January 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Deadline is Today (7 January) for In Person Attendance at F2F
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Dear all, Today (7 January) is the final day for registration for in-person attendance for the Frankfurt F2F. If you are still deciding or need extra time to clear your schedule, please still contact me by the deadline and we can assess your situation. Below is the list of confirmed attendees to date (also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In-Person+Attendees> ). In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed 1. Eberhard Lisse (member) 2. Suzanne Radell (member) 3. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (participant) 4. Kavouss Arasteh (participant ICG Liaison) 5. James Bladel (member) 6. Steve DelBianco (member) 7. Leon Sanchez (member) 8. Par Brumark (member) 9. Nicholas Lisse (observer) 10. Giovanni Seppia (member) 11. Mathieu Weill (member) 12. Roelof Meijer (member) 13. Jordan Carter (member) 14. Sebastien Bachollet (member) 15. Tijani Ben Jemaa (member) 16. Alan Greenberg (member) 17. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (member) 18. Samantha Eisner (member) 19. Alice Munyua (member) 20. Thomas Rickert (member) 21. Robin Gross (member) 22. Athina Fragkouli (member) 23. Olga Cavalli (member) 24. Julia Wolman (member) 25. Becky Burr (member) 26. Bruce Tonkin (member) 27. Martin Boyle (participant) 28. Fiona Asonga (member) 29. Keith Drazek (participant ICG Liaison) 30. Rafael Perez Galindo (participant) 31. Camino Manjon-Sierra (participant) 32. Matthew Shears (participant) 33. Thomas Schneider (participant) 34. Jonas Koelle (participant) 35. Jonathan Zuck (participant) 36. Malcolm Hutty (participant) 37. Claudia Selli (observer) 38. Sabine Meyer (participant) 39. Hubert Schottner (participant) Best, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 8:52 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F Dear all, Welcome back! As a reminder, if you are attending the Frankfurt F2F meeting in-person, I need to know by Friday 7 January at the latest. Below is the list of confirmed attendees to date (also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In-Person+Attendees> ). In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed 1. Eberhard Lisse (member) 2. Suzanne Radell (member) 3. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (participant) 4. Kavouss Arasteh (participant) 5. James Bladel (member) 6. Steve DelBianco (member) 7. Leon Sanchez (member) 8. Par Brumark (member) 9. Nicholas Lisse (observer) 10. Giovanni Seppia (member) 11. Mathieu Weill (member) 12. Roelof Meijer (member) 13. Jordan Carter (member) 14. Sebastien Bachollet (member) 15. Tijani Ben Jemaa (member) 16. Alan Greenberg (member) 17. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (member) 18. Samantha Eisner (member) 19. Alice Munyua (member) 20. Thomas Rickert (member) 21. Robin Gross (member) 22. Athina Fragkouli (member) 23. Olga Cavalli (member) 24. Julia Wolman (member) 25. Becky Burr (member) 26. Bruce Tonkin (member) 27. Martin Boyle (participant) 28. Fiona Asonga (member) Information about the meeting: 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

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding processes for community engagement on the strategic plan and budgets
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Hello Malcolm, >> Our members, however, are ultimately in charge, and indeed in our organisation they are asked to approve any major strategic projects, as well as to ratify the Board's proposed annual budget for the company. I think in principle ICANN also tries to engage its stakeholders in the development of the strategic plan and budgets. The community is asked for input, and drafts are shared with the community. The Board also meets with each of the stakeholder groups to get feedback during the public ICANN meetings. The Board takes into account the feedback received from public comments as well as face-to-face interactions with the stakeholder groups before it approves. If the Board felt there was broad push back from the community it would ask staff to revise before approval. In all of this process the Board believes it is operating on behalf of the community and its goals and objectives and not the other way around. There is however not a step currently where the stakeholder groups (e.g SOs and ACs) formally vote on the strategic plan or budget before it goes to the Board for approval. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear all, The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985 * Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting * Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. * Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment. The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC. Best, Brenda

