Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 3 24 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT F2F Session 3 24 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9fznvjkv5y/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-3-24mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

14:00  Community Mechanisms  

        15:00  Recap and progress 

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.

14:00-16:00 EET ­ 12:00-14:00 UTC ­ Session 3

Community Mechanisms  (cont)

(graphic, overview of community powers)

1st column - look.  Rooted in the work of WP1.

Presentation and then discussion item by item and identify where there isn't consensus.  to hope guide WP1 on where more work needs to be done.

Threshold to initiative.

Diversity requirements, will receive independent advice and consider regional and gender diversity

Directed vote seems to have consensus

Only once on the same ground: if a complaint fails, how/when can the compliant be lodged again

Had also discussed mandated votes and a mandated discussion phase.

Dependent contractor: effectively an employee of the organization

Thinking behind varied voting powers?  That we would differentiate in terms of representation based on the advisory nature of the AC and the direct role of the SO.

Is there value without legal advice, the working method of the meeting is to work on the basis of what we know.  And if legal advice suggested a better mechanisms then the group would revert to that.

Relative voting power.  See no rationale for saying the AC are less blessed than the SO - comment supported by other commentors.

Correction: lower vote for SSAC as appointed by the Board, and RSAC  as representatives of the Root Server operators.  ALAC and GAC 5, the SO have vast communities behind them. 

How can these groups represent themselves in a diverse ways? Ensuring regional balance and inclusion.

Regarding spilling the board, it is at least equal to policy recommendations where its required for the SO/AC to reach consensus.

Should at least be the same for something as important to the organization. 

Removing the board, is not as important as consensus policy which affects million of users.

Directed voting.  Sense yesterday that there should be directed vote for spoiling the board.  Though argument for each SO/AC to decide for themselves.  Challenge is how to enable the split. 

Effect of directed vote can be to hid the opinions of a wide range of people within a SO/AC.

Is it the work of the CCWG's job to decide on details or the high level process.  May not sign off on the unless there is an opportunity to ensure some detail is included.

Creating accountability for the whole organization.  Opinion: when board members are appointed they are appointed with responsibilities to the whole organization, which is why directed votes are not appropriate, and why a specific organization should be created for these decisions making roles. 

This not a complete list of community powers 15 or more powers in WP1's inventory. 

This will be the basis for the next steps in WP1.   Do have concerns with directed/non directed, split votes/unanimous votes, but otherwise quite broad agreement.  Now seem to know who the groups are who constitutes the community.

WP1 task is to integrate the information they have.

Acton:  for WP1 to identify specific scenarios

Slide should provide a single page to at a glance see what community powers are available.

Recap and progress

Confidence or doubt in our shared opinions 

Stress tests have highlighted where we need to act.

The revised mission, golden bylaws, budget and strategic plan challenge, independent review process:  doed ethos architecture fit the overall expectation of the group?

Switch to strategic approach.  Linkage between diversity, participation, plurality and accountability.

This bottom-up nature of ICANN distinguishes it from other international organizations. 

Importance of the the existing community's accountability to those will join in the near future.

Concern that if strong representation can't be found within the existing communities then it is time to pause for thought, look in the mirror

If there's a group in ICANN that works on outreach, then they need to get busy.  And express what is being done in a simple way.

How to ensure WS2 mechanisms are implement once the levers the transition are passed.  Anyway to internationalize the AoC.

Anticipate stakeholders will expect mechanisms beyond WS1 recommendations, what is in WS2 and how those mechanisms will be protected and not swept under the carpet.

An intention of WP1 is to deliver mechanisms that will guarantee WS2 mechanisms.  Although this is not yet done by the group. 

Diversity important, but community accountability, is not just diversity alone.  The community council or whatever it is:  1 it must communicate to the wider community, that is transparent.  There is consultation: how did members consult and will consult back: that is community accountability.

Telling that around this area they is little popular resistance, no protest in the street.  Make sure WS2 are not sidelined (dealt with tomorrow, and then tomorrow) .

WA1 did look at WWS1 and WS2 implementation.  Where the implementation detail is known, possible to compile in a list and perhaps at transition pass to the bad to promise to implement these well described items.

