Attendees:
Members: Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Julia Wolman, Mathiew Weill, Par Brumark, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert (9)
Participants: Avri Doria, Bob Takacs, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jim Baskin, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Phil Buckingham, Vrikson Acosta (11)
Advisors: Jan Aart Scholte, Nell Minow, Roberto Bissio, William Currie
Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Hilary Jett, Kim Carlson, Jim Trengrove,
Apologies: Cheryl Langdon Orr
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Transcript CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors - 29 May.pdf
Transcript CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors - 29 May.doc
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5uly95id9i/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-29may15-en.mp3
Notes
We will reiterate main changes that are considered interim proposals of the CCWG-ACCT. We will then open the floor for comments.
Our proposal is based on an empowered community. We suggest incorporating principles that are in the AoC into Bylaws.
Fundamental Bylaws would require prior approval from community before being changed.
Our proposal reinforces the independent appeals mechanisms: IRP --> panel of 7 members, binding decisions on ICANN, enhanced accessibility/standing, decision will review merits of case.
Instead of creating new layer of accountability above ICANN, we are spreading powers to have balanced powers between legislative, executive and judiciary.
Reference model provides creation of a group of 29 representatives from different groups of ICANN (SO/ACs) and provides enforceability of its decision should the Board refuse a decision. The current reference proposal would be for SO/AC to each create an unincorporated association that would become a member of ICANN. This would not be an open membership. We are adding a touch of legal to the current SO/ACs in order to provide the right balance in terms of legal powers that would create enforceability of model.
The proposal has a balance of influence in the empowered community that includes all SO/ACs various options. All of them provide for representation of governements. We are aware this may create concerns for governements to participate in this voting mechanism.
Feedback
- Are you expecting a collective position from advisors or do we have the right to comment individually?
--> We welcome and encourage individual submissions through the official channel. If there is a common view, that can be emphasized as well. Both options are open.
- Jan has submitted comments. This is to highlight comment #2 – how do you maximize correlation between the ICANN community and the evolving wider stakeholder community. The draft is arguing for participation to reflect diversity but there is nothing concrete being suggested. Functional diversity is being perceived but it is not clear how gender and geographical diversity is being represented. Also, how will SO/ACs be held into account? Work Stream 2 are going to be kept alive after transition: have you talked about this more explicitely i.e. CCWG to be maintained post transition?
--> Your comments were not discussed with group before we published the draft report. Point raised on diversity is going to be an item for discussion after the public comment period. In terms of process, we have two work streams - we are focused on stream 1 and have started highlighting stream 2 issues. Our group might extend post transition - we are not expecting everything to be closed by transition.
- What of accountability of how groups are selected? We can find ourselves in regression. It is important that we be more specific: groups need to demonstrate that their own mechanisms for governance and membership are sufficient. We need to be more specific with regards to transparency: what does organization need to do to make sure Bylaws changes are widely disseminated for instance? Inherent principle that this entity exists for public interest should be a principle that cannot be changed.
ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period.
- Has the working group discussed whether to include a commitment towards freedom of expression? One of accountability issues in the question of who is accountable to is to do with with accountability, democratic standards. Has this been discussed for inclusion in the revised bylaws? Some people are arguing for UA but there is also an argument that Chairs SO/ACs could assume that membership.
--> We are ensuring ICANN is not used as a mean to restrict freedom of expression. UAs is an ongoing discussion.
--> We have aspects in our draft that should raise quality of accountability: e.g. how many votes should be. 1 vote per world region. Some of parameters we have put in report were based on inclusiveness. Another example: cost of IRP. What level of details would you recommend we put into the set of recommendations for work stream 1? Our issue is two-fold: 1) we need to focus on narrow task of dealing with work stream 1; 2) our charter is not broad enough for us to make recommendations on the decision-making, membership processes. Could you clarify what aspects you deem essential?
- Who has competence to make recommendations on proces if not the CCWG?
--> We can hardly prescribe how SO/ACs should constitute themselves other than giving principles that they should be inclusive, diverse etc.
- Roberto agrees with Jan - at essence of points: is accountability internal or related to external body? It needs to be clearly identified. Whenever you have external accountability (self defined international), what are the values from which you have mandate? You derive out of that freedom of expression.
--> Take internal accountability issue into account. That might be an opportunity.
- An explicit acknowledgment in report and a commitment to deal with it in work stream 2 would be welcome. INGO accountability charter addresses issue in detail for instance.
--> This is something we need to discuss as a group. We need to make sure we are talking about same problem statement with regards to external/internal.
ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability.
---> We have recently had some discussion about enforceability. It is my understanding we are tasked with improving architecture which includes robust mechanisms. Do you have any guidance on this?
- DoC may be handing over stewardship but legal, judiciary accountability still remains, not-for-profit legislation. There is still judiciary accountability for ICANN.
ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period.
ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum.
The comment period will end on June 3. F2F meeting on June 19. We will discuss with community on date that will follow. The second comment period will be organized. We may turn to you when drafting second round of proposals especially if confronted with diverging views.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms.
