AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

11 May 2018

CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report

ADOPTED

12Y, 0N, 0A

Hadia Elminiawi

08 May 2018

10 May 2018

14 May 2018

17 May 2018

11 May 2018

Patrick Dodson
Patrick.Dodson@icann.org

AL-ALAC-ST-0518-02-01-EN

Hide the information below, please click here 

Brief Overview

Purpose: This Public Comment seeks community input on whether there are any inconsistencies 1 between the various sets of recommendations within the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability's (CCWG-Accountability) final report from its Work Stream 2 (WS2). The CCWG-Accountability WS2 final report is a compilation of eight reports generated through individual sub-groups of the CCWG-Accountability, each of which has already been the subject of public comment. These eight reports are on the topics identified at Section 27.1. of the ICANN Bylaws 2, which defined WS2.

Current Status: At its 9 March 2018 face-to-face meeting at ICANN61 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the CCWG-Accountability completed its approval of each of the sub-group reports for inclusion within the WS2 final report.

Next Steps: The inputs from the public comment period will be analyzed by the CCWG-Accountability, which will consider amending the report in light of the relevant comments received about inconsistencies. The CCWG-Accountability will publish a report on the results of the public consultation. If there are no significant changes required, the CCWG-Accountability will forward its WS2 final report to its Chartering Organizations for endorsement and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption.

1 Because each of these sub-reports has already been the subject of public comment, and in order to complete its work in a timely manner, the CCWG-Accountability is limiting this public comment opportunity only to the identification of inconsistencies between the recommendations across the report. The CCWG-Accountability will not be in a position to re-address substantive issues and open new public comment periods on portions of the report and complete WS2 within its proposed and budgeted completion date of June 2018.

2 Section 27.1 of the Bylaws defines nine topics for inclusion within WS2. However, the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) was identified as better suited for coordination with the work on updating ICANN's Independent Review Process, as opposed to handling with WS2. By agreement with the CCWG-Accountability and the community group supporting the updates to the Independent Review Process, the CEP was removed from WS2.

Section I: Description and Explanation

The CCWG-Accountability WS2 final report is a compilation of eight reports generated through individual sub-groups of the CCWG-Accountability, each of which has already been the subject of public comment. These eight reports are on the topics identified at Section 27.1. of the ICANNBylaws, which defined WS2.

The CCWG-Accountability organized WS2 into nine independent topics which continued to require significant effort by the community over close to two years from its beginning in June 2016:

  • Diversity
  • Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board Directors (Guidelines for Good Faith).
  • Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (HR-FOI)
  • Jurisdiction
  • Ombuds (or office of the Ombuds)
  • Reviewing the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) (Merged into Independent Review Process – Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) in June 2017)
  • Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee (SO/AC) Accountability
  • Staff Accountability
  • Transparency

By ICANN61 (San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 2018) all eight WS2 sub-groups had completed a public consultation on their draft recommendations and submitted their final reports and recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability plenary which approved these.

The final reports from the eight sub-groups represent more than 100 recommendations, most of which are not anticipated to require Bylaws modifications for implementation.

In considering the final WS2 report the CCWG-Accountability WS2 agreed at its 9 March 2018 meeting that:

Prioritization and funding for implementation of recommendations is beyond the scope and capacity of WS2 and rests with ICANN (Board and Organization) and the community. The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 proposes to establish a small implementation team to assist ICANN and the community to ensure the implementation plan preserves the spirit of the recommendations and provide any interpretation advice as required.

The CCWG-Accountability understands that the implementation of its WS2 recommendations cannot proceed in a similar fashion as the implementation of its WS1 recommendations. If all recommendations are endorsed by the Chartering Organizations and then approved by the ICANN Board, implementation of the more than 100 recommendations contained in the WS2 report will be a multi-year project based on a detailed implementation plan agreed to by the ICANN org and the broader ICANN community, after public consultation on the implementation plan.

Overall, the CCWG-Accountability's WS2 represents a significant effort by the community of 272 meetings, more than 5,000 emails and 10,000 hours of volunteer meeting time, which does not include individual time for reading and writing, over a period of two years while remaining well within its original one-year cost estimates.

As such the CCWG-Accountability WS2 believes it has met all of the expectations and requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2 and delivers these recommendations to the ICANN Board and its Chartering Organizations in accordance with its Charter and the Bylaws.

Section II: Background

Beginning in December 2014, a working group of ICANN community members developed a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability to the global Internet community. The first phase of this work culminated with the CCWG-Accountability handing in its Work Stream 1 recommendations in February 2016 for approval by the Chartering Organizations and by the ICANN Board. These recommendations were approved by the ICANN Board in March 2016 and incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws effective 1 October 2016.

