Attendees: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Becky Burr, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, David Johnson, Edward Morris, Erika Mann, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Fiona Asonga, Greg Shatan, John Poole, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek Lousewies van der Laan, Lyman Chapin, Manal Ismail, Matthew Shears, Maura Gambassi, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Milton Mueller, Navid Heyrani, Nick Shorey, Niels ten Oever, Olga Cavalli, Ram Mohan, Ron da Silva, Ryan Carroll, Sabine Meyer, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Woolf, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw (40)
Staff: Alice Jensen, Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Tarek Kamel, Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Julie Hammer, Martin Boyle, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez, Avri Doria
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7i5veujq99/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-11jan16-en.mp3
BBurr - History of this language. Was included in two place in Version 1 of the draft. Version 2 draft brought questioning if this was appropriate. Decision was made to take it out of the mission (given it was judged to be more about new gTLDs) and left in the review. ALAC and USCIB commented it should be re-inserted. Given this language in the original AOC was meant to focus on new gTLDs? given there is language which addresses this in other areas. There was also comment from the govt of the UK of this vs security and stability concerns.
AGreenberg - Annex 9 omitted the discussion on consumer trust in the Bylaws. If the Bylaws covered this properly we would not be having this discussion. Given many people believe that the AOC commitment only applies to new gTLDs - if this is the case then according to ALAC it needs to be included regardless even if the definition of consumer trust is still un-agreed.
MMueller - As to the first question the answer is no and the second with a yes. The second question is the source of my concern - once you remove this notion from the new gTLDs it then makes ICANN a consumer protection body. This would replace national regulatory orgs. responsibilities in this area which seems inappropriate. This change would be inconsistent with a tight mission.
KArasteh - Mission needs to be precise and concise. Is this about where we put it or how we implemented. I prefer it not be included in the mission.
GShatan - disagree with interpretation that para 3 is only tied to new gTLDs. We are clarifying the mission, and unless the AOC has been outside the mission for all these past years. ICANN needs to continue to honour the commitment in 3C and this needs to be in the Byalws.
BBurr - obviously a disagreement of reading of the3 AOC. However, the language would be in the Bylaws.
GShatan - talking about 3C, where would this go.
BBurr - In para 33 of rec. 9 annex.
GShatan - no consumer trust in there. Need consumer trust in DNS space. Not putting it in would be a change. and should not only be for new gTLDs.
BBurr - All of the provisions of sec. 3 are addressed in different parts of the Bylaws.
AGreenberg - only talking about putting in article 1 on the Bylaws - no need to be in the mission. We are in the weeds - there is much clutter around such things but we are not cleaning those other points. This is not only about new gTLDs. Compliance has those words in it.
MMueller - If it does not have to be in the mission then we are closer to agreeing. We already agreed that the key parts of the AOC were to go into the Bylaws.
AGeenberg - What we are discussing commitments vs mission (the new sub-sections).
MMueller - NCSG has always had issues with this AOC commitment which was a top down policy vs a bottom up policy. Our concern is knowing and limiting the mission to what is required to coordination on a global scale. There are many orgs which do consumer trust such as the OECD.I am a minimilist when it comes to the mission.
BBurr - could you load the DelBianco document. SDB could you walk us through this.
SDelBianco - I was convinced early that the consumer trust language should be ok by introducing AOC 9.3 into the Bylaws and is sufficient. I replied NO to both questions. There was a need to review the new gTLD program along the lines of consumer trust and competition. The Board was approached to define consumer trust, choice and competition. In Dec. 2010 the Board instructed to define these terms which took about a year. these definitions were approved by the Board. this establishes in a bottom up fashion we are capable of developing such things properly - and as such it is appropriate to transport AOC 9.3 into the review section of the Bylaws.
BBurr - yes this is about new gTLDs. No one is opposed to consumer trust but not without proper definition otherwise it could leave ICANN open to issues. An undefined consumer protection requirement that is unbounded does not make sense.
KArateh - we have to conclude on this at this meeting.
