Transcript

Transcript CCWG F2F Session 2 23 March.doc

Transcript CCWG F2F Session 2 23 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3svna55zu5/ (Session 2 begins at 1:35:34)

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-2-23mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

11:00-13:00 EET – 09:00-11:00 UTC – Session 2

11:00 Ongoing discussion on Mission, vision & value statement

11:30 Community empowerment 

Notes

These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

DAY 1: Monday, 23 March, 11:00 - 13:00 EET, Meeting Room #25

Session2. 

* Mission, vision & value statement  (cont. from Session 1)

Distinction between the two sets of principles in the document.

Direction is good, but takes time to take people along. Consider a longer timeline for explanation to ensure understanding an buy-in.  That these changes are committed to.

How was the division of values made, and why something became a lesser value.  Perhaps that some have a higher priority and some are raised up rather than suggesting others are "second class".   In timetable discussion, then how these items are implemented is something to be considered there as perhaps extended. 

There may be abuse uses of review and redress that block the process.

Some principles seem derivative. But some discomfort esp when seeing issues in the top list when there's a derivative in the second.

Potential for confusion when a top list issue may trump those below, and how to deal with this. 

Approach may be to remove some of the more amorphous values.

Would all values move to the upper value, and ICANN stringent review.  Or lower standard where ICANN board and staff get greater difference? Up or down

straw poll:  To keep the two set approach,  at propossed in the document please say agree in the AC room.

Significant support to continue ith approach of the document.

* Community empowerment 

Mechanisms and Powers.

Mechanisms are the Vehicle for powers:

* permanent CCWG, and would need to be addressed in the ICANN bylaws as not permanent and lacks

* community council.  Who should be represented and with what weight should they be represented.

* supervisory board.  defined as a European model.  Has reserve powers sits along side the ICANN board

* member based, with the members with powers in the bylaws

* delegates, a subset of the members, but with a sub-set of the members.

Both these set-up under California law.

Choosing between them will require some answers from the legal advisors

Current structures of SO/AC holding the new powers.  Making decisions individually

Community Veto, specifies powers

No preference as yet until seen legal advice.

Simple and straight forward.   Might need different mechanisms for different powers.

Difference between permanent CCWG and Community Council, apart from the label, there is no functional difference.  CCWG by design are not permanent, so this would require changes to be made.  The Community Council also includes the possibility of other members from the ICNAN ecosystem

Avoid complexity.  And be careful of how some of the strong mechanisms are exercised.

What is the liability of these entities and their membership?

Simplicity to run and maintain Liability comes with taking on power - legal advice and consideration of insurance as ICANN already uses

New mechanism Sebastian identified and ask to please complete a template

Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils

Powers, esp in WS1 must take primacy over the options for mechanisms.

 example powers: 1C. Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget 

If the budget is not acceptable it can be forced back to the board, A check and balance, not triggered. Would cause board to review, changes or better explain why.

Hi threshold.

Straw poll: Should votes be mandated or not

The community council may need people with expertise on different issues,  suggests the membership might not be fixed.

The budget process has taken long evolution, and this process should be baked-in, rather than come at the end of the budget development.

Response: but not intended as a type working group they already exist, but a general assembly that reviews final decisions.

Use of the term "consensus", different definitions within ICANN.

Point is a more direct accountability response.

Lack of risk in the template. once there is an understanding of the risk factor then might introduce this proposal.

The community should have the ability to shape ICANN'S

Discussion has described mandated and non-mandated decisions. The template talks if personal decisions and mandated, this is different.

Super-majority in the template to ensure individual constituencies do not over influence the decision.

The proposed structure needs protection against capture.

Agreement on points, AC room poll 

The budget question shall not be resolved by means consensus by by voting.

If agree if it should be by vote then mark as agree

If by consensus then mark disagree.

END

Action Items

Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen: The group is reconvening

Alice Jansen: @ David – correct

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Thanks Alice

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Here we go

Jordan Carter (.nz member): the screen in the room isnt' showing the text

Alice Jansen: thanks for flagging, Jordan!

