IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, New CCWG Proposal, New Timeline

New CCWG-Accountability Timeline
Above: New CCWG-Accountability Timeline

There will be a 3rd draft Report from the Cross Community Working Group on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability" (CCWG-Accountability) which will likely (hopefully) be the "Final draft Report" concluding a tortuous process for CCWG members, participants, and even observers! At this point, the IANA Transition process is waiting for the CCWG to conclude its work, e.g., the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) cannot conclude its work due to CWG-Stewardship (names community) dependency on the outcome of the CCWG-Accountability's work [UPDATE: see ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability | IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)]. Based on the timeline above, the ICANN Board may be able to deliver to NTIA the IANA transition proposal by late January, or early February, 2016. NTIA would then need to review and approve the proposal, and necessary implementation to occur, in order to avoid having to extend the current NTIA-ICANN IANA functions contract beyond its current expiration date of September 30, 2016. See further below:
  • Summary of CCWG key decisions and agreed-upon next steps;
  • Popular posts on Domain Mondo related to CCWG-Accountability; 
  • Domain Mondo's Favorite Quotes from the CCWG-Accountability process.

Video above: CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs' statement read by Co-Chair Leon Sanchez at ICANN 54's Public Forum, October 22, 2015, Dublin, Ireland.

Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Co-Chairs' Statement, Oct 22, 2015, at ICANN54: A summary of key decisions and agreed-upon next steps:

Sole Designator as Reference for Enforcement
The group reached broad agreement to move forward with the Sole Designator as the new reference enforcement model [instead of the 2nd draft  proposal's Single Member Model] for the next draft proposal. The group will next attempt to finalize "patching" the model to alleviate any outstanding concerns on their next draft proposal.

Decision-Making Model
The group begun defining a consensus based decision-making model, which includes a community consultation period. Discussions on the topic were informed by concerns raised in the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Report [which proposed Single Member Model] about unintended concentrations of power.

Independent Review Process (IRP)
The group confirmed support for the proposed IRP enhancements, and is now moving into the implementation phase. To spearhead this phase, a drafting sub-group with expert support will be constructed to develop and draft bylaws and detailed operating procedures.

Community Power: Review/Reject Budget and Operating Plan
The group has identified a balanced process and approach for the One-Year Operating Plan and Budget, which was an outstanding item coming into Dublin.

Community Power: Recall Individual Board Directors
The group confirmed a decision method for removal of a director appointed by the Nominating Committee, and a separate decision method for removal of a director appointed by an Advisory Committee orSupporting Organization.

Mission and Core Values
The group confirmed its support for a clarification of the Mission Statement and articulation of the Commitments and Core Values. An example of a clarification includes ICANN's ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to reasonable checks and balances.

Human Rights
The group reached consensus to include a general human rights commitment into the Bylaws. However, further work is needed on language and has been tasked to the Human Rights Working Party.

Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws
The group finalized outstanding details of the incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Review into the bylaws. There is high confidence that these bylaws are nearly ready for consideration in terms of implementation.

Work Stream 2
The group adopted a focused list of Work Stream 2 items, with an emphasis on transparency requirements. There was also broad agreement to bring some of these transparency requirements into Work Stream 1 in consideration of the discussions around the Sole Designator enforcement model.

Timeline and Next Steps [see graphic at top of this page]
The CCWG-Accountability has had intensive discussions on the group's work plan, anticipated progress and next steps towards finalization... The current timeline proposes posting a high-level overview of recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal for a 35-day public comment on 15 November 2015. Alongside the 35-day public comment, the CCWG-Accountability will submit these resources to the Chartering Organizations for initial feedback. The CCWG-Accountability plans to issue a full detailed report, including annexes and in-depth documentation, mid-way into the public comment period for roughly 20 days of consultation. After synthesis of the comments received, and assuming no major changes, the group currently projects submission of Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the ICANN Board in late January 2016. (source: ICANN)

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert*; Leon Sanchez

Popular posts on Domain Mondo related to CCWG-Accountability:
Domain Mondo's Favorite Quotes from CCWG-Accountability members, participants, lawyers--sourced from public comments, public mail lists, public tweets, public transcripts, and quoted in Domain Mondo's posts listed above--in no particular order: 
  • "Finished reading 89 comments [to 2nd draft Report]. Mind blown. Some interesting, few fun. Thks to my fan @DomainMondo for shooting our report ;-)" - Mathieu Weill 
  • “... Having been a member or observer of many of these entities [ICANN stakeholder groups] I have found that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong personalities in a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when needed. They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed to in the charters, though some do, not all of them. And for the most part, though they are supposed to [be] transparent, most aren't. So what I fear is that they are accountable to none except the few strong personalities..." - Avri Doria
  • "... I agree that we have not explored the accountability of stakeholder entities ... it could be seen as a fundamental flaw in our entire plan…”- Greg Shatan
  • "Sole Member given reserved power under Bylaws to override Board decision directly, regardless of Board fiduciary duties." - Legal counsel for CCWG-Accountability
  • "Board members ... do not breach fiduciary duties in implementing a decision a [Single Member Model] member has made. This could be a rabbit hole ..." - Jordan Carter
  • "If we have the power to spill the board with relative ease, we can easily reconvene, flesh out the member model, submit it to the Board and spill them if they aren’t constructive. We don’t need to worry about deadlines, the Congress, NTIA, etc. the whole point of WS1 is to ensure the capability to do just this." - Jonathan Zuck 
  • Thomas Rickert: "Fadi … take the slide and send it to the list…" 
  • Fadi Chehade: "I'm not on the list … I'm not going to be steamrolled…" 
  • Kavouss Arasteh: "... some people were emotional today. We should respect the colleagues with full respect. We should not attack the people…”
  • "At the moment no one in their right mind would approve our second draft proposal because of the feedback that it has." - Jordan Carter
  • "... We decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model [Single Member Model in 2nd draft Report]" - Alan Greenberg


Domain Mondo archive