January 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Accountability Definitions and scoping
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a document drafted by the co-Chairs intended to provide baseline definitions for our work. It is designed to address some of the early questions we raised such as to whom should Icann be accountable ? What is the purpose of Icann's accountability ? or what is accountability ? We provide the document for your reading before the meeting but I will introduce the document during our call tomorrow, and comments will be welcome during the call or after on this email thread. We are well aware of the importance of the choice of words in the definitions and of their consequences for guiding the work of our group going forward. This document is a strawman, so feedback in the form of proposed edits will be much appreciated. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

8 11

Requirements based on latest discussions
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Over the last 10 days, several threads took place discussing member or delegate options, including very relevant insights and ideas. At the same time, our Work Parties 1 & 2 are just getting formed, so I felt we were running the risk of not making the most of these discussions. I have created a wiki page in an attemps to sum up, in terms of requirements, the ideas that were exchanged in these threads, and that should form an input to WP1 & WP2. I have probably missed some of the ideas exchanged, and maybe was not able to capture some of these right. But I would suggest we try to elaborate on this, and then hand this on to the WPs. Please feel free to add & comment. This is the link to the doc : https://community.icann.org/x/JwQdAw Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 2

The big test of effective accountability
by Kieren McCarthy Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Hello all, I've been giving a lot thought to effective accountability of ICANN and came across an idea that I don't think has been properly considered and which may make the difference between getting it right this time or spending the next decade fighting over yet more iterations of more structures and processes. And that is: human judgement. Namely that we have to acknowledge and agree upon and protect the concept of human judgement within accountability of ICANN. Currently ICANN is a slave to process and legal judgement. Everything goes first through process. If one process fails, there is another process to go through. If that fails, another process. If you run out of processes, you create a new process (as happened most famously with the ICM Registry independent review win, and with the GAC advice / ICANN Board impasse). Tied in with this process-over-decision approach is the fact that everything goes down a legal and legalistic route. The further down a path something goes - which almost always means that a wrong decision has been made - the more legalistic it becomes. Pretty soon the actual point and argument is almost entirely lost. This is clear in minutes of Board meetings in ICANN. As the group approaches an actual decision, the information around it, perversely, grows shorter and more vague. This is solely because of the lawyer mindset. What should happen is that information becomes clear and more plentiful. This legalistic approach also rapidly becomes prosecutorial. Rather than talking through a compromise or reaching understanding between parties it becomes more and more of a fight. ICANN corporate grows increasingly aggressive; the other side either drops out or is forced to fight to the bitter end. The end result is that everyone loses trust in ICANN. It is seen to be protecting only itself rather than looking out for the broader public interest. Just look at the recent Reconsideration Committee decision over dot-gay. Yes, it has asked for a re-evaluation but on the most narrow terms. Nearly all of dot-gay's complaints were dismissed in purely legalistic terms, rather than human judgement. The process was followed. Therefore it is legally justifiable. Therefore we will not consider anything outside of that because it might represent a legal threat. But if you take the legal goggles off, the dot-gay community decision was clearly a poor one. And so it should be possible to look at what happened and say: there was a mistake here, let's fix it. It gets to the point where ICANN is afraid to admit mistakes because it sees everything in terms of legal risk. The tail waking the dog. This also happened to an absurd degree with dot-inc, dot-llc and dot-llp - where the company had to go and get an emergency panelist to force ICANN to halt the auction for the domains while its complaints were considered. This is what happens if you do not allow for human judgement in a process - it becomes increasingly difficult and rancorous and legal. I would argue that legal arguments should be used only where human communication has failed to achieve resolution. But in ICANN, the legal approach comes first and as a result any attempt to achieve human communication is quickly excluded. And before all the lawyers start jumping in: the legal system itself has huge in-built (and protected) human judgement systems. Juries are the best example. They can listen to legal arguments, they can even be directed by judges, but ultimately they get to made a human decision based on their own considerations (and biases). Judges also are hugely human in their judgement. They decide issues based on what they think of the defendant - and often the lawyers. The problem with ICANN is we have the worst of both worlds. The Board sits as the judge and jury. There is very little human element of judgement before the case ends up in a legal process, and there is almost no human element within that legal process. So if we want to see what I think will look like real accountability to the internet community, it will be to build - and protect - human processes, where people are get to make decisions using the facets of intuition, reason, compassion and understanding. Rather than view everything as a threat to be defended against, ICANN needs to view its community as exactly that - a community. My two (six) cents. Kieren

