December 2014 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

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

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

> > Contract between whom and whom? > > Works almost anywhere else... > > ...in the World > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > >> On Dec 29, 2014, at 15:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: >> >> Of course, the use of a contract is a bit of a blunt instrument of accountability absent some structure for transactional checks and balances. Let’s not miss the opportunity to replace it with something more operational while we’re at it. >> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:37 AM >> To: avri >> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 >> >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 29 Dec 2014 06:43, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > And that presupposes that the CSG-Stewardship WG won't stick with the principle of separability in its recommended solution. >> > >> > If it does stick with separability then a contractual relationship remains as an ongoing leverage point. In terms of CWG-Stewardship work, Contract Co holding the contract, still appears to be quite active as a proposal. >> > >> While I won't attempt start discussing contract co approach in details here, I will just say that since we are speaking of ICANN accountability, then it becomes a thing of relevance to discuss the accountability aspect of contract co (if this cwg is considering it as an option). >> >> > Perhaps we need to look at the WS1 list in terms of the binary discriminant: is there an ongoing contractual relationship with an eternal entity or not. I expect the WS1 list will vary based on which of these is being considered. >> > >> Well if we have the time for this, that's fine. However, while asking that question, let's also be sure to review the characteristics of the current external entity in considering a replacement (which is where accountability of such entity comes in the picture) >> >> Regards >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > On 28-Dec-14 22:57, Jonathan Zuck wrote: >> >> >> >> Of course, in so much as the transition represents a loss of leverage, WS1 needs to sufficiently replace it. It’s not really about the IANA transition itself so much as the elimination of the contractual relationship. I agree with Alan that we need to be disciplined about what to include in WS1 to ensure that we come away with the leverage to accomplish WS2. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >> >> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:35 PM >> >> To: Steve DelBianco; Accountability CCWG >> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition (even if the IANA transition was directly to ICANN without the intervening Contract Co.) >> >> >> >> Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition. >> >> >> >> I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these accepted if done in association with WS1, but if we make our WS1 task too all-inclusive, it may not get done at all. >> >> >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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.â€ Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: â€œfound 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 â€˜Contract Co.â€™ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments >> >>> >> >>> Carlos GutiÃ©rrez: 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 and http://blog.netchoice.org >> >>> +1.202.420.7482 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 8

[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

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>> 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? *

6 8

[CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

This pertains to our discussion yesterday about a permanent, cross-community ‘Membership’ group to hold ICANN board and management accountable to the community. It was described this way in draft3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…> for work area 2: Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent cross-community representative structure (all ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to: Appoint members of Affirmation review teams Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute (option to use independent panel) Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval Approve annual proposed ICANN budget Recall one or all ICANN Board members One of the groups proposing<http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/> a community of stakeholders as ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl…> in a Washington paper today. Daniel Castro of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote: California state law applies since ICANN is a registered nonprofit corporation in the state. As such, California law allows nonprofit organizations to have statutory members. Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an effective check on the ICANN board's power is to create statutory members of ICANN with extensive authority over the board. This authority could include removing board members, overturning board decisions, etc. The statutory members would likely include the chairs of the various ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory committees," such as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) responsible for IP address policy and the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing the country code top-level domains. To ensure that the statutory members do not hold too much sway, their actions could be limited to situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus). We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to enable this modification to ICANN’s bylaws in conformance with California law. 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 15

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 23 December at 06:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Please find below a message from the co-chairs: All, Please find below the agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 23 Decemeber at 06:00 UTC. Please note that we are planning to use this more or less as a standard agenda for the upcoming calls. Also, may we kindly remind you that we are seeking to confirm the following documents as completed (until such time we choose to reopen the discussion or alter the documents). 1. Inventory of existing accountability mechanisms (WA 1) <https://community.icann.org/x/OYUQAw> 2. List of items from public comments <https://community.icann.org/x/N4UQAw> (only the list, not the rationale and categorization, which is currently worked on) (WA 2) We expect you to have read the documents and be ready to make yourself heard in case you have additions or other changes to make. Please note this is not a formal consensus call, but we are testing the waters if the group is in broad agreement with the documents so we an consider these topics closed (for the time being) and use those as work products to base our work on. Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert Co-Chairs of the CCWG Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statement of Interest 2. Membership Updates (including Advisors) 3. Discussion regarding interactions with Advisors (review PDF attached) 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Work Area Updates * WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner * WA2 Steve DelBianco * WA3 Avri Doria * WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams 6. Draft Work Plan: Steps and Milestones (review PDF attached) 7. AOB 8. Closing Remarks

