Session #1 -- Consensus building around WS1 definition requirements

---

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #1 20 Jan.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #1 20 Jan.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p52ls0ipdl5/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/a3tvrwrf6vgyi4rchzv3f7dxn0r9ktl0.mp3

Notes: 

Tuesday, 20 January

Agenda Item - Consensus building around WS1 requirements

Will start discussion with WS1 definition and use that to move forward.

Proposed definition (credit goes to Matthew Shears for proposing this definition):

Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.

The goal is not to create new ICANN accountability but rather to enhance ICANN accountability.

Recap on the proposed definition:
Will keep the definition in the Charter
Insert requirements for WS1
Start with this sentence as we build in the WS1 requirements

WS1 Requirements
What are the requirements that can replace the US Government?
See MindMap "WS1 Requirements"

Next Step after the break will be to identify sequence -- a few things that we can operationalize soon with the transition in mind.

 

Documents Presented

ListofWS1Requirements_Jan20.docx

ListofWS1Requirements_Jan20.pdf

Chat Transcript

Sivasubramanian M: If the introspective answer does not satisfy, then a way out is to find a way to pick people who could be fair and neutral and bring them together in the form of a Transition Committee or LT Accountability Oversight body, and then give them such powers. Such a body could include a few people from the CCWG A

 ----- (01/20/2015 02:10) -----

Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Is discussing distributed stewardship and the importance of IANA separability in scope here?

 Bruce Tonkin: OK - robin lets make that expllict.   ie the CCWG could form some sub-work groups to look at IRP, reconsideration, and Ombudsman.

 Samantha Eisner: @David, any review of the processes would clearly need to include how the process has run to date to see if there are issues that we need to focus improvements on

 Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: +1 @Chris

 Izumi Okutani (ASO): * 1 Chris

 Martin Boyle, Nominet: Chris +1

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): absolutely agree @chris

 Athina Fragkouli (ASO): +1 Chris

 Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: yes, Bruce, that's a good idea.

Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): +1 Chris

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): a periodic CWG-based ICANN governance review, for instance

 Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: @Jordan -- isn't that the ATRT ?

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): If we transition it, it is

Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: David Johnson's "accountability contract" should be in WS1

Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: WS1: ensure ICANN bylaws are followed (this could be achieved via IRP and RR reform)

Matthew Shears: Once we agree some of these measures can we start to implment them - what are the procedures for doing so? 

Sivasubramanian M: The framework for review and redressal has to be expanded several fold

 Sivasubramanian M: And it needs to be an elevated process, a balancing process

 Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: can we get David Johnson's "accountability contract" in this diagram for WS1?

 Sivasubramanian M: But most of that could happen in WS2

 David McAuley (GNSO): Concept of “approval” might need work if I read Bruce correctly earlier  – does community approval mean board cannot veto? I thought Bruce was suggesting two-pronged approval process where board had equal say.

Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: I disagree with Alan.  Redress is top priority for WS1

 David McAuley (GNSO): @Robin +1

 James Bladel-GNSO: I do not agree with Alan's proposal to remove the other mechanisms from WS1

 Matthew Shears: Neither do I

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Neither do I

 Martin Boyle, Nominet: +1 James

Bruce Tonkin: From ATRT2:

 Bruce Tonkin: The ICANN Board should convene a Special Community Group, which should also include governance and dispute resolution expertise, to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to restructuring of the Independent Review Process (IRP) and the Reconsideration Process. The7Special Community Group will use the 2012 Report of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) as one basis for its discussions. All recommendations of this Special Community Group would be subject to full community participation, consultation and review, and must take into account any limitations that may be imposed by ICANN’s structure, including the degree to which the ICANN Board cannot legally cede its decision-making to, or otherwise be bound by, a third party.

Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: three issues for WS1: 1.  Reform of redress mechanisms.  2.  "accountability contract" to limit scope of what Board can do.  3.  ATRT reviews implemented.

 Bruce Tonkin: Regarding ombudsman:

 Bruce Tonkin: The Board should review the Ombudsman role as defined in the bylaws to determine whether it is still appropriate as defined, or whether it needs to be expanded or otherwise revised to help deal with the issues such as:a. A role in the continued process of review and reporting on Board and staff transparency.b. A role in helping employees deal with issues related to the public policy functions of ICANN, including policy, implementation and administration related to policy and operational matters.c. A role in fair treatment of ICANN Anonymous Hotline users and other whistleblowers, and the protection of employees who decide there is a need to raise an issue that might be problematic for their continued employment.

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Can anyone tell me when the ATRT2 report was finalised and why it's still not implemented, in a sentence?

Keith Drazek: Election and appointment cycles are far too long to address Board accountability to the community.

 Fiona Asonga(ASO): Jordan Carter - On 26 June 2014, the ICANN Board adopted the Recommendations and resolved some actions

 Fiona Asonga(ASO): It is being implemented

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): I think that is a major point @kieth...