27 68

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT #9 27 January 19:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT #9 call on 27 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414998 Notes 1/27: Audio-only -- Jonathan Zuck Please contact Grace if you need help with your SOI CWG update & joint statement * Chairs' Statement out of F2F (published on 23 January): <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en * Joint Statement published on 26 January: <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en * CWG reponse to "Accountability Issues" Document has been sent to Avri for final check before sending * Response is public and can be passed on WS1 requirements : organizing further work Two groups (mailing lists are set up): * WP1: Review & Redress (coordinated by Becky Burr). * WP2: Community Empowerment (coordinated by Jordan Carter) Two key deliverables for WP1 and WP2: * Scoping document based on WS1 requirements coming out of Frankfurt * Identification of key underlying issues to discuss such as composition, decision making methodologies (threshold, consensus, ...), standing ground, standards of review, cost, delays, ... * When those are defined, then the group can move to developing list of questions for legal advice detailing expected requirements, and asking for proposed mechanisms, in the form "how can we... ?" Action: send out Call for Volunteers. Please send a note to Grace if you would like to volunteer. Legal Advice * Legal Advice subteam also has a mailing list and has started to work based on CWG document. * The timeline that we are working with is very aggressive. In Frankfurt, we discussed that we would get initial response from ICANN legal as we develop our questions document. * No deviance from the path discussed in Frankfurt., * CCWG will attempt as an ideal to use the same firm as used by the CWG, although scoping documents will be different. * So as not wait for the firm to be selected, or wait for the scoping document to be finalized, the first step is to ask for advice from ICANN legal team on a board set of initial questions to help the CCWG understand if it is on a useful track. This will be checked by the external firm.. Contingencies : organising further work (inc. feedback from Board committee) * Agreed on a list of 21 contingencies. Agreed to provide additional analysis to these by responding to a list of questions, after discussion of an appropriate lists if questions. * Request to the Board Risk Committee of the contingencies they use as part of their risk management, a communication has been received from the committee. Comparison shows a couple of items to be updates. Next steps to answer the various questions: * Are there existing remedies in place ? How robust are these remedies ? * Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ? * How relevant is the threat to the transition of the IANA stewardship ? ie how does the transition affect the likelihood of the threat, or the severeness of the consequences ? Reframe the questions and ask whether contingencies from Board Risk are either in WS1 or WS2 based on our Charter. Action: Add a specific contingency part to the communication materials that we'll edit in Singapore. Timeline update Berry Cobb explains timeline 40 days of Public Comment Outreach plan for Singapore Adam Peake presents * Slide deck or briefing document? * Sent a summary of mailing list discussions sent to the CCWG list * Please let Adam know if you would like a briefing document and we'll see how we can assist. Action: prepare a short summary and slide deck that CCWG can share during next week's meeting and use for Singapore. Action: Adam to talk to GAC Chair and Staff Support to address timing. AOB * Timing of F2F in March (Kavouss) Closing remarks * Outstanding progress in Frankfurt, but still a lot to do in short time. * Press on with various work groups * Elaborate documents and build on substance * Next Call: 12:00 UTC on Tuesday 3 Feb Action Items Action: Add a specific contingency part to the communication materials that we'll edit in Singapore. Action: prepare a short summary and slide deck that CCWG can share during next week's meeting and use for Singapore. Action: Adam to talk to GAC Chair and Staff Support to address timing.