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Castro, Daniel Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Steve/All, Great work compiling these items. As part of the list of mechanisms, I'd like to propose for consideration adding "Establish an open data policy and develop an open data action plan" as part of the efforts to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability (WS2). There has been a growing movement to adopt open data among nations (see G8 Open Data Charter), non-governmental organizations (World Bank, UN, etc.), and nonprofits/universities. This takes freedom of information policies to the next level by establishing an "open by default" rule for an organization (rather than requiring individuals to request information). Developing an open data action plan for ICANN, could allow stakeholders the ability to prioritize high-value data sets for release, ensure data sets are released in a timely and complete manner, and ensure machine-readability so that data sets can be analyzed and visualized. All of these efforts can be used to improve the transparency of ICANN operations, and bring ICANN's transparency efforts in line with other leading global organizations. Daniel Castro Director | Center for Data Innovation 202-626-5742 | dcastro(a)datainnovation.org | www.datainnovation.org Twitter: twitter.com/castrotech | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldcastro

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Interesting advice for CCWG- Accountability
by Robin Gross Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

ICANN Accountability - a coup or a contract? > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-coup-or… Guest blog by David R. Johnson The Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG) spent part of its second meeting discussing a proposal to convert ICANN into an organization with “members,” potentially including the heads of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (including GAC!??) who might be given the power to overrule ICANN Board Decisions. Many of the other changes on the list for discussion include proposals that would require amendment of ICANN’s Bylaws. One surreal aspect of this discussion is that it is not clear whether the ICANN Board, which must approve any amendment of the bylaws, would ever agree to such changes. It is time for those with effective veto power over any resolution of the accountability issues, and the IANA transition, to show their hands. ICANN appears to want the CCWG to show its hand first, and then react to whatever is proposed. That is a mistake, because it may lead the group to propose things the Board won’t want to accept, or devise oversight mechanisms that can be repealed by later ICANN Boards. And it may lead to proposals for untested structural changes that create new accountability issues of their own. CCWG can and should ask ICANN to indicate, right now, whether it will or will not agree to specific contractual provisions. The answers, whatever they are, would help immensely to guide the CCWG deliberations. Bylaws are a way that a corporation (including a non-profit) governs itself. Contracts, in contrast, are what allows it to govern others, and others to govern it. It would be much simpler to talk about ICANN’s accountability in terms of contractual provisions — enforceable promises ICANN is willing to make to other parties, now, regarding what it will and will not do. The other side of the contract could be registries and registrars, but there could be a third party beneficiary provision that allows anyone adversely affected by the breach of such promises to bring an arbitration before a panel that can issue binding decrees. If this were viewed as a simple contract negotiation, between ICANN stakeholders (at least the registries, registrars and registrants who are regulated by ICANN contracts) and the ICANN corporation (Board), then the accountability issues would look very different depending on whether ICANN agrees to contract terms that limit its ability to impose rules on others. For example, ICANN might find it relatively easy to agree not to impose rules that bind registries, registrars