December 2014 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [ccTLDcommunity] Alternative proposal to the CWG transition plan
by Jordan Carter Jan. 22, 2015

Jan. 22, 2015

hi Chris, Thanks for sharing these thoughts. To me the critical difference between your proposal and that of the CWG is that yours basically locates responsibility for stewardship of the IANA functions inside ICANN, the operator. The CWG proposal (which we support) keeps them outside the operator and under the control of the global multistakeholder community. Could you tease out the logic behind your position for me / us all? I can see advantages in principle and practice in keeping these roles separate (as they are today). I can only see a couple of practical benefits from wrapping everything into ICANN, but practical difficulties and principled objections as well. Thanks, Jordan On 19 December 2014 at 03:58, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > All, > > Over the next couple of days auDA will be finalising its comments on the > CWG proposal. As part of those we will be putting forward an alternative > proposal. That proposal is below and also attached as a word document. I > would welcome and very much appreciate input and feedback from ccTLD > colleagues on our draft alternative. Like the CWG one, there is more work > to do on it and detail to be filled in but I think it stands as a viable > way forward that might, as a whole, be more palatable to some ccTLDs than > the CWG proposal. Of course I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, once > or twice. > > > IMPORTANT - As you know, I'm on the ICANN Board. The below proposal and > the comments auDA will make on the CWG proposal come from auDA. The > proposal has nothing to do with the ICANN Board and has not been discussed > with the ICANN Board. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > .au Domain Administration Ltd > T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au > auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > > > > auDA's Alternative Proposal to CWG Transition Plan > > Assumptions: > > 1. In a limited number of circumstances (such as 'gross incompetence' or > 'material breach') there should be an option for the IANA function to be > transferred from ICANN to another operator - The Nuclear Option. > > 2. There should be an enhancing of the current functional separation of > the IANA function from the rest of ICANN - Functional Separation. > > 3. There should be a TLD registry operator centric standing committee to > liaise with and oversee the IANA functions operator on administrative and > service level functions - The Customer Standing Committee. > > 4. There should be an independent, binding arbitration mechanism to handle > certain disputes - Appeals. > > 5. There should be a separate review body to review any ccTLD revocation > and delegation (formally referred to as re-delegation) - The ccTLD Review > Body > > Note - there is a further assumption that the ICANN Accountability working > group will deal with ICANN wide accountability recommendations (for example > a Board spill mechanism) and that such matters are best dealt with there. > It is clear that any fully formed transition proposal from the CWG has to > be inextricably linked to the work of that Accountability WG and therefore > the timing of the work of the groups needs to become aligned. > > > Proposal: > > 1. The Nuclear Option - Where the IANA functions operator is grossly > negligent or incompetent or in material breach of its obligations under > agreed service level commitments or performance indicators, it needs to be > possible for the IANA function to be moved to a new operator. > > This could be achieved by the creation of a 'Golden Bylaw', similar to the > corporate concept of a golden share ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share) The Golden Bylaw would give > the TLD registry operators the right, in certain circumstances, to require > ICANN to put the IANA function out to re-bid. The Golden Bylaw would set > out at least: > > a) the requirements to trigger the re-bid process - FOR EXAMPLE a vote of > over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators > > b) what would need to happen to trigger the TLD registry operator's vote - > FOR EXAMPLE a petition by more than 15% of TLD registry operators > > c) the composition of a Re-Bid Committee that would oversee the vote and > the subsequent re-bid and decide who the successful bidder was. The Re-Bid > Committee could, FOR EXAMPLE, comprise of 20 registry operators (split > between ccTLDs and gTLDS) plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, > SSAC and RSSAC > > d) the basis upon which the Golden Bylaw itself could be changed - FOR > EXAMPLE only by a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of > gTLD registry operators > > e) the other aspects of this proposal set out below. > > 2. Functional Separation - The current levels of functional separation of > the IANA function from the rest of ICANN can be enhanced as part of the > transition in a number of ways including: > > a) the IANA department having its own discrete budget > > b) the IANA department having its own legal advisors and independent legal > advice. > > 3. Customer Standing Committee - This committee would provide the > day-to-day liaison between the IANA functions operator and the TLD registry > operators. It could be made up of an equal number of ccTLD and gTLD > registry operators plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC > and RSSAC. It would perform, at least, the following tasks: > > a) work with the IANA functions operator to agree service levels and > performance indicators > > b) review and re-negotiate the service levels and performance indicators > at agreed intervals > > c) receive reports on and monitor the IANA functions operator's > performance with respect to the service levels and the performance > indicators > > d) conduct a regular IANA functions operator budget review. > > 4. Appeals - To deal with disputes that arise in respect to matters > covered by 3 above there should be a binding arbitration mechanism > utilising the services of an independent arbitration organisation. > > 5. The ccTLD Review Body - The ccTLD community needs to work to come to > consensus on the review body contemplated by the Framework of > Interpretation WG. Whilst it may not be essential that this work is done by > the time of the transition, it is essential that the appeals mechanism set > out in 4 above is clearly understood to not be that ccTLD Review Body. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*

