Attendees: Tijani Ben Jemaa; Dina Beer; Becky Burr; Avri Doria; Keith Drazek; David Fares; Athina Fragkouli; Thomas Rickert; Leon Sanchez; Matthew Shears; Mathieu Weill
Apologies: Izumi Okutani
Staff: Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Marika Konings; Adam Peake
Notes & Action Items
Reminder of target date for delivery of charter: 3 November 2014
Recap of changes made to Charter since last meeting:
- Latest version includes most up to date changes (including Matthew Keith, and David today)
- Edits to fix some left over references to ICG where no longer appropriate as well as updates to reflect that more than one proposal may be submitted by the ICG as the two work streams are likely to be completed along different timelines
- SOI clarification
- Clarification about ATRT role in concensus calls
Review of charter:
- Include definition of the term "accountability" in the Charter (from NETmundial Statement): "Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well asfor review and redress should exist."
Question concerning scope:
- What is demarcation between WS1 and WS2?
- Focus on pre-transition vs. post-transition accountability as opposed to IANA vs. non-IANA?
- The reference to IANA Functions accountability is being dealt with by the other CCWG. This group should be focused on accountability reforms made necessary by NTIA's disengagement from its legacy role.
- ICANN's accountability to the community as a whole may need to be reflected in the charter - is there a conflict between currently proposed definitions of work streams & scope?
- NTIA oversight created accountability across ICANN - how to recreate that general accountability mechanism prior to any transition.
- Everything should be on the table for consideration - up to the CCWG to determine what should be done before transition and what can wait until after.
- Recommendations coming out of work stream 1 are expected to provide a path for work going on in work stream 2. Process for addressing anything coming up in work stream 2 is one of the objectives of work stream 1.
- Transition of role of US Government is at the heart of the work of the CCWG and also dictates timeline / sense of urgency - if scope is too wide it risks the effort to get lost
- See challenges identified by Larry Strickling in his speech
- Stress test one of the key deliverables of CCWG
DT Agreements;
- Delineation between work stream 1 and 2 should be pre and post transition
- Charter should not limit accountability mechanisms or functions affected as part of the CCWG work
Deliverables, timeframes & reporting
- Proposed edits from Avri (see document circulated)
- Two additions proposed: 1) when solutions are proposed, deliverables need to include stress test, scenarios to demonstrate that the solutions are resistent to capture / stress; 2) after assessing current situation, priorities need to be identified - what is required before transition and what can wait until after (big impact vs. limited impact) (Avri tried to capture these as part of her edits which will be shared with the DT shortly)
- Do stress tests need to be defined or conducted prior to transition? At least for stream 1, this should be a requirement to be conducted in theory. For work stream 2, may not be required, or at least not in the short run.
- Stress test - proposals that demonstrate on paper how they would resist 'stress' (capture, financial crisis) - incl. list of nightmare scenarios. What are the stresses that were tested and how the various mechanisms enable ICANN survive these 'stresses'.
Membership
- Include as a for example, the link to criteria identified for the community working group (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12)
Working relationship with ICG / IANA Stewardship CWG
- Consider including reference to regular meetings between chairs
- Clarify the role of the board (not related to co-ordination, but to final approval of proposals) - include link to board resolution
- Review this section and consider clarifying
- Main focus should be on IANA Stewardship Transition CWG as ICG just has a co-ordinating role
Expert Advisors
- Section captures comments provided by Mathieu
Action items:
- Mathieu to draft language to update problem statement - need to close gap in accountability (trust of stakeholders in current accountability mechanisms - not deemed sufficient, part of which needs to be addressed prior to transition, part of which can be done after. Expand in goals section what the CWG is expected to achieve. Following that, Mathieu will review other parts of the document to make sure these align (including work stream 1 and 2 descriptions)
- Staff to collate Larry Strickling's & Fadi's statements/comments from recent speeches related to this effort
- DT members to review issues collated in public comment period and phrase those into questions that can be included for each work stream - Keith volunteered to work with RySG to develop a first list of questions for DT review. Matthew volunteered to assist with this as well.
- Avri to review deliverables section and suggest additional edits based on comments received, if needed
- Update draft language in working relationship with CCWG and ICG to reflect comments received
- Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 October at 13.00 UTC
Recordings
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p84ue5dqnk7/
The audio recording is available here: conf_923067.mp3
Chat Transcript
Marika Konings:Welcome to the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Charter Drafting Team meeting of 27 October 2014
Dina Beer:Good evening
Matthew Shears (CDT):Hello
Adam Peake:Good evening.
Athina Fragkouli:Hello everyone
Matthew Shears (CDT):Yes apologies for tardiness of comments
Thomas Rickert:audio quality is still very bad for Marika
Keith Drazek:I'm not seeing it.
Athina Fragkouli:mine is black too
Dina Beer:All black
mathieu weill:black screen here as well
Avri Doria:I just wanted to fess up about not having done my homework.
