Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 4 23 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 4 23 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p29kxvhasa2/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-4-23mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

16:30-18:00 EET – 14:30-16:00 UTC – Session 4

16:30 Independent Panel (continued)

17:00 Introduction of jurisdiction issue

17:45 Day Wrap-up 

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.

NOTES:  Day 1 Session 4

Community Council 

- NRO is 5 RIRs and ASO is a representation from community

- All constituencies within ICANN should be engaged in this body. This presents key question for role of Governments. Would governments be able to contribute to votes that underpin decisions? It is a migration from advisory to operational? What of modalities of votes?  Would voting contributions be advisory? A formal liaison functionality in respect to council would be needed.

- Anybody that has power to exercise this must be in a position to do so. 

- It is important to have group large enough for representation but efficiency should be considered.

- Anyone that is a stakeholder should have legitimate representation body - it is arbitrary - whether  they provide advice, vote or develop policy. Work of ICANN is to both develop and execute.

- There are dramatically different groups in GNSO and we should not be restricting to SO/ACs

- Equal representation is needed 

- We need to discuss question of who gets the power

- A constituency needs a process to ensure representative is bringing in a position well supported by community. 

- Support IAB, NRO etc as many different views as possible needed. We wont be increasing accountability if decreasing number of communities participating in process

- With 2 people from organization, we are not representing diversity

- Presence, input and making decision is different. 

ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder 

Independent Review Panel 

Is the a new process or enhancement? Is it a panel? Standing/non standing? Binding? 

Becky Burr walked the group through the independent Review Panel template with a note that current process is inaccessible. Inconsistent decisions - no avenue for community to expression views. Objective: develop internal consistency. There is strong support in community in making decisions binding but in what manner? To what extent? Triggered/non-triggered: group in community. Board could follow procedure to challenge or overturn this. This process is designed to be flexible and could be used by others part of community. Substantive and procedural standards. WP2 has recommended a standing panel of 15 (geographic diversity, maps different legal regimes) including fixed terms, prohibitions on post term appointments. Election, 
appointment process (variations). They could be recalled for specific cause - how removal would be initiated -> WP1 mechanisms could be used to provide that evolution. ICANN would bear costs of maintaining panelists (allocation of costs assoiciated with proceeding, loser 
pay system). This would be included in bylaws as golden bylaw. Evolution of IRP, not creating a new body. CEP is a parcel of what needs to be fixed. 

Feedback included: 

- This increases access because it is more accessible and affordable. Experts are experienced. Work faster

- Artificial surge in number of IRPs due to new gTLD program. Even if extending scope, waste of resources of time. 5 instead of 15. Rules and procedures have to be 
easily understood. Panel members who are able to steer things through need to be selected - without being captured by lawyers. Avoid getting process that is too legalistic because it will inaccessible. intervenor process; add couple of lines on parties invited to be heard. 

- Potential areas where this could go off the rails. Standing: any decision. Binding nature of IRP is important but careful when concerns commercial. Don't want to poison innovation that drives this industry.

- Quality of decision-making of panelists - to what extent will we ensure consistency in decision-making. To what extent is precedent documented? Traditional rule of law needs to be taken into consideration - documentation of decision-making. To what extent allowing for minority opinion to be expressed. Compromise agreement needed.

- Redress against panel is offtrack – doesn't follow process which creates delays. What impact are delays having in community in terms of services. Affecting creation or support. Issue of accessibility and stressing importance of regular updates regarding particularly other affected parties. Simplify process to ensure it is understandable 

- Depending on powers of IRP, could make it mandatory to have panel size for envisioned outcome. Summary proceeding: preliminary injunction type or fast track. 
Suggestion to have expert in area do implementation as we do with legal advice, respecting prescribed principles. 

- Procedures for dealing with requests that have already been dealt with or  

- Possibility of response into RfP - clear about what actions are per panel. 

- not equitable to have binding decision on ICANN but not on applicant

- Ongoing retainer for ability but paying for actual work. 

- Over time believe this will reduce the need to use it. 

