Page History

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 1 23 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 1 23 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3svna55zu5/  (included Session 2)

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

Proposed Agenda

09:00-10:30 EET – 07:00-08:30 UTC – Session 1 

9:00 Roll Call & Introduction 

9:15 Working methods 

9:45 Approval of agenda 

10:00 Mission, vision & value statement 

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.

DAY 1: Monday, 23 March 09:00-10:30 EET, Meeting Room #25

• Roll Call & Introduction
• Erika Mann, Chris Disspain not in AC room.
• Thanks from chairs to colleagues for the work achieved since Frankfurt and the work achieved and and achieved on time.
• As we develop our proposals please voice your doubts.  But avoid interventions that just agree with the past speakers (+1 on the chat.)
• Focus on agreement and disagreement and improving shared understanding

Working methods:

• Use the room to raise hand to speak (and lower when spoken)
• Use the tools to show agreement.
• Use the "agree" tool to indicate agreement, we are not deciding here.  We will follow rule of not deciding at the same meeting.
• Focus of the meeting will be Work Stream 1.  Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details.
• Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details.  Start with what we know: the existing
  mechanisms within ICANN we are all familiar with.  The legal advice we have received so far. Focus on WS1.  
• Quality first and details second.

Approval of agenda

• broad issues on day 1, and time on day two to return to unfinished, under-addressed issues. 
• And discuss timeline, public comments, communication from the meeting.
• Agenda accepted.

Issue 1.  Mission, vision & value statement

Four building blocks:

* Empowered community (people)

* Board (Executive)

* Principles (Constitution)

* Independent Review Mechanisms (Judiciary) 

Appeals testing again the principles to see of something has gone off track.

Our principles underpin all our work for the next two days.

Suggestion to take a broader view of the organization, not a single focus on the board.

Looking at all areas of the organization.

Mission statement in the bylaws that talks of coordination of unique identifiers. 

Specification 1 - is what's in the registry and register agreements.  What is fair game

ICANN can develop and impose a range if topics on contracted parties.

Q.  operators of new gTLD - why singled out?  A. taken from spec 1 of the new registry agreement

Current mission statement talks of coord at the overall level of unique identifiers and technical functions.  These are preserved in the proposed documents, but include specification 1. Same language about dIP addresses and protocols but more detail when comes to domain names

Concrete about what ICANN is not about:  ICANN is not about regulating content.  And what the mission is not about can be added as we discuss.

11 core values in te bylaws and  1 overarching value.  We will not give each the same value and weight so as not to defuse what the core issue are.  Divided as two:

(1)  "commitments"  how ICANN is supposed to perform it's job

These are absolute commitments ICANN makes to the community and the community makes to each other.

Some values so important, when balanced they should be balance if particular way.  in a "Substantial and Compelling Reason in the Public Interest", narrowly tailored and no broader than to achieve the goal.

Need to capture all the core values: are the categorized appropriately as those requiring the high standard and those lesser.

Noted that this is a evolution of the mission, reflecting recent developments. 

Concern/doubt about the categorizing as higher/less values.  Some new distinction may be helpful.

Transparency and how clear these changes may be. These are very basis aspects of ICANN.  Any change even to nuance, takes a great deal of explanation.  Such specific changes.  In public comment will need to be clearly explained.

Concern that this is creating a new ICANN.  Consider that the changes cold be made overtime, rather than making them proposals for the end of June 2015.

Suggested the balancing language proposed protects the commitments more that the current bylaws language. Necessary now as WS1 track,  as these are fundamental changes that underpin other proposals from the group.  The proposals are generally not new, consolidating agreed positions from other ICANN sources. 

These provide objective standards to point to for the processes of review and redress,

Explicit exclusions: invites grey areas.  Internet community:  make some link to the stakeholders already defined as the community it.  Public Interest is not defined. Constitution references market mechanism, which is unusual.  Constitutions often have a reference to justice, e.g. human rights, and closest the proposal comes is for respect diversity

Action:  Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources:   to review document with  a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes

** (action) There are outstanding issues on  individual values and missions mentioned on the list  still need to be addressed

ICANN determination of the public interest was the outcome of the ICANN process wherein we discussed the various perspectives on the global pubic interest and came to ICANN consensus on what it meant to us at this point in time

END Session 1

Action Items

Action:  Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources:   to review document with  a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes

** (action) There are outstanding issues on  individual values and missions mentioned on the list  still need to be addressed

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Welcome everyone !

Alice Jansen: Welcome to the CCWG Istanbul Meeting! Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): Hello everyone

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: Good morning from San Francisco!

Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): Good to have you in the room Robin!

Matthew Shears: morning!

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Good morning all

Avri Doria: And by hving us use the AC, we not only get recorded as attenidng, we have to check that we will behave.  how clever!

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Kia ora ano - that's Maori for "Hello again"

Alan Greenberg: Happy midnight Robin!

Becky Burr: Good morning Robin, we miss you here in Istanbul!

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: Sorry I couldn't be there, Becky.  I got caught up in the Lufthansa pilot strike!

Becky Burr: so I heard.