3 2

WA4 list repurposed to [ST-WP] + Call for Volunteers
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear all, Per chairs' request, I have repurposed the WA4 list (ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org) for the Stress Test Work Party [ST-WP], which is a natural evolution for the work. The archive will reflect this change, since the new subject line prefix will be [ST-WP]. The current ST-WP includes: Coordinator/Rapporteur: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (member) Volunteers: * Steve DelBianco (member) * * James Bladel (member) * Samantha Eisner (member) * Jonathan Zuck (participant) * Alan Greenberg (member) * Leon Sanchez (member) * Eberhard Lisse (member) * Mathieu Weill (member) * Thomas Rickert (member) * Carlos Raul Gutierrez (participant) * Camino Manjon-Sierra (participant) * Adebunmi Akinbo (participant) If you would like to join the group, please let me or Brenda know and we'll add you to the mailing list. The Wiki page for this group is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw Best, Grace

1 1

Selection of International Law Advisor to the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 30, 2015

Jan. 30, 2015

To view the original announcement, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-01-30-en Selection of International Law Advisor to the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb 243d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=linkedin&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-3-2015-01-30-en&title=Selection%20of%20Internationa l%20Law%20Advisor%20to%20the%20Enhancing%20ICANN%20Accountability%20Process% 20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/54cbf79945b7ae26/2&frommenu=1&uid =54cbf79954494f3b&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-01-30-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-01-30-en#> <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=sinaweibo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-3-2015-01-30-en&title=Selection%20of%20Internationa l%20Law%20Advisor%20to%20the%20Enhancing%20ICANN%20Accountability%20Process% 20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/54cbf79945b7ae26/3&frommenu=1&uid =54cbf79930690cc0&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-01-30-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-01-30-en#> The Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group <https://community.icann.org/x/lIgQAw> (PEG) announces the selection of the 7th and final Advisor to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). The PEG is pleased to announce Lee Andrew Bygrave as the Advisor with International Law/Jurisprudence as his area of expertise. Lee Andrew Bygrave is a Professor at the Department of Private Law at the University of Oslo, Norway, where he is also the Director of the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law. He is additionally an associate (former Co-Director) of the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Among his publications are Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions (Oxford University Press, 2009) and, most recently, Internet Governance by Contract (Oxford University Press, 2015). Bygrave will be serving in his personal capacity along with the previously announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> Advisors to the CCWG-Accountability: * Roberto Bissio, Executive Director of the Instituto del Tercer Mundo Area of Expertise: Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights (for example consumer protection) * William Currie, Consultant in ICT Policy and Regulation Area of Expertise: Governmental Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance * Valerie D'Costa, Program Manager at infoDev Area of Expertise: Governmental Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance * Ira Magaziner, Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Clinton Health Access Initiative Area of Expertise: Governmental Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance * Nell Minow, Shareholder Advocate Area of Expertise: Board Governance and Corporate Management (for example operational, finance, risk management * Jan Scholte, Professor, University of Gothenburg and University of Warwick Area of Expertise: Global Accountability and Transparency theoretical, practical, tools and metrics The Advisors have begun their engagement with the CCWG-Accountability, mainly through the CCWG-Accountability Chairs. The Advisors roles are to contribute research and advice, and to bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich the discussion, all while engaging with a broader network of accountability experts from around the world. As stated in the revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en> from 10 October, The Public Experts Group (PEG) was tasked <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en> with selecting up to 7 Advisors to the CCWG-Accountability. Now, that the PEG has concluded its work, it will no longer be active. However, the PEG notes that the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process considered that while the PEG's formal task is to select Advisors, PEG members could continue to be available provide additional assistance if there is an identified need for further independent input or expertise. The members of the PEG are: Ms. Jeanette Hoffman, Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society; Ambassador Janis Karklins, Latvian Ambassador. Chair of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG); Mr. Larry Strickling, NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce; and Mr. Brian Cute, Chief Executive Officer, Public Interest Registry

1 0

Accountability Relevant Items in the US Senate
by Paul Rosenzweig Jan. 30, 2015

Jan. 30, 2015

The community might be interested in the two following events that occurred in the United States Senate this week: Two Senators (Hatch and Blunt) introduced a resolution relating to the ICANN/IANA Transition: http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/hatch-blunt_internet_governance_aware ness_week_resolution4_1.pdf Meanwhile, Senator John Thune, Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee (the one that oversees the NTIA) gave a broad speech regarding his agenda for the coming year, which included mention of the IANA transition as well. A report on that speech is here: http://blogs.rollcall.com/technocrat/internet-governance-a-hearing-planned-a nd-a-resolution-introduced/?dcz= Regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW, EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9>

