Post ATLAS II Implementation - IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

Notes:

• Could feed into ICANN accountability process and At-Large work in this process
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • CCWG Accountability has been tackling the accountability model reaching the 'Board' Work Stream 1;  Work Stream 2 will tackle the accountability model reaching the rest of the ICANN community. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • The content of recommendation is on the radar of the CCWG-Accountability and is within the scope of its work; the CCWG is making recommendations as part of the organizational reviews.  
  • This is a recommendation from the At-Large Community but it is not really up to At-Large to implement it single handedly. Nonetheless, the issue mentioned in the recommendation is regarded as an active issue of the whole ICANN community. At-Large is part of the process. 
  • This recommendation gives ALAC members the ability in the CCWG to press issues that the At-Large community feels strongly about.
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • Many stakeholders have raised this issue during the 2nd public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability. This might be one of the main issues of concern with regard to the single membership model and other alternative model proposed by the CCWG-Accountability. If the community is given too much power, the accountability of the community may be at risk and unintended problems may occur. This issue will most likely be discussed during the CCWG f2f meetings in LA and Dublin. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  • In the final Proposal of CCWG-Accountability WS1, it includes the Community Power which makes Board members more accountable. The Proposal has been ratified and passed to NTIA, pending review from the Congress. 

  • WS2 will deal with the broader accountability issues; 

  • Board has come up with measures to make their work more transparent, including publishing their meeting transcripts (http://www.internetcommerce.org/icann-board-decisions-to-become-more-transparent, e.g.: ICANN should do no less. Every official ICANN Board meeting should be webcast in real time. When the Board is meeting telephonically then the Web audiocast should be available simultaneously. And all should be archived for future access and review. Only limited redactions should be made, such as when the Board is discussing internal personnel matters or when the proprietary and confidential information of a contracted party might be revealed, and then only if a rationale is provided)

  • Next Step: At-Large Community should encourage members to participate in WS2

Notes: 

• Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA issues WG.
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • It is a very important recommendation. Are we pushing enough to strengthen the position of the end users (this concerns the question of civil society and the role of ALAC/At-Large)? It seems that we haven't pushed CCWG-Accountability to fully address those questions and consider the position of end users. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • The ALAC/At-Large have been advocating for end users to balance the power of other interested parties, and will continue to do so.  
  • We are not in the position to say that the end user rights are more important than other rights. 
  • Should the ALAC advocate that the end users' concerns trump other concerns? Yes, in some cases, users should take dominance; but not all the time. 
  • The needs of users may not be so much different from the needs of other parties. For example, regarding IANA stewardship transition, there is almost 100% overlap between the interests of registries and the interests of users in terms of the operational aspect of IANA functions. 
  • Assignees shall evaluate the implementation of this recommendation pending the outcome (i.e. final report) of the CCWG-Accountability.
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • We cannot say that the recommendation has already been implemented. 
  • End users are at the heart of the accountability process, but have limited knowledge and influence in the process. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • The Empowered Community (EC) model in WS1 will empower end users to hold ICANN accountable; the Proposal has been ratified and passed to NTIA, pending review from the Congress

  • At-Large Community members to participate in WS2 more proactively to make greater influence
    
    
    
    

Actions: 

• 16 Sep 2015: Assignees to modify the wording of this recommendation  
• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to email this recommendation to the IANA-issues mailing list to encourage members to propose modified wording. 
  
  

Notes: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • It seems to be a standard practice as it is reflected in the way that working groups and the Board conduct their work. 
  • It is uncertain whether all participants explicitly declare and update existing or potential conflicts-of-interests. This request doesn't seem to be included in the CCWG-Accountability Report. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • The wording of this recommendation seems to be a bit over-reaching. We may not want to have all members to declare conflicts of interests during every single vote. We, however, expect members to update their conflicts of interests regularly. 
  • Re conflicts of interests updates, it seems that every community group has some type of rules (e.g. SOIs in GNSO, ALAC) that are appropriate to what they are doing. 
  • Conflict of interests issues will be dealt with by CCWG-Accountability WS2? 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Members' conflicts of interests should be updated if their status change (with regard to their work and other potential areas of conflict of interests). 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  •  At-Large Community has already established the practice of updating SOIs before elections and selections

  • Some ICANN community groups require members to update their SOIs whenever a meeting takes place (more than requested in the recommendation) (e.g. every GNSO council member states changes to their SOIs, if any, at the beginning of every Council meeting); however, there is limitation to expand this practice in every stakeholder group (e.g. ccNSO);

  • ALAC to follow GNSO’s example to require members to update their SOIs and state changes, if any, before every ALAC meeting as a standing agenda item 

Action: 

• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC mailing list for review. 
  