Matthew Shears: sorry to hear robin

Paul Rosenzweig: Robin -- I was redirected through London Heathrow myself for the same reason.  Thanks Lufthansa!

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: no worries - there will still be a pink presence in Istanbul ;-)

Becky Burr: To all who participated in yesterday's discussion, especially those of you who suffered through the remote system, thanks.  I think it was a terrific discussion

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): +1 Becky

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Yeah, not bad

 David McAuley (GNSO RySG): The audio is cutting out

Keith Drazek: Is at all speakers David?

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Avri & Alan

Becky Burr: those speaking in the room need to remember to turn the mic on

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): thanks

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: when do we discuss the timeline? 

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: I see - Day 2

Avri Doria: i had turned the mike on.  perhaps i was not speaking directly enough into it.  or perhaps there is some other issues

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Seems ok now Avri, while Mathieu was speaking

Avri Doria: is everything in these 2 days work stream 1

Paul Rosenzweig: Thomas has used "compact" 4 times already -- that is 4 drinks for everyone!

Rosemary Fei: The connection keeps cutting out

Nathalie  Peregrine: @ Rosemary, is it better now? If not, we can set up a dial out for you from the audio bridge?

Keith Drazek: The ICANN Board ultimately holds the ICANN staff accountable through the CEO, correct?

Samantha Eisner: @Keith, that's right, but I think that there are ways that we could look at taking action that is more specifically responsive to staff actions so you don't have to wait for everything to rise to a Board level

Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: that is how I understand it @kieth

Keith Drazek: @Samantha, I think that would be helpful and constructive.

Chris LaHatte: I have a role in issues of unfairness and delay with ICANN staff too

Matthew Shears: so what is the new term replacing c-----t?

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Remote folks please mute mics

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Matthew mission and values I think

Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: Yes it is "mission" and "core values"

Alice Jansen: Specification 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Specification%201%20CONSENSUS%20POLICIES%20AND%20TEMPORARY%20POLICIES%20SPECIFICATION%5B1%5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1427096157540&api=v2

 Alice Jansen: Mission sstatement & Core Values is available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/3-23%20Comp%20Mission%20Statement%20and%20Core%20Values%20Compact.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1427096193062&api=v2 

Samantha Eisner: Revisiting a question that I've raised before, are these proposed edits to teh mission and core values within the ICANN Bylaws, or is this seen to be a separate document that will live Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: it is my understanding these would be changes to the bylaws.

Paul Rosenzweig: I believe Samantha that they are going to become part of the golden Bylaws that cannot be readily changed.   The idea is to restrict ICANN to this mission as a guard against mission creep

Malcolm Hutty: @Samantha, proposed edits

Matthew Shears: while I like the greater specificity w/r/t balancing who or what determines whether the balancing is appropriate - how is it measured/challenged?

Paul Rosenzweig: @ Matthew -- That's a common function of courts -- have the decision makers articulated a convincing basis for their balancing.  We expect the IRP to make this judgment

 Matthew Shears: + 1 Avri

Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: They're called Commitments and Values.  Does that imply the Values are of lower importance?  I think that's intentional.

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): losing audio

Samantha Eisner: Understanding that (and fully agreeing with) the idea that there needs to be a clear pathway of challenging any attempt for ICANN to act outside of it's mission, is a complete restructuring of the mission and core values the most effective way to achieve this?

Samantha Eisner: I would think that we should hold ourselves to a standard that any changes to teh mission and core values need to be clearly justified and demonstrated that hte impact cannot be achieved through less drastic changes

Samantha Eisner: and fully agree with the GAC rep who just spoke on this

Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: Reconsideration requests could look at these Mission and Values, too

Malcolm Hutty: @Samantha, Agreeing with a similar point made by Steve DelB in the room a few moments ago, I don't see this as a "complete restructuring" of the mission and core values, more a minor consolidation of already agreed commitments into a form that makes the more suscceptible to adjudication

Edward Morris: Evolution as opposed to revolution.

Chris LaHatte: Perhaps the approach is that we need a better gateway into use of the accountibility function, which is to say, better design of dispute rsolution processes, which doesnt mean you need to change the bylaws and AOC radically

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): they aren't radical changes but rather a reconciliation between the existing bylaws, AoC and current contracts. Consolidation is essential to come up with a ture set of "core" values.

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: Balancing has to be justified in terms of primacy of the public interest and be fully transparent and be able to be challenged and be subjetc to community review. Agree this current exercise of consolidation is a valubale timely exercise.Anyhting new I would have to go back to my Minister for his agreement _ that's how major that would be.

Matthew Shears: Agree with Johnathan

Keith Drazek: +1 Jonathan.

Paul Rosenzweig: Exactly right Thomas.  If we need more time we should take it.  But  cabining the mission is an essential first step to the transition.

 Keith Drazek: WS1 enables WS2. That's how we prevent "biting off more than we can chew."  Much of WS1 needs to be incorporated into the bylaws to ensure the community has confidence that WS1 reforms will be real and permanent.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: exactly, Keith.

