January 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Of possible relevance to Work Stream 2 of CCWG - A: some work done at Chennai with a contextual note.
by Sivasubramanian M Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Please take a look at the attached note, which might be of relevance to Work Stream 2. The paper is in DRAFT status. Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] list - WS1
by Alice Jansen Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Mining the Work Area 2 inventory for 'Requirements'
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

To take advantage of the the prior efforts of work area 2, I went thru our 15-Jan version<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WA2%20Inventory%2…> of WA2 inventory and extracted some ‘requirements'. Just did the first page here, focusing on items that seemed to have consensus: Note1: ‘Community’ refers to cross-community accountability group, whether by Members, Supervisory Board, or other mechanism. Community powers: Community appoints representatives to the Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams. Community has standing to send any board decision to independent Review Panel (may begin the IRP with a Cooperative Engagement Process) Community has standing to begin a reconsideration request on decisions of board or ICANN management, on matters of process or of substance. Community may approve/disapprove proposed ICANN annual budget. Community may approve/disapprove proposed changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. Community may recall one or all ICANN board members. Review and Redress Mechanisms: Decisions of Independent Review Panel are binding on ICANN’s board. Panelists in the IRP pool should be selected by the Community. The standard for Independent Review should be lower. The cost to prosecute an Independent Review should be reduced. IRP should address errors or ethical lapses. Ombudsman should be able to investigate any accountability-related complaint brought by an ICANN employee, while protecting confidentiality of the employee Affirmation of Commitments: The Affirmation of Commitments should not be a bilateral agreement with USG that can be canceled by either party. It could be merged into ICANN bylaws, for example. The Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) could recommend sunset of previously required reviews, and create new reviews. Mission/Scope of ICANN: ICANN should be prevented from imposing obligations on others, unless supported by consensus of affected parties and necessary to protect the integrity and availability of unique identifiers in the DNS. ICANN should be prevented from acting outside its Bylaws and Articles — 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

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [CCWG-Accountability-Notify] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session 2 - 19 January
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, I hope you will agree with me that what *IS* annoying is that someone claims annoyance before even having read the emails. Had the gentleman, and I use that word with reservations, even only read the Subject lines he would have noted that each refers to one session. Not only is this an excellent way of doing it I also wish to express my thanks to staff getting this done over night. greetings, el On 2015-01-20 02:16 , Drew Noyes wrote: > Why do you have to send 8 copies of each email? It's quite uncalled for > Brenda and is annoying. > [...]

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Nolan principles
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Hello All, I saw mention of these principles in the newspaper yesterday. They might be useful when thinking about members of independent review panels. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life The Committee's First Report established The Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the "Nolan principles".[4] They are included in the Ministerial Code. They are: Selflessness - Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. Integrity - Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. Objectivity - In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. Accountability - Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Openness - Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. Honesty - Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. Leadership - Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Current requirements for independent panels in the bylaws
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IV There shall be an omnibus standing panel of between six and nine members with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission and work from which each specific IRP Panel shall be selected. The panelists shall serve for terms that are staggered to allow for continued review of the size of the panel and the range of expertise. A Chair of the standing panel shall be appointed for a term not to exceed three years. Individuals holding an official position or office within the ICANN structure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel. In the event that an omnibus standing panel: (i) is not in place when an IRP Panel must be convened for a given proceeding, the IRP proceeding will be considered by a one- or three-member panel comprised in accordance with the rules of the IRP Provider; or (ii) is in place but does not have the requisite diversity of skill and experience needed for a particular proceeding, the IRP Provider shall identify one or more panelists, as required, from outside the omnibus standing panel to augment the panel members for that proceeding. _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Comments on the draft CCWG Accountability - Problem definition - Strawman proposal
by Thomas.Schneider＠bakom.admin.ch Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all Based on today’s discussion at the F2F meeting, please find attached for your consideration some food for thought for an amendment of the order of the document and about adding some basic explanation on the concept of accountability before applying it to the ICANN context. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Deputy Director of International Affairs International Information Society Coordinator Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication DETEC Federal Office of Communications OFCOM Zukunftstrasse 44, CH 2501 Biel Phone +41 32 327 56 35 (direct) Phone +41 32 327 55 11 Fax +41 32 327 54 66 mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch www.ofcom.admin.ch<http://www.ofcom.admin.ch/>

2 3

[CCWG-Accountability] Review, Redress, Binding, and Independence
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Hello All, I think we can classify various mechanisms as including review only or review and redress - and then whether the process is independent and whether the outcomes are binding. (1) Reconsiderations of a staff decision - this mechanism involves the Board reviewing a staff action, and the board will provide redress to the complainant if the staff staff action does not comply with policy - in my view this is a redress mechanism available to the community (2) Independent review panel - this mechanisms is an independent review of a Board decision What I hear people asking for is: - more use of independent panels - getting the independent panel to specific a redress - having the redress recommendation become binding As Malcom has pointed out, in any independence mechanism - it needs to be clear the standard that is being applied, and also what redress mechanisms are available for specific actions of the Board or staff. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding current requirements around principles of international law
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Hello All, As Wolfgang Kleinwächter noted during the meeting in Frankfurt today, there are already some provisions relating to international law in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en "The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Vision pitches
by Roelof Meijer Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, In reaction to the requests I received, please receive herewith the „rough sketch” I presented this morning in Frankfurt as well as a short explanation. Please bear in mind: it is (and is intended to be) a rough sketch of my ideas, meant to provide input for discussion and reflection. Regards, Roelof Meijer From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: maandag 19 januari 2015 11:42 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>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Documents Dear All, To help you navigate through documents, please find attached the following: * Agenda; * CWG Stewardship accountability dependencies (link to google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn…) * CWG Statement; * 4 questions (contingencies) * CCWG Accountability WS4 – Scenarios; * CCWG Accountability - Problem definition – Strawman proposal;. Thanks Best regards Alice

4 3