Personal comment on https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en.

[avri doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I should start with an apology.  As a member of this group I was not
very diligent, otherwise I might have been able to weave some of my
concerns into the fabric of the work.  It is my own fault that I am
making these personal comments at the last minute instead of as part of
developing the draft.

1.0
> A draft CCWG Charter Template can be found in Annex A of this
> document, which aims
> to translate these best practices into a potential starting point for
> future CCWG efforts.

It is important from the very first to indicate that any template is
just a guideline and not a mandated component of a CCWG.

- In terms of fundamental concepts, it should be possible for a
chartering organization to attach a statement to any recommendation,
even if it approves or has not-objection, on any issue that remains
noteworthy.

- Also there should be a consideration of submitting a resolution from
the CCWG even if it does not get all of the chartering organizations to
at least no-object.  If many SOAC are engaged, one should not be able to
veto.  In a  case where only 2 are participating, 1 chartering
organization (CO) objection can be enough to kill it, but should this be
the case when >2?

2.1  the initiation phase needs to include an outreach to other AC/SOs a
various points, not only as a invitation to participate, but a check to
see whether some of the issues/claims are problematic for them.  It
should be open for them to join a CCWG in formation, and even one in
progress.  Some process recommendations for how this happens might be
useful.

3.2 Too much focus on the chartering orgs and not enough on the other
SOAC.  Should a CCWG be as broad in chartering org as possible?

3.2 4  - Who are all relevant ICANN SOAC?  I think this should be
distribution to all SOAC.  Some to review for chartering, some to review
for issues and possible chartering.  This may be implicit in the
statement about including mention of SOAC not planning to join or
participate.

What happens if a non participating SOAC objects to the formation of a
CCWG with the claim that the issue is within their scope and not the
scope of a CCWG?

3.2.6 II On participants.  Is this a place to mention that many if not
most CCWG try to determine consensus based on the participants first and
only moves to member consensus when necessary.

3.2.6 iii On Observers, probably worth including that they can become
participants anytime they wish to commit themselves to the workload and
submit an SOI. 

3.2.7 Do observers need an SOI?  Why?  The reason for an SOI is to know
where someone's ideas and statements might be coming from. These folks
are muted.

3.3.2  "Decisions are to be taken only after two readings"  could be
misread.  Also sometimes more than 2 readings are necessary.  There
should be at least two readings of any decision before being it is
tentatively taken. 
Tentative because in most cases all point decisions remain open for
further consideration in relation to the completion of a a whole
recommendation.  People sometimes cling to one of these early tentative
decisions as if it were the final word, preventing later consensus
building agreements.  Also all decisions remain open for further
consideration based on public comment.

3.3.5 Speaks of getting consensus of all members.  This might be a good
place to discuss the possibility for first trying to achieve consensus
of all members and participants and only falling back to member consensu
if necessary.

3.4.1  In the case where there are >2 chartering organizations, can one
of the chartering organizations veto the entire proposal?

-----

Some possible answers to the questions in 4.0

> • 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?

If the chartering organizations approve the recommendations and there is
an implementation component, the Board should be expected to consider. 
This should be done based on the various procedures in existence for the
chartering organizations.  A CCWG proposal from the GNSO and the ALAC
should get the treatment due to GNSO recommendations and to ALAC
advice.  One of the points in a CCWG is the cumulative effect of SOAC
working together.

> • Should more formalized Operating Procedures be developed for CCWGs?

No.  There should be guidelines and descriptions of mechanisms that have
been used successfully in the past (so-called best practices).  Each
group should formalize according to the mixture of chartering
organizations and the issue being considered.

> • Should additional mechanisms be developed to deal with situations in
> which
> Chartering Organizations may disagree or want to discontinue their
> engagement?

Guidelines would be useful.  It does seem that chartering organization
can remove their support for a CCWG, and that if Chartering Orgs in a
CCWG falls below 2 SOAC, it would cease to be a CCWG.

> • 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)

Yes.  As suggested above, the chartering organizations should be able to
withdraw approval.

Some CCWG have included a review of their charters and progress yearly
by the chartering organizations.  This seems to be a good thing to
include in these guidelines.  Such reviews could provide an opportunity
for closure if necessary.

> • 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?

Implementation review/oversight teams seem something that should be
considered by every CCWG in its recommendations.  If an IRT isn't
recommended, the CO should be able to understand why they weren't.

> • As the appointment mechanism for members varies across SO/ACs, how can
> CCWG leadership and support staff be kept informed of appointments and
> changes?

Each of the chartering organization can be asked to appoint one member
as its point-person on the group.  Sometime this might be the chair they
appoint in those groups that include co-chairs appointed by the
chartering organizations.  Or it can just be one of the members.

> • Are uniform Statements of Interest, or something similar, beneficial
> to the CCWG
> process? (See section 3.2.7 above)

Yes, but as with everything else, those recommending the charter should
be able to recommend changes in the content of the SOI for the CCWG.

> • Should specific requirements be listed for the appointment of members?

Not by these guidelines, but it should be within the abilities of those
creating a CCWG charter to do so.

> • Who launches a call for volunteers/participants?

That staff of each of the chartering organizations can be requested to
do so.  Alternatively if the formation of the CCWG involves specific
staff appointments for support, they can be asked to do it in the name
of the group or of the chartering organizations.


Annex A shouldhave an introductions or footnote that indicates that it
is just a option that may be used by the drafting team as they work on
creating their charter proposal.

> [Optional] In the event the CCWG decides to create sub-working groups,
> it is strongly advised that
> individual members participate in only one sub-working group in order
> to minimize the workload for
> individual members and to facilitate scheduling meetings.

I think we should leave peoples' management of their work load to them. 
Additionally in my experience, often one needs to participate in several
subgroups dealing with related aspects of an issue.  I have also found
it to be useful in groups when there are people who cover several.  I
think this is a really bad idea.    It might be good to indicate that
this does make scheduling more difficult so multiple membership should
be judicious.

> [Optional] ... However, should there be a need for a consensus call or
> decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited to CCWG
> members appointed by the
> Chartering Organizations. A Participant commits to abide by the
> Charter of the CCWG.

Unless of course we are trying to achieve consensus of all participants
before backing down to members' consensus.

> [Optional] The CCWG may include other persons in addition to Members
> and Participants. For
> example, this could include a liaison from the ICANN Board, bringing
> the voice of the Board and Board
> experience to CCWG activities and deliberations, who is able to
> participate in the effort in the same
> manner as other Participants of the CCWG. A CCWG may also include an
> ICANN staff representative to
> provide input into the deliberations and who is able to participate in
> the effort in the same manner as
> other Participants of the CCWG.

Do we need also to include the possibility that Board members are people
too and are entitled to participate as regular participants or observers
if they wish?


Section V
> Chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. In making such a call, a
> Chair(s) should always make
> reasonable efforts to involve at a minimum all Members of the CCWG (or
> sub-working groups, if
> applicable).

Again might be worth mentioning both participants and members

- Should the External Decision Making section cover the possibility of
what to do if one of the Chartering Organizations, in cases of OC >2,
refuses to approve.

- Closure & Working Group Self-Assessment:  Could also include
possibility of CO yearly review.

---

I think the idea of a Uniform Framework gives me pause.  I wonder
whether it is possible to think of this work as a Guiding Framework.

thanks

Avri Doria



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus