Page History
...
Apologies: Giovanni Seppia, Seun Ojedeji, Eberhard Lisse, Edward Morris, Izumi Okutani
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5uyrc95f2y/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-28sep15-en.mp3
Notes
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Assessment of agreement areas
- Thank you for effort being put in this.
- The slide is an assessment of where we believe the community is now. It is not meant in any way to be a position of the Board. This slide is divided into 4 groups and columns.
On left handside: 4 groups of elements to strengthen accountability of ICANN. We took them from CWG-stewardship work.
On right handside: we tried to divide list of items into 4 columns. 1st column elements that have brought agreement specifically designed to replace NTIA backstop role; 2nd column has addition elements of broad agreement but not necessary to replace US role; 3rd column are elements that have broad community agreement on requirements but not necessarily to implement them; 4th colum is for items where there is no broad agreement.
- We produced this slide for two reasons: 1) amount of material that is available is so vast that many are struggling to get a sense of overall picture; 2) reading public comment to determine areas of broad agreement. We may not have every detail on how to implement these. There are no issues we believe cannot be resolved. How do we provide oversight of IANA by OCs for instance - e.g. First two columns have checked marks because we feel there is broad agreement on all these items. First set is for CWG dependencies - there is broad agreement there. It meets the requirements of replacing backstop and goes beyond that to strenghten accountability of ICANN. Removing Board directors is powerful and limited today. Pre service letter is a contract that forces Board members to resign. Making IRP binding gives an additional avenue. In alignment with principles of third block. We are in synch. The last group speaks about creation of new legal structures. The Board showed concerns in LA. There is no consensus as it will generate a lot of questions. Having a brand new untested model creates capture and generates question about enforceability. It will take time. We don't have this detail. NTIA confirmed that if receives proposal without additional details, NTIA will have a hard time accepting proposal. We need guidance from CCWG on whether the first two columns are sufficient to move forward with the transition. The Board is committed to working within your process. We are trusting you that we will towards solution.
Feedback:
- you would be so kind and ask Fadi why only the 4th vertical box talks about "new structures".Does he mean SMM?
--> Models that create new legal authority that are above Board with very powerful authority is a concern not for their existence but because they will need to be understood and safeguarded, managed in a way that will not create authoritative powers that will not be bound by accountability of ICANN. It is a concern. Everytime we create a new structure - questions of who is in that new structure and are they accountable are natural questions that you are asking Board today. Everyone should be clear that all models create new powers on top of existing structure. They need to be understood and bound to make sure organization continues to operate.
- Slide summarizes what has been discussed but disagree with line "reaffirm in bylaws current requirement of Board/GAC consultation on consensus advice". Concerns about stress test 18 are not reflected. It is not a broad community agreement. The GAC is still deliberating. It has been proposed by some CCWG members as work stream 1 but no broad agreement. We would welcome details on any changes to structure.
--> Agree that this is still work in progress. It includes an asterisk that further work is needed.
- What is missing is separation of PTI from ICANN. Membership is not a new idea.
--> We can add line to emphasize what you said. We are in alignment.
- What kind of details are being sought? Draft Bylaws? Is this something that has been given consideration?
--> E.G. what would be threshold for Board members' recall or cause etc. Another instance: voting requirements are unclear - what would they be - Would GAC join - if so, what rights etc. Detail is especially needed on bottom three lines.
- Would you agree that there is consensus for power to remove individual director in either model?
--> Yes. There is consensus from community for this power. But how does the NomCom do it vs. SO/ACs? Detail needed. Important for stakeholders to have equal ability to remove Board members. Our Board is 100 % in support of this power.
- The bottom three rows are carefully constructed so that problem is new structure. What do mean by "new structure". All existing mechanisms rely on existing Bylaws. Do you mean statuory characteristics of membership organization? The member aspect of ICANN is woven into our Bylaws. The membership gene is suppressed. What if we were to consider the designator model?