Harder will be the less defined items.  They might be driven by a GNSO or ccNSO pdp.  But many are administrative that might require bylaws changes.  May need some bottom up generation of bylaws changes,

WS1 should empower the community to pursue and implement WS2 after the transition.  With difficulty in setting timelines for implementation.

Still contingent on legal advice.  Ho Govt will participate to community council,  How to contribute in the community powers.  The role of govt will need to adjust to the new world.

Positive sense from govt, though like everyone concerned about timelines.

Progress made noted by negotiators in New York.

Suggestion of interim bylaw might address WS2.  A list of mechanisms, mandate the process for the community to develop recommendations, and requires the Board to act.  Precedent to doing this (ccNSO creation etc).

Further options proposed for work stream 2,  from consideration as part of an AoC or AoC like review (although noted concern about the creation of even more working groups.

Outreach will become more active once our proposals are concrete.

END

Action Items

Acton:  for WP1 to identify specific scenarios

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  ken stubbs - afilias: (3/24/2015 06:42) is anyone speaking. i hear no audio

  Brenda Brewer: (06:45) Lunch Break until 12:00 UTC

  ken stubbs - afilias: (06:47) thx

  Alice Jansen: (07:08) The group is reconvening - apologies for delay

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (07:11) Welcome back everyone

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:17) For Relative voting power, I strongly prefer a formula of:  SO's: 5 and AC's: 2 as that allows for the diversity of interests to be reflected in the weight

  Edward Morris: (07:18) Agree with Robin. The 2/1 model is too concentrated to truly reflect bottom up preferences.

  Alice Jansen: (07:20) This is available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Overview%20of%20Community%20Powers%20v4.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1427199550334&api=v2

  Edward Morris: (07:20) I would hope that fractional votes would be allowed to account for split SO/AC's

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:22) I would think it would have to, Ed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:23) I don't think there was agreement on "directed vote"

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:23) For the record, I would suggest we also exclude CCWG members from this group

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:24) I mean CCWG accountability

  Avri Doria: (07:24) the ACs are as much a part of the fabric of ICANN as the SOs

  Edward Morris: (07:25) @Robin. Neither do I.

  Greg Shatan: (07:29) I would say that the legal advisors would want to know the desired result of the CCWG in order to provide their advice.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (07:30) Ok I'm putting it down to my sleep deprivation =)

  Avri Doria: (07:33) if anything, the SP put the bard int their seats, and if they need to be voted out, it means they did it badly.  So perhaps in that case thhe ACs should have a greater voice.

  Avri Doria: (07:34) ...not SP but SOs. put the board in, if they need to be voted out ....

  Keith Drazek: (07:34) NomCom appointees too?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:34) Since there are 3 commercial stakeholder groups in the GNSO and only 1 non-commercial stakeholder group in the GNSO, the only way the non-commercial interest will be weighted is if we can split our voting power.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:36) within our SO, that is.

  Greg Shatan: (07:38) There is only one Commercial Stakeholder Group.  I would not lump the interests and concerns of the Registries and Registrars with the non-contracted private sector constituencies: Business Users, ISPs/Connectivity Providers and Intellectual Property Interests.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:38) but they are commercial interests, just a distinct set of commercial interests

  Greg Shatan: (07:39) Within ICANN, that distinction makes all the difference.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:39) not with respect to non-commercial interests

  Chris Disspain: (07:39) Of course you wouldn't Greg....but you currently do so for policy which is the most important thing that the gNSO does for the global community so w=until you change that by re-strucuturing the gNSO how can you set this high level Board spill to a different threshild

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (07:40) A non-commercial entity that runs a regsitry is a contract party, which distinguishes them from commecial and non-commercial users and registrants

  Greg Shatan: (07:41) Chris - we don't do that for policy.  The Registrar SG and the Registry SG are cmopletely distinct from the Commercial SG.  They form the Contracted Parties House, while the CSG and NCSG form the Non-Contracted Parties House.

  Chris Disspain: (07:42) Roeolf - unanimous wouod mean all SO and AC - I'm not sying that - I'm sying each SO and AC must reach consensus to vote yes or no rather than have the option to split their vote

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:42) true, steve, which is why I'm saying we need to ensure each of these distinct interests gets weighted in the overall balance.

  Greg Shatan: (07:42) Ah - Chris now I understand your point.

  Chris Disspain: (07:42) Greg, policy that comes out of the gNSO is based on consensus within the gNSo - right?