6 6

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 4, 2015

Jan. 4, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 Steve DelBianco WA3 Avri Doria WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

15 17

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by David W. Maher Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

re: Work Area 1 Dear Tijani: I'm afraid I do not understand your questions and comments regarding the 22 December draft of the Accountability Inventory. Perhaps you could make some redline revisions so that we could see what is intended. Thank you. David David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:18 AM To: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: 'Brenda Brewer' <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the last call. It was out of my control. I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe recording. · There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to those 2 work areas on the wiki. o Why the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended? o Why WA 3 and 4 didn’t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2? I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through interfaces. Work Area 1: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the following remarks: · Advisory Mechanism: o SSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? o RSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? · Contractual requirements: o Registry & registrar agreements: I believe that the registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the column “to whom”) · I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? Work Area 2: · While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. All other human rights that are not related to content can be included in the public interest in my PoV. That’s why I don’t agree on replacing “in the public interest” by for protection and advance of human rights and Internet Freedoms”. · The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work should remain internal. · Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law? · I don’t know who is transparency International, and if they are so exceptional in auditing, why they don’t do so for the other ICANN components such as the Board? Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 leaders for the wonderful work they did. See you today on the call -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : mercredi 24 décembre 2014 12:55 À : Accountability Cross Community Cc : Brenda Brewer Objet : [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw. The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION: contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI * ACTION - WA1: DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion * ACTION - WA2: Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 * ACTION - WA2: Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. * ACTION - WA4: Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page * ACTION - WA4: All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. * ACTION: Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline The next call is on Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best, Grace ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays. Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes: CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1. These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold) David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties. Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions. In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it. Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes. Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.” Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found by the community" Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2. Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2 Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Look forward to discussing on our next call. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

13 21

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

Hello Paul, >> "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent? From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is: 'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)." Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as: "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another. While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level. I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws. Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions. I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission. >From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

[CCWG-Accountability] (no subject)
by Robert Heywood Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

please remove me from the mailing list

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 30 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

Dear all, The notes, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #4) call on 30 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414982 The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION -- WA1: David/WA1 to include Tijani's comments * ACTION -- WA2: Avri to send ATRT items to WS2 * COMPLETE: Staff to verify that Avri is added to WA2 mailing list * COMPLETE: Staff to assist with making sure documents are posted in a way that is more easily accessible * ACTION: Recap of definitions of WS1/WS2 for mailing list and discussion next week. * ACTION: "committed to" definifition. Staff to identify a list of options for "committed to" and share on the list * ACTION: Staff to take on Athina's suggestion to clarify the process and the time needed for changes to accountability mechanisms (such as the Bylaws). * ACTION: Chairs to work with Bruce Tonkin regarding Singapore * ACTION: Co-chairs will confirm with ICG that there is a shared understanding. * ACTION -- WA4: provide initial list before next meeting * ACTION: to circulate with the notes potential outcomes for the Frankfurt meeting for comments and preparation of the meeting. The next call is on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 12:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best, Brenda

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by DAVID JOHNSON Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke inconsistent terms in current contracts. drj

4 6

[CCWG-Accountability] FW: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Carl Schonander Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