--> If we remove wording of new structure - if those things were built into our Bylaws, then we are okay. Concerns when not fully understood and when no safeguards to preserve multistakeholder. How are those powers in check and accountable? How are decisions reflecting public interest and mission of ICANN? What is the legal assessment of what is already in our Bylaws. Need to ensure decisions are made in global public interest
- Does the Board's objection to the sole member model apply to a sole designator model? In particular, there are strong grounds to argue that ICANN currently operates under a designator model, so that it would not be a "new structure"
--> Unclear how designator model would work. We are saying no to concentration of powers in three rows. It should not infringe global public interest or nature of our organization. Ethos of ICANN not to concentrate power and to balance it between SO/ACs.
- This slide is interpreted as assessment of what is going on. We need to assess public comments. We need to ensure that all voices in room are getting channeled. Disperse powers among community outside all 16 Board members. We need to keep away from language. We have promise of mutual accountability.
---> Slide is a personal attempt to understand and build bridges. We can all use your assessment. CCWG vs. Board does not help - Board is fully committeed to working in process.. Our number 1 is to community and not to corporate.
- Avoid possibility for one part of community to struggle against another part at court level. It is an important point that needs to be taken into account.
---> Our good chunk of our community cannot participate. We have a subset of community in single point. When parts of community are not in model, a subset of comments suddenly has those powers. Idea that will be listening to advice needs safeguard. All details are necessary when power is limited to a smaller group of SO/AC.
Conclusion: Dialogue has not reached point where all parties feel full understanding of rationale and characteristics of proposals. We need to reach this level.
Work plan to Dublin
We have limited time and wish to focus WP parties to reading community comment and labeling them into three areas: 1) consensus; 2) refinement/requriring details; 3) divergence. We will task Work Parties to oversee this and submit additional details.
In Dublin: address Work Party reports in AM - Afternoon key adjustment to proposal including approving alteratives
Feedback:
- There is no point in having SO/AC Chairs represent interest of groups. All meetings should be open.
--> No one has suggested establishing secret meetings or excluding anyone from meetings.
--> Goal of WPs is to complete work of analyzing community feedback and coming back to group with a set of options by OC T 12 so that in Dublin the CCWG can make decisions. These groups are not decision-making. Roles of rapporteurs are to gather input.
- Where will additional time be slotted?
- Support having a group that waves red flags to advance work and coordinate overall process.
- A lot of concerns could be dealt with easily if we clarified what is meant in last slide. If could clarify that means appointed in CCWG as opposed to creating new group. Is there any thought about which Board member/lawyer. What would this new small group be coordinating?
--> Encourage the Board to designate liaisons to work with WPs in place. This could lead to more active engagement between Board and CCWG. Legal teams would be invited to join as well as Board's legal advisors.
- Output is aimed to show how analysis can be done and how it relates to comments receive. When it comes to substantive work, development of work in these subgroups in a concern. Full group will be subject to limited timeline. It would be better to work with current structure of open WPs.
- Support for staying with same approach.
- What is focus group?
--> No change to current structure. We are only encouraging Board members to join us.
- Impossible to attend all discussions.
- Texts should be open to all community.
--> All groups are open and transparent.
- Don't call them focus groups.
- Bruce-Rinalia and Cherine will be joining WPs.
Engagement Plan with Chartering Organizations and Board
Would you like to include political advisors or would the group prefer not to engage with advisors at this time?
There is no clear preference
ACTION ITEM - Reach out to political advisors and ask whether they can provide us with input on politic scene vis-a-vis our model.
Feedback:
- Stick to professional and technical - not political.
--> It is our role to ensure group's views are heard. It is an important point.
ACTION ITEM: Define scoping of this action
On report communications – Kieren's note advised that our report is written for community. It makes sense to keep our format as it includes our methodology. On top of that we should be working on separate document to make language easier to understand. Are there additional actions we should take action on? We should not do a rewrite of report but suggestion to remove genesis and focus on content instead.
Feedback:
- Agree with short format. We need to engage comms and X-plane in detailed manner.
- Try to capture clarity of discussion earlier to modify proposal. Could this be followed up through three Board members
- Ensure there is understanding.
...
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (9/29/2015 11:27) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #57 on 29 September 2015! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
...