3 2

summary of mailing list discussions, week 16-22 January
by Adam Peake Jan. 30, 2015

Jan. 30, 2015

Hi everyone. Staff have been producing a summary of CCWG list discussion for the expert advisors. Thought it might be helpful for you to see. Summary for the week of 16 -22 January attached. We write these on a weekly basis, try to turn them around quite quickly so the advisors can follow the discussions (a few of the advisors are also subscribed to list). Comments always welcome. Thanks, Adam Adam Peake ICANN

8 8

CCWG Timeline
by Berry Cobb Jan. 29, 2015

Jan. 29, 2015

Hi All, Please find attached the latest version of the CCWG timeline as presented during this week's CCWG call. This version has also be circulated to the CWG. There were a few small structural changes from the version presented earlier, but the deliverable dates and key Work Areas and Work Parties remain intact. Should you have any clarifying questions, please send them to the list and we will be happy to answer them. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

2 2

got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
by Jonathan Zuck Jan. 29, 2015

Jan. 29, 2015

The idea of ICANN membership has come up as a means to anchor the organization in the existing bottom-up, multi-stakeholder community, thereby ensuring its continued legitimacy. The very essence of work stream 1 is that ICANN's Board of Directors would become accountable to the community, in much the same way that the Boards of publicly-traded companies are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. Some good and reasonable questions have been raised on the list about the legality and complexity of a possible membership structure under California not-for-profit corporate law. I tasked my in-house counsel with researching some of these questions and, while recognizing that the CCWG still needs independent expert advice, here's what she's been able to determine: Q: What would this look like? Briefly, the idea is that the head of each of the 11 current ICANN groups (supporting organizations, advisory committees, and stakeholder groups) would become one of the members of ICANN, and would continue to serve as an ICANN member until someone else took over the leadership of that group. Q: Is the proposed membership structure legal? A: Under California non-profit law, a tax-exempt organization may be comprised of members. A tax-exempt organization has broad leeway to create a membership structure that best suits its particular needs. It's clear under California law that individuals may be members. Cal. Corp. Code 5310(a). Moreover, California law does not restrict membership to legally organized groups. Cal. Corp. Code 5313. Thus, it is appropriate for an individual, identified by a group (whether incorporated or unincorporated) to be a member. Alternately, membership can be granted to a group, which can then authorize a person to vote on its behalf. Cal. Corp. Code 5056(c). Q: Will the Government Advisory Committee have a member? Can a government representative be a member of a non-profit organization? A: Yes. As an Advisory Committee, the GAC would have one member on ICANN. California non-profit law permits a government representative (including a representative of a foreign government) to be a member of a non-profit organization. However, if the GAC determines that it prefers to remain only an advisory body and not take on this new membership role, the model is still viable. Q: Will the new membership structure be flexible enough to accommodate future changes to ICANN? A: Yes. Future changes to ICANN membership status would be approved by the members. For example, if a new stakeholder group, supporting organization or advisory committee is created under the bylaws, the current members could offer membership to that entity by a 3/4 vote. Similarly, the current members could remove a current member by a 3/4 vote. The required flexibility would just need to be incorporated into the updated bylaws. Q: How would the members remain accountable? To ensure full accountability, the 11 members would serve on behalf of their respective memberships and could be recalled or replaced by their group at any time. Q: How to prevent membership from being GNSO-heavy? Any concerns about the 11 members being too GNSO-heavy could be addressed via a weighted voting structure or similar mechanism. Q: How will the new membership structure prevent organizational capture? Will each member be treated the same? A: The new membership structure prevents organizational capture by giving each stakeholder group only one representative member to ICANN and requiring a 3/4 vote for significant decisions, thereby ensuring significant consensus. Each member receives one vote of equal weight to the other members. For instance, governments are represented by the GAC Chair, and have only one collective voice out of 11 in the accountability process. Q: Will the membership process preclude those unable or unwilling to pay membership dues? A: Membership would be free to all eligible members. Participation in the existing group of supporting organizations and advisory committees will not be altered, and will remain free of charge. I hope this helps to inform our discussions while we wait for the independent legal experts to give us their views. Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck(a)actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org/>