 Samantha Eisner: @Jordan - the ATRT2 report was accepted by the Board at ICANN50 in London.  ICANN is instituting a project management discipline over it and implementation is underway.  There will be a session in Singapore on it.  There are issues of conditionality for some of the recommendations that are directly tied to this CCWGs work

Matthew Shears: Yes Keith - not feaisble in the timeframe we are talking about but we can include those to be addressed WS2.  By the time we are done this shoud be ICANN 3.0

 Jonathan Zuck (IPC) 2: and there's the point that board members are not meant to represent their constituencies

Keith Drazek: That's right Jonathan. Their fiduciary responsibility is to the corporation. That's the key issue we're working to address here. The Board needs to be more directly accountable to the community.

Becky Burr: + 1 Bruce

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Thanks @Sam & @Fiona

Samantha Eisner: @Keith, do you see a conflict where a board member holds a fiduciary responsibility to the organization and the ability to have mechanisms developed to allow the Board to be more directly accountable to the community?

 Keith Drazek: To me, Ombudsman *could* be in WS2 if we secure other key points.

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): agree @avri

Keith Drazek: @Samantha...there's nothing wrong with a Board member having a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation. The challenge is that the Board is only currently accountable to itself. ICANN has no members or shareholders today. I think if that changes, then there would be appropriate and necessary checks and balances. Hope that answered your question. If not let me know!

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): +1 Keith

 Matthew Shears: + 1 Keith

Bruce Tonkin: Keith I don't think that is currently right.    The baord is elected/appointed by the community.   That is a farily clear accountability tie - as it is in most coutnries.   Now it is harder to affect individuals decisions - so there is a need for mechansims like IRT, etc, but it is not correct to say that the Board is only accounable to itself.

 Bruce Tonkin: The main limitation of accounability in my view - is that the portion of the global public that elects./appoints the Board is limited.

 Bruce Tonkin: The accounabiloity mechansims is not actually fixed by a limited member structure.

Bruce Tonkin: For example the Verising Board is accouable to sharehodlers mainly through the elction of its Board directors - which happen at preriodic intervals.

 Seun Ojedeji: @Bruce part of the board actually are elected/appointed by the community

Bruce Tonkin: All of the board is appointed through the ICANn community.   Either as individual gruops e.g ccNSO electing directors, or as the nomiantigng committee which is basically the same as the membership concept - ie it is a selection of members from across the ICANn community that make Board appointments.

 Bruce Tonkin: The Baord can only appoint one director which is the CEO.

Seun Ojedeji: @Bruce i guess you are saying this because nomcom is from the community right?

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): I don't think @Robin's list actually meets what we need for WS1 - we need to change the structure in a fashion that really does drive community ownership of ICANN.

 Keith Drazek: Thanks Bruce. As I noted above, the election/appointment cycles of Board members are far too long to ensure real accountability to the community. The community currently has no mechnanism to recall the Board.  There's a substantial difference between the accountability and transparency obligations of a publicly traded company and ICANN's current structure. We can agree to disagree on this,  but I believe a membership structure would help immensely.

 Seun Ojedeji: on that basis we could agree that board is indeed selected/appointed by the community

 Avri Doria: James, ATRT2 rec 7 did give the Board leeway to reconsider the ATRT1 changes to the review mechansims since they were seen as being mixed in terms of usefulness.   I will grant that we seem to have changes without any community reivew of possible changes.

Athina Fragkouli (ASO): + 1 to Kavouss and Martin on IANA function issue

 Izumi Okutani (ASO): Strongly support Martin's point about "take out IANA functions"

 Matthew Shears: I think we are prejudging the work of the CWG Stewardship

 Izumi Okutani (ASO): This is alraedy covered on the number resources proposal submitted from the number community, as clarified by Athina

 Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: Agree, Matthew.

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): I don't agree with Fiona - we should have a placeholder for IANA shouldn't we, noting that IANA accountability belongs to the CWG?

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): but not for WS1 at this stage surely @jordon

 Keith Drazek: +1 Malcolm ...scoping is a very important issue that should be included in WS1.

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): @ Cheryl - it will be settled one way or another before the transition, so it basically is WS1

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): It just doesn't fall within our work per se, but has to be part of the reconciliation between us and the CWG right?

 Martin Boyle, Nominet: @Matthew:  I'm not necessarily sure on this.  Is it something that needs to be included in the bylaws or at least some reference to the conditions for taking out the iana functions

 Keith Drazek: +1 Jordan. At some point, the two groups will need to ensure that our efforts are complementary and not in conflict or duplicative.

 Chris Disspain: Malcolm's point re IANA finctions and gtlds is fundamentally worng

 Chris Disspain: wrong

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): and @Keith - that we don't leave gaps through assuming the other is dealing with something when that isn't the case.

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): were not there yet (by a long shot) @kieth / jordon

 Keith Drazek: hopefully just weeks away?

 Martin Boyle, Nominet: agree Chris.  It is trying to fix the implementation role of icanns operational role in contracts with gtlds

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): that would be "nice" @kieth

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): We don't' have more than weeks.

 Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Names *has* to finish its proposal in the next weeks to let the ICG get on with stuff...

Malcolm Hutty: @Jordan we need to do this right, if that takes longer than weeks so be it - even if that delays transition

 Jonathan Zuck (IPC): Indeed

 Alice Jansen: The CCWG is now on a 20-minute break. We will reconvene at 09:30 UTC.