The Background section of the CCWG-Accountability's WS1 Final Report also defined the requirement for WS2 as follows:

Work Stream 2: Focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.

Any other consensus items that are not required to be in place within the IANAStewardship Transition timeframe can be addressed in Work Stream 2. There are mechanisms in Work Stream 1 to adequately enforce implementation of Work Stream 2 items, even if they were to encounter resistance from ICANN Management or others.

The CCWG-Accountability specified topics for consideration in WS2, and ICANN's commitment to WS2, in recommendation 12 of the WS1 Final Report and this was incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws at Section 27.1:

Section 27.1. WORK STREAM 2

(a) The Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ("CCWG-Accountability") was established pursuant to a charter dated 3 November 2014 ("CCWG-Accountability Charter"). The CCWG-Accountability Charter was subsequently adopted by the GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO and SSAC ("CCWG Chartering Organizations"). The CCWG-Accountability Charter as in effect on 3 November 2014 shall remain in effect throughout Work Stream 2 (as defined therein).

(b) The CCWG-Accountability recommended in its Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the Board, dated 23 February 2016 ("CCWG-Accountability Final Report") that the below matters be reviewed and developed following the adoption date of these Bylaws ("Work Stream 2 Matters"), in each case, to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report:

(i) Improvements to ICANN's standards for diversity at all levels;

(ii) ICANN staff accountability;

(iii) Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee accountability, including but not limited to improved processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture;

(iv) Improvements to ICANN's transparency, focusing on enhancements to ICANN's existing Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), transparency of ICANN's interactions with governments, improvements to ICANN's whistleblower policy and transparency of Board deliberations;

(v) Developing and clarifying the Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) (as defined in Section 27.2);

(vi) Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability;

(vii) Considering enhancements to the Ombudsman's role and function;

(viii) Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual Directors; and

(ix) Reviewing the CEP (as set forth in Section 4.3). 3

3 Section 27.1 of the Bylaws presents 9 topics for consideration however the CCWG-Accountability and the IRP-IOT agreed in June 2017 that the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) topic would be best handled by the IRP-IOT and as such was merged with the IRP-IOT leaving only 8 topics for WS2 to address.

Section III: Relevant Resources



Section IV: Additional Information

CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 wiki - https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA

Section V: Reports


FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability WS2) final report for public comments.

The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. 

The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason  ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.




FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.

Revised draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi at 8:25 pm 5-10-2018

The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein

The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. 

The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason  ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.

Revised Draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi following 09 May 2018 Consolidated Policy WG meeting

The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein

The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27 under the background section, Annex 4.1 of the final report put forward for comments.

The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason  ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.

Original Draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi

The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein

The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addressing the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the commitment or assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to insure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27.  



22 Comments

  1. Hadia Elminiawi

    The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein

    The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27.   

  2. Sebastien Bachollet

    Thanks for that. I think we need to add that we (At-Large/ALAC) are ready/interested/available... to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the ccwg-accountability.

  3. Alan Greenberg

    As we all know, ICANN processes and procedures are continually growing and even the simplest things take a long time and require significant ICANN Org resources and volunteer time. These recommendations have the potential to making the situation even worse. Therefore I suggest adding:

    The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. The ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN take an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations.

    1. Sebastien Bachollet

      I support this proposal if it is done in concertation with the implementation team.

      1. Alan Greenberg

        Yes. Note that in the last sentence I said "ICANN" without modification implying both ICANN Org and the community, and the latter will do this via the Implementation Review Team (and perhaps via public comment).

  4. Hadia Elminiawi

    Hi all,

    I have incorporated Sebastien and Alan's comments. There was a comment made yesterday by Yrjö Lansipuro, where he referred  to section  8.2.1. suggesting to change the word's  "political activities" to "contacts with governments", I can see why Yrjö is asking this, but the question is how can we change the words used if what is actually meant is "political activities" and not only "contacts with government," as an example if the political activity is lobbying, not all lobbying is "contacts with governments." Please tell what you think

    Yesterday I mentioned that under the section " Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board Directors" it was stated in the introduction on page 10 that "The EC, through the Delusional Participants has the right to appoint and remove individual Decisions" and I asked why is the word appoint put (By the way in the original subgroup final report it does not exist) Alan replied that it is just setting the scene, however I would like to comment that it is setting the wrong scene. Anyway I do see that the following sentence is clear. Please try to post today any other comments that you might have. Thanks   


  5. Sebastien Bachollet

    I don't see differences between the 2 versions. Maybe not the one you wanted to put as final?