  Chris Disspain: (07:42) good:-)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:43) Each SG and AC can have 1 vote.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (07:43) @Chris: so internal to an AC or SO, there has to be consensus, but among all AC's and SO's there hasn't? do I now understand you correctly? If so, we agree

  Greg Shatan: (07:43) Actually,  the working groups work by consensus, but the GNSO Council works by majority and supermajority vote.  So no.

  Chris Disspain: (07:43) yes Roelof

  Greg Shatan: (07:44) The GNSO council needs to approve the policy recommendation.

  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO, @IST): (07:44) Excellent, Chris

  Greg Shatan: (07:45) On a related point -- how does the ccNSO have as many votes as the Registries, Registrars, BC, ISPCPC ,IPC, NCUC and NPOC combined?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:46) It shouldn't, Greg.  Each SG should have 1.

  Greg Shatan: (07:46) Robin -- I tend to agree with you.

  Greg Shatan: (07:46) But not if ccNSO has 5.

  Edward Morris: (07:47) +1 Robin, Greg

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:47) right

  Chris Disspain: (07:47) Not clear what you mean Greg?

  Chris Disspain: (07:47) why is the ccNPOS having 5 a problem?

  Chris Disspain: (07:47) ccNSO

  Avri Doria: (07:47) i agree with the idea the each SO/AC should get 1.

  Becky Burr: (07:48) the ccNSO is not an SG.  why would ccNSO have fewer than GAC or ALAC?

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:48) Doesn't ccNSO only represent Registries?

  Greg Shatan: (07:48) Thank you Malcolm.

  Chris Disspain: (07:49) so?

  Chris Disspain: (07:49) and no

  Chris Disspain: (07:49) I represent the internet sommunity of australia

  Avri Doria: (07:49) and we should use the normal GNSO processes to see if we meet the supermajority threshold.  and if we don't, dwe do not vote yes.

  Becky Burr: (07:49) doesn't ALAC only represent at large?

  Chris Disspain: (07:49) or rather auDA does

  Rudi Daniel: (07:50) GM...ccwg..

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:50) @Chris : interesting lapse ;-)

  Avri Doria: (07:50) at the ICANN level, the unit of divisoon is ACSO, at the next level down it is variable according to the tastes of that layer.

  Chris Disspain: (07:50) 2Mathieu - after 14 years it's finally gone ot my head

  Greg Shatan: (07:51) That 's a nice sentiment (putting aside the "l'etat c'est moi" moment)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:51) how about each SG and AC and CCNSO gets 1 ??

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:51) @ChrisD interesting claim nonetheless. I had thought Internet community of Australia supported auDA being the ccTLD manager; I didn't realise you claimed to represent them in all [ICANN-related] things

  Greg Shatan: (07:51) Even if that is your mandate, that is not the mandate of every ccTLD.

  Greg Shatan: (07:52) I would posit that the ccNSO is equivalent to the Registry Stakeholder Group, and should be proportional thereto.

  Greg Shatan: (07:52) Of course, we will not solve this issue in chat.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:53) I disagree with directed vote, if it matters.

  Chris Disspain: (07:53) who does the IP constituency represent?

  Chris Disspain: (07:53) who does the NGPC reperesent?

  Chris Disspain: (07:53) sorry NCSG

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:54) Do you mean ISPCP?

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:55) I so, the charter of ISPCP is for ISPs - and is open participation by any that wish to join

  Chris Disspain: (07:56) and to whom are they accountable?

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:56) If you mean IPR constituency, I'll leave that to someone from there to answer

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:56) ISPCP does not claim to speak for all our members' customers

  Greg Shatan: (07:56) Directly, creators, owners and distributors of  intellectual property (trademarks and copyrighted materials).  Indirectly, consumers, since trademark law especially has a strong consumer protection aspect.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:56) I propose a weight as follows: 1 for each SG, GAC, ALAC, CCNSO

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (07:57) Theres no way that would fly, Robin.

  Greg Shatan: (07:58) Directly, IPC members and their members (many of the IPC members are national and international IP organizations).  Indirectly, the IP and business community.

  Greg Shatan: (07:59) I think this has come up before.... more than once.

  Greg Shatan: (07:59) Also in CWG.

