CCWG ACCT Meeting #11 (9 February)

---

Link to the ICANN 52 page: http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability

Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT 9 FEB.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT 9 FEB.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9dv2t9dlcl/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

The audio recordings are available here:

• EN - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/ccwg-accountability-09feb15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome & roll call & SOI 

2. Interactions with CWG 

     - update by Lise & Jonathan

     - analysis of discussion document & further cooperation

3. Legal advice update

Review of initial questions set on 27 January call

-         Announcement of Jones Day Document

-         Review of CWG document

-         Framing questions for next steps

-         Timeline

4. Update WP1 - Jordan 

5. Update WP2 - Becky

6. Update WP Stress tests

     - presentation of 2-3 stress tests for illustration 

7. Community engagement

     - engagement session logistics

     - other engagement ongoing during ICANN52 

8. AOB 

9. Closing remarks 

Action Items

1. Work Party 1 and Work Party 2 rapporteurs to work on a proposal, in coordination with the WPs, on potential consolidation of streams or clarifications of work.
2. Legal sub-group to follow-up with legal counsel (JD) on there.
3. The Board Governance Committee is interested to know from CCWG if it is considering significant changes to the IRP and use of the panel, and it worth continuing down the path of creating a permanent panel. 

Notes

 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI   

• No participants on the call 

 2. Interactions with CWG  - update by Lise & Jonathan 

•  A discussion document and slides available from the CWG Stewardship wiki:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404
•   Focus on RfP3 which is the post transition work.  With the goal of producing one model.
•   The goal is for the needs of the CWG in terms of accountability mechanisms are known to the CCWG
•   CWG asked questions on five issues:

        (1) Budget Accountability and Transparency.  

(2) Accountability for (re)delegations

(3) Independent Review of Board Actions

(4) Independent Appeals Panel

(5) Control over ICANN Board decisions. 

 Budget:

• IANA costs are difficult to understand, including the ICANN overhead and how much is spent on serving other communities. 
•  Reply to CWG of Jan 28 available on the CCWG wiki https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accountability+--+28+January 

 Accountability for (re)delegations 

• Revised email of Feb 3.  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/001019.html
•  CWG: response appears to meet the need. 

 Independent Review of Board Actions 

• The CCWG response is in tune with the CWG needs and approach.  
•  CCWG expects to provide some independent review mechanisms.  Would be helpful standard of expect behavior in beginning an appeals process.
•  CWG to be specific and detailed.  
•  Examples: service level agreements not being fulfilled. Keeping to procedure.

3 Legal advice update 

•  CCWG meeting in Frankfurt developed some initial framing questions. Response from Jones Day.  Not, to be seen as the external legal advice the group will seek, but informal to
   help the CCW G legal sub-group develop the scoping document for external advice.
•   Jones Day response available from the CCWG mail archive  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/001091.html
•   CWG legal scoping document:
• Type of counsel and type of legal expertise to respond to the types of questions arising from the CWG proposal.
•  Tight timeline - develop scoping document/questions by the end of February, and it is hoped the CCWG will be able to use the same firm as CWG, also end February. With 
   expectation for response by the end of March, at the latest. 

• Noted that there was no disagreement to engaging with the same firm for external legal advice as CWG. 

•  ICANN is committed to support the CCWG and will support outside expert legal advice. The engagement should be managed in a cost efficient way. 

4 Update WP1 - Jordan Carter

• Scope powers and mechanisms
•  Powers: the things the community should be able to do. 
•  Mechanisms: ways to exercise those powers 

5. Update WP2 - Becky Burr 

• Standard for review, redress and empowerment
  
  1.  An articulation of ICANN's mission that is actionable
  2.  Present and consider ICANN core values 
  3.  Mandates:  nondiscriminatory treatment, transparency, operational excellence, fiscal responsibility, avoid capture
•  To develop a clearly articulated standard against which ICANN's behavior can be evaluated.  And the start of a roadmap to the bylaws changes that may be needed. 
•  Suggested that the review and redress group would look at existing mechanisms and the empowerment group to look at new mechanisms.
•  Frankfurt Mindmap: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requirements_Jan22.pdf 

6. Update WP Stress tests 

• Rolled up the inventory of stress tests to a consolidated group to be applied to mechanisms proposed.   
•  This exercise will be undertaken for all 25 stress tests. 
•  examples:

The consequences of canceling the AoC, including the conduct of community reviews: 

community mechanisms to challenge to a board decision

bring the AoC into the bylaws

board attempt to remove the AoC from the bylaws: community veto of bylaws change

Directly related to the transition

• Financial Crisis or Insolvency
•  Domain industry financial crisis, reduced revenues, threaten ICANN's ability to operate.  Not directly related to the transition.  Board and management could make dramatic 
   cuts, but the community has no opportunity to comment and react.
•  A reserve fund could be used for some period of time.

