Page History
...
Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)
Notes
Part 1 (AM)
Roll call: no remote participants.
...
we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.
Break - thank you
Part 3
NOTES Part 3
A collection of requirements
To what extent we think the requirements are being met by the various
models?
The chart attempts to capture key concerns mentioned during the morning's
presentations. Mapped this on screen to see what we may have missed,
comments please.
Presenting the requirements we heard about in the presentations.
NOTES Part 2 (AM)
Items for WS2
Suggestions made by contributors:
- Assess efficiency of proposal (our mandate or ATRT2)
- Bylaw that would require ICANN to disclose Goverment related activities
- Timeframe
General comments
- Vast majority of comments were supportive
- Recommendations are seen to be improving accountability substantially
- 2 commentors are opposed to process: Roberto Bissio (provide a clear rationale) and .NA (challenges process)
Methodology
- Criticism for truncating comment period (40 days for second comment period)
- Specificity needed on public interest term
- Impact analysis request from Board
---
Turning tables around: presentation of perspectives regarding membership / cooperative approach
We need to bring ICANN's accountability to a level that is sufficient for transition to take place. We need consensus on proposal.
Two rules for this discussion: 1.Timing (5 min) - 2 Factual (avoid slogans)
This agenda item is an opportunity to explain benefits of options.
Greg Shatan
Fundamental differences between models where we see authority sitting whether with community or with Board. I have worked with not-for-profit both with members and without members. Without members it is Board centric - with members it is members centric. Membership is a natural tool to give power to community. Speaking as member of CWG, change between CWG models puts greater reliance on ability to give authority to the hands of global multistakeholder community. Accountability needs to flow through ICANN to the community. Model that uses members is the tool that provides community with real basis in governance to exercise and to obtain ultimate judgement we believe the community should have. If we don't trust community, none of our models will yield results we want.
Alan Greenberg
We have been working with set of Bylaws up until now that probably should not have existed. They don't follow any pattern in not-for-profit. I propose that we continue with same model where we put proposed powers in Bylaws. Budget power would be similar to what we do with GAC. Enforceability that I am proposing is removing Board directors. Process would have to follow agreed processes. Recalling Board will give us accountability we want but how do we remove Board without individual members? The threat of removal should give us everything we need. What of ACs who choose not to participate in membership model? We have small part of community calling all the shots and will look bad. Tying our entire governance structure to California law does not serve us well. Concerned about timeframe.
Robin Gross
Empowered designator model: we talked about powers - agreements we want these powers. 2 of these powers (strategic plan and budget approval issues) will be challenging but they are not enough to cause upheaval and great change we are going to have to go through. There is going to be a lot of issues before we can get to membership model. It is not enough to push in the other direction. We can have ways to require way for community and Board to work on these two items together. Board also has knowledge that may be recalled which creates a strong incentive. The membership model does not work for those outside of community. Empowered designators model can be more open. We risk making mistakes we would be stuck with if go for membership model.
Jordan Carter
Fundamental understanding about nature of human society: when we have something that is important, a separation of powers is needed. We divide authority. We take steps to protect our organizations by distributing powers by ensuring no one has single point of authority. This is a constitutional point. We will distribute it through SO/AC structure. It changes where authority lies away from Board of Directors and bakes it into community. That is what will make it trustable. We should embed the authority. I support membership, designators. Membership: we are going to rely on all.
Roelof Meijer
It is very clear that most community members agree to foreseen powers. We are looking too much at things that already exist. This industry has become what it is not because of all legal processes but because of lack of processes around it. We have to be very careful about situation that might not happen but we need to protect ourselves. We won't get enough people and structures that will agree with this and we will end up empty-handed. Let's be creative.
Samantha Eisner
I don't come here with answers. We are working through proposal along with you and have questions. We have characteristics of a model (designators, membership, creative etc). It is important that ICANN not for profit does not get affected. We need to look holistically at ICG's proposal. There should be further looking if membership model that we understand it is model to use when collective interests. We need to ensure secure, stable internet. Membership model makes sense in organization of interest. Any model we go to needs to leave open pathways to new participants. We need to see what membership model is to a new participant: do you have a voice? Can you meaningfully participate? Are there pathways without immediately aligning themselves with a group? Model that needs to be tested. We need to make sure that we are holding up values and stability of certains part of organization. We need to hold out to global community that we are a stable organization. Does this mean membership is off table? No - there are still questions we can answer - if lesser changes that wind up not giving results the community wish to see happen.
Sebastien Bachollet
We need it to be holistic review. The solution does not have a name. Accountable, diverse, equal multistakeholder which give confidence - my gift to community. It is important that wherever we go, we need to make sure we don't put any legal characteristics between relationships between any groups of ICANN. We don't need US legal jurisdiction to be involved in setting discussions. We have to remember that all groups are us even Board. If we ask accountability, I want us to be accountable at all levels and that remains to be seen. Trust should be our motto. Important for us to find a solution where we can leave organization open to all, not just to those who know but open to creating/merging new structures. If too solidified (and we already are), it will difficult to have solution. We don't know what will be future - we need to be open to that discussion but how can we create it and who give agreement etc? Diversity is an absolute need - real diversity (culture, gender, age). HQs in US: one way to solve diversity problems is presidency from other region.
