Attendees:
Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Participants: Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Keith Drazek, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Malcolm Hutty, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Larry Strickland, Paul Twomey, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Sam Dickinson, Thomas Schneider, Wolfgang Kleinwachter
Advisors: William Currie
Legal Counsel: Edward Morris, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit
Visitors: Alex Deacon, Asha Hemrajani, Benny Nordreg, Beth Bacon, Boyoung Kim, Caroline Greer, Cheryl Miller, Craig Ng, David Cake, Helen Han, Jim Prendergast, Kate Perl, Kevin Murphy, Konstantinos Komaitis. Luca Urich, Lynn St. Amour, Mark Buell, Monika Ermert, Ole Jacobsen,
Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Kim Carlson, Leana Rahim, Mary Wong,
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: Part 1 (AM)
The audio recording is available here:
Proposed Agenda
Agenda
1. Welcome, roll call, administration (08:00-08:15 ART)
2. Drafting response to public comment received (08:15-10:10)
Break (10:10-10:30)
3. Drafting response to public comment received (10:30-11:15)
4. Debate on enforceability: for and against (11:15-12:15)
Lunch Break (12:15-13:15)
4. Drafting response to public comment received (13:15-15:15)
Break (15:15-15:30)
5. Drafting response to public comment received (15:30-16:15)
6. Responding to NTIA query on timeline (16:15-17:15)
5. Preparing for community engagement at ICANN 53 & establishing Buenos
Aires work plan (17:15-17:45) 7. A.O.B & closing remarks (17:45-18:00)
Notes
Part 1
Roll call: no remote participants.
Robin Gross attending.
Sub-teams have analyzed the report and presented comments for us to
consider as a reply. The public comment tool has been populated. CCWG
meeting held, 3 hours to run through comments, and now we will hear from
the rapporteurs what they found when reviewing the comments,
Review, and then a dive into details.
Review of the mindmap produced from the Frankfurt meeting.
Questions received in the comment need to be explained. We as a group are
deep in the issues and need to explain clearly to the rest of the
community.
The process has been an opportunity to take ICANN to the next step. The
board in ICANN has been created as an arbiter, a target of lobbying,
rather than the community trying to work together of solutions. This
process has brought to community together in seeking consensus on
improving ICANN. And this reflected in the comments and review of the
powers we want to bring to the community. A lot of consensus on the basis
proposals.
Shared goal.
Sunday evening session on the history of accountability in ICANN.
co-chairs will be presenting and will discuss content with the group
We should review the models we have been considering. The reference
model, but also re-open the conversation about other models, and we are
asking those who want to speak to a particular model for community
empowerment and delivery of the powers we have presented.
plan for the day:Review of the public comment: hear the models; and
review these in the afternoon.
Order of speaking for the models:
Alan, Sebastien, Becky, Avri, Jordan, Sam, Greg.
The goal is to listen to different ideas and understand colleagues point
of view.
Request to hold a random draw for speaking. Request that new voices make
their thoughts about the model. New chairs of working groups and open the
membership of the sub-teams -- which are open for membership
A comparison with the reform process of 2002/03. At that time the reform
was top-down, the initiative of a few board members. The process not yet
process but we have moved a long way forward.
Review of public comment report.
WP2
Went through and pulled out the themes identified in the comments
Support for clarifying the mission, clarity on core values. Support
Need work on ICANN's defined powers. Suggestion to consider Human Rights,
a sub group working on that.
Contract compliance should part of the core values. A balancing test.: A
change for the test in the current bylaws about balancing the core values
against each other
Comments about "private sector" which is historic and means not govt lead,
but may need to be reconsidered.
Phrasing of consumer choice and competition language, suggested sharpening
Concepts of the public interest - multistakeholderism as a critical part
of public interest. Some new ideas and some missing aspects.
Notion of fundamental bylaws. Some major themes. String support for
having them, and for the bylaws the proposal identified as fundamental,
and some additions. Clarification on who can change and how. Question if
the wording is sufficiently flexible to meet ICANN's needs.
The headquarters issue important for the group.
IRP:
The concept should be binding, the proposals to make the process more
accessible. Support for a standing panel, but comments about the size.
Comments from governments about whether governments can be bound by
binding arbitration.
Comments on the diversity issues, and desire to strengthen the commitment
Need to explain to the community: that a panel compensated by ICANN can be
independent. There needn't be a compromise of independence, and group
needs to rethink this. And also comments about the selection process.
Reconsideration:
Roll of the ombudsman. The board reviewing itself, and conflict of
interest issues.
To avoid frivolous requests.
Next step: the reports on IRP and Reconsideration speak to the detail.
