Members: Sebastien Bachollet, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Leon Sanchez, Athina Fragkouli, Julia Wolman, Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Bruce Tonkin, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli   (15)

Participants: Avri Doria, Edward Morris, Robert Takacs, Carl Schonander, Rudolph Daniel, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Sarah Kiden, Kavouss Arasteh, Greg Shatan, Dina Beer, Alain Bidron, Adebunmi Akinbo, Stephanie Duchesneau, David Maher, Eric Brunner-Williams, Yasuichi Kitamura, Isaque Joaquim, Finn Petersen, Phil Corwin, Steve Metalitz, Kristina Rosette, Jonathan Zuck, Paul Rosenzweig, David McAuley, Vrikson Acosta-Velasquez   (25)

Staff: Adam Peake, Bart Boswinkel, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies: Alice Munyua, Eberhard Lisse, Sean Ojedeji; Barrack Otieno; James Bladel; Izumi Okutani

**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest

2. Membership Updates 

3. Work Area Updates

  • WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
  • WA2 – Steve DelBianco
  • WA3 – Avri Doria
  • WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams

4. Coordination between CWG and ICG

5. Expectations for the F2F

6. AOB

7. Closing Remarks



Important Notes from Staff: 

Statements of Interest/Wiki Accounts: There are still some SOIs to be completed, and a few have contacted me to get Wiki accounts. Unfortunately, since ICANN is closed right now, the accounts have not been created yet. 


Face to Face Meeting in Frankfurt

All CCWG participants and observers planning to attend the F2F in person must confirm their attendance by 7 January. There is a deadline because we will need to make logistical arrangements in advance (room seating, etc). 



Chairs have reached out to Theresa regarding engagement with Advisors. She will respond shortly. 


Update on WA1 (David Maher)

Working on expanding the current chart on Accountability inventory

Suggestions have been made to include contracts between ICANN and registries

Is there a deadline for the inventory? Mathieu suggests that the latest be by Frankfurt F2F meeting

ACTION: David/WA1 to include Tijani's comments 


Update on WA2 (Steve DelBianco)

Latest document for WA2 is 

CWG items are on page 1, in red. 

Updates since last call:

    • David Johnson joined the process and contributed an item to the document
    • Izumi O. and Athina Fragkouli suggested some items move to WS2
    • Malcolm Hutty suggested an item for WS1
    • Daniel Castro added an item to WS2 (open data transparency rules)
    • Guru Acharya suggested items related to Contract Co. for WS2 which can perhaps be merged with David Johnson's comments
    • Carlos Gutierrez added items to WS2

Suggests discussion of rationale for why items are categorized as WS1 and linked to the transition.  That currently the list over burdening work of the group

ACTION: Avri to send ATRT items to WS2

ACTION: Staff to verify that Avri is added to WA2 mailing list

ACTION: Staff to assist with making sure documents are posted in a way that is more easily accessible 

Necessary to delineate the work of the CWG, ICG and CCWG.  Question of whether CCWG to contribute to the ICG, mindful of the CCWG Charter [parked for later discussion on this call]

Charter notes that implementation and operational accountability are not within the scope of the CCWG.

Important for CCWG and CWG to coordinate closely on timeline.

What does "committed to" actually mean? To be discussed further.

Athina requests that for accountability items that require technical changes (eg change of bylaws) ICANN staff clarifies the process and the time needed for them.

ACTION: Recap of definitions of WS1/WS2 for mailing list and discussion next week.

ACTION: "committed to" definifition. Staff to identify a list of options for "committed to" and share on the list 

ACTION: Staff to take on Athina's suggestion

ACTION: Chairs to work with Bruce Tonkin regarding  Singapore


Update on WA3 (Avri Doria): 

Wiki list is available here

The CWG will submit a proposal to the ICG. The CCWG work does not go through the ICG. 

ACTION: Co-chairs will confirm with ICG that there is a shared understanding. 


Update on WA4 (Mathieu on behalf of Eric): 

Still lacking an initial list, but there is enough material now to come up with a list for the next meeting. 