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 4] WS4 Initial Scenarios
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Sarah, I'm copying your question and my response to the main CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as the discussion of scenarios has been limited. > Thanks for sending this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble > understanding #8 (Technology competing with DNS) and why the > consequence would be the same as that of #5. Scenario #5 posits a industry specific financial crisis, and anticipates a significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues, hence registrar and registry failure, where those registrars and registries business models fail under reduced demand, hence continuity costs to the corporation which has made some "stability", hence persistence guarantee to the remaining registrants. Scenario #8 posits a technology competing with DNS, and anticipates the same consequence as Scenario #5, as you've observed. Distinct root causes are posited which have indistinguishable consequences. Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #5 -- domain industry specific events affecting business models ... Suppose a loss of return on investment for the industry specific pay-per-click business model -- the ppc business model coupled with "domain tasting" caused the .com zone to grow by a third. "Tasting" was ended by Board action a decade ago, if I recall correctly, so a decline in PPC could reduce the largest source of recurring revenues by a third in the space of one or two renewal cycles, with failures of PPC-dependent business models (I'm not suggesting that either the .com operator, or the corporation, are PPC-dependent businesses). Similarly, suppose second level domain registration of trade marks by third-parties no longer presents a dilution liability for trade mark holders. Again, and industry specific collapse of business models predicated on either trade mark exploitation or trade mark protection is certain, with a loss of recurring revenues to the corporation. Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #8 -- competitive technologies associating resources and identifiers ... Suppose a commodity platform vendor or consortium of vendors offer a resource and identifier association mechanism with user uptake competitive with the existing DNS mechanism and market. To the degree the non-DNS resource and identifier association mechanism obtains market share, the DNS market actors -- registries and their sales channels, the registrars, and the corporation, will loose revenue. If you are unfamiliar with non-DNS resource and identifier association mechanism, there was hosttables, which today could be distributed more timely than the every-three-days frequency we made distributions from SRI prior to the conversion to distributed lookup (DNS), meeting most use cases other than those depending on "rapid update" -- at zero cost to the registrants during that period. We should expect that researchers around the world are investigating successors to service and/or resource location applications -- some pursuing string-similar search, which has obviously matured into an industry larger than the DNS industry, and some pursuing alternate forms of loosely coupled distributed lookup. I trust that this explains why both #5 and #8 have recurring revenues reduction consequences in an otherwise unaffected general economy. Finally, a reminder that SOIs must be submitted ... Eric On 1/5/15 11:28 PM, Sarah Kiden wrote: > Hello Eric, > > Thanks for sending this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble > understanding #8 (Technology competing with DNS) and why the > consequence would be the same as that of #5. > > Please clarify. > > Thanks, > Sarah > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams > <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>> wrote: > > Colleagues, > > Attached please find an initial set of scenarios, in two pages, in > .pdf and .docx formats. > > Feedback via email please, either to me directly > (ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>) or to > the WS4 sublist (ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org > <mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>). > > Thanks in advance, > Eric Brunner-Williams > Eugene, Oregon > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4 > >

