WP1 Meeting #3 (4 March)

---

Transcript

Transcript WP1 Meeting #3 04 MARCH.doc

Transcript WP1 Meeting #3 04 MARCH.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1lh6teqcdp/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-04mar15-en.mp3 

Proposed Agenda

1. Review of Agenda

2. Report back from CCWG meeting

a) Outputs for the Face to Face - what do *we* in WP1 think we need to produce?

3. Discussion of Work Items

a) AOC in the bylaws - three more reviews (Steve)

b) Removal of ICANN director/s (Jordan)

c) GAC consensus issue (Jordan)

d) any other Work Items ready for discussion

4. Next steps in our work

a) Checking in on progress with Work Items not yet discussed

(the progress is mostly up to date in this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIrzK3mlGBbIHtdZDoAt_9Y__aPYXAH_d-OIbkg2Z6k/edit?usp=sharing)

b) Checking in on exchange of items with WP2

c) Volunteers for Mechanisms focus - who can volunteer for some focused work on mechanisms in the next few days?

5. Next Meetings

a) Should we schedule a meeting for Wed 11th March at 21h UTC? (I think we will need it.)

b) Discussion on need for a meeting/s between 11 March and Face to Face (including Sun 22nd in Istanbul)

6. Any Other Business

NOTES

• WP1 rapporteur - Jordan Carter - walked the WP through the agenda, provided an outline of CCWG discussions held on 5 March and flagged that Rapporteurs will have a meeting with the 
  Co-Chairs on 6 March to discuss shape of output. 

Feedback:

- Are we addressing booking.com 

-> WP2

- Consider addressing implementation (timeline etc) 

 

Affirmation of Commitments and Related Reviews

Steve del Bianco walked the WP through 2A,B,C,D,E draft https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%20Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v4%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425370283000&api=v2 

Feedback:

- Other AoC elements should be included in the Bylaws 

-> 3, 4, 7, 8 are worth considering. Work is underway. Comments are welcome. 

- Effectiveness of GAC should not be reviewed. We should not be putting doubt on effectiveness of doubt. Suggestion to remove "and effectiveness" 

--> This is verbatim from AoC 

-->Do other reviews in bylaws include effectiveness? If so, we should keep it. 

- How do we guarantee implementation? 

--> Obligation from Board to take action.- do we want stronger language? 

--> Proposed language: 1) consider approval and begin implementation; 2) required action 

ACTION ITEM Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman

- Specify which supermajority we are choosing

--> we will need to determine whether 3/4 or 4/5. Supermajority should be in brackets 

- Concerns about courses of action/modalities 

ACTION ITEM Kavouss to circulate note on .xxx

- TImeline needs to be revisited to allow for implementation 

- Output of CCTRT should be considered in design of susbequent rounds

- Suggestion to delete WHOIS review and combine with CCTRT

- Empower the community by allowing the community a process to introduce different types of reviews

ACTION ITEM - Send Steve, Fiona, Matthew your comments. 

 

Removing ICANN Board Directors

Jordan Carter walked the WP 1 through draft https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20WP1%207A%20-%20Removing%20ICANN%20Directors.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285656000&api=v2

Feedback: 

- Both options (removing of whole Board and removing individual Board members) should remain but criteria should be different. Quid of nterim?

- Both should remain - separation between WSs is not obvious. Need to change the appointment rules: every appointment should be 2 persons: 1 acting and 1 back-up (if removed etc) i.e. alternates. 

- For individual removal, should it be community mechanism or individual SO/AC mechanism? 

--> Removal of individual Board member could be done by community but with consent of SO/AC 

- All gravitate to idea of spilling Board: should that be a necessary condition of transition? Strickling says it s a missing component. Write up with assumption it will never be used - Focus exclusively on mechanism called spill the Board and a second mechanism to recall one or several Board mechanism. Recommendation to make it done by splitting these two mechanisms - one WS1, one WS2 

- Giving community opportunity to micromanage 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to restructure two mechanisms (WS 1/WS2), to add in the alternate suggestion 

 

Work status

The CCWG reviewed the work status matrix https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIrzK3mlGBbIHtdZDoAt_9Y__aPYXAH_d-OIbkg2Z6k/edit?usp=sharing

- Prevent ICANN from Imposing obligations: 

ACTION ITEM - To follow up with Keith Drazek

- Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman

- Roelof Meijer and Edward Morris volunteered to work on statutory delegates/members.