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Mark, I guess I would look at nearly all, if not all, of these changes as already "vetted." Perhaps not vetted as bylaws changes but certainly vetted by the community as core values of the organization as it has evolved. These things have just appeared in many different places which begin s to undermine the primacy of the bylaws. This consolidation effort of the universe of modern core values is essential to return to an organization hewn to its bylaws.

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): I think the comments "evolution " and "consolidation" capture this well

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Jonathan"

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: we need to take the time for the community to understand what we are proposing.

Chris Disspain: Thomas, I can't be specfic if I'm actually talking about unease not specifics

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Jonathan - yes agree as this entity has evolved and DNS has expanded this  objective which ensures greater transparency, understanding and predictability.

Paul Rosenzweig: @Jordan -- That was Bismark!

Keith Drazek: +1 to Jordan's comments.

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I knew the old boss would have copied it from somewhere

Jordan Carter (.nz member): ;)

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I do think that what Becky has set out is more importantly about requiring the company to HOLD to these values/commitments, rather than changing what they are per se - the content is actually very conservatively based on what is already there

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: that is correct, Jordan

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Exactly

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Mark - what kind of "new"? Do you see anything in the text in front of us that counts as "new" on that standard?

David McAuley (GNSO RySG): Agree w/Jordan and Malcolm – taking existing and important ideas in various places and putting them together in one place with some rationalization

 Edward Morris: I simply don't see any fundamental changes. Am I missing something?

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Of course, if WE are to be accountable, we need to be specific.  ;)

Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO, @Hilton IST)): @Alice: can we have scroll control of the document?

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Edward: I don't think so

jorge cancio GAC: for the document to be meaningfully discussed a number of requirements are needed: 1) the exact source of any wording which is proposed; 2) if any change is introduced, they have to be highlighted; 3) any changes have to be motivated; 4) %) this motivation has to be rooted in the needs of accountability and whether it is a work stream 1 or 2 issues

Matthew Shears: good idea on annotated text

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Jordan - nothing obvioulsly new but need to be ultra-careful if language changes.

Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: @ Jorge - agree yes all these esential.

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Jorge : thanks, very helpful !

 Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): very good points about mentioning market economy on a psuedo constitution and human rights.

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): But this isn't the totality of internet governance just the workings of the DNS. Let's not get caught up in symantics.

Jordan Carter (.nz member): There are going to be stacks of bylaw changes as part of these reforms. Lots of new text in all sorts of areas.

jim trengrove: edward

Paul Rosenzweig: With respect Chris -- I disagree fundamentally.  The current review structures do not effectively limit ICANN.  This transition cannot happen unless and until ICANN acccepts limits to its powers.

Paul Rosenzweig: As for timing -- let's take more time.  Everyone has said Sept 30 is not a deadline.  If  you think that the track is too fast, slow down

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Again, I would argue that the the bylaws have been dilluted by other documents and this consolidation is a RETURN to the primacy of the bylaws.

Keith Drazek: I would argue that we wouldn't be having this discussion as a stand-alone process. We're having this discussion because of the transition.

Matthew Shears: Exactly.

Edward Morris: +1 Keth.

Jordan Carter (.nz member): It is the transition that is demanding fundamental changes to ICANN to render it accountable to a different set of masters

Jordan Carter (.nz member): from NTIA to the community

Jordan Carter (.nz member): nips and tucks can't work, and so if it is going to take a bit of time to work this through, this is time that is going to have to be taken

Chris Disspain: @ Paul..not sure what I said that you fundamentalyy disagree with...could you elucidate please?

Jordan Carter (.nz member): Chris - my take on what Paul R was disagreeing with was that we could do this piece post-transition 

Malcolm Hutty: @Chris. I share your nervousness that the current schedule is more fast-track, and involves less comment and scrutiny, than we might prefer for such important work. However, if we answer your question as to whether there is sufficient time in this schedule in the negative, I think the implication would not be to delay deciding this issue until after transition, the implication would be to delay transition

Chris Disspain: Ah..OK...not saying that - saying we should thin about what is essential and what may not be...if we agree it is all essentiual then so be it

Chris Disspain: @ malcolm - understoos

Edward Morris: Agree with Jordan and suggest the current timeline is unworkable both because of the need for greater community input and because, frankly, the late contracting with independent legal counsel has slowed us down.

Avri Doria (ATRT, participant): agree it is important ot refer to BPI  globl public interest as sopposed to any local or specialized notion of public interest.

Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: WS1 are those mechanisms that must be in place or committed to before the transition can occur.

Jordan Carter (.nz member): I agree with us powering through as much as we can these two days and at the end of tomorrw taking a hard look at our timetable

Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Chris, I think you are correct that in the normal course of events, this kin of change in core values would be a discussion help over an extended periof of time. BUt I think that can be said of much of what will be coming out of the CCWG (for example removing Board members?)

Paul Rosenzweig: @ Chris -- My disagreement is that this can be done post-transition.  The core of the transition is setting a new standard for ICANN conduct that will substitute for the current soft control of the NTIA.  Since we cannot replace that contract with another obligation to another government it must take the form of a commitment to the community.  And I think that accountability can't be improoved until we have a n actionable/justiciable standard on which judgement can be based. 

Alice Jansen: We will be back at 09:00 UTC