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Focus on the mission
by Drew Noyes Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear All, Please lets move forward to do our job in keeping focused on improving ICCAN accountability rather than discussing the scope of ICCAN. If we want to be taken seriously and to make a difference we should do the tasks assigned to us from the beginning when we agreed to volunteer for this group, rather than expanding our scope. My two cents worth. Best regards, Drew Noyes Managing Director One Stop Legal Services Pattaya Thailand www.onestoplegalservice.com On Jan 6, 2015 7:23 PM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl> wrote: > Dear all, > > In line with the reactions from James and Eberhard: > In my opinion, these questions as well as the ones that Paul formulated > earlier, have very little to do with improving ICANN's accountability. > Rather, the implementations of the measures suggested by the questions > limit ICANN's scope and tie the board with a very short leash. Making > accountability less relevant, because of the direct control and very narrow > scope. It's one way of solving the issues at hand, but not one that is in > the interests of the community in the long run. I also think it's not > realistic to assume that this is an option. > > I understood our job to be in the area of advising on improving existing > and possibly introducing new accountability processes and procedures. Not > in the area of advising on the scope of ICANN. However, if adequate > accountability is assured, unwanted scope creep is impossible. > > > Cheers, > > > > Roelof Meijer > > > > SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE > NETHERLANDS > T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 > roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl > > From: David Maher <dmaher(a)pir.org> > Date: zaterdag 3 januari 2015 19:30 > To: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > Every time a corporation executes a contract, it assumes obligations > and liabilities. If the board of the corporation believes in good faith > that the contract serves the interests of the corporation (and the contract > is not in violation of the corporate charter and bylaws), this is not > necessarily an abdication of its fiduciary responsibility. > The ICANN Board should be able to give this WG answers to the following > questions regarding its willingness to accept contract terms along the > lines of: > > 1. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third > parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required > contract terms) that are not supported by a demonstrated consensus among > affected parties? > 2. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third > parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required > contract terms) that do not relate to issues the uniform resolution of > which is necessary to assure sound operation of the domain name system? > 3. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third > parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required > contract terms) that relate to online content or to online behavior that > does not threaten the sound operation of the domain name system? > 4. Will ICANN agree that any claim that it has not complied with the > previous three obligations may be brought by any adversely affected party > before an independent review panel that can issue decisions that are > binding on ICANN? > > > David > David W. Maher > Senior Vice President - Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849 > > > From: JAMES BLADEL <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 10:09 PM > To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > Ive been following this thread as best I can, and believe Bruce and > Avri are on the right course. If the Board has a legal & fiduciary > responsibility to ICANN the corporation, then this line of questioning > could be perceived as "under what circumstances/scenarios would you > willingly abdicate your fiduciary responsibility?" I don't see how could > they possibly provide an answer that is useful to our work.... > > Thank you, > > J. > ____________ > James Bladel > GoDaddy > > On Jan 2, 2015, at 09:21, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > My concern about asking the Board what they would decide is that it is far > to hypothetical for them to give any answer other than the one Bruce > offered. > > How can a Board give any answer other than the one that says, give us a > recommendation, lets get the community view and see how the 3/4 unfolds in > our discussions. > > Closer to being answerable is whether there is a legal way for them to do > what the CCWG might ask for. > > avri > > > On 01-Jan-15 18:08, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > > Dear Kavouss > > > > Thank you for this question which is a very sensible one. Let me try to > clarify what I am trying to accomplish by my proposal. > > > > I am a complete and firm support of Board accountability to the > Community. That is 100% clear and I think you and I are in firm agreement > on that. > > > > I may, however, not be clear about my method and process. From my > perspective the strongest accountability would be with a clear Bylaw > limitation on ICANN functionality and a provision for an outside arbiter. > Both of those changes would require Board approval. I am not trying to > subordinate the CCWG to the Board. Far from it - what I am trying to do > is find out as early in the process whether the Board is going to be > willing to agree to subordinate itself to the Community through those > mechanisms. > > > > So, I think the place where you may misunderstand me is at the very end of > your note - where you say "why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those > areas of accountability that Board wishes?" I think you are assuming that > if the Board said "no" to the questions I was asking that my reaction would > be to say "oh ... oh well. That is OK. If the Board won't agree, we can't > do it." > > > > My real reaction, in practice, would be exactly the opposite - I would > urge the Community to dig in for an extended discussion with the Board and > use my limited powers of persuasion to rally the community to demand that > the Board changed its mind. J And I would probably urge CCWG to > recommend those same things anyway - but at least we would do that knowing > what was going to happen. > > > > Does that help? > > Regards > > Paul > > > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:39 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig > *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > > > Dear Paul, > > The way you commenting on the matter could have two different > interprétations or leave two different impressions: > > A) You are a firm supporter of accountabilty process when we note your > comments about Mathieu > > B) You wish to raise the question Under discussion to the Board asking > what they wish to see from CCWG and what they do not see from CCWG .The > latter interpretation ,in my view, seems to be subordinating CCWG to the > Board in the sense that we just study, elaborate and recoomend those area > of accountability that Board is comfortable with but not CCWG address the > full picture, objectives, requiremnets of accountability. > > Pls find a coherence between interpretation A) and interpretation B) .In > order words if you are really in favour of addressing the accountability in > a fullflege scope why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those areas of > accountability that Board wishes? > Thank you very much to clarify your position. > > Best Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-01-01 21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>: > > Bruce is a wonderful man. But we don't need his opinion, we need a > formal commitment from the Board. That's why we need to ask the question > in an official manner. > > > > Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with > ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a > question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess > when/if it perceives such would be very limited. If we are so unwilling to > even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board "no." > > > > In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1 > has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we > might conceivably want - which would, I think, be the wrong result. > > > > Warm regards > > Paul > > > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM > *To:* Seun Ojedeji > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > > > Dear All > > I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG. > > Still why there is a need that we raise any such question to the Board, > > Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison > > Kavouss > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if > those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more > of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing > and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in > this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be > encouraging to have implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board > majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the > earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better. > > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > wrote: > > Hello Seun, > > >> I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome > especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law > modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making > process may be useful. > > In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously > been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated > with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en . > > Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here: > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en > > Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows: > > - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG > > - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws > > - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment (45 days) > > - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments - a 2/3 majority of the Board > is required to make a bylaw change > > If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws > language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public > comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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 > >

3 5

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Roelof Meijer Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

>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. That, of course, would never work. One of the reasons why not: those affected parties are quite often commercial enterprises that probably would not collectively by consensus agree to serve the public interest instead of their individual commercial interests Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: maandag 29 december 2014 01:53 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>> Cc: "ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, "accountability-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org>" <accountability-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 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.