ACTION : provide initial list before next meeting

Bruce Tonkin will help get a list from the Board Risk Committee to use as input into WA4. 


Coordination between CWG and ICG

Update by Avri Doria: Today, 1st draft of analysis was presented on CWG call. There are 16 different categories where there is analysis being conducted to try and get a better picture. There are other groups that are also doing analysis and will be contributed to the work. 

Greg Shatan: upcoming work weekend (10-11 January) to help with the short timeline. 

Thomas suggests producing a general statement for the CWG since there is a tight timeline for both groups. 

Alan also suggests considering whether the CWG proposal is legally possible. 

Steve suggests that we be specific about the kind of mechanisms that we are suggesting (e.g.  CCWG considering mechanisms of redress and review to allow the community override decisions of the ICANN board). Would help CWG to avoid devising their own redress and review mechanisms

Thomas notes that we want to make sure that there is no friction between the two groups and their work. 

We cannot come up with developed ideas yet because we have just started our work. 


5. Expectations for the F2F

24 participants have confirmed they will attend. 3 are participants or observers. 2 members, please send your confirmation.  Please confirm by 7 January.

Remote participation will be provided.

Contact Grade for details/any questions.

Expectations about the meeting, what to achieve by the end of the meeting in terms of content. Mathieu (1) work to finalized on scope and definition of work (scope of accountability, who should ICANN be accountability to) Co-chairs working on a draft proposal

(2) Discussion of WS1 and WS2 and what the outcome of WS1 should be by the end of the F2F

(3) Some conclusions for WA1, 2 and contingencies agreed on by the end of the meeting.  

So there is opportunity for community comment during the Singapore meeting.

ACTION:  to circulate with the notes potential outcomes for the Frankfurt meeting for comments and preparation of the meeting.


6. Any other Business

CCWG will attempt to schedule a meeting with the Board in Singapore. One of the issues will be expectations of how the Board will treat the CCWG proposals.

Bruce Tonkin noted difference between his providing personal comments to the group, and formal response from the Board.  He will take requests from the group for Board comment and provide a response.


7. Closing Remarks


Next Meeting: 6 January at 12:00 UTC. To view a full list of upcoming meetings, please see the Wiki here: 



The transcript is available here: 

CCWG ACCT #4 Dec 30 Transcript.pdf

CCWG ACCT #4 Dec 30 Transcript.doc


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:    

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

In-Person Attendees.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:  Good Day Everyone!  Welcome to the CCWG Accountability conference call on December 30 at 19:00 UTC.

  Vrikson:Good morning, afternoon, evening or night, depending on wherever you are :)

  Leon Sanchez:Hello everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:holo

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:can we dial me back in please

  Grace Abuhamad:@got you Cheryl. Will dial again

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thx

  Pär Brumark (GAC):Good Evening!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Hello everyone

  Robin Gross:Hi everyone!

  Bruce Tonkin:Good morning all - 6am here.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed it is Bruce

  Olga Cavalli:Hello Everyone

  Vrikson:Here is 14:30 (GMT-04:30)

  Theresa Swinehart:Morning all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I wish more calls were at this time as opposed to 0100; 0300 etc.,

  Bruce Tonkin:sunrise in 12 mins.   The benefits of summer.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):hello all


  arasteh:Hello every nbody

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Its 08.2pm in Nigeria. Hello All.

  Dina Beer:hello everyone

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Sorry for my delay.

  Edward Morris 2:Chryl, agree completely

  Avri Doria:is there an intent for the advisers to join in the meeting online?

  Alan Greenberg:Delightful time for me as well...

  Avri Doria:and call and such?

  Avri Doria:or are they more deus ex machina advisers?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Avri. not sure until we engage. May depend on each Advisor

  Theresa Swinehart:@Avri, it depends on their availability and the times of the call.

  Avri Doria:Grace & Theresa, thanks.