 Community veto, community challenge to Board's decision.   Some helpful existing and proposed mechanisms.  But they do not go far enough.

Action Items

1. Work Party 1 and Work Party 2 rapporteurs to work on a proposal, in coordination with the WPs, on potential consolidation of streams or clarifications of work.
2. Legal sub-group to follow-up with legal counsel (JD) on there.
3. The Board Governance Committee is interested to know from CCWG if it is considering significant changes to the IRP and use of the panel, and it worth continuing down the path of creating a permanent panel. 

Documents Presented

• CWG-Singapore Discussion Document
• Letter to CWG stewardship
• Legal Advice
• WP1 - Scope Measures Mechanisms
• WP 2 - CCWG Standards
• ST-WP - Applying Stress Tests

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (2/9/2015 16:31) Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.  Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (16:46) Welcome everyone to this working session !

  Brenda Brewer: (16:49) No remote audio participants at this time.

  Alice Jansen: (16:59) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accountability+--+28+January

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:01) Hello ALl,

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (17:02) hey @bruce

  Beran Gillen -ALAC: (17:02) hello Bruce  et al

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:02) I am happy to act as a Board liaison with the finance team for both the CCWG and CWG with respect to getting budget information.    Steve Crocker and I met with Xavier Calvez on Saturday to discuss this requirement and we hope to have some information available by the end of hte week,

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (17:02) excellent news

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (17:03) @CLO +1

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:04) If anyhone has more detailed on what they are looking for - I will convey that to Xavier - I also have an udnerstanding of how the fiancne system is set up and can help set expectations on teh type of information that is easily available.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (17:04) Is this a requirement of this group (CCWG), or of the CWG, or both? Who is leading the specification of the financial info required? I would have thought it was the CWG.

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:05) I would have thought so Jodran - but they seem to be busy working on Contract Co.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (17:05) @bruce I think you should read this info / request to the meeting audio record

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:05) IN any case happy to help liaise for both groups in this area.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (17:06) I am happy they are working on robust models and I really wish that community members would stop belittling the work of models they don't support.

  Milton Mueller: (17:15) Bruce, board members conflict of interest with regard to different models is well understood by all I think.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:28) @Siva is this an old hand ?

  jcurranarin: (17:28) <QUESTION>  John Curran, ARIN.   Would it be helpful if the CCWG would identify the specific "stress test" driving each CCWG proposed mechnanism??  That might allow both the CWG, and community,  to understand the specific use case for each and confirm matching expectations...

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (17:28) Yes, old hand

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:29) @JOhn, we have this on the agenda, that's what we are doing

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:29) Item 6

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (17:30) Corrections to the transcription of my intervention: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SLAs ARE DISCUSSED IN THE CONTEXT OF ACCOUNTABILITY.  IT IS MORE OF A CONTRACT AND COMPLliance PROCESS.  AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS MUCH  BROADER THAN PERFORMANCE INDICATERS AND how PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE MET.I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SLAs, BUT THE SLAs AND COMPLiance OF SLAs DO NOT QUALIFY FOR DISCUSSION ON ACCOUNTABILITY.  THAT'S MY VIEW.

  jcurranarin: (17:31) Mathieu - So what was the answer from the CWG folks?   Did they indicate that it would be helpful?

  Keith Drazek: (17:33) For the record, the Jones Day memo is input to the CCWG, not advice.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:33) @John, I thought Your question related to CCWG, not CWG ?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:33) Will share it with them anyway

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (17:34) well noted @keith

  jcurranarin: (17:35) My question was whether the CWG would find it helpful or useful for the CCWG to specificly identifer the "stress test" behind each proposed CCWG accountability mechnanism.  

