Date: 23 October 2014 from 13:00 - 15:00 UTC

Attendees: Tijani Ben Jemaa; Dina Beer; Avri Doria; Keith Drazek; David Fares; Athina Fragkouli; Izumi Okutani; Thomas Rickert; Leon Sanchez; Matthew Shears

Apologies: Becky Burr; Mathieu Weill

Staff: Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Marika Konings; Adam Peake

Proposed Agenda

  1. Welcome and introductions
  2. Target date for delivery of proposed charter to ICANN SO/ACs 
  3. Review draft charter:
    • Identify issues that are currently not covered but will  need to be addressed
    • Identify issues that need to be updated / revised
    • Identify volunteers to develop draft language for following sections: 
      • Problem statement
      • Goals & objectives
      • Scope
      • Deliverables
      • Expert advisors
  4. Confirm next steps / next meeting 


Notes & Action Items

Target Date for Delivery

Aim for 3 November and send update if needed. Upcoming SO/AC meetings to consider: 

  • ccNSO 20 November
  • GNSO council 13 November, but requires delivery on 3 November to be considered for Council meeting. Can send update if needed before 13 November meeting. 
  • ALAC 25 November
  • SSAC 12 November (can consider via email)


Review of Draft Charter

(Live editing)

Issues to consider: How liaison mechanisms will work; inclusive of those who have subscribed to the previous group (CCG)

 

Section II

Problem Statement (Section II) is copied from the IANA CWG Charter

DT is expected to give high-level guidance on the 2 workstreams 

DT can propose a non-exhaustive list of questions 

ACTION: staff to update charter to proposal(s), to accommodate that it is likely that proposals for work streams 1 and 2 to be delivered at different times

ACTION: Leon to propose wording to include in Section II Problem Statement regarding the 2 workstreams in the Accountability process

ACTION: Keith will draft language for description of Workstream 2

ACTION: Staff to suggest wording about the relationship between the CCWG and other groups related to Workstream 1

 

Section III

ACTION: Avri to review language for Section III on deliverables

 

Section IV

Important to include language that the CCWG is open to all

ACTION: Thomas + Staff to review this suggestion

ACTION: Keith to review language related to relationship with ICG

 

Next Steps

The next call will be Monday, 27 October 2014 from 16:00 - 18:00 UTC

Invite Brian to speak about Public Experts Group for Monday call

 

"Homework" for all DT members

ACTION: DT members to review list of issues identified in public comment and post on list whether: 

  • Should the issue be spelled out?
  • Is the issue WS1 or WS2?

ACTION: DT members to come up with questions to include in charter

Recording

Adobe Connect Room Recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5kojqg2ecb/

Audio Stream (mp3): 23Oct_MeetingDT

Chat Transcript

  Marika Konings: Welcome to the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Charter Drafting Team meeting of Thursday 23 October 2014

  Matthew Shears (CDT): Hello

  Dina: Good afternoon

  Marika Konings: I believe there wee apologies from Becky Burr as well

  Marika Konings: wee = were

  Leon Sanchez: Hello everyone

  Dina: Bringing a new mic\

  Leon Sanchez: I think I am back on

  Leon Sanchez: I thought my mic was good to go but it seems it isn't

  Leon Sanchez: I'm sorry

  Dina: I am back, I will like to try

  Leon Sanchez: I am attending this meeting as an ALAC member along with Tijani

  Keith Drazek: Thomas, if the SSAC or GAC would like to add members to the DT, we should probably reserve the right to add a few members. Have we done any outreach to those groups?

  Grace Abuhamad: @Keith, we have. The SSAC and RSSAC declined to join the DT

  Keith Drazek: Thanks Grace. How about the GAC?

  Grace Abuhamad: not sure yet.

  Avri Doria: maybe cross commuity DTs should only have coordinators instead of chairs.  just a thought.

  Keith Drazek: +1 we have sufficient representation to proceed.

  Marika Konings: @Avri - but who would then lead the meetings? Or the coordinator would basically serve as a chair but just have a different title?

  Avri Doria: they would chair mtgs, but the decsion ability that a person has a chair would be pointedly absent.

  Avri Doria: just for the future, not this one.

  Keith Drazek: +1 for the future.

  Izumi Okutani: another +1 for future

  Avri Doria: that was ALWays  my point.  i never intended it to be for this time.

  Thomas Rickert: thanks avri - just wanted to make sure everybody agrees to this!