and registrants (1) in the absence of consensus, (2) on topics unrelated to sound operation of the DNS, or (3) regarding content or online behavior that doesn’t itself threaten the operation of the DNS. In contrast, if ICANN decided to reserve the right to use its monopoly over entry into the root zone to impose contracts that regulate online behavior, the nature of the “accountability” issues would change dramatically. A global consumer protection regulatory authority, with the power to take down domain names in order to protect the “global public interest”, would have to be constructed with accountability mechanisms very different from those of an organization that makes only technical operational rules subject to consensus support. The original deal to create ICANN was, at its core, an agreement by a registry to abide by future (unknown!) “consensus policies” that fit within a very limited range of topics. That limited range of topics, known as the “picket fence,” involved issues the global resolution of which were needed to assure sound operation of the DNS. The requirement for consensus support meant that these new rules would be more like operational standards than regulations or laws — because they would have to compete for general approval among those affected. But because ICANN, in possession of the IANA contract, had the power to impose contracts of adhesion on new gTLDs as a condition of entry into the root, it has since decided to use that power to serve its view of the “global public interest.” Now the CCWG seems at times to assume that ICANN should have the power to define and impose rules in relation to some view of the “global public interest” — but it wants to create a new entity, drawn from ICANN’s internal structures, that can second-guess Board decisions by being treated as “members” who can select an independent review panel, approve a budget, dismiss Board members, and even overturn Board decisions. Membership for all netizens in the internet community sounds like a great idea. But what will keep a new entity composed of a limited number of privileged members from itself developing an unrestrained view of its ability to impose rules on others in pursuit of some view of the “global public interest” — and to discipline a board that doesn’t share its views? In contrast, a clear contractual requirement for demonstrated consensus among affected parties before ICANN can make rules that bind others would more clearly achieve the limitation on unchecked power that any accountability regime must be designed to achieve. To make these checks and balances effective, all we need is a judicial branch (an independent arbitration panel) that can enforce the contract terms. And ICANN could, right now, take fears of abuse by a global “public interest” regulator off the table by making clear that it will agree to such contract terms. In short, ICANN would be well advised to tell the CCWG at the outset of the process what it will contractually agree to, as a constraint on its power to tell other people what to do. It is one thing for a do-gooder non-profit deploying its own staff and resources to have some feedback from those it might affect. It is quite another thing for the IANA monopoly over entry into the root zone file to be used to impose “mandatory public interest commitments” and registrar accreditation requirements that exploit the power to revoke domain names (and registrar accreditation) to police online conduct and content — all without any clear provision for due process or the normal limitations on jurisdiction. If ICANN took the “public interest regulator” option off the table, the “accountability” discussion could be greatly simplified. Unless CCWG knows at the outset what the ICANN board will agree to by contract, the process of discussing “accountability” is likely to create a proposal to establish another, even less accountable entity (the privileged “members”), who might be even more inclined than the current board to abuse the power inherent in the IANA monopoly. Should we have such a coup — or just negotiate a contract that puts back inside the original box ICANN’s powers to impose rules on others?