  Steve DelBianco:latest document for WA2 is

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:I confirm I can accomodate ;-)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you for considering my clarification

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):@Grace: mention the ContractCo

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):as suggested by Guru

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):hanks

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Thanks

  Avri Doria:

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Alan's suggestion makes sense to me

  Avri Doria:found it on the next page down in the dropdown list but not refered to in the top page. did not look deep enough.

  Grace Abuhamad:Steve posted the document here:

  Grace Abuhamad:Sorry Avri. Will work to make that clearer

  Philip Corwin:I believe that restricting WS1 to things directly related to the IANA transition is too narrow. Of course not everything needs to be done pre-transition, but requiring a direct link is too restrictive.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):+1 Phil

  Jonathan Zuck:Agree

  David Maher (GNSO, RySG, PIR):@PHILIP   +1

  Philip Corwin:To be clear, I think there must be a valid rationale that achieves consensus support for why an accountability measure must be in place pre-transition.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/Ry):agree with phil

  Jonathan Zuck:Agree! There's a distinction between the tranfer of the IANA functions and the elimination of the leverage offered by the contract

  Avri Doria:Grace my fualt for not digging deep enough when searcing for it. 

  Bruce Tonkin:Note Steve - that it is possile that the IANA transition may not happen, but that we should still be looking to improve accountability.   The Board has never said that the output of this group is dependent on the transition happening.

  Jonathan Zuck:@Bruce, that's a bit of a red herring. The point is that WS1 is the fundamental accountability mechanisms necessary for the WS2 reforms to happen over time.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):agree with Steve's approach

  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Jonathan - just pointing out that it shouldn't e assumed that the Board won't approve improvements unless there is "leverage".   I agree  however that this is a good time to have the discussion while that is on the table.

  Jonathan Zuck:;)

  Philip Corwin:Agree with Jonathan--WS1 must establish mechanisms by which the community is assured that it can reasonably expect to be able to effect additional necessary acountability reforms post-transition.

  Bruce Tonkin:Makes sense Philip.

  Jonathan Zuck:I guess you can't hear me

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Jonathan, are you tryi8ng to talk without a mike again?  :-)

  Bruce Tonkin:Note this working group could request to meet in public with the Baord at the next public ICANN meeting in SIngapore in February.

  Jonathan Zuck:thanks.

  Jonathan Zuck:I'm on now

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):Agree Alan but only if the Board is willing to make commitments, which they have steadfastly declined to do

  Alan Greenberg:@Paul, understood.

  Grace Abuhamad:I think Jonathan meant "changing the Bylaws" not Charter

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):From the Charter: “Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition”

  Bruce Tonkin:Paul - can you give examples of where the Board hasn't been willing to make commitments?   The Board has so far approved the recommendations from both the ATRT21 and ATRT2 processes for accountability improvements.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):The Board has said that it reserves the right to reject the recommendations of this group.

  Alan Greenberg:@Bruce, the issue is not the ATRT recs, but the ones that weren't made. An example is away to get decisions reviewed, not on whether process was followed, but on merit. That was acknowledged by many that it was needed, but no Rec...

  Bruce Tonkin:Ah OK - reserving the right is not the same as saying that it will not accept the work of this group.   THe expectation is that it will.

  Bruce Tonkin:The Board has the right to reject recommendations from the ATRT processes as well - but it hasn't so far.   It also has the right to reject recommendations from the ZGNSO and ccNSO - but it hasn't so far.

  Avri Doria:ATRT only recommends, it dos not insure.

  Bruce Tonkin:Alan - I think you will find that most Board members also agree that reconsideration processes need to be improved.

  Robin Gross:implementation is not the same thing as "accepted"

  Jonathan Zuck:@Bruce, of course "accepting" and "make sure it happens" are different things as found by ATRT2

  Bruce Tonkin:zYes - agree Robin - iplementation of the recommendations can be improved.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Kavouss

  Sébastien (ALAC):I never says that Kavouss

  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Jonathan.   There is much tighter project management put in place on insuring the recomemndations are implemented.   Of course at least at the Baord level - there is a cpaacity issue - as well.   ie this process is happenind before we have actually implemented all the recommendatins from ATRT2.