And we feel we can take this to the next level, where we could do a
consensus tool on what we have and establish a sub-team on implementation.
Not a call now, but to get a sense of the group on this for our further
deliberations this week.
Comment: Some fundamental questions that could be softened or clarified.
Some issues about the binding nature. About the number of panel. About
the way selected. And the issues of diversity of geography.
Regarding diversity of the members of the IRP. Anglo-saxon dominance of
ICANN processes. Need for invitation to participate to ensure diversity.
Is the group ready to go forward towards implementation
Comments leant towards mandated diversity rather than aspirational. A
critical task to seek out the right persons. Agreement on the need for
diversity, but how to achieve is out challenge.
Consensus: gather where we are, gain agreements and a stake in the ground
of what we agree to and move forward.
On the issue of the IRP, further consideration of enforceability.
The impact assessment review from the Board received last night. And need
for the CCWG to review those 30 +/- questions, and would ask ICANN legal
to explain what they think the answers are. So the answers can be shaped
into the public comment.
As group need to decide when we have consensus so the work can be passed
on to other experts. Why has the board submitted questions late which will
cause the group to rethink.
The board did say in the public comment it would be doing this. The board
does not have answers to those questions. And the Board has no
preconceived notion of the how the IRP should look. And there was no
intention to be anything other that constructive.
Noting 88 open questions. At a time when the group was looking for
answers. The point of the questions was to say how you considered from
this point of view, rather than requiring exact answers.
Point was that ICANN legal may have answers to these questions, not the
board itself.
What do you as the board think the answer's should be? As they have just
read the questions, or can ICANN legal answer or discuss these questions?
Further discussion of the issue when the CCWG meets with the Board, Sunday
3pm.
WP1. High level community feedback was positive. Responses on the
community mechanisms were hard to draw out because not all questions were
on the webpage until late in the process.
Amendments to the planning process to make sure concerns taken into
consideration before the veto/rejection process might be concerned. The
response to the powers nit against the powers but making it workable.
Standard bylaws: request for more time to review. Something for the
group to consider and get a view of the overall time available for review
Fundamental bylaws. Mostly in favor.
Removing individual directors: to deal with the NomCom, and to have a
consistency of process and thresholds.
Real of the board. Request for higher threshold.
AoC: concern about location. What happens in the future to the AoC,
should there be a call for the AoC to end as part of the transition. And
composition of the groups and to ensure diversity
Mechanisms: generally supported direction. But comments show need
decisions around enforceability.
1st analysis of the document, similar to the methods of WP2. The model
presented broadly, response seemed to agree the SO/AC was a reasonable
approximation of the community. Members favored over designators.
Concern about implementation. Concern about the voting weights. RSAC and
SSAC want to retain their advisory role and expert advice.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power.
The enforceability of powers: understood that the member approach would
give that power. And hard to judge the range of around the model, further
discussion by the CCWG is needed. Importance of avoiding insider capture.
Is the So/AC model representative enough of the global public? Who
watches the watchers: some mutual accountability and a suggestion for a
forum.
Disentangle the concerns the community has with the overall policy
process, and ensure that the responses address accountability
specifically.
Unintended consequence questions: for years the community's view of
accountability was that if they couldn't get it from CIANN they could go
to NTIA or Congress. With cutlass unclear what they want. GAC unsure.
Then who will produce nominees, only those with narrow interests, might it
look more and more inward looking. End result may be a devaluing of the
ICANN global multi-stakeholder model.
If it looks we are making it worse, then we need to start again. But
community feedback doesn't suggest that.
When discussing replacing the old mechanisms. Remember the community
mechanism we are seeing up. The IRP is the key for any stakeholder, and
key for anyone outside iCANN as it is available to all. The community
mechanisms Can include more than the SO/AC, and as we should apply the sa
There is a diversity of questions within the comments, and we do need to
address those. The models are complex and there must be clarity.
Concern of the process about the pace we are having to work at. Now
should take the time to make sure the next proposal is less dense, more
accessible to outsiders.
Which SO/AC will participate in the UA model. A different analysis now
and what we would do in a crisis mode. In a crisis model, where we
question the viability of ICANN then SSAC may be very interest at such a
time.
Community empowerment is the worst kind of empowerment except all those
other models that have been tried... Other models, such as the ILO, which
has some similarity. Private international organizations, such as FIFA, a
negative example. And then the key question of who is the global
mutlistakeholder community that we are accountable to. Can the IGF set
iup something in terms of panels. and construct something that represents
the global public interest.
There are general ares of agreement. We are arguing around details. Now
we are in the process of tuning and looking for better, clearer answers.
Break - thank you
Action Items
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