- Jordan Carter volunteered to work on permanent CCWG

- Volunteers are needed 

ACTION ITEM: Additional volunteers needed on community veto

ACTION ITEM: Circulate templates by end of this week preferably

 

A.O.B

The WP discussed the Istanbul WP prep meeting. Ensure WP1 does not conflict with WP2.

Next Meeting will be Wednesday, 11 March 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman

ACTION ITEM Kavouss to circulate note on .xxx

ACTION ITEM - Send Steve, Fiona, Matthew your comments. 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to restructure two mechanisms (WS 1/WS2), to add in the alternate suggestion 

ACTION ITEM - To follow up with Keith Drazek

ACTION ITEM: Additional volunteers needed on community veto

ACTION ITEM: Circulate templates by end of this week preferably

Documents Presented

WP1 Draft Documents

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen 3: (3/4/2015 14:35) Welcome to WP1 call #3! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  arasteh: (14:58) Alice

  arasteh: (14:59) Pls advuise to dial me up

  arasteh: (14:59) 0041 79 325 6534

  Roelof Meijer: (14:59) Good day, everyone!

  arasteh: (14:59) kAVOUSS

  Brenda Brewer: (14:59) yes, op has your number Kavouss

  arasteh: (15:00) Dear Jordan

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (15:00) Good evening everyone!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:00) hi all

  arasteh: (15:01) We have to separate those actions which are Transition associated from those which are beyound transion process

  Fiona Asonga (ASO): (15:01) Hallo Everyone

  Chris LaHatte: (15:01) morning all

  arasteh: (15:02) I would also to discuss the issue of GAC consensus

  arasteh: (15:02) It is a tricky , delicate and politically oriented issue

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:02) Kavouss: I expect we will be doing exactly that separation as we have been doing as we go, with confirmation of WS1 v WS2 at the face to face meeting.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member): (15:03) We have no mandate to speak about GAC consensus. In the matter of how the Board responds to GAC advice, I am going to propose we defer further discussion until after the co-chairs of the CCWG have spoken with the GAC direct through Thomas.

  arasteh: (15:03) There seems to be a necessity that we seek a clear and formal advice from GAC through its chair Thomas on the matter$

  arasteh: (15:06) Joran

  arasteh: (15:06) Do you pklan to address the issue of Booking.com'

  arasteh: (15:06) Sorry for misspelling

  arasteh: (15:06) I meant Jordan

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:07) I think we are spending far to uch time on the booking.com case

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:07) **much**

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (15:08) I agree with your approach Jordan

  Alice Jansen 3: (15:08) Please mute your lines if not seaking

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:10) I also agree with the approach Jordan

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:13) Did we lose Jordan

  Berry Cobb: (15:14) Steve, Jordon was looking for you to provide update on AOC Merged with Bylaws

  Berry Cobb: (15:14) WP1-2A

  Alice Jansen 3: (15:14) Jordan, we cannot hear you

  Alice Jansen 3: (15:14) Would you like us to dial out to you?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member) 2: (15:15) that won't help -

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member) 2: (15:15) Steve can you take us through the 2A-2D - the three new reviews you've done

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member) 2: (15:15) let me restart my computer

  Jordan Carter (.nz, member) 2: (15:15) I'll be back in a couple minutes

  Alice Jansen 3: (15:16) ok thanks, Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:17) SOrry about that

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:17) Steve et al: great job again

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:18) My browser began blocking my audio. All good now.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (15:19) Kavouss is right.  AoC paragraphs 3,4,7,and 8 are worthy of inclusion in Bylaws

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:19) On that point, the reviews of all other parts of the ICANN structure are already in the Bylaws I believe

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:20) the only one that is not is the GAC

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:20) For Example, the GNSO is supposed to go through a review once every 3 years (I believe)

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:20) Matthew is an apology for the call - he is in the air at the moment.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:23) I don't think we should strike it.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:23) Jeff is not making any sound

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:23) Sorry.....I will type my comment

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:23) I don't think it is the role of this group to change these committments.

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:24) I agree it should be structured the same as all other reviews.   I would also like to see a note an=bout GAC interaction with the community

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:24) no...still audio issues

  Olivier Muron /GNSO/ISPCP: (15:25) Steve, how do you guarantee implementation?

  Olivier Muron /GNSO/ISPCP: (15:26) yes

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:30) Something must be wrong with (ICANN's) adobe, I was in another call just before this one and multiple participants had audio problems like we are experiencing now

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:30) How strange. My grey bar at the top did a weird flicker and then I couldn't speak. Restarted the computer and it was fine.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:34) can we take this detailed convo of .xxx ofline?

