Page History
...
Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;
Review of how we will approach our work
We . We agreed to an initial run through by the whole group of public comments received. Before allocation to the sub-groups, so all see where were are.
So were will go through the public comment (PC) review tool, and see how to allocate those areas to the working parties (WP) The recommendation is:
Revised Mission, Commitments & Core Values
Fundamental Bylaws
Independent Review Panel Enhancement
Reconsideration Process Enhancement
Mechanism to empower the Community
These to WP2
Mechanism to empower the Community and powers to WP1
The section of Bylaws Suggested by Stress Tests to the stress test team
Public Comment Input, Framework and Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 will be reviewed by the whole group.
We will build consensus in an iterative fashion. From topics where we have convergence to work on the topics where we have divergence.
You will see in the review tool that all comments received for a particular question have been grouped together.
ASO representatives have described in the past how we interact with our community, generally through the RIR meetings. The most recent RIR meeting was last week, and we received some comments, both verbal and in email. We still need to deliver those comments to the CCWG, more comments to insert into the process. For transparency purposes, how best to do this?
Understand groups have their own processes and timelines for meeting. Suggest you add to the comment process and follow the deadline for other language comments which is Friday June 12 at 23:59 UTC.
General discussion
Who responded to the comment period?
Question: is the distribution of comments telling us something? Is it covering the stakeholders we were seeking, is it lacking?
From SO/AC, from GNSO constituencies. Significant number of governments, and of ccTLDs. Strong from US business organizations and some international.
Personal comment: that while there are comments from the US-led private sector, European business seems missing. Comments from 4 advisors.
From outside the direct ICANN community - IAB and some comments from organizations in India.
ICANN focused. External observers might say outreach not sufficient.
What parts of the report drew the most comments
The Mechanism to empower community and unincorporated associations (UA). Comments on IRP, and some good recommendations on improvements. Comments on votes and voting powers. Divergence on the introduction of a fundamental bylaw on location of ICANN HQ in the US.
About the need for greater participation and inclusion. The need to maintain the multistakeholder community.
But it seems the comments reflect debates we had in our group, which suggests we are anticipating the broader concerns and interests.
General comments
Tighter principles and core values are important. The community's own accountability and participation was noted.
Need to take specific steps to ensure Board/ staff adopt what the CCWG recommends
Focus on the board. Need a deeper look at management and staff, which also need to be held accountable
ICANN must be clear and transparent in all aspects. Comments suggesting implementation in full before the ending of the IANA contract
Need to broaden ICANN to become an international organization, and representative of the global public
Non-supportive statements, identify substantive issues and flag these. Introduced and then share perspectives
Most general comments are supportive. Exceptions. Including from .NA - that the whole process is in contradiction with our charter. And Roberto Bissio, advisor, who would have liked us to move to considerations of an international organization.
See general support for the building blocks and the general approach
How to deal with issues raised in a factual way. What comments are being made and who is associating with them. The weight of the comments. Criticisms, suggested improvements.
Look at level of support. Example support for the building blocks, except for one suggestion that an additional block for staff was necessary. If we have agreement on the building blocks, can we ask for consensus support for this.
There are calls for enforcement, and is clearly an area for further work.
Same comments repeat in contributions: member model, enforceability, role of staff.
Categories. Another sub-category. e.g recall the board. For, against, and then with or without any improvement.
Look at the source of comments - outreach is not what we expected.
Lack of issues with our approach. The way we went about the overall project was not criticize the way went went about the work except Namibia .NA Eberhard Lisse.
Criticism about the shorter public comment period. Note there is a second opportunity to respond to work product in a second 40 day PC period
Suggest that great outreach needed. And should acknowledge this. And analyze what groups and regions were reached, etc.
Request about jurisdiction. Unless you disagree, suggest we defer jurisdiction to other areas on the report. And we would be working on jurisdiction in WS2. And that should be our response if you agree. Await the group's decision on this.
Approach on jurisdiction, can't just be move to WS2. Should review in light of comments, and perhaps the decision would be the same. If WS2 then an explanation as to why and how is will be dealt with. Something for the whole CCWG rather than within a WP
The role of staff and the community, how can the community be held accountable? Comments on this by our advisors. Need more thought on this.
Staff accountability, we were thinking this came under board accountability. Views of the group on this would be useful.
Some discussion of what the staff does, our discussion was that the board is responsible for staff and accountability would be backed up by the IRP and reconsideration process.
Community accountability needs more work. Comments on the role of Governments, and this is also referred to in other sections of the report. Some requests for definitions of the terms we use, such as "public interest"
Definition of public interest could take all of our time. And to not look at staff accountability, this goes to micro-management.
A limited mission statement could provide limits to what ICANN addresses in terms of the public interest.
Comment on stress test.
Impact analysis vs stress test, a request from the board. Should it be a separate action item from the group
Community seems to like what's being done, in general terms.
Impact analysis. When adopting the powers in the community mechanism, this would have impact on the whole community, Would the member structure introduce new stresses on the organization. Think minimal as only enforcing devisions not revising.
Generally supportive. Some confuse the notion of jurisdiction and ICANN's location of incorporation.
2 GAC comments, that we parked stress 21. One GAC member differed on text 18. Danish govt that we should look at potential capture of ICANN by other elements of the community. Test 12 addresses, but deeper dive suggested. 2 new test: enforcing ICANN contracts. What if the contracts have contradictions with the newly limited mission statement. Suggestion to remove test 14.
Analyze if comments are supportive, are they repeating these already taken into account, to they add new elements and then how to incorporate those ideas.
...
Whether we should introduce the assessment of efficiency of Work Stream 1 mechanisms was raised. Abstract will be undertaken by Cochairs.
Three tasks for Work Parties:
- WP to go through allocated sections and draft responses for CCWG response/action items. Preparation of feedback
...
17-18 July face-to-face meeting will be held in Paris.
...
Documents Presented
CCWG-ACCT Public Comment - 8 June.pdf
...