- Call for consensus on IRP being in WS1. Implementation challenges are really high

- How can it be binding? under what structure?

- Proposals says standing panel members are nominated by Board and need to be confirmed by community - should we point community to mechanism discussed earlier 

--> yes

- Existing stress tests cover risks on party implications and unintended consequences. ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism 

- Beyond mission and values, there might be need for standing review to include contract dispute, also mention of applicable laws. 

- Stress test will define how much implementation will be needed. 

- Stress test #13 - 

- Standard would need be written by ccNSO (stress test #21)

CONCLUSION DAY 1

We have confirmed WS1 proposals we have been working on - still working on principles, independent panels - in a process that is not reinveting itself.

Starting to see more clearly mechanisms for foundation boxes. While still lot of details to work out, aiming for quality proposals but level of details can be margin manoeuver to make progress on regular cycles. 

Discussions tomorrow - AoC, jurisdictions, value in discussing reconsideration process. 

Synch with rapporteurs to identify needs - timeline & next steps (how do we organize for public comment, level of detail - need for greater clarity) 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder 

ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (3/23/2015 09:20)  (09:16) We will be back at 14:45 UTC

  Brenda Brewer: (09:21) Day 1 Session 4 | 23 March

  Wisdom Donkor: (09:22) Thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:48) back

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:02) we seem to be talking like we've decided we are going to create a structure - that we just don't know yet.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLD member, .nz): (10:02) relative voting weights apply regardless

  Jordan Carter (ccTLD member, .nz): (10:03) and who can vote in it applies regardless as well

  Keith Drazek: (10:05) +1 Alan

  Adam Peake: (10:10) WP2 wiki, all documents, IRP at the bottom of the page

  Adam Peake: (10:10) https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:10) lots of noise on the line now

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:10) remote users pls mute - background noise

  Adam Peake: (10:10) Diredct link to PDF:

  Adam Peake: (10:10) https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&api=v2

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:10) music and static - pls mute

  Adam Peake: (10:11) You should have scroll control

  Steve DelBianco: (10:15) so the Standard of Review shown here is just for IRP based on ICANN Mission and Core Values.   there could be other standards, right?

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:16) other standards have been floated, e.g. breach of agreement

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (10:19) Yes, other standards might come in. It would be up to the group to decide that I think

  Suzanne Radell: (10:29) Very comprehensive overview, Becky; many thanks

  Arun Sukumar (CCG Delhi): (10:30) Apologies - I have to leave this session early for a call - but some thoughts on what seem like sensible proposals towards the IRP: dispute resolution should be affordable and accessible, so the definition of who is "materially affected" should be expansively drafted. On the other hand, there should not be prohibitive costs against bringing disputes before the panel - especially in the form of costs against "frivolous suits" etc. This may be contested but the Independent Panel should not be strictly confined strictly to ICANN's mission statement. Any public dispute resolution mechanism must be able to deploy principles of natural justice where required.

  Edward Morris: (10:32) I'm very excited about the emphasis on accessibility and affordability, two features lacking in the current process. Thanks Becky!

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:32) Becky’s point about avoiding abuse might warrant a new row on the template for limitations

  Chris LaHatte: (10:32) Cooperative engagement process

  Chris LaHatte: (10:32) Its for getting the parties to try to agree procedure

  Becky Burr: (10:32) Thanks Chris

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:32) Yes, thanks Becky for great summary

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:34) great evolution in this IRP proposal!

  Matthew Shears: (10:34) yes + 1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:35) Question on scope of standard of review (beyond mission?) is noted

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:38) Defending American lawyers!!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (10:39) We'll do a consensus call on American lawyers. Any objection ?

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (10:40) Chris’s comments illustrate that there is lots of detail work ahead, not least a good look at the DIDP policy as well

  Steve DelBianco: (10:40) @Chris -- I hope you'll submit these comments in writing.  

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:41) yes and those details are hard work

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:41) Hard work -- but with agreement that the process needs to be created, not at all beyond the capability of this group.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:41) indeed.