15 43

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] due diligence of ccTLD delegation changes
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2015

Jan. 29, 2015

Hello Eberhard, >> ticking off check lists without looking beyond "traffic lights", Actually usually we have a Board member act as shepherd for such a motion and do a little further due diligence to ensure all processes were followed. In the past we had a separate Board committee do that. This is particularly the case when Board members are contacted by parties within the country with any concerns. Certainly any re-delegation gets quite a bit of scrutiny. A key improvement in the process – would be to require publication of proposed changes and public comment processes to capture any concerns from the affected community. >> What we need to do is to get the FoI Principles established. >> And, come to think of it, as far as the ccNSO is concerned (as per your suggestion) we can just run them as a PDP because all the heavy lifting has been done, and the ccNSO unanimously approves of them. Maybe we can even fast track them. Good idea. This is exactly what the PDP process is intended for. >> We also need the IANA function Manager to publish ALL criteria it requires from a proposed (incoming) Manager. it would even make applications easier to make, and to evaluate. Good idea also. I was hoping actually that some of these recommendations would have come from the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] participation of Governments, ccTLD managers, gTLD registrars etc in the accountability structures
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2015

Jan. 29, 2015

Hello Keith, >> I'm curious why you think a ccTLD manager's choice to not join the ccNSO equates to an unworkable accountability model for those who have opted to join and participate and bind themselves to ccNSO policy. Over the years – a key performance measure at different times for ICANN staff has been to improve outreach to Governments, ccTLD managers, and gTLD registrars to encourage these entities to participate as members in the various structures at ICANN – e.g GAC, ccNSO, Registrars Stakeholder Group. Ideally ICANN manages to achieve a better than 75% level of participation in each of these areas. To get participation at this level – implies that the ICANN multi-stakeholder model provides value in various ways to the members of these constituent groups. If we get low levels of participation – then I think ICANN becomes far less accountable to its stakeholders. I guess it is a bit like getting voter turn-out for elections in countries where voting is voluntary. A Government "elected" by a minority of the population is general less accepted by the whole population of the country. Note that in Australia it is compulsory to vote in Government elections, and you are fined if you don’t ☺ Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Call for volunteers: new work groups
by Adam Peake Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

Hi everyone, Seeking volunteers to contribute to the two new work groups: (1) Community Empowerment, led by Jordan Carter (2) Review and Redress, led by Becky Burr Mailing lists have been set-up for both. Anyone who would like to join either group please write to Brenda brenda.brewer(a)icann.org offlist indicating which group you would like to join. Thank you, Adam Adam Peake ICANN

1 0

Speech by Larry Strickling on transition of IANA stewardship
by Chris Disspain Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

All, FYI, Secretary Strickling's speech today at State of the Net Conference. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… 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 Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