AGreenbers - we need consumer trust for all names and not just new gTLDs.
BBurr - are you proposing we include a new responsibility for ICANN on consumer protection.
AGreenberg - This is about consumer trust not consumer protection. Just put the words of the AOC into the Bylaws.
MMueller - I understand AG perspective. What Alan is missing is if you detach these words from the context of the new gTLDs then you create a generalized obligation, which is unclear what you gaining with this vs the risks that could be related to this. SDB seems satisfied. It is unclear why we need to detach this from its context.
BBurr - the issue is unintended consequences could really arise to have untethered language which would be an expansion of ICANN's mission. Uncertain what is the difference between consumer trust and protection.
GShatan - Section 3 AOC defines the responsibilities of ICANN and removing this responsibility implies changing the mission. The review is just one specific case of this. But if we want to remove it we should be honest about this.
BBurr (chat) disagrees with this interpretation of AOC on this.
AGreenberg - If we walk away from this we need to be honest and it is not this groups responsibility to decide if this should be included or not.
BBurr - language was in the first draft but not in 2 and 3. We are not talking about walking away from anything. There are legitimate concerns about how this would be included properly in the Bylaws.
Chris Disspain: We are only 'walking away' if we agree with your interpretation...in my interpretation you are over-reaching
BBurr - I will summarize this discussion and circulate it so we can have more discussions.
AGreenberg - If we are not including this language - where is this covered in the Bylaws.
BBurr - lets take this back to the list.
KArasteh - can we have a small summary?
BBurr - We have two different perspectives on the language in the AOC 1 concept of consumer trust is specifically tied to the expansion of the gTLD space and requires a review to ensure this and those people are concerned about the unintended consequences of broadening this to all TLDs. The second veiw is that section 3 of the AOC is a general commitment and that it is inadequate to limit this to the expansion of the gTLD space and its review and that ICANN should have a general commitment to promoting consumer trust in the g space. The questions is does this broaden ICANN's scope or fail to include a key point. I will think about how to advance this. Would this require further work in WS2?
SDelBianco - Definitions presented in the document were not meant to be included to the bylaws - they were just a reference. 3C convinces me its a chapeau because if this was a general requirement it would apply to even ccTLDs and this would not make sense. As such is a chapeau
AGreenberg - I have no idea what was meant when it was written but things were changing when it was written in 2009.
BBurr - same arguments as discussed above. We will stop here and get back to everyone on list.
Brenda Brewer: (1/11/2016 06:34) Welcome to this ad hoc meeting "Consumer Trust" in the MIssion Statement on 11 January 2016 @ 13:00 UTC! 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
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:58) Please remember to go on MUTE if you are not speaking
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:59) Dear Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:59) pls advice to dial me up
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:00) Dear Beck, Pls kindly describe the difference between the term " Mission 2 and " Scope" from content view point and from hierarchy view point
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:01) I am not yet been dialed
cherine chalaby: (07:01) Hi Everyone
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:02) I have studied several other entities and found that Mission is of the highest ahioerarchy view point
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:03) hi all
Brenda Brewer: (07:03) Kavouss is being called. thank you!
Ram Mohan: (07:03) hello
Nick Shorey - UK GAC: (07:04) greetings
Maura Gambassi - IT: (07:05) Hello!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:05) what is " prrote"
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:06) I mean in para. 9.3 what is the meeaning of " prrote"
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:06) proote?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:08) Becky
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:09) I will be following with one eye (no ears) as going into another three hour meeting. apologies
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:10) It could be included in either of the two but ibn my view it is more relevant to Core Value as the Mission has the highest level from hierarchy point of view and thus must remain with the highest level, precise, concise and ,to the extnt possible, stable
Chris Disspain: (07:10) just for clarity all....if we put consumer. trust into the mission is that changing the mission?