Adam Peake:is it this: Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well asfor review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal andpolitical accountability for the protection of human rights
mathieu weill:thks !
Adam Peake:Drop the second sentence?
mathieu weill:Yes, 2nd sentence is not relevant
Becky Burr:i don't think we need to include the last sentence
Matthew Shears (CDT):not sure thre second sentence is relevnt in this paticular work
David Fares:Agree with Becky re the last sentence.
Athina Fragkouli:Agree with Becky too
Avri Doria:defnitely agree with Becky.
Marika Konings:@Becky - Mathieu - where would you like to see this included?
Dina Beer:2nd sentence is not relevant
mathieu weill:I'd say after ""given its historical contractual compliance... "
Keith Drazek:Is it possible to increase the font size of the projected document?
Keith Drazek:I agree with David's comment.
Keith Drazek:The reference to IANA Functions accountability is being dealt with by the other CCWG. This group should be focused on accountability reforms made necessary by NTIA's disengagement from its legacy role.
mathieu weill:screen is back
Matthew Shears (CDT):agree with Keith
Marika 2nd screen:Apologies for the technical challenges - I hope it will stay like this now but Grace is on standby to take over should it fail again
Grace Abuhamad:Thanks Marika. Works for now!
Dina Beer:Thanks, it works
mathieu weill:screen off
Grace Abuhamad:trying to fix
Keith Drazek:There may very well be some overlap between CWG-IANA and the CCWG-Accountability, but the key focus of this group should be on accountability reforms and mechanisms necessary to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the community in light of the fact NTIA is disengaging from its legacy role.
David Fares:I defer to others to confirm, but I think Athina's proposal to define ICANN's scope on IANA in Workstream 1 is not the focus of this CCWG.
Keith Drazek:Completely agree with Avri that the ICG should not be dictating anything. The community must be in charge of determining whatever accountability reforms we need from ICANN.
Matthew Shears (CDT):agree with keith: accountability reforms and mechanisms necessary to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the community in light of the fact NTIA is disengaging from its legacy role.
Keith Drazek:+1 Avri
Avri Doria:Agree that the pre/post trnasiton is a good way to look at it.
Keith Drazek:My strong feeling is that anything put in Work Stream 2 needs to have a clear process or mechanism in place for handling it post-transition. For example, if we put Accountability Topic #4 in Work Stream 2, how will that be addressed? WIll it be through ATRT3? Something else? Where is the right place for it to be addressed?
Matthew Shears (CDT):Work STream 1 - those accountability enhancements that are necessary prior to the transition and Work Stream 2 - those that are necessary but not essential to the transition
David Fares:With the addition of the definition of Accountability, can we delete the highlighted paragraph and provide further clarity when we identify the roles of the workstreams?
Keith Drazek:+1 Matthew
David Fares:Agree with Matthew.
Keith Drazek:The support in the chat was for Matthew Shears' comment.
Matthew Shears (CDT):have to remeber that we are discussing ICANN accountability not IANA functions accountability
Matthew Shears (CDT):Fadi has said that everything (accountbaility wise) is on the table - so we should not be limiting our scope
Marika Konings:@Matthew - but I guess the question is what is stream 1 and stream 2 (taking into account as well the timeline for stream 1 activities)
Keith Drazek:I believe everything concerning ICANN's accountability should be on the table for consideration by the CCWG. The drafting team should not attempt to limit or restrict the universe of accountability reforms at this stage.
Matthew Shears (CDT):agree
Keith Drazek:Perhaps we should move to the discussion of Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2.
Matthew Shears (CDT):@Marika - without prejudicing the work of the CCWG I would argue that the following is sufficient guidance: Work STream 1 - those accountability enhancements that are necessary prior to the transition and Work Stream 2 - those that are necessary but not essential to the transition
Keith Drazek:+1 David. Completely agree.
Athina Fragkouli:Agree with chair
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):@matthew are you suggesting language for the charter? I'm editing doc live (switched with Marika)
mathieu weill:I will need to refine, I'd rather not do it live
Keith Drazek:The key question: Do the Accountability reforms in Work Stream 1 allow for the handling of recommended enhancements that get placed in Work Stream 2?
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):@Mathieu, understood and noted. I'm asking @Matthew Shears about his comment in the chat
mathieu weill:sorry
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):no problem :)
Matthew Shears (CDT):@Grace - as suggested text for consideration sure
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):ok. will note as suggestion
Athina Fragkouli:I agree, this would be too broad
Keith Drazek:It's up to the community to determine what is in WS1 and what's in WS2.
