Versions Compared

Old Version 34

changes.mady.by.user Alice Jansen

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Kimberly Carlson

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (24)

Participants: Alain Bidron, Alissa Cooper, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Keith Drazek, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Malcolm Hutty, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Paul Szyndler, Paul Twomey, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Seun Ojediji, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thomas Schneider, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (32)

Advisors:  William Currie

...

Visitors:  Alex Deacon, Antranik Hagopian, Asha Hemrajani, Benny Nordreg, Beth Bacon, Boyoung Kim, Caroline Greer, Catrin Dwyer,  Cheryl Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Cake, David Johnson, David King, Emily Pimentel, Francisco Obispo, Heidi Ullrich, Helen Han, Holly Raiche, Jim Prendergast, Kate Perl, Kevin Murphy, Konstantinos Komaitis, Luca Urich, Lynn St. Amour, Mark Buell, Monika Ermert, Nurani Nimpuno, Ole Jacobsen, Stephane VanGelder, Wendy Profit, Wisdom Donkor, Larry Strickling ,  (31)

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Kim Carlson, Leana Rahim, Mary Wong, Jim Trengrove Trengrove, Emily Pimentel

Apologies:   Akinbo Adebunmi

**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:  

...

Proposed Agenda

Agenda

1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)

...

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.

...

Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us toconsider to consider as a reply.  The public comment tool has been populated.  CCWGmeeting CCWG meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear fromthe from the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,

...

Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting. Questions  Questions received in the comment need to be explained.  We as a group aredeep are deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of thecommunitythe community.

The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step.  Theboard The board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying,rather  rather than the community trying to work together of solutions.  Thisprocess This process has brought to community together in seeking consensus onimproving on improving ICANN.  And this reflected in the comments and review of thepowers the powers we want to bring to the community.  A lot of consensus on the basisproposalsbasis proposals. 

Shared goal.

 

Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN.co co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group

...

We should review the models we have been considering.  The referencemodelreference model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we areasking are asking those who want to speak to a particular model for communityempowerment community empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented. plan for the day:Review of the public comment:  hear the models; andreview and review these in the afternoon.

 

Order of speaking for the models:

 

Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan,  Sam, Greg.

The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues pointof point of view.

 

Request to hold a random draw for speaking.  Request that new voices maketheir make their thoughts about the model.  New chairs of working groups and open themembership the membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership

 

A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reformwas reform was top-down, the initiative of a few board members.  The process not yetprocess yet process but we have moved a long way forward.

...

Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the commentsSupport comments Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support

Need work on ICANN's defined powers.  Suggestion to consider Human Rights,a   a  sub group working on that.

 

Contract compliance should part of the core values.  A balancing test.:  Achange A change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core valuesagainst values against each other

 

Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead,but  but may need to be reconsidered. 

Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening 

Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical partof part of public interest.  Some new ideas and some missing aspects.

...

Notion of fundamental bylaws.  Some major themes.  String support forhaving for having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental,and  and some additions.  Clarification on who can change and how.  Question ifthe if the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.

...

The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process moreaccessiblemore accessible.  Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.

Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound bybinding by binding arbitration. 

Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment

 

Need .  Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be

independent.  There needn't be a compromise of independence, and groupneeds group needs to rethink this.  And also comments about the selection process.

...

Roll of the ombudsman.  The board reviewing itself, and conflict ofinterest of interest issues.

 

To  To avoid frivolous requests. 

Next step:  the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.

And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do aconsensus a consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.

 Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our furtherdeliberations further deliberations this week.

 

Comment:  Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.

Some issues about the binding nature.  About the number of panel. Aboutthe About the way selected.  And the issues of diversity of geography.

...

Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP.  Anglo-saxon dominance ofICANN of ICANN processes.  Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.

Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation 

Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational.   Acritical A critical task to seek out the right persons.  Agreement on the need for diversitydiiversity, but how to achieve is out challenge. 

Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground of what of  what we agree to and move forward.

...

The impact assessment review from the Board received last night.  And needfor need for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal

to explain what they think the answers are.  So the answers can be shapedinto shaped into the public comment.

 

As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passedon passed on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which willcause will cause the group to rethink.

 

The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this.  The boarddoes board does not have answers to those questions.  And the Board has nopreconceived no preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was nointention no intention to be anything other that constructive.

...

Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking foranswersfor answers.  The point of the questions was to say how you considered fromthis from this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers.

 

Point answers Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not theboard the board itself.  

What do you as the board think the answer's should be?  As they have justread just read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions? 

Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday3pmSunday 3pm.

 

WP1.  High level community feedback was positive.  Responses on thecommunity the community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions wereon were on the webpage until late in the process.

...

Amendments to the planning  process to make sure concerns taken intoconsideration into consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned.  Theresponse The response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable. 

Standard bylaws:  request for more time to review.  Something for thegroup the group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review

...

Fundamental bylaws.  Mostly in favor.

 

Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have aconsistency a consistency of process and thresholds.

 

Real of the board.  Request for higher threshold.

 

AoC:  concern about location.  What happens in the future to the AoC,

should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition.  Andcomposition And composition of the groups and to ensure diversity

...

Mechanisms:  generally supported direction.  But comments show needdecisions need decisions around enforceability.

1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2.  The modelpresented model presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable

approximation of the community.  Members favored over designators.Concern  Concern about implementation.  Concern about the voting weights.  RSAC and

SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice. 

The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach wouldgive would give that power.  

The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach wouldgive would give that power.  And hard to judge the range of around the model, further

discussion by the CCWG is needed.  Importance of avoiding insider capture. Is   Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who

watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for aforuma forum.

 

Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policyprocesspolicy process, and ensure that the responses address accountability

...

Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view ofaccountability of accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go

to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want.  GAC unsure.Then  Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might itlook it look more and more inward looking.  End result may be a devaluing of theICANN the ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.

...

If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. Butcommunity But community feedback doesn't suggest that.

...

When discussing replacing the old mechanisms.  Remember the communitymechanism community mechanism we are seeing up.  The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, andkey and key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all.  The communitymechanisms community mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa

...

There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need toaddress to address those.  The models are complex and there must be clarity.

Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at.  Nowshould Now should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, moreaccessible more accessible to outsiders.

 

Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model.  A different analysis nowand now and what we would do in a crisis mode.  In a crisis model, where wequestion we question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such atimea time. 

 

Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all thoseother those other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, whichhas which has some similarity.  Private international organizations, such as FIFA, anegative a negative example.  And then the key question of who is the globalmutlistakeholder global mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to.  Can the IGF setiup set iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that representsthe represents the global public interest.

 

There are general ares of agreement.  We are arguing around details.  Nowwe Now we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.

 

Break - thank you

NOTES Part 2 (AM) 

Items for WS2

Suggestions made by contributors:

...

Communique will be published ASAP. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to liaise with relevant groups on timeline

...

ACTION ITEM - Staff to recirculate program and crosscheck rooms

Adobe Chat Transcript Part 1 (AM)

  Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 05:11) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud.  All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

...

  Avri Doria: (10:17) if the US is the meber, how can one not a meber of that UA has a say?

Adobe Chat Transcript :  Part 2 (PM)

  Brenda Brewer: (6/19/2015 10:22) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud.  All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

...