...
The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/a3tvrwrf6vgyi4rchzv3f7dxn0r9ktl0.mp3
Proposed
Agenda: Notes:
WS1 Requirements
What are the requirements that can replace the US Government?
See MindMap "WS1 Requirements"
(Discussion but no points of consensus to note -- to be contnued after the break)
Next Step after the break will be to identify sequence -- a few things that we can operationalize soon with the transition in mind.
Action Items
Documents Presented
...
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: yes, Bruce, that's a good idea. ----- (01/20/2015 02:13) -----
Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): +1 Chris
...
Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): If we transition it, it is
----- (01/20/2015 02:20) -----
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: David Johnson's "accountability contract" should be in WS1 ----- (01/20/2015 02:22) -----
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: WS1: ensure ICANN bylaws are followed (this could be achieved via IRP and RR reform) ----- (01/20/2015 02:25) -----
Matthew Shears: Once we agree some of these measures can we start to implment them - what are the procedures for doing so?
----- (01/20/2015 02:26) -----
Sivasubramanian M: The framework for review and redressal has to be expanded several fold
...
David McAuley (GNSO): Concept of “approval” might need work if I read Bruce correctly earlier – does community approval mean board cannot veto? I thought Bruce was suggesting two-pronged approval process where board had equal say.
----- (01/20/2015 02:30) -----
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: I disagree with Alan. Redress is top priority for WS1
...
Martin Boyle, Nominet: +1 James
----- (01/20/2015 02:32) -----
Bruce Tonkin: From ATRT2:
Bruce Tonkin: The ICANN Board should convene a Special Community Group, which should also include governance and dispute resolution expertise, to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to restructuring of the Independent Review Process (IRP) and the Reconsideration Process. The7Special Community Group will use the 2012 Report of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) as one basis for its discussions. All recommendations of this Special Community Group would be subject to full community participation, consultation and review, and must take into account any limitations that may be imposed by ICANN’s structure, including the degree to which the ICANN Board cannot legally cede its decision-making to, or otherwise be bound by, a third party. ----- (01/20/2015 02:34) -----
Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: three issues for WS1: 1. Reform of redress mechanisms. 2. "accountability contract" to limit scope of what Board can do. 3. ATRT reviews implemented.
...
Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Can anyone tell me when the ATRT2 report was finalised and why it's still not implemented, in a sentence? ----- (01/20/2015 02:36) -----
Keith Drazek: Election and appointment cycles are far too long to address Board accountability to the community.
...
Samantha Eisner: @Jordan - the ATRT2 report was accepted by the Board at ICANN50 in London. ICANN is instituting a project management discipline over it and implementation is underway. There will be a session in Singapore on it. There are issues of conditionality for some of the recommendations that are directly tied to this CCWGs work
----- (01/20/2015 02:38) -----
Matthew Shears: Yes Keith - not feaisble in the timeframe we are talking about but we can include those to be addressed WS2. By the time we are done this shoud be ICANN 3.0
Jonathan Zuck (IPC) 2: and there's the point that board members are not meant to represent their constituencies
----- (01/20/2015 02:39) -----
Keith Drazek: That's right Jonathan. Their fiduciary responsibility is to the corporation. That's the key issue we're working to address here. The Board needs to be more directly accountable to the community. ----- (01/20/2015 02:41) -----
Becky Burr: + 1 Bruce
Jordan Carter (.nz ccTLD): Thanks @Sam & @Fiona ----- (01/20/2015 02:43) -----
Samantha Eisner: @Keith, do you see a conflict where a board member holds a fiduciary responsibility to the organization and the ability to have mechanisms developed to allow the Board to be more directly accountable to the community?
...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC-AP Region): agree @avri ----- (01/20/2015 02:46) -----
Keith Drazek: @Samantha...there's nothing wrong with a Board member having a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation. The challenge is that the Board is only currently accountable to itself. ICANN has no members or shareholders today. I think if that changes, then there would be appropriate and necessary checks and balances. Hope that answered your question. If not let me know!
...
Matthew Shears: + 1 Keith
----- (01/20/2015 02:48) -----
Bruce Tonkin: Keith I don't think that is currently right. The baord is elected/appointed by the community. That is a farily clear accountability tie - as it is in most coutnries. Now it is harder to affect individuals decisions - so there is a need for mechansims like IRT, etc, but it is not correct to say that the Board is only accounable to itself.
...
Bruce Tonkin: The Baord can only appoint one director which is the CEO.
----- (01/20/2015 02:56) -----
Seun Ojedeji: @Bruce i guess you are saying this because nomcom is from the community right?
...
Avri Doria: James, ATRT2 rec 7 did give the Board leeway to reconsider the ATRT1 changes to the review mechansims since they were seen as being mixed in terms of usefulness. I will grant that we seem to have changes without any community reivew of possible changes. ----- (01/20/2015 02:59) -----
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): + 1 to Kavouss and Martin on IANA function issue
...