Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 2 24 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 2 24 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2du2mb1lgl/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-2-24mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 2

• Golden bylaws 
• Community Mechanisms 

Notes

These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Golden Bylaw

- This provision in Bylaws may not be changed under any circumstances. Discussed golden bylaw provisions that would require a very high standard for modification which has to be adopted by Board (supermajority) following certain procedures. Discussed golden bylaw for mission statement or core values using veto include lower standard to permit change in articulation of core values. Use of veto approval process coming out of community empowerment. Options envisioned include: Provision subject to legal intricacies that may not be changed; provision of bylaw may not be changed unless publication of proposal followed by detailed description of how it fits in the mission statement, followed by vote of community or vote of SO/ACs, followed by public comment period.

- Clarity and predictability needed on number of times you could propose bylaws change. 

- You cannot change bylaw without affirmation approval of community nor without precise procedural rquirements. Community has a right to veto a proposed change.

- There is agreement we do need provision in Bylaws.

- We would follow advice not to make it unchangeable but set high bars to get it changed. Flexibility is needed. 

- Threshold requires discussion.

- Get clarity on what items we think should get special protection: i.e. mission core values - is there objection to giving protection to mission and core values?

- Current bylaws contain too much substance - split operational from it. Part of bylaws could be golden.

-> Concerns regarding suggestion to condense bylaws i.e. not within remit.

- Suggestion to have different levels of golden - work on thresholds is needed.

- Limiting scope is platinum - protecting mission is priority. Protecting core acccoutability measures, protecting ability to implement WS2 work.

- Careful with painting golden - every single change of bylaw will have blocking possibility by community. We will have to come up with blocking of ordinary changes and approval process for golden bylaw changes. 

- Golden bylaw is protection against global corporate reach. The following are essential: 1) writing in stone mission; 2) writing in stone IRP. It is an absolute minimum.

- In Bylaws there should be a power to veto a Bylaw change - this power should be protected so that can only be changed with approval of community. 

- Two types of Bylaws: 1) golden Bylaw ; 2) enshrined Bylaw - affirmative agreement to a change: i..e he binding independent review process, the Board spill mechanism, the mission.

- Don't understand mission closed to interaction with ecosystem.

- TIme lag from time Bylaw approved by Board and time community can react.

- Combination of different community empowerment.

- Suggestion to incorporate: any changes cannot be implemented until community has had opportunity to veto. 

- Reference set of principles which ICANN should operate according to, identify layers of rules. 

ACTION ITEM: Go through GAC input and compare that to what is in mission value.

- Future role of IRP and extent to which one could have situation where panels decisions have a de facto impact on values and mission clauses, to what extent is work being done to mitigate that risk and eliminate it? IRP immunity issue needs to be addressed.

> 1st safeguard: decision made by IRP are published - transparency on how mission is construed - if there are defects identified this is call for rectification - Would welcome language on how to reflect specific provisions in Bylaws. 

-> It could also be baked in IRP that can go "so far" 

ACTION ITEM - To capture language on IRP immunity issue

-Mission is only golden if core values are golden too 

Conclusion:

We do want golden bylaws - mission, IRP, community power to spill Board and veto provisions incl. procedural aspect that Bylaws changes should not be implemented before Community has had a chance to veto it. 

--

Community Empowerment

Thomas Rickert walked the group through proposed comparative table: 5 community powers for which findings of day 1 need to be confirmed and a discussion to be commenced on populating other cells. Table has genesis on templates that were prepared. 

- Who gets voting: we had talked about notion of certain number of entire group - that means someone could opt-out but vote would not count as positive vote.

- Every SO/Ac has option to opt- out every time.

- If not participate, they could also provide advice. Don't see why vote could not participate 

- Discussion needed on what abstention means.

- Is there objection to testing establishment of community council? 

- Opt-out should not an option. It is too important. Abstention should not take place - all should have opinion. 

- If start with internal mechanism - spill the Board - Would be extraordinary if one SO/AC decided not to take part in process. What is the status of them not voting? Absention from GAC is neutrality. Work out how voting would occur and what associated thresholds are. Opt-out does not make any sense.

- There is consensus around issues - we are talking about moving parts. While discussion is very useful, we could make more progress and channel it into coherent options 

- Agreement opt-out should not be option.

- Critical to establish common elements before going into detail of voting mechanisms. More general principles are needed. 