  Avri Doria:Bruce, whiel this board di accept all recommendations, that is not guaranteed by the ATRT process.  The ATRT may have a bully pulpit, bit does not constrain board action in any way, other than force the Board to consider the recommendations within an amount of time.

  Alan Greenberg:@Bruce, yes, I understand many Board members agree that reconsideration needs improvement. BUt I also understand that it hasn't happened and that there is significant pushback. (some for valid reasaons as fear that it will be used every time someone does not like a decision)

  Jonathan Zuck:I guess the real point is that this shouldn't be about criticizing or "not trusting" the current board. It's about a backstop that is now in place that will shortly disappear that we need to find a way to replace, hopefully in a better, more community oriented incarnation.

  Bruce Tonkin:Alan - the Board won't arbtiratrily change the reconsideration process.   THe recommendation from the ARTR2 is to have a community process to make improvements to the recosnideration process.   The Baord is ready and willing to improve it.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):I for one trust the Board ... I may not trust the next Board or the one after that.  As we are giving the Board a monopoly we must insure that they can't, even theoretically, abuse that monopoloy power.

  Bruce Tonkin:We actually did have an external set of experts review it after ATRT1 and there was a pulc process to provide input into that process.   There was little community engagement at the time unfortunately - and we need to get it right.

  Jonathan Zuck:agree paul

  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed weith your last comment Paul.

  Avri Doria:i think most people trust the Board as people but perhaps not as an insitution

  Steve DelBianco:agree, becky.   that's the rationale at top of the Work Area 2

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Becky's suggestion makes sense

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):+1 Avri -- exactly what I meant

  Alan Greenberg:I like Becky's description.

  Alan Greenberg:Cannot hear

  Grace Abuhamad:@Athina please speak louder

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):+1 Steve

  Steve DelBianco:Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Time frame can be shifted since the charter is silent on date. We may just need to work it out.

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Its natural to look at the future and not the ideal principals in office.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):sorry, my suggestions was that for accountability items that require technical changes (eg change of bylaws) ICANN staff clarifies the process and the time needed for them,

  Sébastien (ALAC):@Steve, whe have not the same reading of the bylaws

  Sébastien (ALAC):If I can answer speaking

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:California corporations law requires board members to owe their duty to the corporation, irrespective of the bylaws.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):YES Robin ....

  Bruce Tonkin:Steve - it is true that Directors need to act on behalf of ICANN the corporation - but you also need to look at the mission and articles of incorporation - which actually require ICANn to act in the public interest.   Not saying that accountability can''t be further improved.   But ICANN the corporation is actually set up to act in the public interest.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:completely agree with Jonathan.  we need mechanisms to protect us, not specific people.

  Bruce Tonkin:Agree also Jonathon and Robin.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]:Bruce, the problem is that there is disagreement as to what action is in the public intrest.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):This group should not unilaterally take a decision that would result in delaying the IANA transition.  I don't rule out the possibility that the timing could change -- just that the process should not be unilateral.  There are several other groups working toward that deadline.  The CCWG should not be like "Lucy with the football."

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Did we get a working defination for Public Intrest ?

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):+1 Thomas -- exactly right

  Jonathan Zuck:@Greg. I COMPLETELY disagree. WS1 (or perhaps zero, whatever that is!) HAS to happen prior to transition. IT's critical path and that very fact should help us to limit what we try pile into WS1

  Bruce Tonkin:Robin - I agree that public interest needs to be further defined by the communiyt - I suggest in the form of a set of values - similar to how the core values are specified in the bylaws.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage):+1 Jonathan -- if Thomas said something different, my mistak.  WS1 must happen before the transition

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):I agree with Jonathan.

  Philip Corwin:Agree with Jonathan and Paul. If we determine that something must be in WS1 it should not be set aside because its development and implementation might delay the transition a few months -- Sept 2015 is a goal and not a deadline, and may not even be feasible given language in recently passed USG FY2015 funding legislation.

  Vrikson:The should be a detailed definitions of terms and the limits of each sub-area, for I hear and read that there are many gray areas

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:they have an initial list, based on the Stress Tests already proposed.