• 19 Oct 2015: Olivier Crepin-Leblond to get in touch with the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) with Alan Greenberg's permission 

Notes: 

• Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA issues WG.
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • CCWG-Accountability doesn't seem to work on the specifics as mentioned in the recommendations; 
  • In Work Stream 2, the CCWG will discuss how the rest of the community should be accountable to each other and the rest of the Board. Hence, this recommendation may be addressed after the IANA transition. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Seems to be a fair assessment re previous notes. 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • WS2 will address the accountability issue for all parts of ICANN. This recommendation doesn't concern that issue. 
  • Tijani Ben Jemaa: This recommendation speaks about the decision-making process in ICANN and the distribution of power? 
  • Olivier Crepin-Leblond: This recommendation talks about the review of all components of ICANN (e.g. the roles and structures of SOs/ACs). The organizational reviews address this. Another path of dressing this would be the CCWG-Accountability WS2? 
  • Tijani Ben Jemaa / Sebastien Bachollet: This recommendation is not really within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability. CCWG-Accountability WS2 will touch on the roles and structures of SOs/ACs, but its work is not all about organizational reviews. Maybe ATRT or other processes will address the global review of ICANN in a more systematic manner. 
  • R3 White Paper of the Future Challenges WG (re. restructuring ICANN) may be relevant to this recommendation. The ALAC needs to understand what exactly it wants out of this recommendation. 
  • This recommendation is related to ATLAS II Recommendation 13. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  • The Board and every SO/AC has a full organization review

  • CCWG-Accountability WS2 *might* have an analysis and study of the overall multistakeholder model of ICANN; 

  • there does not seem to be a review of the overall MSM of ICANN -- this should be a topic of one of the existing reviews

     

Actions: 

• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC list for review.

Notes: 

• Could feed in the accountability process
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Part of the CCWG Accountability work (Stress Test regarding the GAC advice) may be relevant to this recommendation 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • This recommendation is related to ATLAS II Recommendation 7, as they address different aspects of the same question. Comments on ATLAS II Recommendation 7 apply here as well. 
  • The ALAC needs to discuss this Rec 7 and Rec 13 to clearly understand what the ALAC wants out of these recommendations. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • ATLAS II Recommendation 7 is directly related to this recommendation

  • The definition of ‘balance’ needs to be clarified, WS2 may explore this topic
    
    

Actions: 

• The ALAC Ex-Chair (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) to informally get in touch with colleagues on other SOs and ACs about this issue  
• Alan Greenberg and Holly Raiche to be consulted on this matter. Update on https://community.icann.org/x/Ko1lAw

Notes: 

• 02 Sep 2015: 

  • This problem is often found when it comes to the treatment of personal information.

  • Work is currently taking place two-fold:

    1. by ICANN issuing special amendments to its contracts on a case by case basis specifically regarding its data retention waivers:

       • https://community.icann.org/x/M5vhAg

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-10-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-05-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-04-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-04-10-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-27-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-24-en

       • etc. Many of these are individual Data Retention Waivers but also a process to change the agreement on a more permanent basis

    2. The ICANN Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability is also looking at the Issue. I would recommend that the work of this working group be examined once it is complete

  • Worth noting that I have asked other SO/AC Chair in the past about this issue (prior to the work taking place above) and there was, at the time, barely any response.

• 09 Sep 2015 
  

  • It is partially completed as the ICANN has done a lot of work with respect to this recommendation, examples as mentioned above. 

  • Part of the CCWG Accountability work (e.g. how the Review Process will be taken into account, role of local/national laws, how to write the bylaw, discussion regard the human rights at the global and national level) is relevant to this recommendation 

• 08 Sep 2016 (feedback from Alan Greenberg)
  

  •  The WS2 Jurisdiction Staff Paper ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jt6Rb5UjzNwd5WXZ0Bt1W5ryiiQ-lB690vPnMZB7pKc/edit #) includes among its points:

  • "Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression."

  • So I would say it will certainly be discussed.

Notes: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Part of the CCWG Accountability's work (e.g. proposal of the single membership model) deals with the legal structure; 
  • Some areas of the legal discussions (e.g. whether the ICANN headquarter should be within the US) will not take place until Work Stream 2 or even later. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Most of the CCWG Accountability's work is addressing organizational solution
  • It seems that this topic (i.e. jurisdiction issues) will be addressed in WS2 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • Jurisdiction issue is one of the most significant topics in CCWG-Accountability WS2

  • At-Large members should be encouraged to participate in WS2
    
    

Notes: 

• Proposal is to give mandate to a new ad hoc At-Large WG on Accountability
• Will address this rec in sync with the accountability track
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • At-Large Ad-Hoc IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Working Group has the mandate to implement the specifics of this recommendation. Is this enough?
  • ALAC members in the CCWG Accountability have been advocating for the interests of end users, and have been facing challenges in doing this; we need continue doing this Work Stream 2 and later on
  • ATRT 3 will start shortly, and this can also be an opportunity for advocating for end user interests; the ALAC needs to select representative for the ATRT3. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • Who should do this is uncertain, and this can be problematic, as the ALAC is a volunteer-based group. It requires more people to follow through. 
  • The upcoming At-Large/ALAC Review will produce output related to the expectations and evaluation criteria of ALSes. This output will be relevant to this recommendation, as it may construct formalized ways to continuously engage volunteers in the work of At-Large in a sustainable manner. The work of the ALS Criteria and Expectations Taskforce will be complementary in this aspect, but the upcoming At-Large/ALAC Review will be crucial. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • At-Large members (including ALSes, in addition to the At-Large Review WP) should engage in the At-Large review
    
    
    

Notes: 

• Part of the Accountability Process
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • It seems to be addressed in WS1 already 
  • The completion of this recommendation is pending the outcome of WS1
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • This issue will be discussed in the LA F2F meeting of the CCWG-Accountability 
• 06 Jun 2016:
  

  • WS1 Proposal has been ratified by the Board and passed to the NTIA for review, pending response from the Congress

  • At-Large community should fully take part and exercise their rights in the Empowered Community (EC) model