- Key to this is that we should use discussion to help Jordan and Team get as much information as they can - clarity needed around consensus, directed voting. 

- Minimum number of voters is needed.

- Fractional votes (notably in GNSO) that need to be factored in.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Go through GAC input and compare that to what is in mission value.

ACTION ITEM - To capture language on IRP immunity issue

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (3/24/2015 11:47) That was a long minute

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (11:47) Welcome back

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:48) hello again

  James Bladel-GNSO: (11:48) Can we define "Golden Bylaws" before diving in?

  James Bladel-GNSO: (11:55) Thanks Becky

  Becky Burr: (11:55) did that help James?  It really is a reference to how bylaws changes can be made

  James Bladel-GNSO: (11:56) Yep, exactly what I was looking for.  Thanks.

  Becky Burr: (11:56) but we want to get pretty concrete about mission

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (11:56) Becky -- perhaps the Mission is golden but not the Core Values

  Chris LaHatte: (11:57) The term used by constitutional lawyers is that this would be entrenched, rather than a term like golden bylaws

  Matthew Shears: (11:57) interesting point Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (11:59) but we (the community) can BLOCK the board's effort to strip a community power away.

  Chris LaHatte: (12:00) Nz wins against Soth Africa (Cricket World cup)

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:00) @Steve possibly, not sure. Core values are likely to be interpretive of the Mission, so if the values are too easy to change that might effectively influence the Mission too

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:01) @Chris LaH -- thanks.  Aus to play Ind tomorrow.

Maybe an Antipodean final?

  Becky Burr: (12:02) @ Chris LaHatte - i've actually found it very hard to find a widely accepted/generally used term to describe what we are talking about.  Varies widely from context to context and country to country

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:02) The "golden" status should indeed be as narrow as possible

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:03) given the block and the rolling the board

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (12:03) Yes. Very few things should be categorized as "golden"

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:03) it may just be blocking, and mission/vision, that need to be protected

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:03) (blocking bylaw changes)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (12:03) @Jordan sorry to steal the green color from you :P

  Chris LaHatte: (12:04) In those countries without a written constitution, the term entrenched legislation is used, for those special laws, usually only changed with a super majority

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:05) "Entrenched bylaw" is probably better language - Gold is not an actual specific meaning?

  Sabine Meyer: (12:05) in the German constitution we call it the eternity clause.

  Chris LaHatte: (12:05) @Paul I think India

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:06) all good points, Paul.

  jorge cancio GAC: (12:06) I would like to just point out that the GAC input to the CCWG identifies some elements as a set of basic principles, according to which ICANN should operate...

  Becky Burr: (12:06) blocking and approval are not the same

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (12:06) But we do agree that the color is irrelevant as long as the essence is understood as having a provision making it difficult to make a change to an essential part of the bylaws in a "unilateral" or "authoritarian" manner

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:07) @Jorge: can you get on the line to draw attention on this ? With specific items ?

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:08) @PaulR, while I instinctively agree with you, entrenching the IRP clause makes it critical to get it right first time.

Entrenching would make it very difficult, not for the corporation to weaken IRP and so escape its review, but also for community to further strengthen IRP, if we found the first attempt ineffective

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:09) * should have said "not /just/ for the corporation to weaken..."

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:09) @Malcom -- fair point --  but I worry that if we leave it open for "improvement" we will see a diminution under the guise of "betterment" -- hard to solve that problem

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:10) I share your concern. Not sure how to resolve it.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:12) Tijani: I was trying to come up with an absurd example. Another better one might be: if everyone thought it would be great for ICANN to start spending money building fibre broadband networks in developing countries, even if the community thought it was good idea, it should not be able to do so.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:13) An example of a "golden bylaw process" suggestion - the proposed change has to be up for debate at two separate ICANN meetings

  Becky Burr: (12:13) I think there is a need to ensure that there is notice and comment required by bylaws, that an analysis in advance of board consideration must be published, and that no amendment can be passed on the consent calendar, etc.

  Chris Disspain: (12:13) agree Becky

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:14) at a minimum, Becky.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:14) +1

  Chris LaHatte: (12:14) +1 Becky

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:14) Thanks Jorge !

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:15) I also like having the issue on the agenda for 2 ICANN public forum mtgs.