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):@Avri @Grace: Access to the WA3 wiki will be limited due to the SoI.

  Olga Cavalli - GAC:lost audio

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Until the accounts are created, we may have tgo rely on the mails.

  Avri Doria:i can insert thing into the WA3 table is you send them to me.

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):@Avri: Ok

  Avri Doria:... if you send them ...

  Grace Abuhamad:Apologies for the delay. We should be able to resolve next week

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):@Grace: Thanks.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:nothing more from my point of view to add

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks Avri

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):+1 legally Accepted . . . .

  Rudi Daniel:+1 for Alan's view

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Steve

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Greg -- have you read our Work Area 2 proposal for member structure?

  Avri Doria:Alan, what constitutes pure fact in terms of 'what the board would agree with?"

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I wish legal interpretation was as simple as "pure fact."

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Or even gave a clear answer sometimes ;-)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:not EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT.  We are recommending COMMUNITY oversight of the board

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):However, I do share Alan's frustration that we are not further along in getting the benefit of such legal interpretation, and it's particularly frustrating that the one empty "expert" seat is the one germane to this set of issues.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:at the very least, share our Work Area 2 inventory with the CWG.

  Rudi Daniel:+1 on a general statement from ccwg to the other working groups.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:The Member strucutre is much firmer than a dream

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:+1 Kavouss

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Not much....

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, I fully understand that a lot of things will be subject to interpretation. But we don't even know the background wording in some cases.

  Bruce Tonkin:I agree with Kavouss.   It shouldn;t be constrained on its thining at this stage.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@greg -- please read note 1 on our Work Area 2 inventory and tell us where we are off

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I do believe=, however, that a membership structure is one of the most valid concepts to explore.

  Thomas Rickert:@Steve - external meaning other than the Board, i.e. that Board decisions can be reviewed

  Grace Abuhamad:List is on the Wiki here:

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Steve --- will do.  I'm not saying you're off (I actually doubt you are, at least not by much); rather, it's a question of where things are in the process, and issues of what might be possible.  (And I agree with Kavouss that what the Board might like to receive should not limit our work.)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:thanks, Greg.   We are close

  Dina:Sorry, I need to leave, bye

  Alan Greenberg:steve, do you have a proposal on WHO the Members should be. Every discussion I have participated in on ICANN being a membership org has had problems coming up with a n accesptable answer to that.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:That's in the doc, Alan.  Every SO and AC -- inlcuding the GAC.  Each appoints their own person as the Member

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:This is so simple it's scary

  Alan Greenberg:See for applicable statutes for non-membership orgs. Might be possible even without membership -

  Alan Greenberg:Depends if "named persons" can be more generalized.

  Jonathan Zuck:+1

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):lost my dial out

  Rudi Daniel:+1

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Alan -- ICANN's Artcicles already anticipate Member structure.  We don't need to look farther afield

  Avri Doria:Though Steve Crocker is particpating in CWG

  Avri Doria:and while he may not be speaking as a rep of the Board, he does have a clue about what the board might repsond to things.

  Jonathan Zuck:Agree with Steve on membership structure. Not that tough to do.

  Bruce Tonkin:Avri - then I think the same principle would apply.   if the CWG on IANA transition wants to get input from the Baord - it could ask Steve to convey the request to the Baord and get a formal response.

  Bruce Tonkin:I don't thin it is useful to get the Board's input on every suggestion - but ocne the group as a whole is heading down a particular direction - it would be fine to get feedback from the Board on that direction.

  Thomas Rickert:No, nothing to add!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good thanks everyone... and Happy New Year to you all... Bye (for now)

  Rudi Daniel:thank you all....HNY..

  Pär Brumark (GAC):I Wish you all a Happy New Year 2015!!!!!!

  Thomas Rickert:Thanks and bye all!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you! happy new year!

  Bruce Tonkin:Happy New Year!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Happy new year all and looking forward to oour work next year !

  Adebunmi Akinbo (.ng ccTLD, DNS Africa):Happy New Year . . .in advance.


  • No labels