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (07:11) @Chris yes, it is
Milton Mueller: (07:11) Chris: Yes
Becky Burr: (07:11) isn't it in the AOC with respect to expansion though?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:11) "Consumer Trust" is no less specific than other terms in bylaws, such as pubic interest, security, stability, resilience, etc.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:12) Steve has a point
Niels ten Oever: (07:13) Hi all, sorry to be late
Becky Burr: (07:13) @Chris - no, the Mission is the stability and security of the DNS preservation
andrew sullivan: (07:13) security, stability, and resilience each have a technical meaning for systems
Becky Burr: (07:13) but it IS a new obligation
Chris Disspain: (07:13) which amounts to the same as changing it IMO
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (07:14) @Becky It's not just a new obligation, it's a new concept for the Mission statement
Becky Burr: (07:14) also correct Chapin, totally new
Alan Greenberg: (07:14) I have said multipile times that I do not agree that section 3 is not specific to the expansion so I disagree with the premise of the question.
Greg Shatan: (07:16) +1 Alan
Becky Burr: (07:16) @ Alan - i am making the case that paragraph 3 can only be read in the context of the specific language of the commitments - Para. 3 says what the AoC is going to do.
cherine chalaby: (07:17) Kavouss +1
Milton Mueller: (07:17) I am always interested and amused by the way ICANN and most of its participants deny that it is a regulator and then insist that it regulate virtually anything related to the Internet
Milton Mueller: (07:19) Greg: if AoC is incorporated into the bylaws, why do we need to add stuff from the AoC into the mission?
Ram Mohan: (07:20) @milton, not all insist on ICANN engagement on all aspects of the internet...there have been consistent parts of the community who have focused on the limited mandate, regardless of temptations to go off course.
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (07:20) @Becky In your "Recommendations of Becky Burr Regarding Accountability" for the ERC in Sept 2002 the words "consumer" and "marketplace" are entirely absent. It's a very good document.
Milton Mueller: (07:21) Can we put that language up on Adobce?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:21) para 3c neeeds to go into 9.3 in the Reviews section. of the bylaws
Milton Mueller: (07:21) Ram: Yes, there are major parts of the community who want a limited and well-known mission. And there is also a part that doesnt
Milton Mueller: (07:23) It would help to put Section 3 up
Becky Burr: (07:24) This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination.
Becky Burr: (07:24) that is paragraph 3 above
Ram Mohan: (07:25) agree, @milton
Milton Mueller: (07:25) mission, not bylaws
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:25) And anything in the bylaws can be used for an IRP challenge, right?
Becky Burr: (07:26) He wants it in Section 1 of the Bylaws, however, in the Core Values Section
FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (07:26) Juat for clarification Becky, does everything in the by law have to be mentioned in the missions or can it be implied?
Chris Disspain: (07:27) even assuming we can agree that it goes into the by laws...how can we put this in if we don't know what it means? or do we?
Becky Burr: (07:27) It was in Core Values
Becky Burr: (07:27) in Draft 1
Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (07:27) @Chris - we have a definition from CCT process that's been through some public comment
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:27) right, Becky. But please just confirm that an IRP challenge can be pursued if ICANN acts in violation of ANYTHING in the Bylaws.
Chris Disspain: (07:28) thanks Jonathan...have we agreed to use that definition?
Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (07:28) @Milton, some of that is handled by the defintion of consumer trust
Greg Shatan: (07:28) The DNS marketplace is not under the authority of any single national regulatory body. And I don't think we want increased activity at multiple national levels.
Alan Greenberg: (07:28) The decision was to incorporate the AoC in to the BYLAWS. Not the MISSION> That is all we (ALAC) is asking for.
Becky Burr: (07:29) Brenda, could you load the document that Steve forwarded, and Steve could you speak to it?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:29) Becky
Alan Greenberg: (07:29) I did NOT say I wanted to replace national bodies. I said ICANN has a role as well.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:29) May we avoid dialogue between two participants
Chris Disspain: (07:29) @ Alan...what precisely does ICANN agree to do re consumer trust in the AoC?
