Submission for CCWG framework

[Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues,



My name is Mathieu Weill, I am the CEO of Afnic, registry of various TLDs
including the French ccTLD .fr. I submit this contribution based on my
personal experience as a co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability. I was
appointed a co chair of the Charter Drafting team in October 2014, and a
co-chair of the CCWG when it was launched in December 2014.



Cross community working groups are a relatively new practice within Icann,
but they are a extremely efficient tool to address issues that go beyond
the remit of a specific SO or AC, including most of the structural issues
and improvements to Icann's governance and culture. It is extremely
welcome that your group has been formed to take stock of existing practice
and propose ways to capitalize on this experience for the future.



I am in agreement with most of the report put out for public comment, and
this contribution will only provide suggestions for clarifications or
additions.



1) Clarifications and responses to the open questions :





Should there be a requirement that all CCWG recommendations must be

considered by the ICANN Board, if minimum requirements are met (similar to

the GNSO Policy Development Process?



Working with the Icann Board is a challenge for any community process. It
has not always been smooth with the CCWG-Accountability, which was
launched in the context of a specific Board resolution creating a
requirement for the Board to consider its recommendations.



 From that experience, I suggest that a requirement for the Board to
consider CCWG recommendations should be introduced, as long as the
recommendations require Board consideration (some CCWGs might discuss
issues that do not require Board approval). A bylaw provision similar to
the provision related to review teams recommendations would appear
appropriate.





Should more formalized Operating Procedures be developed for CCWGs?



A cross community working group is a very complex process. The number of
members / participants can reach numbers way beyond the usual best
practice for group management. The consensus rule is not easy to navigate,
especially if you add the complexity of Chartering Organizations decision
making rules.



Any standardized operating procedure in place when a particular CCWG
starts will help kick the project off the ground faster, avoid pointless
process challenges from within the group, spare volunteer time, and enable
supporting staff to focus more on project planning and research. As a
co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability, the benefits of pre-existing practice
from the CWG-Stewardship were already very tangible.



I strongly encourage your group to lay the groundwork for operating
guidelines (instead of enforceable "procedures") as a way for the incoming
groups to benefit from past experience.



Such guidelines would be especially useful in terms of :

- meeting management (notice of meetings, agenda setting, note taking,
follow up on actions...)

- public comment analysis

- translation

- communication tools available

- requests for support (meetings, expert advice...)



Should additional mechanisms be developed to deal with situations in which

Chartering Organizations may disagree or want to discontinue their

engagement?

Should there be a mechanism to close a CCWG if it is clear that it will
not be

possible to produce a final report or that circumstances have overtaken
the need

for a CCWG? (See Section 3.3.4 and 3.4.2 above)



CCWG are costly initiatives, both in terms of support and in terms of
volunteer time. As such, it is critical that the conditions for
discontinuing the group are identified in advance. Conditions and process
for Chartering Organizations to discontinue their engagement should be
clearly laid out and one condition to discontinue the group as a whole
should be the withdrawal of a sufficiantly high number of Chartring
Organizations.



For implementation and post-implementation of the CCWG output, what should

be the role of the CCWG? Should the Charter template be expanded to
include

these details? How would the process be initiated?



Inconsistencies between policy and implementation are a constant issue
within Icann. In the absence of any involvement of the CCWG in the
implementation phase, the hand-off (which can never be perfectly clear and
specified, no matter how hard and well the group worked) to a different
team will always create issues.



As a consequence, involvement of the CCWG in the implementation phase is
not an option, it is a requirement. And to avoid any misunderstanding or
confusion, the roles should be set out clearly in the Charter.



The CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability are currently entering
their implementation phase and lessons should be drawn from this
experience in a few months time.



Should specific requirements be listed for the appointment of members?



Appointment of members is a process that follows each Chartering
Organization rules and processes. This may create diversity issues within
the group (for example, one could end up with 100% of members being Male,
or from the Asia-Pacific region).



My suggestion would be, as a first step, to encourage each Chartering
Organization to take the diversity factor into consideration. An example
of such recommendation can be found in the CCWG-Accountability
recommendation #10 about the composition of the AoC review teams.



While some argue that skills requirements should be added for lawyers, I
would strongly argue against this. While the diversity of skills, origins,
and experience from the group Members are key to deliver proposals that
serve the global public interest, the case where group participation would
require specific skills is actually very thin. The best contributors for
the CCWG-Accountability were not necessarily lawyers. And even when
discussions went deep into legal details, non lawyers were actually
extremely useful in sending the warning signs to the group.



2) Addition points that would deserve attention in a CCWG Framework



     Definition of consensus



Achieving consensus is very challenging in an organization like Icann.
While the Full Consensus and Consensus definitions provided are adequate
and useful, it would be extremely useful for future chairs to benefit from
more "precedent" analysis in terms of calling consensus, and what
constitutes "small minority" or not.



I recommend staff to build some "case book" to support the co chairs, and
elaborate on the various tools (Online room polling, ticks and crosses,
etc.), and how relevant they are in each situation.



In addition, I recommend to better define the conditions upon which
Chartering Organizations feedback can be considered consensus. Some
precedent might be inferred in the case where a Chartering Organization
provides a "non-objection" feedback, but questions remain :

- what if a Chartering Organization objects and all others support ? Is
consensus to be achieved only in the absence of formal objection ?

- What if a Chartering Organization does not answer ?



     Experts and resources / staffing



The cost overrun of the IANA Stewarsdhip Transition related  CCWGs have
demonstrated the need for efficient cost management within CCWGs. This
area should be further investigated and developed within the framework for
future CCWGs. Although not all of them should be as resource intensive as
the IANA Stewardship Transition initiative, roles and responsabilities
should be clearly defined for requesting, approving, monitoring costs and
resources.



It is reasonable to hope that CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability will
provide ample opportunity for study and analysis on that matter.



     Board and staff interactions



The CCWG-Accountability included, per its Charter :

- a liaison from the ICANN Board, who would be an active member of the
CCWG-Accountability, bringing the voice of the Board and Board experience
to activities and deliberations.

- an ICANN Staff representative to provide input into the deliberations
and who is able to participate in this effort in the same way as other
members of the CCWG-Accountability.



The staff liaison role is particularly vague, and was particularly
ambiguous in the CCWG Accountability experience. I would recommend to
clarify that some members of the Icann staff, in consideration of their
role, function or skills, can participate to the debates, but avoid the
notion of Staff Liaison in the future, unless the Staff Liaison is a
representative of the interests of the whole staff (which could be the
case in a group that would discuss staff - community relations for
instance), instead of the interests of the corporation, which are
obviously a focus of the Board liaison.



Best regards,



--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
 <mailto:mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx> mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************





--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
 <mailto:mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx> mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************