  Edward Morris: (10:43) +1 Paul, but work that needs to be based upon considered and verified fact rather than generalized populist assertions.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:43) I will do so

  Keith Drazek: (10:44) Agree fully with James B.

  Chris Disspain: (10:44) are we intending to run stress tests on this and the other  things discussed today?

  Malcolm Hutty: (10:45) Precedent: very good question

  Steve DelBianco: (10:45) @Chris -- Stress Test #13 asks about review processes being abused to paralyze ICANN.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:45) You need to decide whether the IRP decisions are binding or just persuasive

  Paul Rosenzweig: (10:46) +1 Lee.  ICANN is transitioning to a quasi-public sort of function.  THat is why we need a standing panel and probably a precedential requirement.

  Steve DelBianco: (10:46) and several Stress Tests about  potential problems are relying upon this improved IRP to show how the community can hold ICANN accountable in the way it responds to the contingency

  Chris LaHatte: (10:46) WIPO and ICC have internal processes for quality control of decisions, by review before being publishing. Dissent must be permitted too

  Malcolm Hutty: (10:47) Some Supreme Courts have the approach that their own previous decisions are binding precedent except when they're not :-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:48) agreed that consideration of precedential value of decisions is important to design in to the  model.

  Edward Morris: (10:48) @Chris. There is some question as to the possibility of binding IRP decisions reversing Board action per CA law. Certainly a question for the independent legal adviser.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:49) Right, Ed.  The jury is still out on that.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:51) Rules of procedure and time limits for submissions will focus the parties on getting the IRP dealt with expeditiously

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (10:53) This idea of setting out principles as CCWG and have experts come up with details of imlementation shared by Thomas makes sense to me.

  Chris LaHatte: (10:54) +1 Malcom

  Chris LaHatte: (10:55) Malcolm (sorry)

  Chris LaHatte: (10:58) @Chris keep within ICANN community as we have now

  Malcolm Hutty: (11:01) @Chris Disspain: The basis of the complaint will be relevant to standing. An RFP bidder surely wouldn't be able to challenge a failure to win merely because they wanted to win - but a non-contracted party impacted by a rogue out-of-scope ICANN policy should be able to seek recourse on grounds ICANN is acting outside its mission.

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (11:02) Maybe on precedent the IRP panel can issue rulings but precedential value would only come if the community (in some form we would have to agree) adopts a ruling as such much like IETF adopts RFCs

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:10) Q. in legal scoping doc:    7.  How could the board be bound to accept decisions made by an Independent Review Panel (or other independent entity) including decisions pertaining to the board’s oversight of the management of the organization?

  David McAuley (GNSO RySG): (11:10) Thanks Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:12) I would prefer that the composition not be appointed by the board.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:13) as they are a "check" on the board's decisions.  The alternate proposal is better on ths point.

  Jordan Carter (ccTLD member, .nz): (11:13) It could be something we ask this community vehicle, whatever it is, to do

  Becky Burr: (11:13) nothing is written in stone Robin

  Becky Burr: (11:13) The nomination/confirmation issue is very open and completely open

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:13) yes, I saw there were options in the doc, so I just wanted to state my preference.

  Chris LaHatte: (11:16) perhaps a condition of using the IRP by a party is to agree to be bound by the result

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:18) @Chris how would that work with regards to the person being under review? I mean, if the person/body being judged doesn't agree on being bound then you would deem void the mechanism. Is that right?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:19) Very impressive ground covered today, yes! As seen from the edge, you all need a good break tonight!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:20) we are still working on fixing the Reconsideration Request process as well.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:20) Recon Request is in WS1 also, so we should discuss it tomorrow.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:21) discussion of community veto proposal?

  Chris LaHatte: (11:24) @Leon, that is a harder question. If they want to participate as a respondent you could require them to agree to be bound

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:25) bye all!  thanks

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:25) Thanks everyone

  Wolfgang: (11:25) Byby

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:25) see you tomorro!

  Rudi Daniel: (11:26) tomorrow.