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (15:35) Kavous can you please send it to the whole list

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (15:35) ?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:35) I was at the iCANN meeting where .xxx was decided and Steve's recollection is correct

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:35) I'm in favor of stronger language than "take action".  What level of action?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (15:37) proposal:  take action --> consider approval and begin implementation

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:37) Steve, we need to finish this agenda item in about 5 - 7 minutes or so if we can

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:37) I am not yet comfortable with stonger language

  Fiona Asonga (ASO): (15:38) I support approval and begin implentation

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:38) A Review Team is not without imperfection either

  Chris LaHatte: (15:39) +1 Steve

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:39) I think that is right Steve.

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:39) Some of the recommendations are not for "approval" but for refrral to the policy process

  Berry Cobb: (15:40) Was not the intent of six months to allow for planning time before taking action....aka implementation?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) Board canot approve certain things without going through PDP

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:40) That would be implementing them then - referrnig them into the PDP

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) Like the WHOIS RT

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) Their recommendations were to go to the GNSO

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) it was not to APPROVE the recommendations

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) But that is not what the RT said

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:40) I think the notion here is that things should not just sit undealt with - and things approved for action shouldn't be not-executed

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:40) the RT wanted them "approved"

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:41) Correct....take action covers it

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:41) The Board can get feedback on a AOC review team report from an AC (e.g GAC) as well as from SOs and stakehodler groups at ICANN.   With the WHOIS review for example the Board received lots of feedback and tconsidered the report carefully based on all that input.   If the communiyt disagreed with the Board treatment of the AOC review report - it could then use the mechansims you speak of.

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:42) I am still more comfortable with "take action" than with "implementing" which may imply approval

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:42) Review Teams are not substitutes for PDPs and that is what worries me

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:42) Also agree with Jeff that in some cases the output from a review team needs to be taken through a policy development process, and the Board can initiate a policy development process under the bylaws.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:42) you keep going

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:42) can there be a middle ground between "take action" and "implementation"?

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:42) queue is fine

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:43) I think it looks good and your logic is sensible re the schedules.

  arasteh: (15:43) take the required action

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:43) @Robin "take appropriate action"

  arasteh: (15:43) Steve

  arasteh: (15:43) I HAVE COMMENTS ON 9-3

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:44) WIth respect to WHOIS review - I think the main change since the last review were the changes in the registrar accreditation agreement.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:44) "take signficant steps"

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:44) I suspect that the old WHOIS will last for many years to come, and that a new system will simply be operating in parallel.

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:44) Why would WHOIS review not fit in with the other consumer trust review?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:44) Why not combine them>

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:45) I do not believe WHOIS needs a separate review (after this current review)

  Chris LaHatte: (15:46) Do we need to state specifically in a WHOIS review that privacy principles must also be considered in such a review? If so what privacy principles should we use?

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:46) I think yes it needs to have "privacy" in there/

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:46) Yes, Chris, that is a great suggestion. 

  Chris LaHatte: (15:47) ICANN privacy policy is at present underdeveloped

  Edward Morris: (15:47) +1 Chris

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:47) good addition Kavouss

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:47) The OECD Privacy Principles could be used as an example:  http://oecdprivacy.org/

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:48) Good suggestion, Bruce.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:48) We have discussed in the first part of this AoC content that new reviews can be created and old ones sunsetted

  Chris LaHatte: (15:48) +1 Bruce

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:48) that power does need to be there and is, which is good

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:48) We can empower the community by allowing the community a process to introduce different types of reviews

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:49) @Chris: let's not try to fix things that have nothing to do with the stewardship transition. This is part of WS1: prerequisite for transition

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:49) So, then why call out WHOIS separately

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:49) These words from AOC 9.1 wuld be good to keep and use eleswhere:

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:49) "ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders "

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:49) if the community wants it, we can ask for it

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (15:50) @ Bruce -- that is in Review #1.  See the document on the screen!

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:50) Thanks @Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (15:51) @jeff -- we brought all 4 AoC reviews over.   There is no effort to call out WHOIS separately

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:52) I understand...but we have an opportunity to change if we want

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:52) I think both options of removing whole board and removing invidual board members is still on the table

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:52) The WHOIS one was appropriate then, but may not be going forward

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:53) Just offering the option

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:54) but a stakeholder group who's board appointee has lost touch with them needs the ability to recall the board member.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:55) I think we should consider both too.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:55) the board as a whole isn't going to intervene in these matters, generally.

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:55) As I think some others have pointed out - having the ability to remove a director by the Board does mean that directors recognize that there is a consequence if they don't perform - and in particular it impacts their reputation.   The ability to rmeove a director has usually been enough to correct behaviour.