Action Items
ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period
ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability.
ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period.
ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Kimberly Carlson: (5/29/2015 06:16) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Chairs and Advisors Meeting on 29 May! 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
ccwgacct: (06:54) holla leon
ccwgacct: (06:54) Como esta?
ccwgacct: (06:55) that was from arasteh
CCWGACCT 2: (06:55) Hi. Roberto Bissio here
Adam Peake: (06:55) Hi Roberto, welcome
Alice Jansen: (06:56) H Kavouss - Hi Roberto - I have edited your user info so that we have your names appearing now :-)
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:57) Hi all!
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:57) Hi Aliuce, Adam, and KIM
Alice Jansen: (06:58) Hello Kavouss! Thanks for joining
Alice Jansen: (06:58) hi Pär
Kimberly Carlson: (06:58) Hello Kavouss, Hello Everyone
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:58) YESTERDAY, THERE WAS A SESSION ON iana transition at WSIS
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:59) Hi all, will join the audio soon
Willie Currie: (06:59) Hi everyone
Alice Jansen: (07:00) hi Willie! Thank you for joining us
James Gannon: (07:01) Hi All
Alan Greenberg: (07:01) Great sound!
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:01) HI everyone
Becky Burr: (07:02) good morning
Keith Drazek: (07:05) did we lose Mathieu or is that my connection?
James Gannon: (07:05) Its fine here Keith
Keith Drazek: (07:06) Ok thanks James
Thomas Rickert: (07:06) Hi all!
Alice Jansen: (07:17) Forum: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/index.html
Adam Peake: (07:18) and the page introducing the comment process: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability
Adam Peake: (07:18) apologies, this link https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en
Jim Baskin: (07:19) my audio is breaking up
Alice Jansen: (07:19) Willie - would you like us to call you instead?
Keith Drazek: (07:19) I think individual advisors can and should contribute individually....the PEG doesn't have to *only* function as a group, if that's the concern.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:19) Mathieu I have two questions
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:19) When can I raise them
Alice Jansen: (07:20) please mute your line if not speaking
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:20) @Kavouss are they points of order ?
CCWG ACCT: (07:21) Can I ask that all comments submitted by participants on this call be sharesd with everyone? Perhaps on some central discussion-enabled site?
CCWG ACCT: (07:21) That last comment was from me -- Nell Minow.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:21) no ordinary questions relating to AC being members and empowered to vote
Adam Peake: (07:22) Jan's comments on screen, you can scroll
Keith Drazek: (07:22) To be clear, no changes have been made during the last three weeks because the draft proposal is frozen and out for public comment.
Adam Peake: (07:23) Hi Nell, so far just 5 comments and they can be found here http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/index.html
Adam Peake: (07:24) Common for comments to be submitted towards the end of the public comment period. We expect a rush on June 2/3
ccwgacct: (07:29) Mathieu , Pls note that I have two or three fundamental questions to raise
ccwgacct: (07:29) PLS LET ME KNOW WHEN CAN I RAISE ITN
ccwgacct: (07:30) That was from kavouss
David McAuley (RySG): (07:30) With respect, offer a different perspective. Before focusing on community’s internal accountability mechanisms we should recall that the issue is the transition and the focus is on the ICANN board and management, which NTIA has been overseeing – it has not been overseeing community. To avoid infinite regression and to establish an acceptable level of community accountability, Willie’s Mutual Accountability Roundtable seems reasonable suggestion.
Becky Burr: (07:30) we do say no content regulation
Thomas Rickert: (07:30) Hello Kavouss, we would like to use this time for interaction with the advisors. Do you have questions for the advisors?
Thomas Rickert: (07:31) If so, would you be as kind as to put them in the chat?
ccwgacct: (07:31) Yes
ccwgacct: (07:31) kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) My questions are
Becky Burr: (07:32) ICANN shall not engage in or use its powers to attempt the regulation of services that use the Internet[s unique identifers or the content that they carry or provide"
Becky Burr: (07:34) stepping away briefly
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:35) 1 Irrespective of whether or not GAC wish /would or does not wish / would not be in a position to VOTE < are those ACs who do not have VOTING DIRECTOR have the right to establish a member association or NOT?not
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:35) From KAVOUSS
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:36) @Kavouss: is that a question you would like Advisors to respond to ? If not I would keep it for a further call ?
CCWGACCT: (07:36) As an advisor I feel that two key points are not properly dealt with. One is the "external accountability", which is closely related to the issue of incorporation (as a US NGO or an international organization) and the other one is the principles and the need for an explicit refrence to human rights and democracy as the basic principles. Inclusiviness and non interference with content only make sense in relation with those higher principles
Becky Burr: (07:37) back
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:37) 2.Even if GAC wishes to VOTE or establish member assiciation since it does not have Voting Director then it could not participate in two processes a0 removal of individual director and b0 removal of the entire Boardt
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:37) From Kavouss
Keith Drazek: (07:38) The SOs and ACs have varying structures and levels of accountability. It will be up to each SO and AC to determine how to further enhance their respective approaches.