Steve et all: First, of course like others I need to thank Steve for compiling this chart. So thanks! I know this is a lot of work. I agree with the divisions into WS1 and WS2. I also tend to agree with Paul that we ought to be able (and should) to reduce the number of items on this chart, but this is probably not the time to do that. To me, the critical thing to be able to do is to be able to recall one or more Board members, review every decision, and approve the budget. It seems to me that the definition of the "community" (the ultimate oversight authority) is probably fine, but I wonder how this "community" will arrive at decisions. Again, something not to be decided at this time. There seems to be a choice ("alt.") between the community's ability to review every decision or refer decisions to an independent review panel. If we do have to make a choice, even though SIIA suggested the independent review panel option, SIIA can go with the community review if that is what most members of the BC prefer. With respect to changing the standard for affirmation reviews, SIIA strongly opposes changing the standard from "in the public interest." The public interest is broader than human rights and Internet freedoms. The public interest includes, for instance, the framework needed to make the Internet a commercially viable platform for all legitimate businesses - that is not really a human right or Internet Freedom. I notice the SIIA proposal to severely limit the ICANN's ability to deny a disclosure request has not been placed in WS1 or WS2. Maybe that is because there are a lot of good transparency proposals in the chart. If people feel this proposal is redundant, it can go. Thanks again. I wish everybody Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! Carl PS: Steve if this mail needs to go to others - please feel free to forward. ________________________________________ From: Carl Schonander Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:33 PM To: CSchonander(a)gmail.com Subject: Fwd: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Cc: "ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>> Subject: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 To: members of CCWG and Work Area 2, After our last call on 16-Dec, the chairs tasked the entire CCWG with this action: 3. ACTION review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list. With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. The chairs also recommended next steps for our Work Area 2, after our inventory is complete. (see bottom of this email) As rapporteur for Work Area 2, I reviewed emails since 16-Dec (see email archives<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/2014-December/date.html> for Work Area 2 and for entire CCWG<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/…>). Most of the correspondence was about Public Interest and International Law, but I found notes relevant to Work Area 2 from Kavouss Arasteh, Alain Bidron, Google, Paul Rosenzweig, and Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez. For your review, I attach an updated drafted with these changes: - added a footnote to page 1 citing how Member oversight is enabled by California Law and by ICANN Articles of incorporation, and noted that ICANN’s present bylaws would have to be changed to recognize Members. - I did not delete any items at this point, but for items where opposition has been noted, you will see under the Support column, [opposition noted] - Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the rationale for work stream designations. These appear in the headers of the table and are shown below: Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these Bylaws changes. 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the change. [I folded the Transparency items into this category] Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s call. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 12/18/14, 3:10 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: B. WA 2 With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following: * Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory). * Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter. Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations. As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations: Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to: * What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause? * What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? * What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after. * If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to: * What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented? * How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to: * What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role? * What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms? * What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed? * If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date? *

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

Dear Tijani, Many thanks for your detailed input. Your point regarding the formalities to engage with Advisors is well noted. The intent is only to formalize the process by which the CCWG formally requests Advice on a certain matter, but by all means Advisors are Participants to the group and that should not restrict interactions with them. We are trying to engage with Advisors to get their feedback on the topic as well, and a revised version will be presented for approval when that is completed. I'll make sure this point is conveyed to them. Talk to you later I hope, Mathieu Le 30/12/2014 15:18, Tijani BEN JEMAA a écrit : > > Dear all, > > First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the > last call. It was out of my control. > > I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe > recording. > > ·There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) > and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to > those 2 work areas on the wiki. > > oWhy the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended? > > oWhy WA 3 and 4 didn’t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2? > > I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except > that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too > formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the > CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we > need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a > point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression > that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through > interfaces. > > _Work Area 1_: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the > following remarks: > > ·Advisory Mechanism: > > oSSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? > > oRSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? > > ·Contractual requirements: > > oRegistry & registrar agreements: I believe that the > registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the > column “to whom”) > > ·I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we > indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? > > _Work Area 2_: > > ·While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be > Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet > content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. > All other human rights that are not related to content can be included > in the public interest in my PoV. That’s why I don’t agree on > replacing “in the public interest” by for protection and advance of > human rights and Internet Freedoms”. > > ·The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work > should remain internal. > > ·Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law? > > ·I don’t know who is transparency International, and if they are so > exceptional in auditing, why they don’t do so for the other ICANN > components such as the Board? > > Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 > leaders for the wonderful work they did. > > See you today on the call > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part > de* Grace Abuhamad > *Envoyé :* mercredi 24 décembre 2014 12:55 > *À :* Accountability Cross Community > *Cc :* Brenda Brewer > *Objet :* [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on > 23 December > > Dear all, > > The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability > (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: > https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw. The documents presented are also > uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your > convenience. > > Also, here is a summary of the action items: > > * *ACTION:* contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI > * *ACTION - WA1:* DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion > * *ACTION - > WA2:* Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 > * *ACTION - > WA2:* Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. > * *ACTION - WA4:* Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page > * *ACTION - > WA4:* All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. > * *ACTION:* Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline > > The next call is on *Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC*. For a full > list of upcoming meetings, please see: > https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings > > Best, > > Grace > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel > malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! > <http://www.avast.com/> est active. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1