AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Ariel Liang

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Very first draft
Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 

Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups

Status
colourYellow
titledrafting
Alan Greenberg Olivier Crepin-LeblondTBCTBCTBCTBCTBC

Mary Wong

policy-staff@icann.org

TBC

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 
Toggle Cloak

Cloak
visibletrue
bluedefranceAliceblue2dashed

 

Brief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community feedback on a proposed draft framework of uniform principles to guide the initiation and operations of future cross community working groups.

Current Status: The draft framework document has been published for public comment.

Next Steps: After the review of public comments received, the final framework document will be prepared.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

In March 2014, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils chartered a cross community working group (CCWG-Principles) to develop a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. The group reviewed several previous joint and cross-community efforts to understand the typical life cycle of such groups, including the two most recent cross-community working groups (the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability). The draft Framework of Principles that is now being published for public comment builds on the CCWG-Principles’ understanding of the nature, needs and problems of these previous efforts. Structured around these groups’ typical life cycle, the draft framework sets out a series of chronological steps to be taken by each ICANN Supporting Organizationand Advisory Committee in determining whether to establish a new CCWG and whether to participate in it by chartering the CCWG. It also documents the elements to be included in a typical CCWG charter and the processes to be followed for a CCWG’s recommendations to be adopted by its chartering organizations. A template for a CCWG charter has also been included. While comments are invited on all parts of the document, the CCWG-Principles will welcome in particular any input on the open questions contained in Section 4.

Following the close of the public comment period, the CCWG-Principles will review all feedback received (including from any ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee in response to the draft Framework), and prepare a proposed final framework for adoption by theccNSO and GNSO Councils. It is anticipated that, following adoption of the final Framework by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, all other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be invited to also consider adopting the framework for all future CCWGs that are to be formed.

Section II: Background

There has been an increasing reliance on cross community working groups within the ICANNcommunity as there is an increasing number of issues that are recognized to cut across and affect more than one of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Despite there having been several CCWGs to date, including most recently on ICANN Accountability and the IANA Stewardship Transition, there are no agreed community-wide guidelines on their use. Between 2011 and 2013 the GNSO community had worked on a set of preliminary guidelines for such efforts, for which the ccNSO had provided detailed feedback.

Each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee within ICANN is responsible for different aspects of policy development and advice, and operates under different mandates and remits. There are, however, issues that affect or interest more than one Supporting Organization and/orAdvisory Committee. Up to now, cross community working groups have been formed on a relatively ad-hoc basis, without a framework of consistent operating principles that take into account the differences between each SO/AC. In order to facilitate the successful functioning of CWGs, and to build upon previous work by the GNSO and ccNSO, the current CWG-Principles was chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils in March 2014, to develop a framework of uniform operating principles to facilitate the effective and efficient functioning of future CWGs

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Mary Wong
policy-staff@icann.org

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

...

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

 

...

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

For many years, the ALAC has been a supporter of the need to remove barriers that result in silos within ICANN's communities. The creation of Cross Community Working Groups (interchangeably referenced as CCWGs or CWGs) has been supported by the ALAC for this very reason. Historically, the ALAC has taken part in many such initiatives:

 

  • Cross Community Working Group on Morality and Public Order (Rec 6)
  • Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs
  • Joint SO-AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS-WG)
  • Joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG)
  • Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Cross Community Working Group on IANA Stewardship Transition
  • Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability

 

Having been a co-chartering organisation of several of these Cross Community Working Groups, the ALAC is well aware of the diversity of requirements and the current lack of unity regarding the chartering process and framework by which those groups operate. The Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups is therefore welcome to increase efficiency in the process of chartering these working groups and to reduce the potential for ambiguity and time lost in finding a consensus on internal processes.

 

The ALAC must however point out a number of important points which it believes should be discussed further:

 

1. The finite nature of a CCWG's life cycle: the framework proposes that every CCWG needs a "starting point" and an "end point" defined as the provision of deliverables and subsequent closure of the CCWG with agreement from Chartering Organisations. There are no provisions for processes that are ongoing that therefore do not have an end point.

At present, the only formal vehicle for a process officially linking SOs and ACs together to work towards formally actionable goals, both with regards to the Board but with regards to the chartering organisations themselves, is a CCWG. Removing the potential for an ongoing nature of a CCWG, thus focussing on an end point, final report and implementation phase removes flexibility towards any CCWG that is ongoing, such as, for example, the current CCWG on Internet Governance.

 

Should the final recommendations of the CCWG remain that every CCWG needs to have an end point and for a CCWG to be closed after a Final Report is produced, the ALAC recommends that the CCWG on CCWG to make recommendations as to what vehicle it recommends should be created and defined to cater for a working group that requires such an ongoing requirement whilst also requiring SO/AC official chartering so as to provide it with the ability to regularly make formal recommendations to its chartering SOs & ACs.

At present, several apparently less formal structures exist:

  • Cross Community Working Party: this type of structure is used by the Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (CCWP-HR). This type of structure does not require chartering by any SO/AC. It serves as a good platform for discussion, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is undefined. For example, the CCWP-HR is supported by the GNSO.
  • Cross Community Committee: this type of structure is used by the Cross Community Committee on Accessibility, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is also undefined.
  • Other Review Groups, like the Geographic Regions Working Group; IDN Variant TLD Issues Project; etc. The nature of relationship with SOs & ACs in undefined as they are related directly to an ICANN-wide process that is often Board or Staff driven (in the case of an implementation project).