Avri Doria
I support the model Internet has been created on. It is the same one we have been using to find solutions for accountability. It has been a successful model. Like all models it is one that benefits from constant refinement and improvement (ATRT). If we get reconsideration improvements, fix IRP and can remove recalcitrant directors, then we have reinforced model. I believe in notion of perpetual refinement. By constantly doing outreach, we have a much better chance.
Malcolm Hutty
I would like to bring up variation that is worthy of exploring. We have got a group of people who think enforcement is key to process. For this group, it will be hard to build consensus. Those people have been told that ability to go to court is way to get enforceability through membership. It leads to strong membership model but it does not have to be membership model This creation of UAs is very complicated, creates new structures and unforeseen consequences. We need to address this. My suggestion is to have membership for everybody - under that model, Board have duties to their interests, they would have ability to go to Court. There may be other statutory powers we would need to look at. No harm in making that available to world at-large. We owe it to ourseleves to see if that can be resolved. A point of membership application e.g. accept that we don't get to wind up company if not 99% member. They would agree to a process, concept we create. It would not create complex structures but would allow for all to hold it to commitments.
Becky Burr
At time request came from US gov was very much focused on technical services, not on accountability issues - which were viewed as distracting. This community came together and insisted for accountability to be addressed. Concerns are real and persistent. We are hearing objections that accountability might delay transition. Nobody wants that to happen but concerns should not lead up to compromise our shared determination to resolve this. We can do both. It should lead us to bridge gaps between legitimate perspectives. Membership model is a complex model and who watches watchers? We have come up with empowered SO/AC model: essentially comfortable with SO/AC structure but let's empower bodies by giving SO/ACs authority - it does not involve creating new entities. To accomplish this, the only thing that needs to happen is for SO/ACs to articulate status quo (powers, authorities). This intention can be expressed in SOP for each SO/AC, it can be expressed at any time, whenever we are ready. Intention is to work together to accomplish goals.
Erika Mann
I like empowered SO/AC model but we would have to articulate principles. We should pay attention to HQs: California gives stability. Governements have concerns but there are no alternatives. We have to find best model - principles would have to fulfill global public interest. Governements in finding right model have difficulties in identifying the best way forward. Let's not confuse it with model we have to find.
Paul Twomey
Combination of Alan and Becky. Community has not done a bad job from changing discussions. This model strongly stands against Board membership model. Membership is not the same as participation.
Jonathan Zuck
Institutional resistance to accountability has shown itself in many different aspects.
Methods of dealing with problems and desire to drive through anecdotes is persistent through organizations
There are instances where high leverage - ATRT as part of AoC - agreement to make US have oversight role. If look at recent evolution at resisting - there was delay and resistance to process when talking about model in past.
It gave community leverage to sway Board and change course the organization is taking. Model I want to propose is one of leverage. If we want to empower overall community, there isn't institution that has arisen. Method of operation needs to be tested and leveraged from time to time. It is not goodwill that will get that done. I am supportive of leverage in hands of community.
We now have a greater understanding of where aiming at - will be extremely valuable for next steps.
Is there any statement that could potentially mislead? Word of caution - not everything will work.
--> It is difficult to comment on underlying assumptions. All different models are workable in some fashion but devil is always in details.
Which requirements we are advancing with particular models so we can explain why we are making changes.
--> Have we considered hybrid of various models?
There is no assumption that we have looked at all models. We can call it creating model or hybrid. This discussion is not over.
--> There would be letter from Board members that would represent interest of community. How would we hold them to these commitments? How would you resolve paradox?
We will need to be clear about this. It is quite possible to have irrevocable letter to be signed saying that it will step down if certain characteristics are met. Contract that could be made enforceable.
Robin suggesting empowered designators model. It also required a UA or legal entity - it has same problem.
Empowered designators model - we would use UAs. What is difference between empowered designators models and empowered So/Acs
We are recognizing and empowering to SO/ACs by articulating intention to come together to exercise powers. It essentially creates entity you need for enforcing those. There is no requirement that anybody file a UA - they could do designation by same model - Get rid of middle man and who watches watchers. SO/ACs would have same powers.
If move forward membership model, please be careful about how you define what a member is
Let’s not confuse open membership model
Empowered SO/AC gets rid of middle man - even when had those in place, - joining UAs was never part of proposal - it needs to stop being an issue. It would never have affected any of the powers, roles of SO/ACs - wherever we go, we have to be clear that in building accountability general principle should be that anyone can participate, remains free of obligations
Part 3 (PM)
NOTES Part 3
A collection of requirements
To what extent we think the requirements are being met by the various
models?
The chart attempts to capture key concerns mentioned during the morning's
presentations. Mapped this on screen to see what we may have missed,
comments please.
Presenting the requirements we heard about in the presentations.
No single point of failure. Separation of powers. No single point of failure. Separation of powers. Provide leverage to
the community, through removal of directors or through the community
...
that would have to decide to go to court.
Notes part 4 (PM)
CWG stewardship linkage
- ICANN Budget: Feedback we are getting from public comment shows this is still very much an achievable goal
- ICANN Board: While there were concerns about implementation, it is still on agenda
- IANA Function Review: no issue there
- CSC: we have had back and forth discussions with CWG-Stewardship and there are no objections
- IRP: Consistent with CWG
...