Becky Burr: (07:38) could I ask which advisor is "CCWGACCT"?
David McAuley (RySG): (07:38) Agree with Thomas and Keith
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:38) 3. In regard with Q2, could gac participate in 4 other empowering processes ( budjet, Plan, Baylaws and Fundamental Baylaws?
CCWGACCT: (07:38) CCWGACCCT is me... Roberto Bissio
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:38) from kavouss
Becky Burr: (07:39) thanks Roberto
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:39) then that 29 voting digram has some inconsistencires with other part of our document
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:39) from kavouss
James Gannon: (07:39) I think we need to understand the acceptace of the will of the comminuty is the baseline for the extent of our work here. Any discussions about the accountability of the community are well heard but not something I think we are in a position to deal with in our current process.
Roberto Bissio: (07:40) Sorry, I am losing audio -- seems to be back now. Nell Minow
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:40) Q4
Keith Drazek: (07:40) Everyone please mute phones/computers when not speaking. Also, mute your computers if you're also on the phone bridge.
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:40) would it be helpful for the advisors to be given information regarding each of the SO and AC chartering or organizational documents? For example, the GAC relies on its Operating Principles
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) iF GAC can not establish a member association or can not do so could it make another unincorporated Association with those others who have became MEMBER S?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) From Kavouss
Jan Scholte: (07:41) Hi James. Point taken, but issues of accountability of the community hae been acknowledged and forever deferred in so many civil society involvements in global governance ...
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) Mathieu we need the answer in order to be able to comment of the first draft
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) From Kavouss
Alice Jansen: (07:42) Roberto we can hardly hear you - your line is breaking
Roberto Bissio: (07:42) From Nell Minow: We must be able to define what qualifies as a "community" with oversight authority or this will not have any meaning.
Roberto Bissio: (07:43) I am not sure why I am showing up as Roberto: Nell Minow
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:43) Mathieu
CCWGACCT: (07:43) external!!
Thomas Rickert: (07:43) Kavouss, we will respond to your question on the mailing list.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Did you receive all four inmportant questions that I raised from kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) LEON, THOMA MATHIEU
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) i NEED A REPLY TO MY QUESTION ,KAVOUSS
Keith Drazek: (07:45) @Jan: Is your concern about community accountability within the civil society parts of the ICANN community? Or the role and balance of Civil Society among the other parts of the ICANN community? I think the latter has been addresed by the draft proposal.Perhaps not the former.
Thomas Rickert: (07:45) Kavouss, as I said, we will respond. Thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) Thomas
Avri Doria: (07:46) i think a refernce to these issues is very important. and thank the advisors for making it so clear.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) it is three weeks that I have rasied these questions no answer was provided.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) First make sue that my questions are well understood
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) TKS kAVOUSS
Roberto: (07:47) I am sorry but I need to leave the call. Regards, Roberto
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:49) Thanks Roberto
Keith Drazek: (07:50) First arbitration and then courts only to enforce the arbitration decision.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:51) +1 Keith. See my recent post to the CCWG list
Greg Shatan: (07:51) There is also accountability to the California Attorney General.
Greg Shatan: (07:52) We should not fetishize private court litigation (i.e., arbitration) as a superior alternative to public court litigation. There are pro's and con's to each.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:53) Irrespective that the community wants or does not want the court to intervene, the authority of the cours is prelaining in the sense that it coulkd be siezed at any time by either party
Keith Drazek: (07:54) To Suzanne's comment above, can we please ask staff to send the advisors links to the existing community SO/AC structures, articles, etc? That would help everyone focus on the key outstanding questions.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:54) Mathieu, Leon, Thomas
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:55) Sreiouisly you are committed to give reply to my four questions raised since the last three weeks
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:55) I am serious and almost disappointed
Thomas Rickert: (07:56) No
Jan Scholte: (07:57) @Keith. I was not thinking of civil society in the narrow sense of NGOs, but across all stakeholder groups. Yes, members of the community empowerment mechanism would be accountable to the SOs and ACs, but how to ensure that those SOs and ACs are accountable to their full purported wider constituencies? How to avoid a situation where a small group of insiders become entrenched on the community empowerment mechanism FIFA-style? (joke)
Thomas Rickert: (07:57) Thanks for the opportunity, Malthieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:57) Thomas what do you mean by NO????
Keith Drazek: (07:57) Thank you Jan
Thomas Rickert: (07:57) Kavouss, Mathieu asked me if I wanted to make final remarks and I responded "no"
Avri Doria: (07:57) i think it is also important to capture action items on Human Rights mention.
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:57) Thx all! Have a Good Weekend!
Suzanne Radell (GAC): (07:58) Thanks for today's call
David McAuley (RySG): (07:58) Good discussion - thanks all
Thomas Rickert: (07:58) Thanks all and bye!
Keith Drazek: (07:58) Thanks everyone!