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Hello Seun, >> I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful. In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en . Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows: - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment (45 days) - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments - a 2/3 majority of the Board is required to make a bylaw change If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

14 27

[CCWG-Accountability] Washington Post -- Protect the Internet: Keep the contract with ICANN
by Phil Corwin Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

FYI--This is the lead editorial in the January 5, 2014 issue of the Washington Post... http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protect-the-internet-keep-the-contra… The Post's View Protect the Internet: Keep the contract with ICANN By Editorial Board January 4 at 7:12 PM LAST MONTH, China hosted the first World Internet Conference and gave everyone reason to worry. At the last minute, Chinese officials tried to ram through a declaration calling for governments to exert greater control over the fastest and freest communications tool the world has ever seen, using the chilling concept of "Internet sovereignty" to justify it. Russia, meanwhile, has crushed its most prominent Internet entrepreneur - Pavel Durov , the founder of a major Facebook-like application - after he refused to cooperate with the Kremlin. It's bad enough that these authoritarian governments repress online expression within their borders. They should not be let anywhere near the governance of the Internet's global infrastructure. Yet the Commerce Department is proceeding with a plan to relinquish supervision of one crucial element of world Internet governance to an international body, which may not be sufficiently resistant to influence from the world's many would-be censors. If the situation doesn't improve, Commerce should halt the march toward a formal turnover. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for a lot of everyday maintenance - essentially acting as the Internet's phone book. Until recently, its major policy dilemmas have revolved around whether to create new top-level domain names such as .tv or .xxx. But now it is at the center of a potentially perilous transition. It continues to operate under the Commerce Department's benign oversight , but Commerce's contract with ICANN is up next year . Relying on a global community of Internet engineers, businesses and other nongovernmental entities, ICANN wants to end one of the last vestiges of formal U.S. control over the global Internet, completing the transfer of responsibility for maintaining basic Internet functionality to a multi-stakeholder organization that operates by consensus and independently of any government. The problem is that no one yet has a convincing explanation for how the multi-stakeholder model will be immune to pernicious influences from governments. Independent voices from global nongovernmental interests are supposed to suffuse the ICANN system and provide a self-correcting ethos. But civil society in many countries is deeply connected to the state, and those states will try to manipulate or control as much as they can. Details of the technical transition are being hammered out, but the accountability measures and controls that will be vital to establishing and preserving a legitimate global Internet governance are taking longer. Commerce still holds a trump card: It can renew its contract with ICANN. The Obama administration has said it will insist on adequate protections for freedom of speech before it lets go, and it must stick to that commitment. That could be hard: The Snowden revelations have put pressure on the Obama administration. Yet the free and open Internet has thrived under existing arrangements. The United States should not allow other governments to use the leaks as a pretext to gain control of Internet governance. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Work Stream 1 and the concept of Leverage
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

Alan Greenberg has questioned the accountability measures we were placing into Work Stream 1, saying, "I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition. 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.” In responding to Alan, several of us said that a direct link to IANA transition is neither required nor desirable. Instead, the IANA transition is the community’s last bit of leverage to force accountability measures on ICANN’s board. The leverage is directly held by NTIA, who has said they would not transition IANA unless there was consensus about holding ICANN accountable to the community once the IANA contract is gone. And the internet community has indirect leverage, though pressure being brought on the US Administration and on Congress. So I would hope that Alan and others can gain confidence and comfort with the leverage our CCWG holds in this process. With that leverage comes the responsibility to create accountability mechanisms that will guide DNS policy making for decades to come. And we must also get our work done without causing undue delay to the IANA transition process. Alan’s group is the ALAC, which has often felt the lack of leverage over ICANN’s board and and management. As a recent example, ALAC called on ICANN to stop delegating new gTLDs serving highly regulated sectors but lacking enforceable public interest commitments (link<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/alac-to-icann-board-16…>). ICANN’s board and management might continue signing contracts despite concerns of the ALAC and others, perhaps fearing lawsuits by gTLD applicants. The fear of lawsuits may also have led the board to ignore community concerns over delegating both singular and plural forms of the same gTLDs. After all, the ICANN board’s duty is to the interests of the ICANN corporation — not to the community. (see Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#VI> Article 6, Section 7). What would be the source of leverage to hold the board accountable to the community for this decision? We have seen the futility of Reconsideration requests and Independent Reviews that lack leverage to reverse a board decision. This IANA transition is our last chance to create mechanisms that could hold ICANN’s board accountable to the community it was designed to serve. Let's embrace that challenge and use all the leverage we have. — 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

7 9

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for Call on 6 January at 12:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

Dear all, Please see below for the proposed agenda for the call tomorrow on 6 January at 12:00 UTC. I will follow up shortly with the call details (on the notify list), but as always, the Adobe Connect room is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. 3. WS1/WS2 Discussion 4. Definitions / scoping 5. Engagement with the CWG ICANN Board 6. High Level Statement 7. Expectations for the F2F Frankfurt 8. Timeline: highlight questions raised by plan 9. Work Area 4 Update Eric Brunner-Williams 10. 11. AOB 12. Closing Remarks

2 1