Matthew Shears (CDT):+ 1 Keith
Marika Konings:@Keith - but shouldn't the charter provide some guidance to the CCWG on how this determination is made?
mathieu weill:Here is a suggested language to recap this proposal : the CCWG, especially in Work stream 2, may investigate accountaility mechanisms regarding any of the functions provided by ICANN, as long as it finds that such accountability mechanism is related to the transition of the role of the NTIA
mathieu weill:rough at this stage
Becky Burr:+1
Matthew Shears (CDT):@Mathieu - I am not sure that we should parameter work stream 2 as such - I don't think that workstream 2 is limited to NTIA role related enhancements
Keith Drazek:Perhaps we should suggest that the CCWG identify how its recommendations are related to the NTIA disengagement and transition.
mathieu weill:yes, that is what I had in mind
Becky Burr:don
Becky Burr:don't we need to collect the full basket of reforms and then decide what goes in what work stream?
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):These are the comments to which Matthew referred: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-media-institute
Matthew Shears (CDT):thanks Grace
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):Sure @Thomas. I can do that
Keith Drazek:Good suggestion. Also perhaps Fadi's comments from Los Angeles.
Matthew Shears (CDT):yes please add Fadi's comments
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):noted. will include Fadi's comments as well
Keith Drazek:Exactly, thanks Thomas.
mathieu weill:support as well
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):I'll update that now @Avri
Grace Abuhamad (Guest):@Avri -- you sent theIANA CWG charter. I'll update when you can resend newdoc
Matthew Shears (CDT):are Avri's changes available to see?
Grace Abuhamad:Not yet. Avri sent the wrong document by mistake (I think)
Avri Doria:resent. hope i got it right this time.
Matthew Shears (CDT):agree with Mathieu - Strickling has asked for: "accountability process needs to include the stress testing of solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as attempts to influence or takeover ICANN functions "
Grace Abuhamad:Ok I'll add your text as soon I receive it
Matthew Shears (CDT):Happy to also look at prposed text
Avri Doria:i can do the same thing with the NCSG accountbilty that is in formation.
Avri Doria:... accountabilty group ...
Matthew Shears (CDT):OK - thanks for clarifying
Grace Abuhamad:Here is the link: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d
Matthew Shears (CDT):The work of the ICG and CCWG on names will (I think) end once a transition proposal is agreed with NTIA
Matthew Shears (CDT):But not this WG
mathieu weill:yes but WS 2 may start its work before the end of the ICG work
mathieu weill:and the ICG may be interested about what we put under WS1 vs 2
Keith Drazek:There will be a liaison mechanism with the ICG, but the ICG is looking to the CWG-IANA to develop and submit community recommendations. If we need to have coordination, it should primarily be with the CWG-IANA, not the ICG.
Matthew Shears (CDT):agreed
mathieu weill:good point, always confussed by the various names
Keith Drazek:There's nothing wrong with having a liaison function with the ICG, but the key coordination should be between the 2 CCWGs.
Matthew Shears (CDT):agree that this WG needs to most closely coordinate with the CCWG on naming
Tijani BEN JEMAA:+++1
Matthew Shears (CDT):Marika - happy to assist on the rewording of that para as I edited it and may have contributed to its complexity
Keith Drazek:FYI, I have suggested to Fadi and Theresa that we need a new updated infographic on the various roles of the groups (ICG, CWG-IANA, CCWG-Accountability)
Keith Drazek:Yes, let's invite Brian to the next meeting.
Avri Doria:agree with Keith
Keith Drazek:They agreed to produce one, so hopefully we'll see it soon to reduce the confusion around all the groups, names, and their interrelation.
Marika Konings:@Matthew - thanks. I'll have a go at it (may still be worth separating out the two groups even if it is within the same section)
Keith Drazek:We could use, "In addition to...." instead of "over and above"
Thomas Rickert:Is everyone ok with Keith's alternative language?
Thomas Rickert:Objections?
mathieu weill:I'm ok
Keith Drazek:@Athina: NTIA and ICANN want the involvement of the 7 expert advisors so I think they will be part of the process. They have agreed that the expert advisors will have an advisory role only and will not be part of any vote or consensus call.
Athina Fragkouli:@Keith: thank you for this clarification
mathieu weill:@Athina: The rationale is also to reinforce trust in the thoroughness of the work of the CCWG on these issues, which are sometimes extremely tehnical (corporate governance, international law, etc.)
Grace Abuhamad:Also, see answer to Q10 in this letter https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-chehade-to-soac-et-al-18sep14-en.pdf
Thomas Rickert:The queue is closed after Tijani!
Marika Konings:@Avri - it currently says 'similar to other CCWG participants' - do have a suggestion for enhancing this if you think this is not explicit enough?
Matthew Shears (CDT):In the new process isn't there a Board liaison? If so we should refer to that role I think somewhe
Avri Doria:i think it should say that they are full particpants.
Matthew Shears (CDT):is that time going to conflict with other WG call?
Avri Doria:ouch!
Matthew Shears (CDT):thanks!
mathieu weill:bye !
Adam Peake:thank you