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] F2F Meeting Details
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Dear all, In addition to regular CCWG-Accountability meetings and at the request of the Chairs, ICANN has offered to support a 2-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 19-20 January 2014. · This meeting will take place at the Le Meridien Parkhotel in Frankfurt, Germany. · Suggested arrival is Sunday 18 January with departure on Tuesday 20 January in the evening (or Wednesday 21 January for intercontinental flights). ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members only <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is 7 January 2014. Members receiving ICANN funded travel/lodging must confirm attendance by 31 December 2014. Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. A high-level agenda overview: DAY 0: Arrive Sunday 18 January Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 19:00-21:00. DAY 1: Monday 19 January (9:00 18:00) DAY 2: Tuesday 20 January (8:00 17:00) Departure that evening (or Wednesday 21 January if needed) List of those eligible for ICANN travel funding: Appointed Members ALAC * Sebastien Bachollet <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713611> (Europe) * Tijani Ben Jemaa <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Tijani+BEN+JEMAA+SOI> (Africa) * Alan Greenberg <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Alan+Greenberg+SOI> (North America) * Cheryl Langdon-Orr <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Cheryl+Langdon-Orr+SOI> (Asia/Asia Pacific) * Leon Sanchez <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Leon+Sanchez+SOI> (Latin America) ASO * Fiona Asonga * Athina Fragkouli * Izumi Okutani <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Izumi+Okutani+SOI> ccNSO * Jordan Carter <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jordan+Carter+SOI> (.NZ, AP Region) * Eberhard Lisse <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Eberhard+Wolfgang+Lisse+SOI> (.NA, African Region) * Roelof Meijer <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/Roelof%20Meijer%2 0SOI.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418766497000&api=v2> (.NL, European Region) * Giovanni Seppia <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/18120874/SOI%20Giovanni%20 Seppia.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312823877000&api=v2> (.EU, European Region) * Mathieu Weill <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Mathieu+Weill+SOI> (.FR, European Region) Co-Chair GAC * Par Brumark <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413451> (Niue) * Olga Cavalli <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Olga+Cavalli+SOI> (Agentina) * Alice Munyua <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/AM-soi.pdf?versio n=1&modificationDate=1418147590000&api=v2> (African Union Commission) * Suzanne Radell <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Suzanne+M.+Radell+SOI > (USA) * Julia Wolman <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/Julia%20Wolman-so i.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418147231000&api=v2> (Denmark) GNSO * James Bladel <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI> (RrSG, North America Region) * Becky Burr <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Becky+Burr+SOI> (RySG, North America Region) * Steve DelBianco <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43980848/DelBianco%20-%20S OI.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1384632525000&api=v2> (CSG, North America Region) * Robin Gross <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Robin+Gross+SOI> (NCSG, North America Region) * Thomas Rickert <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Thomas+Rickert+SOI> (GNSO Council, Europe Region) Co-Chair Others * Bruce Tonkin <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Bruce+Tonkin+SOI> (ICANN Board Liaison) * Samantha Eisner <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Samantha+Eisner+SOI> (ICANN Staff Representative)

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

As mentioned on today’s call, here is a proposed definition for global public interest in the context of ICANN: The 'public' part of public interest is concerned more with users and registrants than with contracted parties and others who are deeply involved at ICANN. And the public interest in ICANN decisions is broader than just a secure and stable DNS. Namely, users and registrants want ICANN to make sure the DNS delivers two essential and measurable qualities: Availability and Integrity, of Registrations and Resolutions Availability of the DNS is critical for global users who increasingly rely on the Internet for information, communications, and commerce. Domain name resolutions need to be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, from anywhere on the globe. Availability also means being able to use any language and any script for both generic and country-code domains and email addresses. Availability can also apply to domain names sought by registrants: will domains in new gTLDs be available to the public, or will they be captured by insiders? That kind of availability should also be part of the public interest test for ICANN decisions. Integrity of the DNS is vital to registrants and end-users of the Internet. Registrants rely upon the integrity of domain name registration to ensure that their identities are not misrepresented or misappropriated. E-commerce and Internet financial transactions absolutely require integrity in resolution of domain names and secure delivery of encrypted data. Internet users depend upon the integrity of domain name services to provide accurate and authentic results when they look up a website or send an email. Integrity is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting users to fraudulent websites or providing false information about the true owner of a web domain. I encourage further discussion on the concept of global public interest in our CCWG. This term is too important to leave undefined or let a few individuals define it to fit their own agenda. If we allow 'public interest' to mean anything and everything, it will end up meaning nothing at all. — 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 12/16/14, 11:48 AM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello All, The origin of the strategic work on public interest comes from the strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf That panel recommended the following definition: "Panel Definitions Submitted to ICANN: As an independent, global organization, ICANN is one of the organizations charged with responsibility for an increasingly important shared global resource: The Internet. As one of the stewards of this resource, ICANN recognizes it has a responsibility to protect and promote the global public interest, both throughout its work, and in collaboration with other entities. ICANN's public responsibility permeates all areas of its work and is at the core of its operations. ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." This definition though has not been formally adopted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