  Marika Konings: I'm still not clear as to how that would differ from how chairs currently function as they are expected to operate in a neutral manner and not in any kind of decision-making role? But as it is for the future, more than happy to continue this conversation at a later date ;-)

  Keith Drazek: A key area of focus will need to be establishing a mechanism for addressing what accountability reforms are necessary prior to IANA transition and what *could* wait until after or be addressed through ATRT3 or other existing mechanisms.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree with keith noting that the linkages between the two may be significant

  Grace Abuhamad:The list of the CCG members is here: https://community.icann.org/x/TwHxAg

  Keith Drazek:We should discuss whether the Charter should attempt to structure that process or leave it for the full CCWG WG to deal with.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):good point

  Thomas Rickert:I'll get to that in a moment#

  Avri Doria:i think structurring it should be the first thing the CWG-Trans does.

  Keith Drazek:Apologies for jumping ahead.

  Avri Doria:i mean CSG - account

  Thomas Rickert:no worries :-)

  Avri Doria:CWG account - time o go back to sleep

  Grace Abuhamad::)

  Leon Sanchez:Since this seems to be a two-fold issue, ie. accountability related to the IANA transition, and accoutability of ICANN to the community, I suggest we include this fact in the problem statement

  Matthew Shears (CDT):I think we have to have some structure that reflects intent of the WG

  Marika Konings:@Leon - do you have some proposed wording to be included?

  Leon Sanchez:@Marika, not yet but happy to work on it

  Marika Konings:Great, thanks!

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree Thomas

  Marika Konings:Coming back a second to the timeline, it will be of course of utmost imporatance that all of you go back to your respective groups to ensure that any input / feedback is taken into account as part of the DT's efforts as it would get extremely complex if suggested changes would come in at the stage when SO/ACs start considering / adopting the charter.

  Avri Doria:i think Strikling already did the high level definition

  Thomas Rickert:Strickling quotes:

  Thomas Rickert:WS1: ‘Could there be a hostile takeover of the ICANN Board in the absence of the U.S. Government?’ ‘Could governments somehow come together to take over ICANN?’ WS2: I’ve seen in some of the discussions that this opens up issues about ICANN budgeting processes, and other matters that, quite frankly I believe, are better dealt with in the Accountability and Transparency Review Team.

  Keith Drazek:+1

  Keith Drazek:to providing the high-level guidance

  Marika Konings:I could update it to proposal(s)?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):yes but there may be proposals that occur later than the transition

  Avri Doria:who decides one what is high level and what is nitty gritty?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):stream 2 seems to me to be relatively open ended

  Avri Doria:f you include Take Over by ICANN Corproate of the ICANN Plicy mechanism, there is a lot in stream 1

  Keith Drazek:+1 Avri

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agreed

  Avri Doria:what i dont know is where the repair of ICANN accountabilty mechanisms , such as redress includin reconsiderat on and IRP goes.

  Keith Drazek:I'll be here for the 2 hours.

  Avri Doria:i think it is stream 1 in part and stream 2 in part.

  Leon Sanchez:I will need to drop off in an hour

  Avri Doria:i am here for the 2

  Dina:I will need to drop off at 17:15

  Matthew Shears (CDT):also for the 2 hours

  Matthew Shears (CDT):some of the items in this inventory don't really seem like accountability such as the AoC

  Avri Doria:but it makes it look like there are lots.

  Izumi Okutani:+ 1. I do like the approach but feel we may be doing work for the WG. Matthew's comment makes sense and a sounds like a reasonable approach to me

  Marika test:Note that I've added Matthew's point as one of the deliverables (review of existing accountability mechanisms)

  Matthew Shears (CDT):and we will of course need to identify additional accountability mechanisms

  Matthew Shears (CDT):sorry the WG will

  Matthew Shears (CDT):+ 1 Tijani

  David Fares:I agree with Tajani.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):the charter should point to this list as a useful starting point for the WG discussions

  Keith Drazek:A list of questions could be helpful.

  David Fares:I can support a list of questions and a direction to relevant comments/documents.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):yes

  Keith Drazek:+1 David

  Izumi Okutani:Yes. listing questions are good.  Going into details of how to work or categorizing which issues goes in which stream in details per issue may be more for CCWG. Just identify broad area in the charter seems sufficient to me.

  Keith Drazek:+1 Izumi

  Dina:+1 support a list

  Matthew Shears (CDT):AoC is stream 1

  Matthew Shears (CDT):implications are also in 2

  David Fares:My apologies, but I need to drop-off.