  Chris Disspain: (12:16) My immediate reaction to the 2 ICANN meetings idea is that it is an eatraordinarily long time frame

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:16) that's the idea

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:16) only for the (very small) list of Golden bits

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:16) @Chris : even for changing the "Golden" section ?

  Chris Disspain: (12:16) no

  Chris Disspain: (12:16) I'm talking about 'normal' changes

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:16) @Chris : ok, I see

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:16) normal ones are just block-able

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (12:16) @Chris this would be aimed only to "golden" I think

  Chris Disspain: (12:17) then I agree

  Matthew Shears: (12:17) what mechanism exists for challenging whether something  ICANN does is in or out of scope of the mission - and if there is no such procedure to challenge should there be?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:17) Will note that if we had this requirement now, this would certainly not be compatible with the transition timeline (lead time impact on our recommendations)

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:17) @Mathew: IRP

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:17) (so you could have a procedural rule that bylaw changes take effect one week after being adopted by the Board, for instance, unless the community sends them back)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:17) I do not believe there currently is such a mechanism, Matt.  But I do believe we need one.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:17) Matthew - it's a core area for the IRP and.or other work Becky's team are doing

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:18) those "Core Values" proposals discussed yesterday morning would be the standard against which deviations from scope or approach were tested, by the IRP

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:18) yes, Robin. I meant we intend IRP to cover this.

it does not now, which is one of the key ways in which the current IRP is defective

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:18) yes, Malcolm.

  Matthew Shears: (12:19) @ Jordan - yes, but would those core values allow one to challenge creation/funding of future NMIs for example?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:20) do we want to include the Reconsideration Request process within the golden bylaws (as the IRP would be)??

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:20) Matthew: I am pretty sure the answer to that is "yes, it would" - but Becky's the expert

  Becky Burr: (12:20) @ Avri, interesting article on Canadian law suggesting that core values should be "reconciled" rather than "balanced."

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/sclr/article/viewFile/34956/31736

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:21) so the four goldens - Mission, IRP, board spill, bylaw changes veto

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:21) @Matthew -- I intend for the IRP to be such a mechanism

  Matthew Shears: (12:22) if the IRP is the mechanism we still may need greater specificity in the core values commitments so that it can be clearly ascertained that things are in or out of scope

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:24) that sounds right, Matthew.

  Becky Burr: (12:26) I agree Robin and Matthew, at least some of the core values should be protected

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:26) like avoiding content regulation

  Edward Morris: (12:27) I just need to note that if certain mechanisms are chosen (notably membership) voting thresholds and procedures may be dictated by statute.

  Edward Morris: (12:27) +1 Robin, Becky, Matt

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:28) True, Ed.  There is not much flexibility in the membership model.

  Keith Drazek: (12:29) Some rigidity and predictability may be a positive.

  Edward Morris: (12:29) I agree Keith.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:30) True, Keith.  But these matters will be in the bylaws, so predictability shouldn't be too much of a concern.

  David McAuley 2: (12:30) agreed Thomas

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:30) @Becky, I would appreciate advice on implications of the distinction you draw between "balanced" and "reconciled"; perhaps this is something the Expert Advisors can assist with in due course

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:31) and there are ways around most anything through classes and such. We should figure out out ideal and then get help from the lawyers to make it happen.

  Adam Peake: (12:32) the table is on the wiki, WP1 Draft Documents https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents

  Adam Peake: (12:32) note, this is draft and Jordan is making edits to reflect comments from your discussion now

  Keith Drazek: (12:34) An open question is whether the subsidiary groups within each SO/AC have a voice. In other words, would the SGs and Cs of the GNSO also have standing to vote?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:35) I think we should do it as granularly as possible, Keith.  The more "bottom-up" way.  So I would say yes.

  Keith Drazek: (12:35) ...which of course raises further questions/challenges for balance among participating groups...the next box in the chart.

  David McAuley 2: (12:36) Agreed about balance and Avri asks an important question

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:36) -1

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:36) we could take as a starting place, the existing balance of interests in the policy development process, Keith.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:36) (Do we have "-1"? For "disagree with everything Avri just said"?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:39) yes please re-phrase

  Suzanne Radell (GAC): (12:39) What happens if multiple groups "opt out"?

  David McAuley 2: (12:40) agreement on that basis places importance on initial threshold

  Keith Drazek: (12:40) What constitutes a quorum?

  James Bladel-GNSO: (12:40) And this questoin needs to be settled by us?

