To view the original post, please see here.
CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Statement Leading into ICANN54 in Dublin
Members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability are on their way to Dublin for a full week of intense work and engagement with other ICANN54 attendees. A list of the Enhancing ICANNAccountability-related meetings is available here.
As co-Chairs, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, advisors and independent counsel who put up a tremendous effort to prepare for these meetings. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and the deepest recognition.
We are very pleased that the analysis of the 93 comments received in the 2nd Public Comment period is now complete. Work Parties (WPs) have produced summaries, analyzed the content of submissions and identified options for the group's consideration. You can find these essential inputs here.
In anticipation of the various meetings, we are providing a rough assessment of our progress through a Scorecard, which can be found below:
| Report Section | Subtopic | WP Owner | Status | Relationship with CWG-Stewardship Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core values | Refine wording of mission & core values based on public comment feedback | WP2 | To be refined | Represents the standard of review for the IRP, which is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship |
| 3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core values | Human rights bylaw article | WP4 | To be considered | |
| 4. "Fundamental Bylaws" | Scope | WP2 | Supported | Fundamental Bylaws are a requirement of the CWG-Stewardship |
| 5.1. Independent Review Panel enhancements | WP2 | To be refined | IRP is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship | |
| 5.2. Reconsideration process Enhancements | WP2 | To be refined | ||
| 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other) | Implementation model discussion | WP1 | Some disagreement | The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship |
| 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other) | Community Forum | WP1 | To be refined | The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship |
| 6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other) | Decision making mechanisms | WP1 | Some disagreement | The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship |
| 7.1. Reject Budget/strategy | PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions | WP1 | To be considered | The CWG-Stewardship requires community rights, regarding elaboration and approval of the budget, especially with relation to IANA |
| 7.2. Reject Bylaw change | Details are pending community mechanism discussions | WP1 | To be refined | |
| 4.5. Approve "Fundamental Bylaw" change | Details are pending community mechanism discussions | WP1 | To be refined | CWG-Stewadship requires fundamental Bylaws mechanisms to protect against future changes of accountability mechanisms |
| 7.3. Individual Board Director removal | PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions | WP1 | To be considered | Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board |
| 7.4. Recall of theICANN Board | PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions | WP1 | To be considered | Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board |
| 9. AoC reviews transcription into the Bylaws | Refine details | WP1 | Supported | CWG-Stewardship requires an IANAFunction Review as a "Fundamental Bylaw" |
| 10. Bylaw changes recommended after stress tests | Discuss ST 18 and refine | ST-WP | Some disagreement | |
| 10. Stress Tests (Based on WA 4 and ST-WP work) | Some comments received on ST 29 & 30 | ST-WP | To be refined | |
| 11. Items for consideration in Work stream 2 | Scope to be defined versus continuous improvement items | Co-chairs | To be considered | |
| 8.3. SO/ACAccountability | Consider SO/ACAccountability | WP3 | To be refined | |
| 12. Implementation Plan including Timing | Co-chairs | To be refined | Reviewed draft started |
Download a PDF of this Scorecard here.
A significant number of items have a status of "To be refined," but we are confident that these refinements can be provided shortly to meet stakeholder expectations. Our hope is that many of these will turn into a "Supported" status by the end of the Dublin meeting.
Areas where more work is needed to reach consensus are in orange and red. Several of these items are related to community powers and have received broad support in principle. However, the implementation model for these powers remains a fundamental discussion. Until a solution is found that does not raise any significant level of objection, these issues cannot be finalized.
There have been significant discussions in the last few weeks, on the mailing list as well as during theface-to-face meeting in Los Angeles. These discussions were useful to better understand the various perspectives and the areas where views were diverging.
As co-Chairs, we would describe these discussions as follows:
- Views in the community differ on the level of enforceability that is Strictly required for the community powers, in light of the CWG-Stewardship conditions (beginning at paragraph 106).
- The CCWG-Accountability has requested legal input to provide more details on the practical differences in terms of complexity, delay or cost associated to the various levels of enforceability.
- Significant concerns were raised regarding the weight of the various SOs and ACs in the community mechanism, as well as the ability to opt-in or opt-out of this system. Alternative decision making mechanisms, such as consensus or rough consensus, are being investigated.
- The requirement of SO and AC accountability to the global Internet community as a whole has been a key theme of the comments received, although few concrete suggestions are offered (see WP3 documents)
- A 2-phase scenario to implement community empowerment is being investigated, which could help accommodate some of the concerns related to the significance of the changes proposed by the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report.
The CCWG-Accountability is fully mobilized and committed to make great strides during the Dublin meeting. We are aware that the finalization of our recommendations is the last missing piece in the IANAStewardship Transition puzzle and we take this responsibility very seriously. We will welcome in Dublin all contributions to this bottom-up, multistakeholder, consensus driven process.
All hands on deck! Looking forward to a productive week in Dublin!
CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
Thomas Rickert
León Sanchez
Matheiu Weill