  Grace Abuhamad:@David -- thanks, will have notes and recording posted today

  Keith Drazek:Q1: How can the existing accountability mechanisms enshrined in the AoC be made permanent?

  Izumi Okutani:On behalf  to Athina, she also agrees with listing questions - about the earlier point on discussions

  Avri Doria:I think this is a difference in cultures.  i think the GNSO does charter in DTs before the WG and are approved by the council, In Atlarge I guess the WG develops its own charter and sends it to the ALAC for approval.

  Avri Doria:not sure how all the others do it.

  Marika Konings:@Keith - shouldn't the question be, determine whether the existing accountability mechanisms in the AoC should be made permanent, or replaced by other permanent mechanisms ?

  Marika Konings:as your question already seems to assume that the AoC mechanisms are the ones that should be made permanent?

  Marika Konings:or maybe that is indeed the presumption?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):understood

  Izumi Okutani:+ Marika

  Keith Drazek:Yes Marika, your phrasing works.

  Marika test:@Keith - and my assumption was that this is a question for stream 1. Is that correct?

  Keith Drazek:Yes

  Dina:Sorry need to drop off

  Izumi Okutani:I agree with you Thomas

  Grace Abuhamad:@Dina -- Thanks, will have notes and recording posted today

  Marika Konings:@Tijani - this is the version that you provided.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree with Keith and would suggest that the charter should recognize that some issues will span both tracks

  Matthew Shears (CDT):Strickling noted that the IANA transition proposal should result in a process/structure that is not capturable, etc., and this gets to aqccountbailty issues that are relevant to the transition but are also to ICANN governnce more broadly

  Keith Drazek:+1 Matthew

  Izumi Okutani:sorry that was old hand

  Marika test:@Matthew - if you have any specific wording to convey that point in the charter, please feel free to suggest.

  Marika Konings:We'll also need a description for work stream 2

  Izumi Okutani:Good point Keith about coordination

  Izumi Okutani:I agree about acknowledging coordination

  Keith Drazek:That's true Tijani

  Keith Drazek:But I think there are some ICG members who will be interested in the wrok of the CCWG on Accountability. There will likely be some overlap of focus of all these various groups.

  Keith Drazek:Agree with Matthew that the primary liaison relationship would be between the two CCWGs.

  Keith Drazek:Agree with Tijani that the CCWGs should coordinate.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):surely our primary responsibility is to liaise with the names CCWG and secondarily with other  efforts

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree Thomas - after all Fadi said evertting is up for discussion

  Grace Abuhamad:Marika is correct. Next call is suggested for Monday at 16:00 UTC

  Matthew Shears (CDT):great thanks Marika

  Matthew Shears (CDT):yes, our work stream 1 should be aligned with CCWG and ICG timelines

  Keith Drazek:I agree

  Keith Drazek:and also agree about the priority of WS1 over WS2 in terms of timing

  Marika Konings:I've added some proposed language to this section to capture this point. Please feel free to provide additional edits / suggestions for improvement.

  Leon Sanchez:Agreee with Tijani

  Grace Abuhamad:back on! apologies

  Matthew Shears (CDT):Question: will this WG's accountability suggestions as a part of work stream 1 should feed into the CCWG names transition proposal?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):isn't that NTIA's expectation?

  Leon Sanchez:Could someone please post the link to the list of issues on the mailing list?

  Grace Abuhamad:I'll post it. h/o

  Leon Sanchez:Thanks @Grace!

  Grace Abuhamad:Here you go: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359098/issues-identified-14aug14-en.pdf?api=v2

  Grace Abuhamad:Also, all documents are uploaded in Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/_ijxAg

  Leon Sanchez:Agree with shorter calls

  Tijani BEN JEMAA:droped

  Grace Abuhamad:@Tijani -- you can speak through Adobe room microphone as well

  Matthew Shears (CDT):+ Keith

  Keith Drazek:yes, i will take the ICG related language.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Keith -- thanks

  Keith Drazek:also agree that the  involvement of the expert advisors needs to be addressed on our next call

  Izumi Okutani:+ 1 Keith about expert

  Matthew Shears (CDT):yes - htere are differing views on the role of hte experts - we should discuss Monday

  Keith Drazek:+1 yes, please invite Brian

  Matthew Shears (CDT):Many thanks - good call

  Keith Drazek:thanks Thomas and staff

  Leon Sanchez:Thanks everyone

  Izumi Okutani:thanks all

  Tijani BEN JEMAA:Thank you

 

 

  • No labels