  Greg Shatan: (07:59) I'm not saying I'm uncompromising.  These are starting points.

  Chris Disspain: (08:00) so IPC is accountable to thier own organisations...just like business?

  Greg Shatan: (08:00) Not sure how your question differs from the answer I already gave.

  Becky Burr: (08:01) ccTLD managers are required to serve ccTLD registrants and all of the constituencies/stakeholders described above.  FWIW, .usTLD contract available here:  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/2011/us-domain-space

  Chris Disspain: (08:01) ditto for Aus

  Matthew Shears: (08:02) are there not existng voting thresholds and powers that we can use here rather than debating it

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:02) given the number of people opposed to directed vote on the record today, let's not call it "agreed" anymore.

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (08:02) +1 Robin

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:02) Anyway, the point is that gNSO does indeed claim to speak for all stakeholders in gTLDs (other than govts) - Registries, Registrars and users of all types. ccNSO does not have equivalent representation for users of registrars or ccTLDs, they are either represented by the Registries or not at all

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (08:03) @Thomas you need to be brave and close the cue!

  Chris Disspain: (08:03) Malcolm with all due respect, that is utter rubbish

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) Chris, I agree, but probably for diametrically opposed reasons.

  Avri Doria: (08:04) i removed mysel from the queue did not know it was closed.  just mean tto argue against creting yet another surpeme group that will look for important things to do and which will need a mthod to be spilled.

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:04) If I have misunderstood, I am eager to learn why

  Greg Shatan: (08:04) The GNSO acts as a group for policy recommendation purposes.  Otherwise, the constituent groups speak separately in most cases.

  Chris Disspain: (08:04) the vast majority of registries on g land are pure commercial beings - the vast majority of ccTLD registries are not for profit representing their community of registrants

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:04) The columns are not the exhaustive list

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:04) Avri, I agree, but I understand is about the relative weight of the groups

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:05) so how does that make what I said rubbish?

  Avri Doria: (08:05) if we creat a community coucil, we will just be creating another monster that will need to be harnassed.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:05) Avri: if we don't, we are unable to ahve organisation-wide powers.

  Chris Disspain: (08:05) Malcolm you said ccNSO does not have equivalent representation for users of registrars or ccTLDs,

  Chris Disspain: (08:06) not correct

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:06) I said they are either represented through the [ccTLD] Registries or not at all.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:06) No Malcolm, that's wrong. Their policies has nothing to do at ICANN, that is why they aren't involved here

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:06) But they are not represented directly

  Chris Disspain: (08:06) ah...well then I misunderstood but even then that is not strictly correct

  Chris Disspain: (08:07) yes they are...by us

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:07) @Jordan, that just explains the difference, it doesn't deny it

  Edward Morris: (08:07) +1 Avri. Jordan, let's give the hired counsel a chance to create a structure that satisfies our needs without creating much in the way of "royalty" or bureaucracy.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:07) Jordan, we can use existing structures and assign the weighted vote to the group (without necessarily creating a representative body).

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:07) Ed: absolutely - but whatever happens we *have* to mandate cross-community discussion, if not deliberation

  Chris Disspain: (08:07) jordan +1

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:07) if not *decision*

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:08) it's the quality of the conversation that matters and the notion of cross-community consideration and perspective sharing

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:08) too bad public forums are being cut back

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:08) if we exercise these powers on auto-pilot, then that goal can't be achieved

  Edward Morris: (08:08) Agreed Jordan.

  Edward Morris: (08:09) Are we going to re-visit the sense of the room on directed voting?

  Greg Colvin: (08:10) You will need to decide how to recognize the entry and exit of community members over time.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (08:10) @Greg plese do consider this as part of the advise you will provide

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (08:11) @Greg by this I mean to ask you to include the different alternatives as to how to have members admitted or expelled

  Greg Colvin: (08:12) Of course.  Got it.

  Greg Shatan: (08:13) If the decision thresholds are worked out, the relative voting power becomes less important.  I.e., the issue is how many communities are needed to make a decision or to block a decision.

  Sabine Meyer: (08:13) Are we talking "member in a technical sense, i.e. in the way it's used in the Corporation Code or as a general term?

  Edward Morris: (08:15) Right Sabine. Clarification needed.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:16) when are we going to talk about the reform of the Reconsideration Request process?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:18) @Ed : yes ?