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: important to remember the trigger after which the transition can occur is WS1.  The transition dates are not the trigger - that is backwards.

Paul Rosenzweig: +1 Chris ... That is a GOOD idea

Matthew Shears: we really do have to decide what we want to see from WS1 in place or committed to satisfy NTIA as well - we need to see if we can't stagger agreement and implemtaiton of WS1 proposals

Malcolm Hutty: +1

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Good point Chris

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Better communication of what we are doing would be a very good idea

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Not just through our formal solicitation of comments process

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I do like the updates that ICANN via Sam Dickinson is doing - they are a good start

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Agree with Chris just now on essential communications to community - including all 150+ adminstrations on the GAC. 

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Who is responsible for "communications" in respect of this process?

Paul Rosenzweig: @Matthew -- we have already done the staggering.  That is what the differnce between WS1 and WS2 is. 

Jordan Carter (.nz member): As part of our timetable discussion tomorrow we also need to schedule implementation, not just finalisng our proposals

Matthew Shears: talking about nwhat we can stagger in terms of agreement and implementaiton among the WS1 items so that we expedite them

Jordan Carter (.nz member): because that will be material to NTIA

Jordan Carter (.nz member): (and to the ICANN community, presumably)

Jan Scholte: For 'balance' could have 'trade off'

Paul Rosenzweig: @ Matthew -- respectful disagreement  Everything in WS1 is, in my view, an essential precursor

 jorge cancio GAC: +1 @Mark

Matthew Shears: @ Paul - agree with you - I'm just asking whether or not there is a way for us to agree things on a rolling basis so as to get as much in place as possible (maybe it isn't just asking)

 Olga Cavalli - GAC: Could someone send to me the linkst to these documents we are reviewing? Cannot find links in the adobe, thanks

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Jan: prefer "balance" - because it is more equitable based on weighing of important priorities.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: I think these mechanisms are part of a holistic accountability system that we may not be able to do in a piecemeal fashion (just an initial thought)

Paul Rosenzweig: @Matthew -- Ahhh .... there I think the answer is that we get only one bite at the apple for, e.g. Bylaw changes.  It's a hard process to acheive -- one that is unlikely to  be rdone more than once inour lifetimes!

Matthew Shears: Could we rephrase the core values as commitments and remove core values entirely?

Jordan Carter (.nz member): This document seems to be here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/3-23%20Comp%20Mission%20Statement%20and%20Core%20Values%20Compact%5B2%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1427096211000&api=v2

Olga Cavalli - GAC: thanks Jordan

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I hope that's the right one

Jordan Carter (.nz member): the WP2 docs are at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I don't think merging the liss is a good idea

Jordan Carter (.nz member): lists

Malcolm Hutty: Nor do I

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): but the decision to consolidate would CHANGE the list

Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: I believe there should be separate sets of values, as proposed.

Edward Morris: +1 Steve

Malcolm Hutty: Upper set is a list of concrete requirements intended to be susceptible to objective review in an IRP; lower list is aspirational aims, less objective and less obviously appropriate to underpin an IRP-type review

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I think we should keep the two sets

Jordan Carter (.nz member): green for agree

Rudi Daniel: Two lists: I think would make the job more manageable in the long term.

Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: think of the upper list of values as "Elevated Values".  The rest are balanced in the same way the Bylaws require today

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: I think we may have to depart from the term "value" for one of the lists

Alice Jansen: The table can be found https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-Mechanisms-Comparison-Table-v1.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1426855914000&api=v2

Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: can you make the table moveable so I increase in size

Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: Can you please post a link to the PDF as well?

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): of course it one believes that form and function are related, ignoring function when determining form is problematic.  for a pure structuralist, this is ok.

Malcolm Hutty: @Avri, I was going to make the same point re form and function. And I guess I'm not a pure structuralist

Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: I can not red this on my netbook, PLEASE make it so that I can increase the size!