Milton Mueller: (07:31) good question, Chris
matthew shears: (07:31) is this definition of consumer trust sufficiently scope limiting
Alan Greenberg: (07:31) From AoC Section 3: 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:32) Becky
Milton Mueller: (07:32) plenty of words in the AoC that do indeed require interpretation, are imprecise, and cause all kinds of mission creep threats
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:33) May you ask whether there is a major objection to put it in Article 1 of Bylaws and then decide where to put it exactly
Alan Greenberg: (07:33) @Kavouss, for reasons I don't understand, there isa strong desire to NOT put it in anywhere.
Becky Burr: (07:33) yes, Kavouss, I think there is a significant objection to imposing an affirmative consumer protection obligation on ICANN outside of the specific context of TLD expansion
Milton Mueller: (07:33) consistent of name resolution = fine with me
Milton Mueller: (07:34) confidence in fulfilling purpose is nonsense
Milton Mueller: (07:34) unless you are talking about fraud
Becky Burr: (07:34) an affirmative, general consumer protection obligation, which is generally the responsibility of sovereign governments
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:34) Then exclude that option and decide on the second step
Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (07:34) @Milton, fraud and PICs for sure
Milton Mueller: (07:35) Note that ALL these definitions were created in connection with GTLD EXPANSION
Chris Disspain: (07:35) And so, to be clear, the board agreed that these were the definitions that the WG should use...that is not the same as agreeing to place those words into the bylaws
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:35) Mission or Core value
Milton Mueller: (07:35) defined in connection with gTLD expansion!!!!!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:36) Becky
Chris Disspain: (07:36) and I agree with MM
Greg Shatan: (07:37) Becky, it is not a "general consumer protection obligation" -- it is limited to "consumer trust" and it is limited to the "DNS marketplace" but it is NOT merely related to gTLD expansion.
Chris Disspain: (07:37) the purpose of the review team definitions is re new golds
Greg Shatan: (07:37) The "context" is the DNS marketplace.
Chris Disspain: (07:37) or even gtlds
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:38) +1 Alan. I was not suggestiing these definitions go into the Bylaws. They are being used by the AoC Review team for the review of the 2012 gTLD expansion.
Becky Burr: (07:38) Greg, I don't understand how an untethered reference to "consumer trust" does not translate to a consumer protection obligation
Milton Mueller: (07:38) but if the definitions don't go into the bylaws then you have an open-ended general obligation for consumer trust
andrew sullivan: (07:39) That sounds like a new requirement to me
Chris Disspain: (07:39) but Alan, how do you argue that is NOT an expansion of ICANN's mission?
Lyman Chapin (SSAC): (07:39) @Chris @andrew +1
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:39) We need to conclude on this issue at this meeting
Chris Disspain: (07:39) irrespective of whether it is in the mission or the bylaws
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:40) surely the ICANN mission determines the context and this addition should be taken in that light m
Greg Shatan: (07:40) Consumer Trust is not identical to Consumer Protection
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:40) not as a free for all on Internet consumer choice etc
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:40) Alan -- I believe we are honoring that commitment by adding C, C, and T into the bylaws, in the section on reviews of gTLD expansion.
Greg Shatan: (07:40) @Andrew, the commitment is only as "new" as the AoC
Milton Mueller: (07:40) agree steve
Keith Drazek: (07:41) Agree Steve. The AoC language is specific to the expansion of the gTLD space.
Alan Greenberg: (07:41) @Steve, section 3 referes to the ENTIRE space, not just the expansion.
andrew sullivan: (07:42) @Greg, I don't think so -- what Milton is saying now
Alan Greenberg: (07:43) It is in the AoC. Either we publicly say we are walking away from the AoC provision, or we move it into the Bylaws.
matthew shears: (07:44) + 1 Milton
Chris Disspain: (07:44) I don't believe the choice is anything like was stark as that Alan
Chris Disspain: (07:45) 'that' stark
Alan Greenberg: (07:45) @Chris ???
matthew shears: (07:45) agree Becky - untethered to context is a good way of puting it
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:45) Becky
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:45) May you su,,mmarize the two positions emerging
Chris Disspain: (07:46) sorry Alan...keyboard issues...I don't think we're walking away from AoC just because we don't put this in by laws
Becky Burr: (07:46) From AoC Section 3: 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination.