  Samantha Eisner: (17:35) It is advice, though we know it's not the advice that the CCWG is seeking from external counsel

  jcurranarin: (17:35) Knowing whether that would be useful would be informative to the CCWG in organizing and communicating its work.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (17:35) @John : I misunderstood your question, my apologies. Will engage with the CWG co chairs directly to ask. Sounds like a good idea

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:37) Also just to be cleaer - it does not represent an ICANN staff or board view.   It is advice from the external law firm that routinely provides advice to ICANN.   It has not been discussed with the Board and I saw it for the first time on the CCWG mailing list and forwarded to the Baord,

  Keith Drazek: (17:37) Thanks Bruce. Good to know.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (17:37) thanks for helping us understand that @bruce

  Milton Mueller: (17:39) Jones Day is an "external law firm that routinely provides advice to ICANN" ;-) understatement of the day, thanks Bruce

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:40) You are welcome Milton.

  Milton Mueller: (17:40) Jones Day's Joe Sims created ICANN with Jon Postel and they've been joined at the hip with ICANN ever since

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:41) Agreed - they have indeed been instrumental in creating the current bylaws.

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:41) My understanding is that much of the original work was done pro bono

  Milton Mueller: (17:42) Yeah, they cashed in later

  Milton Mueller: (17:42) it was a good investment

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:42) It is the position of ICANN's lawyers.  That is all.

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:43) Agreed Robin.    Presumably they put their reputations behind the quality of that advice as well.

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:44) I fully support hte group being able to get advcice from a law firm that is not the law forum that created the original bylaws and has been invovled in providing advice on most changes.

  Aaron Pace: (17:44) Thanks Bruce

  Milton Mueller: (17:45) one of the interesting things about Joe Sims is that he was not a member of the Califorina  bar

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:47) is this the part where we ask the Jones Day lawyer about its advice?

  Matthew Shears: (17:47) If additional issues are raised (for example further variations on the models that require legal advice) I assume that we could run those by outside independent counsel

  David McAuley (GNSO): (17:48) +1 on using same firm

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:49) so when do we speak with the Jones Day lawyer about its position stmt?

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:49) The Jones Day lawyer that proided the advice is Kevin Espinola  (http://www.jonesday.com/kbespinola/) who is a member of the bar in California according to the Jones Day website.

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:49) I want to ask him some questions about his reply.

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:50) on the record

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) in the room: (17:51) @Steve: excellent point, they missed that completely

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:51) indeed

  Matthew Shears: (17:52) we should not start ruling out WP1 community empowerment issues without additional independent legal counsel input

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:52) can someone please answer my question about if we are going to be able to question the jones day lawyer today?

  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association): (17:53) Robin, I just spoke to that.

  Bruce Tonkin: (17:53) @robin suggest asking the chairs via a microphone.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (17:53) @Robin the floor is open for questions

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:54) I didn't hear that answer, Thomas.  Are we able to question him today in here?

  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association): (17:54) Sorry if I was not clear enough. Happy to get back to it - we will discuss the questions in Jordan's session, which is about to start in a moment

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (17:54) thanks, Thomas.

  Keith Drazek: (18:01) Glad to hear ICANN has agreed to pay for our independent legal advisors.

  David McAuley (GNSO): (18:01) +1 @Greg

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (18:01) Hey, Greg, I'm a California lawyer.  just fyi

  Avri Doria: (18:09) Robin, i though he was talking about the CWG.

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (18:11) I'm a participant on that list also and contributed to the document.  just fyi.

  Matthew Shears: (18:12) Thanks Becky - would it be possible to do a side by side so we can see where your proposals differ from actual text or provide references

  Milton Mueller: (18:14) good idea Matt

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) in the room: (18:15) @co-chairs: any chance of a 5 mins coffee break when we're about half way through? I am sure it will enhance accou -I mean enhance quality and interaction..

  Matthew Shears: (18:16) + 1 Roelof

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:16) @Roelof : we might do a consensus call on your idea ;-)

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) in the room: (18:17) Thank you!

  Keith Drazek: (18:20) +1 Jordan. WS1 must enable and secure the community's ability to effect WS2.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (18:22) yep. And in the end both WP1 and WP2 will consolidate back to the ful CCWG, and WS1 will be a unified set of proposals

  jcurranarin: (18:29) <QUESTION> (post-break)  John Curran, ARIN.   Is it possible to structure this work based on the list of stress tests?  In specific, develop a comprehensive list of stress tests and then work down that list to determine what mechanism or mechanisms would be applicable for each situation,  and therefore whether it is CWG or CCWG item and whether pre- or post- transition?