  Becky Burr: (12:40) it would be really helpful to test this against hypotheticals

  Matthew Shears: (12:41) + 1 James and Becky

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (12:42) German plain of Germanwings crashes in South of France

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:42) this is obviously an issue we need to explore further and can't resolve today.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (12:43) plane..

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:43) I think it is problematic to suggest that these significant decisions (e.g. to spill the board) would actually be ones that groups might have no opinion on ... is that realistic?

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:44) @Paul -- in the world of ICANN, we should expect some groups to actively abstain on issues that don't directly affect them

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:45) @STeve -- that is the point.  Decisions of this significance effect everyone

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:45) Of course, if there's a group for whome he composition of the board is irellevant, they probably shouldn't be in the population in the first place.

  David McAuley 2: (12:46) It sounds like quorum needs to be a quorum of eligible voters, not actual voters, is that right?

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:46) Absolutely. GAC members yesterday signalled it would be a significant discussion for them to have internally as to whether they would wish to be part of this decision making process at all

  Matthew Shears: (12:46) do we want opt outs on issues this important?

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:47) @Malcolm if they choose not to participate in the process then they aren't part of the process.  That seems tautological ..

  James Bladel-GNSO: (12:47) This all seems like an implementaion concern...is it truly on the critical path for our work?  Or is it sufficient to lay out broad guidelines?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:48) +1 James

  Avri Doria: (12:48) this is all assuming we have a community council

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:48) if a membership model, all of this is decided by statute.  we don't get to make many of these decisions.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:49) Board spill is not the *most* critical decision, Golden Bylaws change it

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:49) * is

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:49) so it really depends on which mechanism we are to use and then design that mechanism with these concerns

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:50) not sure the SSAC should be included in the population of statkeholders to begin with frankly

  Edward Morris: (12:50) +1 Robin

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:50) Malcom agreed but its up there on the list of important decisions.

  Matthew Shears: (12:50) + 1 Robin - what is the power we want to exercise, which model enables it then discuss how it occurs

  Avri Doria: (12:51) agree with Robin, this is all so angels on the head of pin without knowing what model we have.

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:51) @James, I didn't necessary mean that in opposition to the point you were making - but want to challenge the meme, which ChrisD is nw repeating

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:51) it seems like we are putting wheels on a car, but we don't know what car yet.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (12:51) hopefully a Ferrari

  Sabine Meyer: (12:51) or if we're getting a car at all.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:51) @Malcom understand sorry I've been awake for approaching 30 hours, my words are not as crisp as Id like!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (12:52) @Robin: I think we are trying to decide what features we want for the car : do we want a CD player, a V6 engine ?

  Avri Doria: (12:53) a ferrari on fiat wheels.

  Avri Doria: (12:54) certainly any gorup that put voting members on the board should particpate.

  wolfgang: (12:55) @ Avri: Enhance the wheels, but take care that also all the other parts of the car match the standard. And at the end it needs a good driver. To have two drivers in one car can create problems

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (12:55) getting an SO and AC to reach consensus is no easy thing

  Paul Rosenzweig: (12:56) There needs to be a minimum number of votes, if we decide not to count abstentions.  It could not be the case that 80% abstain and the remaining 20% spill the board by a vote of 15-5

  Matthew Shears: (12:56) + 1 Jordan - need to look at hypotheticals as Becky suggested

  Edward Morris: (12:57) +1 Jonathan.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:57) agree - this is too important not to think through thoroughly

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:59) @James -- I think we were at broad-brush strokes on Spill the Board back in December

  Malcolm Hutty: (12:59) +1 Robin, we shouldn't be trying to "finish" this issue in the room today. This is likely to be a focus of public comment when we get there anyway

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (12:59) I don't think anyone has suggested "finishing" any of these issues today

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (12:59) If not now, WHEN are we going to get specific about how these powers will be exercised?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:00) after we receive the legal advice will provide for the most informed discussion of the issues

  James Bladel-GNSO: (13:00) @Steve:  My point is that there will always be pro/con arguments to be talked to death regarding the different voting methods.  And numerous examples/analogs.  Can we just select one and move on?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:01) no kidding Robin. we needed the legal advice before so muich of this discussion.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:02) we are working fast, but these are complicated issues and we can't move as fast as other models.  But we do need to take the time to get it right.

  David McAuley 2: (13:02) IMO a good discussion