Malcolm Hutty: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-Mechanisms-Comparison-Table-v1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426855932000&api=v2

Malcolm Hutty: URL above is the PDF of this document

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): i wish we were calling community veto, community override.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: We really need the legal advice back before we can short-list items.  There may be significant implications to some of these mechanisms for community members.

Keith Drazek: +1 Robin

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: agree @chris. k.I.s.s

Malcolm Hutty: +1 Chris, and agree on illustrative examples you gave too

Alice Jansen: @Eberhard, we have uploaded the PDF and I have sent you the PDF as an attachement as well.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: I agree that "one size doesn't fit all on this" and we'l need to use different mechanisms to achieve different goals.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: yup

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): + Robin and Chirs on different solutions for different aspects of the issue.

Edward Morris: + 1 Robin and Keith.

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): in some ways this has gotten so aabstract i am not sure there is anything useful that can be said.

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Enhancing powers of SOs and ACs:  there maaybe situations where contracted parties in GNSO have differing views and positions to GAC coming at same issue from public law/interest and ICANN model sustainability concerns for example.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: We may want line #16 to be an evaluation of how much "teeth" the mechanism has. 

Edward Morris: That's not brave that's stupidity.

Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): Good point Robin

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: For example is a CCWG mandatory or recommendations?

 Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): Dear all, please do abide to the expected standards of behavior http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

Samantha Eisner: Could we include another quality/descriptor of "Susceptibility of any single entity or collection of interests having undue influence within structure?"

Samantha Eisner: Nevermind!  See the "Mitigates capture"

Edward Morris: Each one of these proposals are intricately detailed with legal consequences we just don't know.

Edward Morris: Which is why we need to wait for legal advice before seriously considering.

Matthew Shears: agree Ed although there is some good guidance in the Sidley response ot the CWG on members, etc.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: again I find myself in absolute agreement with you on this exercise @chris

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: Agree with Jonathan.  It seems like we are doing this backwards.

Matthew Shears: +1

Edward Morris: +1

Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): So the question should be "which of these structures guarantee the community will have these powers"? right @Jonathan? 

Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi): Options like the Permanent CCWG and Community Council are most susceptible to the question "who are those enforcing accountability accountable to?" so im not sure how this is any less complicated.

Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST)): That makes perfect sense, Jonathan!

Keith Drazek: +1 Jonathan. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: indeed it does

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Permanent CCWG option: just flag first of all that GAC contibutions on issues requiring expedient action like budget approval would likely be "best efforts" in absence of face-face meetings not based on full consensus - and GAC only provides advice and not take part in taking decisions which perm CCWG would need to make.

Alice Munyua (GAC): +1 Mark

Keith Drazek: I have no idea whether a CCWG structure actually has authority over ICANN Board, so I can't properly assess whether it's a viable option. We need the legal advice/input before we can make informed choices.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: I think that is true for many of the proposals, Keith.

Edward Morris: +1 Keith and Robin

Keith Drazek: Agreed Robin. It's true for all of them. I just picked that as an example becuase it's the one Chris used.

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): I agree legal advice should come first and am concerned that if we state a preference, even tentatively, we will start down that road

Paul Rosenzweig: @Mattheiu -- respectful disagreement.  I don't favor the statutory delegate idea, but if we really do think it is best, take the time to do it right

James Bladel-GNSO: Agree with those saying this it is premature to express a preference.  But are there any on this list that can be eliminated outright? 

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Paul: agree but only provided it is demonstrated it brings extra value

Edward Morris: Absolutely Jordan.

Paul Rosenzweig: +1 Mathieu -- all things being equal, take the simpler course. 

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Application of Occam's Razor

Paul Rosenzweig: @Jordan -- I agree ... but that means we need insurance, I think.

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Insurance is a good point and raises implementation again

Samantha Eisner: @ Paul - agree that different forms of structures could impact liability differently/bring insurance ?s into the mix, etc 

Jordan Carter (.nz member): that's a detail we need to keep in mind, but the overall principle is that with powers come responsibilities - liability is just a part of that

Paul Rosenzweig: +1 Jordan -- just keep it in mind!

Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: @Mark: I guess that issue you have raised depends on the question whether decisions are mandated or based on individual (in GAC case, country specific) assessment

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): +1 Jonathan

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: Agree with Jonathan.

 Wolfgang: Multistakeholder Team cpould be good name

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Any new structure must have geo-diversity in its representation.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: stepping away briefly

Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: +1 @Mark

Paul Rosenzweig: Wrong document, I thnk ....

Paul Rosenzweig: Sorry ... my bad.  Correct docuement

Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: If we rejected a budget, we could allow the corporation to maintain prior year budget as a kind of 'Continuing Resolution' while the board revises the budget and presents for approval again

Tracy Hackshaw: +1 Mark (UK) - also must account for global "development" diversity

Tracy Hackshaw: It would be a shame if the "underserved regions" were not represented in any structure that results

jorge cancio GAC: +1 Mark

Malcolm Hutty: Gosh this is sounding complicated

Keith Drazek: I agree with Mathieu....whatever structure we come up with (membership/delegate/community/etc.) must be rooted in the community structures and sould be used in very narrowly defined and exceptional areas.

Olga Cavalli - GAC: +1 to Mark, should also have gender balance

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: This seems to be really about  needing to open up the strategic planning and budget-setting process the detail of which the GAC for one is usually unsighted.

Rudi Daniel: +1 Matthew sounds very much like an overkill...

Chris Disspain: @Mark, the GAC has the same visibility as everyone else...choosing to look is a matter for each group and member of the group

Tracy Hackshaw: Agreed on gender balance @Olga

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Sure, a body selected in real time rather than over time.

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Chris: yes we can sight ourselves but we are not briefed so as to be more acively engaged if we wish. It is rarely a GAC agenda issue as I recall in my experience at least. 

Olga Cavalli - GAC: @sebastien: Governments do not participate in the Board selection, so not the whole community is involved

Keith Drazek: This power and mechanisms is an escalation point, not a replacement for existing processes.

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): often have to use a process at least once to show it has teeth

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Chris: all organisations know they have to build a majority around the budget...

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): Should we have a limit to the number of times this can be done

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): i.e. the community though this power can only veto it once, or twice

Tracy Hackshaw: I think the point raised by one of the expert advisors about potential overlap between the "Oversight" mechanisms and the Stakeholder "Council/General Assembly" is going to be critical - perhaps more than we think

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): if people's concerns are so broad and deep seated, they move to spilling the board or something more serious

Chris Disspain: @Jirdan, intersting idea....BUT do remember the very real problem with timing

Tracy Hackshaw: re: CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Agree with Chris: big risk to ICANN model sustainability if the timely operation of the budget process becomes derailed due to a plethera of SO and AC issues to be resolved.

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): Chris: If the Budget is sent back, it would stand while being reconsidered, surely?

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Jordan : good idea Jordan + Steve suggestion that Icann falls back on a "conitnuity budget"

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): the company wouldn't be left budgetless - any more than it would be left boardless if the board was rolled...

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): in both cases, a doctrine of "caretaker" needs to be developed

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): we fleshed out some text about that in the "Remove the ICANN Board" template, 7A

Samantha Eisner: @Steve, Mathieu, we already have a documented path for the board approving a continuity-type budget to continue operations if the budget cannot be approved by the beginning of the next fiscal year

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): Great

Chris Disspain: Jordan, yes but there needs to be a continuing resoluton and how would you deal woith costs introduced in a new budget for stuff expected to happen within I month or so of a new budget year? Sya the new budget had funds allocated for an ALAC forum in August. How would that be dealt with? Delayed?

Samantha Eisner: Agree with Chris and Mark that there would have be some consideration of the mechanism to allow a path forward in teh path of competing requests

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Sam: great, can you share it with Jordan ?

Samantha Eisner: Mathieu, I will share some examples of those resolutions

Samantha Eisner: Here's an example of a resolution regarding the timing of approval of budget: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.e.i

Keith Drazek: @Tijani: Completely agree there's an existing process in place that should be relied upon. But what if a future Board approves a budget that is inconsistent with the staff and community work? What if a future CEO and Board decide to allocate substantial funds to a new initiative that is not supported by the community and was not part of the existing process for community input? This exceptional power is only to be used in cases where the community input is ignored.

 Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Sam: excellent, it shows it can be handled without too much disruption

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): Chris - that would need to be dealt with in the continuity budget. It's an implementation detail that can be solved

Chris Disspain: no Jordan, specifically a continuity budget has no new items in it...otherwise we would end up approving individual items of a vetoed budget and how would we do that?

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): if the budget got vetoed only a mad CEO would go ahead with hiring

Chris Disspain: not about hiring

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): oh stuff

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): not staff

Samantha Eisner: @ Jordan, for example, meetings like this may not be able to be funded

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Chris ; veto of the budget is a crisis scenario. So fallback to continuity is logical and the appropriate way forward.

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): it wouldn't be a mystery if a budget veto was happening. I repeat my earlier point - the existience of such a tool reduces the likelihood board/staff will end up distant from the community

Samantha Eisner: if not included in last year's budget

Keith Drazek: The diversity question should be addressed at the SO-AC-SG layer. Each community group should be responsible for appointing their representative(s). If we rely on existing community structures to populate a membership/community body, the accountability mechanisms are already in place.

Olga Cavalli - GAC: @Roleof: while I understand your point from a practical point of view, a balanced represenation of regions and gender should be desired, as far as possilbe

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: of course there are adverse consequences of a veto-ed budget... Otherwise there is no accountability effect

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): gender balance can be achieved partially by requiring every delgation to have both.

Thomas Rickert: Queue is closed after Chrris!

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Avri : +1

James Bladel-GNSO: We have similar problems with geographic balance

Thomas Rickert: Chris that is

Samantha Eisner: @Mathieu, I guess that's part of how we keep the community accoutable to each other, because everyone would be impacted by a freeze

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Sam: indeed

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): geo balance can be artially achioved by everything every delgation no more than 1 person from a region.

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): These are fair questions, much to do

Wolfgang: @ Chris+1

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): well popular events would be cancelled as well. that's fine it just raises the stakes

Alice Munyua (GAC): Agree @aAvrio regarding regional and gender balance

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): You can also shcedule where such a power would happen in the budget planning process

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): sufficiently in advane of the start of the FY so that an updated budget can be presented

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): combined with a limit to the number of times a veto can happen, that'll help a lot

James Bladel-GNSO: How can we answer that without knowing who/what structure is deicding?  answer would be different if members vs. community council.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: completely agree, James.

Jan Scholte: Various other multistakeholder institutions have worked with formalised regional and gender distributions principles.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: I disagree with the question.  We don't have the information necessary to make these decisions.

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): whose noses are we counting?

James Bladel-GNSO: I think the IETF hums.....

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): the IETF hum is for opening discussion, not making decsions.

Edward Morris: +1 Robin

Keith Drazek: The "voters" being counted should be the representatives of their community groups, acting on behalf of their groups, and voting as instructed by their groups.

Matthew Shears: isn't ICANN supposed to work on a consensus basis (although going to voting if necessary) - is this setting a precedent for other decision-making?

James Bladel-GNSO: Matthew - That's my issue as well.  OnlyMembers (or delegates) should vote.

Wolfgang: IETF is Humms and this is rough consensus  (which can live with some minor no´s). Consensus is full consensus. No no´s allowed. But you can abstain.

Edward Morris: +1 Matt

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): the people who vote in this will be members of whatever mechanism

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Agree w Keith regarding how votes are cast from communities

Jordan Carter (ccNSO member, .nz): it owuld have been crisper to just ask "Unanimous or not" - but anyway

James Bladel-GNSO: Each SO and AC may have different rules for deciding that.  Not up to this group, IMO.

Edward Morris: Correct James

Alice Jansen: The Group will reconvene at 14:00 EET - 12:00 UTC

Athina Fragkouli (ASO): +1 to James

Izumi Okutani(ASO): + 1 James