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:55) Do you think that removing one or two is a pre-transition process (WS1) or a post transition issue (WS2)?

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:55) WS1

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:56) Likewise as Jodran points out havign the abioity to remove the whole Board is a good idea - as it means that the Board realizes that the communiyt does have a mechansims if the Boad gets out of step with the community.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:56) I don't see it as separate.  Remove or more (including the whole) board

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:56) Remove one ore more

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:56) Even initiating a discussion about removal of a a director or the baord as a whole is likely to lead to changes in behaviour.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:56) Exactly, Bruce

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:56) we can't hear you Tijani

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (15:58) TIjani suggested on the call that each appointing / electing body appoint alternates.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:58) it would be good to move away from "group think" of board members.  removal of one or more board members does this.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (15:58) I support Jordan's suggestion to have two separate templates, one for full board recall and one for less than full

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:58) If the org didn't have a Boar d- you could probably have a simple transition where the chairs of the SOs and ACs formed an interim board.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:59) Only the CCNSO can recall its board member.

  Bruce Tonkin: (15:59) Having alterantives for Baord directors has been a bit of a separate issue.   For example we have suggested that the nomianting committee have some back ups for situations when a board director nominated by the nominating committee resigns - that there are some alterantive candidates.

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:00) I see it as less of an issue for SOs etc - as I think most could appiint a director to fill the remainder of a term relatively quickly if needed.

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:01) @Robin - is the ability of the ccNSO to remove a director in the bylaws?

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:01) no, I was answering the question of who can recall the ccnso director in our proposal.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (16:03) +1 Steve!

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (16:03) I don't see anyone pushing to not do this power as part of WS1

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (16:03) I certainly support it, personally

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:04) My understanding is that the board generally supports a mechansims to remove the whole board as well.

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:04) The concerns at the individual board direcotr level - is just to avoid some capture scenarios.   Having objective standards would make people feel more comfortable.

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:04) Each group has its own standard for recalling their board member.  It won't be this group's job to figure out.

  Olivier Muron /GNSO/ISPCP: (16:04) I agree with Steve: define two different mechanisms!

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (16:04) Ok, thx Steve

  Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC): (16:05) I see why you want to separate them

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:05) Robin - I think that is fine too.   Each group could well have its own standards - as long as those standards have been debated and agreed in advance.

  Edward Morris: (16:06) Having the power to recall individual board members would likely decrease a chance the entire Board would ever be spilled.

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:08) Yes Edward that is probably true.   I would think it is also a rare event - but it means that individual Board members will feel the need to interact more with the part of the communiyt that appointed them.   So in general that is a good thing.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (16:08) @Edward -- true, but do you support Jordan and me that we propose SPILL first, and then turn to lesser measures?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (16:08) Agree, Bruce

  Edward Morris: (16:09) In additon, if we were to go with the membership option under §5222 members have the right to remove "any and all directors" without cause.

  Edward Morris: (16:10) @Steve. I'd hate to lose the leverage we have pre-transition to recall individual Board members. No problem splitting templates, but would prefer to keep all in 1.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (16:12) I heard Jeff Neuman volunteer to work with me on that one!

  Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (16:13) How did you hear that with my mic not working :)  But ok, I will help as I can

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:14) are WP1-5B-1 and WP1-5B-2 moved to WP2?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO-CSG]: (16:14) I will circulate another version of the Reviews-as-Bylaws doc, with notes from today's discussion

  arasteh 2: (16:20) PEOPLE CONTINUE TO REFER TO ATRT WHICH IS AN EXISTING ARRANGEMENR. DOES THAT CONTINUE TO EXIST IN FUTUIRE'

  Edward Morris: (16:20) I'm in for Statutory Members

  Edward Morris: (16:21) I can help with both - just lost nbride.

  Edward Morris: (16:21) bridge

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (16:22) @Edward: thanks! I'll start it off and then send it to you, OK?

  Edward Morris: (16:22) That's fine Roelof. Thanks.

  Brenda Brewer: (16:22) I have operator calling you back Edward.

  Edward Morris: (16:23) Thanks Brenda

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:25) +1 Steve.  I'm in both WP also and want to attend both.

  Edward Morris: (16:25) I'm on both as well

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (16:27) Thanks, Jordan, bye all!

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (16:27) Thx. Goodbye!

  Jordan Carter (.nz member): (16:27) See you all!

  Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:27) Thanks Jordan and all!  Bye

  Bruce Tonkin: (16:27) Good bye

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (16:27) bye