 

How each structure makes formal recommendations to SOs, ACs and/or the ICANN Board is not specifically defined in cases where the structure is not chartered by SOs and ACs. The ALAC therefore recommends either that the requirement for an end point for CCWGs be dropped or that the CCWG-Principles make recommendations for an alternative vehicle that will operate along the same formality and rules as a CCWG but without an end point.

 

2. The proposed framework mentions several variations of the same concept regarding the use of the recommendations made by a CCWG:

 

"Only after these decisions by the Chartering Organizations have been made can further steps (e.g. implementation, submission of recommendations, providing input into other processes, etc.) be taken if proposed." (P.3)

 

"Unless the CCWG’s Charter provides otherwise, further steps (e.g. implementation, submission of recommendations, providing input into other processes, etc.), if proposed, can be taken only after adoption of the outputs by the Chartering Organizations or the ICANN Board, as appropriate." (P.11)

 

The ALAC is concerned that both of these paragraph point to the need for all Chartering Organisations to decide on recommendations of a CCWG before being able to make use of the CCWG's recommendations. This requirement for a decision from all chartering organisations allows the blocking/delaying of the implementation of the CCWG recommendations by a single SO/AC.

 

The ALAC recommends that the text be modified to allow each Chartering Organisation to decide on the use of the outputs of the CCWG as it so desires. A CCWG should be a tool to promote better communication amongst ICANN's SOs and AC and to stimulate a faster track to achieve results than by working in silos. The framework for CCWGs should therefore not introduce barriers to SOs and ACs using the outputs of the CCWG as they see fit, depending on circumstances. As an example, the Joint SO-AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS-WG) needed a very fast turnaround for recommendations to reach the ICANN Board in time for the implementation of an applicant support program in the first round of gTLDs. On this occasion, not all Chartering organisations were able to adopt the outputs in time. So the outputs were presented to the Board prior to adoption by all SO/ACs. Specifically prohibiting such flexibility would have stopped the JAS-WG deliverables from reaching the Board in time and would have delayed the whole new gTLD roll-out process.

 

In order to allow this flexibility depending on circumstances, the ALAC proposes to scrap this requirement and specifying that any submission of recommendations as a follow-up by any of the Chartering SO/ACs needs to be clear of the level of support (or not) from each other the Chartering Organisations. Alternatively, one could re-word the requirement by allowing exceptions due to "exceptional circumstances".

 

Questions

• Should there be a requirement that all CCWG recommendations must be

considered by the ICANN Board, if minimum requirements are met (similar to

the GNSO Policy Development Process?

Yes. The ALAC believes that CCWG policy output carries at least the same weight as GNSO Policy Development Process output.

• Should more formalized Operating Procedures be developed for CCWGs?

This is a very broad question. The ALAC believes that some formalisation and optimisation of procedures is needed, without restricting flexibility that is needed in the broad range of circumstances that would necessitate the creation of a CCWG.

• Should additional mechanisms be developed to deal with situations in which

Chartering Organizations may disagree or want to discontinue their

engagement?

Yes. There should be a mechanism to allow for Chartering Organisations to resolve their differences, with a clear understanding that the mechanism should not lead to a voiding of the CCWG's work should Chartering Organizations not resolve their differences.

• Should there be a mechanism to close a CCWG if it is clear that it will not be

possible to produce a final report or that circumstances have overtaken the need

for a CCWG? (See Section 3.3.4 and 3.4.2 above)

Yes there should be a mechanism in place. There is no need to keep CCWG running if opinions in the CCWG are such that no consensus would be found or the CCWG's output would be obsolete.

• For implementation and post-implementation of the CCWG output, what should

be the role of the CCWG? Should the Charter template be expanded to include

these details? How would the process be initiated?

The Charter template should include options for the Implementation of CCWG output. These options should be provided as potential avenues that the CCWG might wish to pursue for implementation, depending on circumstances. The options could include that the members of the CCWG automatically become members of the Implementation Team.

• As the appointment mechanism for members varies across SO/ACs, how can

CCWG leadership and support staff be kept informed of appointments and

changes?

The current method of appointment by SOs and ACs is the formal notification of the appointment by the SO/AC Chair or support staff to the CCWG co-Chairs or support staff. This, as well as removal or replacement of members, should be formalised.

• Are uniform Statements of Interest, or something similar, beneficial to the CCWG

process? (See section 3.2.7 above)

The ALAC believes that uniform Statement of Interest, with set minimum information requirements would be very beneficial to the CCWG.

• Should specific requirements be listed for the appointment of members?

Appointed members should be required to explicitly agree to the ICANN expected standards of behaviour. Beyond this, any further requirements should be set by appointing SOs and ACs.

• Who launches a call for volunteers/participants?

This call should be sent out by ICANN staff based on mutually-agreed text from chartering organisations. The method by which text should be mutually-agreed is better left to the discretion of the chartering organisations themselves as each CCWG has its own sets of circumstances that trigger its creation first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.