[council] 9/25/14 ccNSO Council meeting recap

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

All,
 
The dominant issues for the ccNSO Council this morning were IANA transition, 
Internet governance and ICANN accountability.
 
On the transition, ccNSO Chair Byron Holland reported on the letter he 
co-signed with GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson noting the "unrealistic" 
deadline set for the process.  As you know, there has been much discussion 
regarding how out-of-synch is the expressed timetable for the transition in 
2015 with the loud, messy and slow strength of the bottom-up, consensus-driven 
decision-making model of the multi-stakeholder community.
 
On Internet governance, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter for the 
cross-community Working group on Internet Governance.
 
And, on ICANN accountability, a statement was adopted that aligns with the 
broader community.  I have cut-and-pasted the statement with my own highlights 
at the bottom of this email.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
ccNSO Council Submission Enhancement ICANN's Accountability Process
 
25 September 2014
 
The ccNSO Council welcomes ICANN's decision to conduct a public consultation on
the proposed “Enhancing Accountability” process and appreciates the responses to
various questions posed by the community. As we have previously stated, improved
accountability is both a means and a prerequisite for ICANN to achieve its 
2016-2020
strategic vision statement, to “enable ICANN to be trusted by all 
stakeholders.” It
goes without saying that any process intended to enhance and reinforce trust 
must
itself be trusted.
 
Over time and through experience, ICANN stakeholders have come to trust the 
crosscommunity
working group (CCWG) process. Having participated in and listened
carefully to the exchange of views between ICANN staff and the SO/AC/SGs on this
point over the past several weeks, the ccNSO Council is not persuaded that the
“community working group” proposed by ICANN improves upon or offers any benefits
or advantages over the trusted CCWG model. The main argument for creating the
“community working group” appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the
process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting 
Organization
or Advisory Committee or a “newcomer”. Serious thought needs to be given to how 
to
enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a 
way that
does not undermine the existing engagement structure. Accordingly, we call on 
the
staff and board to endorse the creation of a standard CCWG as the locus for 
bottomup,
multistakeholder development of mechanism to enhance ICANN's accountability.
 
As a standard CCWG, participating SO/AC/SGs should be charged with developing
the group's charter, including the scope of its responsibility. Consistent with 
the
NetMundial conclusions, the goal of the Enhancing Accountability process should 
be
to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that ICANN
operates in accordance with an agreed set of principles and that meaningful 
redress is
available to those who are harmed by ICANN actions or inactions in 
contravention of
those principles. The CCWG should have full authority to explore and recommend
approaches to achieve that goal.
 
The CCWG should have authority to determine the size and structure of the 
group, as
well as its working methodology. Given the importance of the work to be 
undertaken
and the need to work to deadline, the ccNSO believes that ICANN should provide
support for an independent secretariat, including a non-voting CCWG chair. It 
is also
the view of the Council that the CCWG should select the Chair, who should have
demonstrated skills and experience in chairing.
 
Ideally, the CCWG itself should be responsible for selecting, through an open
nomination process, non-voting advisors with predefined expertise 
(“Accountability
Advisors”). In the interests of time, however, we acknowledge the potential 
utility in
kicking off the selection process before the CCWG is set up. ICANN could 
usefully
identify a pool of experts, among which the CCWG could select its Advisors, as 
soon as
the CCWG is set up. The ccNSO Council also believes that the paramount concern
should be to look for independent experts with a proven track record in their 
area of
expertise. In this context we urge ICANN to reconsider its proposal not to 
compensate
the Accountability Advisors.
 
Under the circumstances, the ccNSO agrees that smaller subgroups consisting of
members identified by the SO/AC/SGs and the Accountability Advisors could be
formed within the CCWG in order to organize and deliver research and expert 
advice
needed by the CCWG, as well as interface more intensely with ICANN and its 
counsel
on accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG, or liaise with the IANA
Transition working group, etc.
 
The ccNSO has previously stated that adequate accountability mechanisms 
relative to
the IANA Stewardship Transition must be in place at the time of the IANA 
transition in
one year from now. We have also recognized that the potential recommendations 
and
mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability may be broader i.e. not limited to
accountability mechanisms related to the IANA Stewardship Transition Process 
and it
may take time to considerable time to implement all of these recommendations and
mechanisms. Accordingly, we also recommend that the CCWG and any coordinating
body should work closely with ICANN to identify those mechanisms that must be in
place for a successful IANA Stewardship Transition and to prioritize the 
implementation
of those mechanisms. In addition the CCWG and any coordinating body should also
agree on a timeline for full implementation, which may extend beyond the IANA
Stewardship Transition.
 
We understand that the ICANN Board must reach agreement on the process it will 
use
to consider and act on recommendations developed through this process. The
community has expressed a strong preference to have a clearly defined process,
including dialogue and consultation with the community before any 
recommendation is
rejected. The ccNSO Council believes that the presumption should be that 
community
recommendations will be accepted absent a compelling reason for rejection. We 
urge
the Board to develop and publish for public comment its proposed methodology for
considering and acting on accountability-related recommendations in the very 
near
term, in any case before the process has commenced fully. As a suggestion the 
Board
may look at the processes and mechanisms used to consider and act upon policy
recommendations developed through the policy development processes of the
Supporting Organizations and defined through the ICANN Bylaws