Becky Burr: (07:47) @ Greg - I don't see how you can argue that section 3 isn't in effect a hat for the AoC
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:47) YES it is
Becky Burr: (07:47) I disagree with your reading - let me be forthright about that
Milton Mueller: (07:48) I have already said that, Greg ;-)
Becky Burr: (07:48) chapeau
Greg Shatan: (07:49) I think it is a commitment and not merely an introductory statement.
Chris Disspain: (07:50) We are only 'walking away' if we agree with your interpretation...in my interpretation you are over-reaching
Greg Shatan: (07:50) I don't think it is merely a misplaced chapeau. If it were intended as such it would be at the beginning of Section 9.
Alan Greenberg: (07:51) @Chris, then where are we eching the AoC words that we care about consumer trust in the EXISTING gTLD space (existing before the launch of the new gTLD process)
Alan Greenberg: (07:51) eching = echoing
Greg Shatan: (07:51) Chapeaux go directl on top of what they are chapeauxing.
Alan Greenberg: (07:52) Any "conclusion" has to address this last question.
Milton Mueller: (07:52) but the AoC was about consumer trust in the expansion
andrew sullivan: (07:52) I have to agree with Milton
Greg Shatan: (07:53) It's about consumer trust in the DNS marketplace.
andrew sullivan: (07:53) I've seen not a shred of evidence that it is wider than that.
Greg Shatan: (07:53) Not merely the expansion of the marketplace.
Milton Mueller: (07:53) Greg: ...during the gTLD expansion process
Milton Mueller: (07:53) wrong Greg
Greg Shatan: (07:54) Wrong Milton. That's not what Section 3 says.
andrew sullivan: (07:55) I don't even see how ICANN could possibly be responsible for consumer trust in the DNS marketplace
andrew sullivan: (07:55) it doesn't have control over most of it
Greg Shatan: (07:56) @Andrew, so you are saying that the AoC got it wrong, at least in Section 3(c)?
andrew sullivan: (07:56) I think that it's wrong under your interpretation, yes
andrew sullivan: (07:56) I think that shows that the interpretation is wrong on its face, because it's incoherent
andrew sullivan: (07:57) (with the way the DNS works)
Milton Mueller: (07:57) I have stated consistently that the AoC overreached with its rhetoric and that it is an artifact of a period of unilateral US supervision of ICANN
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:57) Becky
Becky Burr: (07:58) correct Steve - they are very helpful to discuss context
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:58) How do you plan to reconcile
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:58) AoC para 3(c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:58) Do you plan to further discuss that in yr Group ,or You send the tro option to CCWG for final dercision$
Milton Mueller: (07:58) right Steve
Becky Burr: (07:59) further discussion Kavouss
Keith Drazek: (07:59) Very good point, Steve.
matthew shears: (07:59) well put Steve
Milton Mueller: (07:59) 9.3 is sufficient
Chris Disspain: (07:59) then Steve how would you be able to use meaningful language in the by laws...we will be judged on those by laws...people cans sue on those by laws so how can it be sensible to place undefined words in the bylaws and how would ICANN be expected Ro abide by those by laws? Test them and see who reacts? That would be foolhardy.
Becky Burr: (08:00) @Chris, I think you and Steve agree
Chris Disspain: (08:00) I believe that may be true
Milton Mueller: (08:00) bye all
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:00) thanks Becky!
Chris Disspain: (08:00) Thanks all...very interesting chat
andrew sullivan: (08:00) bye
David McAuley (RySG): (08:00) Thanks Becky
matthew shears: (08:00) thanks!
Greg Shatan: (08:00) Thanks all
Niels ten Oever: (08:01) bye all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:01) bye all
Brenda Brewer: (08:01) Call has concluded. Thank you for joining.