation. If changes are not significant, CCWG-Accountability WS2 can forward final recommendations to Chartering Organizations for approval, and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. On Sunday, nobody suggested we need another round of public comments. We will re-convene our sub team for a few conference calls to discuss next steps. Schedule invitation to follow. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Chat transcript: Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:03) "Good Practices" sound better, sounds more sincere Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:03) Sec 4.4 on Organizational Reviews: The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders. Kavouss Arasteh 6: (11:08) I also recommand to endeavour to meet the concerns expressed by the Board Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:08) You can find the Board comment on these SO/AC accountability recommendations here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-soac-accountability- 14apr17/2017-May/000007.html Kavouss Arasteh: (11:12) In reply to Alan, I would say that is is a well known practice to say, " Best Practice " is understood and thden define that Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:14) that ICANN meeting planning staff take the following steps prior to each Annual General Meeting (AGM): (p. 9) ICANN staff should ask the chairs of all SO/ACs whether they want to hold an Accountability Roundtable to discuss SO/AC accountability. If a majority of SO/AC chairs agree, ICANN staff would schedule a 90-minute public session at the next AGM, open to all SO/AC/Group chairs, and joined by ICANN CEO and Board Chair. The ICANN board chair would designate a moderator for the session. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:14) Agree with Malcolm. Against MART for those reasons. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:14) As for mutual accountability; let us make it optional first, if it works well and at thenext review we could decide diffrently such as a need to do that matthew shears: (11:16) there may be occassion when sharing practices may be a useful exercise then we might consider that the ART (not MART) be an optional measure subject to the approval of the SO/AC Chairs, for example. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:16) In an earlier posting (a long time ago) I suggested Mutual Transparency Round Table. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:17) Perhaps the issue of doing it pin public comment to be separated from the main issue Malcolm Hutty: (11:18) "Roundtable discussion on cross-cutting issues" would be more what I had in mind. We need to get away from any sense that this is a body that SOAC leaders report to or need to satisfy Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:19) This conflict concerning mutual accountability could become unimportant, if on the whole the Community processes gradually move away from SILOs to Cross Community processes Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:21) We have done that for the use of the Community Powers, Steve - agreed. It's the broader picture of the organisation as a whole that we need to build into the process somewhere, and that I thought the MAR might be able to help with. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:22) For e.g. if we work towards making a 4 day meeting with one and a half days of independant AC/SO schedules and two and a half days of Cross Community meetings. Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:23) Thanks for that clarification, Jordan Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:23) Siva - yes the new meeting approach is helpful in breaking people out of the silos Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) Such an overall shift would postively reflect on the independant AC/SO accountability process, as each AC / SO bring their independant work invariably to the Cross Communitty table. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) or a Cross Community House Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Doing Mutual accountability on optional basis certainly would help but whether do it publicly or non publicly is another issue as I explained
participants (1)
-
Steve DelBianco