    1. Hadia Elminiawi

      Sebastien kindly put your suggestion 

      1. Alan Greenberg

        Hadia, I believe that there was consensus that the reference to Jurisdiction be removed. Although it may not be clear why the reference to an out of scope issue was there, as Tatiana explained, there was a VERY good reason for doing so, and I do not believe that the ALAC wants to advocate for its removal.

        I would suggest that

        We would also recommend removing recommendation 4.3 under the Jurisdiction section as the Jurisdiction subgroup mentions that the discussions and concerns referred to under this section are beyond the mandate of the CCWG. Therefore, we see no need to incorporate it in the final report, this being said it remains listed in the original final report of the subgroup on page 27 under the background section, Annex 4.1 of the final report put forward for comments.

        be removed. I for one could not support this statement if we are advocating something that will break the consensus on the report.


        1. Hadia Elminiawi

          I don't mind removing it, however what tatiana said was " “it's a compromise. And as I said, I don't mind if ALAC puts this as a comment! Although it might look insensitive but it makes the point again: the discussions about ICANN's imperialism, jurisdiciton and relocation are outside of the group remit so why are they in the report.” 

          As I said above I am fine with removing it although it was never part of the recommendations of the jurisdiction subgroup final report. That is there was no consensus within the group to put it. Moreover, thought there is no inconsistency between it and any other recommendation in the report, It is inconsistent with the final report itself because it is out of its scope, any way I am happy to remove it 

          1. Alan Greenberg

            The point is that some participants in the group REALLY wanted it there and it is likely that if removed, there would be objection by at least one AC. So I do not think that the ALAC wants to advocate that.


            1. Hadia Elminiawi

              Alan I removed it, You can find it below as a comment as I am not able to save my edits to the Draft area while working from my PC at home, I can only put comments.

              I ask you please to post it in the section of the final draft version to be voted on. Thank you 

    2. Alan Greenberg

      Sebastien, that is because Hadia revised her original draft without noting that she had done so.  I have added back the original version so it is clear what happened.

      1. Hadia Elminiawi

        I left my original comment to reflect the original

  6. Hadia Elminiawi

    yes true Alan, I left the comment to reflect the original - 

    1. Alan Greenberg

      Yes, the original draft version was still in your comment, but it was not clear looking at the "FIRST DRAFT" box what had happened. Not your fault as the instructions were not clear, and this is not the first time it has happened. The instructions will be changed to make it clear what should be done.

  7. Hadia Elminiawi

    I don't mind removing it, however what tatiana said was " “it's a compromise. And as I said, I don't mind if ALAC puts this as a comment! Although it might look insensitive but it makes the point again: the discussions about ICANN's imperialism, jurisdiciton and relocation are outside of the group remit so why are they in the report.”   

  8. Hadia Elminiawi

    Revised draft posted by Hadia Elminiawi at 8:25 pm 5-10-2018

    The At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC) of the ICANN takes this opportunity to thank ICANN for putting forward the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) final report for public comments and is pleased to provide its comments with regard to the possible inconsistencies between the recommendations of the eight-subgroup reports incorporated in the final presented report herein

    The ALAC finds that the final report is in general consistent and addresses the requirements of section 27.1 of the ICANN Bylaws on WS2. However, we would like to note that the assurance of full consistency between all of the recommendations - which are noted in the report to be more than 100 - would depend primarily on the interpretation of the recommendations and the implementation plan. Therefore, we recommend paying close attention to the matter when developing the implementation plan and dedicating enough time to ensure that inconsistencies do not result due to misinterpretation of the recommendations. 

    The recommendations formulated in the various sections of this report all have merit in advancing ICANN's transparency and accountability. However, taken together, they may amount to a daunting burden on ICANN Org and its volunteer community. For this reason  ALAC recommends that as the recommendations are implemented, ICANN takes an approach to minimize the impact and work associated with following these recommendations. Finally, we would like to allude that ALAC is ready to support an implementation team composed of the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the CCWG accountability.

    1. Alan Greenberg

      Thanks. I have inserted this third draft in the sequence of drafts and updates the "Final Draft".

      New instructions will be inserted into the policy template to make it clearer what needs to be done to handle situations like this in the future.

      1. Hadia Elminiawi

        Thank you Alan for inserting it, Yes for sure I need those instructions  (smile) 

  9. Sebastien Bachollet

    Thanks Hadia for taking care of this comments and Alan for both your inputs and taking care of the edition of this page. It is easier to understand.

  10. Maureen Hilyard

    A great joint effort and discussion between Hadia, Alan and Sebastian. 

    Each subsequent draft looks tidier in this current format too. It was one of those occasions that required the separate spaces.