13 41

[CCWG-Accountability] Blog Update on IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All, Below is the latest blog update by Theresa Swinehart on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability tracks. -- Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd0 -5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd 0-5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598> It¹s hard to believe that 2014 is already coming to a close. This past year has been monumental towards validating the strength of the multistakeholder model, the true test beginning on March 14 with the announcement by NTIA of its intention to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions. Now at year¹s end, I am very pleased with the effort the community has made to inform and develop two global processes to achieve a successful transition. To provide a broader picture of the groups involved in each process, we designed an infographic showing the interrelation of the two processes and the flow of proposals from each. Please take time to review it. Download here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability- 12dec14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability -12dec14-en.pdf> Another great resource that has surfaced is a slide deck published by NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_manage ment_12162014.pdf> that describes its current Administrator role in the Root Zone management. To help inform transition discussions, the resource reiterates the ³clerical and administrative² role that NTIA holds in its oversight of the IANA functions. IANA Stewardship Transition Three operational communities are in the homestretch towards meeting the January 15 target deadline to respond to the ICG Request for Transition Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en .pdf> . The Names community Cross Community Working Group <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg> (CWG) met in Frankfurt <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> at the end of November, where constituent parts of the RFP were further developed. The work of each sub-section was coordinated into a preliminary draft transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e n.pdf> [PDF, 1.72 MB], which is currently up <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> through December 22. Given the progress, the CWG has stated with reasonable optimism that its proposal would be finished sufficiently close to the ICG's target deadline. Each of the five Regional Internet Registries communities has been discussing transition proposals <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-RIR-proposals-updated-201 41217.pdf> at RIR meetings, via mailing lists and through other forums. Each community has selected three members to participate on a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated -rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team> (CRISP Team) to coordinate a single proposal to submit to the ICG. The CRISP Team acknowledged minor differences among the proposals outlined by each RIR, but has since collaborated on accommodating these differences and is in the final stages of developing a draft proposal <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-16122014-c lean.pdf> , which should be published within the next few days. Then following discussions at IETF 91 and through its public mailing list, the chairs of the IANAPLAN WG <http://www.ietf.org/iana-transition.html> representing the protocol parameters community concluded that the working group had reached sufficient consensus on a draft proposal <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/> to move forward with a broader review. The draft proposal underwent an IETF-wide last call review through mid-December, and is now in the hands of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for approval. Enhancing ICANN Accountability The CCWG-Accountability charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> has been adopted by the GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and ASO, and the working group currently totals 150 with 26 members and 124 participants plus 30 mailing list observers. Co-chaired by Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) and Thomas Rickert (GNSO Council), the group has met twice already and will be meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/NBDxAg> every Tuesday until ICANN 52 in Singapore. The working group will also be holding one face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 January. Here is the CCWG-Accountability¹s estimated timeline for completing its work: In addition to the timeline, the CCWG has designated four sub-committees <https://community.icann.org/x/XoMQAw> for organizing the vast amount of research necessary to complete its work. Each work area has designated a Coordinator, and members and participants are currently volunteering to assist with the work. The four areas are: · Work Area 1: Review existing accountability mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 recommendations) · Work Area 2: Review input from the previous public comment period and categorize items into Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2 · Work Area 3: Review issues identified by the CWG-Stewardship · Work Area 4: Identify contingencies (especially in relation to Work Stream 1) I am very pleased to see that the group has developed effective working methods and has become comfortable with the charter over a very short period of time. This perseverance has enabled the group to work promptly and cohesively and has put them on track for the timely development of accountability recommendations for both Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2. Lastly, the Public Experts Group (PEG) has announced its selection of Advisors to the CCWG <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> . These Advisors will contribute research and advice to the working group, and will bring perspectives on global best practices on various topics ranging from Board Governance and Corporate Management to Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights. It is hoped that this external expertise will enrich the discussions of the working group and help to attain the level of accountability necessary for the transition. We encourage the community to stay informed and get involved in the various discussions on each process. On behalf of ICANN and its community, I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to all of the volunteers who will be working on these two processes through the upcoming holiday season. In the meantime, continue to check the ICANN website <https://www.icann.org/> , follow ICANN on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ICANN> , or like ICANN on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/icannorg?ref=ts&fref=ts> , and for quick access to all recent developments on both processes visit the transition homepage here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . Happy holidays! - TS

1 0