  Greg Colvin: (08:18) As ageneral term, not legally members under the Corps Code.  Will need to find another term: designators? stewards? constituents? Must be a label that CCWG can infuse with the desired meaning.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:19) there is a subgroup working on reforming the Recon Request process in WorkStream 1.  We need to discuss this issue.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:19) it's hard to manage the divergence between subjects of discussion in the chat, and those in the room - both miss out by running in parallel

  Sabine Meyer: (08:19) Constituents maybe?

  Sabine Meyer: (08:20) also: sorry, Jordan. Maybe we can delay this issue until the call later today.

  Greg Colvin: (08:24) Fascinating discussion.  Looking forward to working with you as independent legal counsel.  Didn't mean to divert the chat.

  Sabine Meyer: (08:24) I  diverted it, I think. Looking forward to working with you and the legal team as well!

  Keith Drazek: (08:27) New CCWG term: Multi-Sizzleholder Model

  Matthew Shears: (08:27) well said valerie

  Becky Burr: (08:27) Robin, i think we may get squeezed today on recon but i will ask co-chairs to focus on Tuesday call.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:28) ok - thanks!

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:35) For the record - spilling isn't killing

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:35) ;)

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:43) Random idea: what if we made WS2 a form of "AOC review" as per the others that are porting across, requiring the ICANN Board to progress them within 6 months as per the other reviews?

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:43) with the CCWG being the review body

  Alan Greenberg: (08:46) @Jordan, yes, I think that has merit. I will speak to that.

  Edward Morris: (08:52) I very much like that idea Chris.

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (08:52) Temp bylaw similar issue - it's bylaws based so reliable, and we can veto the deletion of it

  Matthew Shears: (08:55) + 1 Avri on AoC

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:55) +1 Avri

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (08:56) +1 Avri

  Keith Drazek: (08:57) The CCWG's outreach will move to the next level once we're prepared to share a substantive framework or detailed proposal.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (08:57) +1 Avri!

  wolfgang: (08:58) Well said, Avri

  wolfgang: (08:58) BTW, there were street demonstration during WSIS 1 in Geneva. But it was December, cold and rainy

  Alice Munyua (GAC): (08:59) +1 Avri

  David McAuley: (08:59) Agree w Sebastien - lot of other protest revolves around closed and top-down processes – TTIP for example – we are not that.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:59) I witnessed that raid, Wolfgang!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:01) This is why I am really surprised, if not, *disappointed* that significant segments of civil society are opposing the current process, batching it in the same light as top-down processes they are demonstrating about, like the TTIP

  wolfgang: (09:03) @Olivier 1+. There is such a difference between TTIP and IANA Tranistion. How many CS stakeholders are involved in TTIP? Openess, transparency, accountability???

  Matthew Shears: (09:03) None

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:04) People don't have to engage here. If they want to, the can. A nicely different situation to be in, compared with those governmental systems

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (09:05) Yes TTIP has 0 transparency, even to some senior stakeholders who would be close to the process

  wolfgang: (09:05) Woldn´t it be good if a supermajority of stakeholders could remove the TTIP negotiationg  team?

  Greg Shatan: (09:05) @Olivier, I'm not sure we can assume these segments of civil society are "significant."  However, they may be noisy.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:05) that would be an argument for multi-stakeholderism over inter-governmentalism, Matt & Wolfgang.

  Matthew Shears: (09:05) @ Robin - indeed!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (09:05) ´There's an essential difference between the two issues and still a common push back from Civil society. While TTIP is about giving more power to the US the IANA transition is all the other way around and still generates the same kind or similar criticism from some sectors in civil society

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:06) I thought the TTIP was about economic growth and trade... </ironic>

  Jordan Carter (ccNSO, member): (09:06) we have our own Pacific version, the TPPA - but totally off topic now

  James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]: (09:06) Yes but the the difference is Leon anyone can come along to IANA Steward and get involved!

  Keith Drazek: (09:06) I fully support diversity but suggest it should be accomplished via bottom-up process rather than dictating hard numbers or thresholds from the top down. For further discussion....

  Alice Jansen: (09:07) We will be back at 14:25 UTC

  Matthew Shears: (09:07) shaping the narrative out of this WG is as important as outreach now

  Greg Shatan: (09:07) +1 Keith