  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association): (18:41) We will discuss the stress tests a bit later

  jcurranarin: (18:42) Thomas,  Becky was presenting.   Becky was asked about the distinctions in work.    She replied "SO JORDAN AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.  THE DISTINCTION IS QUITE ARTIFICIAL AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD FALL INTO BOTH."

  jcurranarin: (18:42) My question is addressed to Becky, in response to her statement about the distinguishing the work categories.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (18:43) The stress-tests will have to be checked against existing and proposed mechanisms, whether they are being developed by WP1 or 2, and whether they are part of WS1 or 2. If they are currently in WS2 and will be necessary to solve a stress test, the will have to move into to WS1

  jcurranarin: (18:44) Jordan - that's one way to do it, but that's not the only one.    One could structure the work directly off the requirements, and consider the meeting the stress tests to the be the requirements.  

  Sabine Meyer: (18:45) I would say that developping esp. review and redress mechanisms should mostly address day-to-day occurences, not stress test scenarios.

  jcurranarin: (18:45) Given the ample confusion over the work categories, it is reasonable to ask Becky how she can tell her WG efforts from the WG-1 efforts.

  Sabine Meyer: (18:45) (Sorry for interjecting, John and Jordan.)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (18:47) No probs, Sabine. John, good points. There is no only way to organise this. I am not sure if we have collectively done enough work to get the division of work right, as I mentioned before. I personally will think about your suggestion.

  jcurranarin: (18:48) Steve just asked the equivalent...   what the requirements driving this work, and how do we know we've got what is necessary and sufficient, but no more in the name of simplicity.

  jcurranarin: (18:51) It is unfortunate that CCWG doesn't accept questions via remote participation (and rules each remote question out of scope); the underlying issue of "how to organizing the work" remains unsolved and the community in the room will seek clarity.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (18:53) The question has to be answered - only speaking for myself, I don't want to try and answer it on the fly, because I am not confident it is super easy.

  Sabine Meyer: (18:54) Interesting remark, Steve. I would have considered "standing" to be a question of community empowerment. But then I have not been following the two working parties.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:54) @John : i'll carry your question / suggestion next

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (18:59) @ Sebastian - this AoC inclusion is one of the things listed in our paper (WP 1 paper)

  Samantha Eisner: (19:00) To Sebastien's point, there may be some issues for which escalation/redress measures could be community/actor specific and could be addressed through individual agreements; but there are also some things that we seem to be looking at that are establishing a compact between ICANN and the whole of the community - we could take a look at issues as they come up through that test (individual v. collective impact)

  Matthew Shears: (19:04) + 1 Jordan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (19:07) indeed that makes perfect sense @jordan

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (19:08) I've got a question for the jones day lawyer

  Keith Drazek: (19:08) Robin are you in the room?

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (19:08) yes

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (19:08) my hand is up in AC

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (19:09) We will come to you when Bruce finishes @Robin

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (19:09) thank you.

  Robin Gross  [GNSO-NCSG]: (19:17) so it sounds like the law does provide for the members to over rule a board decision.  but that isn't what the memo stated.  the memo stated the board has total control.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (19:19) That is why is important for us to have a working session with Kevin and clarify this issues

  Matthew Shears: (19:19) I think that session should be open for those interested

  Phil Buckingham: (19:19) definately a further topic  . So the  members  can  have a majority "vote"  to override ? 

  Samantha Eisner: (19:20) @Robin, the memo identifies that membership could be a way to approve the budget and other things.  See the bottom of page 2.

  Alice Jansen 2: (19:21) ST-WP link - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work+Party

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (19:22) @Mathew, you're welcome to join if your in Singapore :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (19:22) @ Robin - I think the memo shows some strange thinking in a particular piece of detail

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (19:22) will discuss with you after

  Alice Jansen 2: (19:25) you have scroll control

  Matthew Shears: (19:29) is there a link to the doc that is on the screen? thanks

  Alice Jansen 2: (19:30) You can find it on the ST-WP's doc page at - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents

  Matthew Shears: (19:32) thanks!

  Keith Drazek: (19:33) +1 Mathieu....the question of legal risk to the organization is critical, particularly after any existing immunity and/or protection from the USG is lost.

  Alice Jansen 2: (19:36) (we are on page #4)

  Matthew Shears: (19:40) would just like to say that this is great work on the stress tests

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (19:47) it sure is eh

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (19:52) thanks everyone!

  Alice Jansen 2: (19:52) thank you for your participation!