My presumption is that the AC/SO/or whatever would be the "member" and that the Chair (or delegate) would be the representative of the member. I understand that members may be individuals, incorporated bodies or unincorporated bodies, but I question whether a Member can be an organization that owes its existence to the body in which is it a member. That seems to be circular definition. Alan At 27/01/2015 01:05 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: >The idea of ICANN membership has come up as a means to anchor the >organization in the existing bottom-up, multi-stakeholder community, >thereby ensuring its continued legitimacy. The very essence of work >stream 1 is that ICANN's Board of Directors would become accountable >to the community, in much the same way that the Boards of >publicly-traded companies are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. >Some good and reasonable questions have been raised on the list >about the legality and complexity of a possible membership structure >under California not-for-profit corporate law. I tasked my in-house >counsel with researching some of these questions and, while >recognizing that the CCWG still needs independent expert advice, >here's what she's been able to determine: > >Q: What would this look like? >Briefly, the idea is that the head of each of the 11 current ICANN >groups (supporting organizations, advisory committees, and >stakeholder groups) would become one of the members of ICANN, and >would continue to serve as an ICANN member until someone else took >over the leadership of that group. > >Q: Is the proposed membership structure legal? >A: Under California non-profit law, a tax-exempt organization may be >comprised of members. A tax-exempt organization has broad leeway to >create a membership structure that best suits its particular needs. >It's clear under California law that individuals may be members. >Cal. Corp. Code 5310(a). Moreover, California law does not restrict >membership to legally organized groups. Cal. Corp. Code 5313. Thus, >it is appropriate for an individual, identified by a group (whether >incorporated or unincorporated) to be a member. Alternately, >membership can be granted to a group, which can then authorize a >person to vote on its behalf. Cal. Corp. Code 5056(c). > >Q: Will the Government Advisory Committee have a member? Can a >government representative be a member of a non-profit organization? >A: Yes. As an Advisory Committee, the GAC would have one member on >ICANN. California non-profit law permits a government >representative (including a representative of a foreign government) >to be a member of a non-profit organization. However, if the GAC >determines that it prefers to remain only an advisory body and not >take on this new membership role, the model is still viable. > >Q: Will the new membership structure be flexible enough to >accommodate future changes to ICANN? >A: Yes. Future changes to ICANN membership status would be approved >by the members. For example, if a new stakeholder group, supporting >organization or advisory committee is created under the bylaws, the >current members could offer membership to that entity by a 3/4 >vote. Similarly, the current members could remove a current member >by a 3/4 vote. The required flexibility would just need to be >incorporated into the updated bylaws. > >Q: How would the members remain accountable? >To ensure full accountability, the 11 members would serve on behalf >of their respective memberships and could be recalled or replaced by >their group at any time. > >Q: How to prevent membership from being GNSO-heavy? >Any concerns about the 11 members being too GNSO-heavy could be >addressed via a weighted voting structure or similar mechanism. > >Q: How will the new membership structure prevent organizational >capture? Will each member be treated the same? >A: The new membership structure prevents organizational capture by >giving each stakeholder group only one representative member to >ICANN and requiring a 3/4 vote for significant decisions, thereby >ensuring significant consensus. Each member receives one vote of >equal weight to the other members. For instance, governments are >represented by the GAC Chair, and have only one collective voice out >of 11 in the accountability process. > >Q: Will the membership process preclude those unable or unwilling to >pay membership dues? >A: Membership would be free to all eligible members. Participation >in the existing group of supporting organizations and advisory >committees will not be altered, and will remain free of charge. > >I hope this helps to inform our discussions while we wait for the >independent legal experts to give us their views. > > >Jonathan Zuck >President >202-331-2130 X 101 | <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>jzuck(a)actonline.org >| Skype: jvzuck > >ACT | The App Association > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Delegates": A Possible Alternative to Members
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

I am a firm believer in making as few changes as necessary. Although membership may well be the best way to go, getting the same effect from a less onerous change may be preferable. Alan At 27/01/2015 02:33 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Jonathan, > >I agree that delegates would not (or need not) >be functionally different from members. It >would be structurally different, however, which >may resolve certain concerns that have arisen >regarding "joining" ICANN, turning ICANN into a membership organization, etc. > >Greg > >On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Zuck ><<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>JZuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: > >Definitely something to look into. Iâm not >sure that delegates would functionally be too >much different from members, though, and would >require the same tough questions be answered as >to powers. Meanwhile, I had my in-house counsel >look into the questions that have been raised >about membership and the preliminary results are >encouraging. Started a new thread with it. > >Jonathan > > > > > >From: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:41 PM >To: Greg Shatan >Cc: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Delegates": A Possible Alternative to Members > > > >I think this is an interesting avenue, as some >Board members, the ones who have NOT been >nominated by the NomCom, have been "delegated" >by its respective constituencies. > > > >Furthermore as Roelof Meijer suggested earlier >on, the Board should be separated between the >NomCom delegates as ExecBoard, while the >"Delegates" could constitute a Supervisory Board >in the European style. Under this layered >structure, we could develop the so much needed >Internal system of Review and Redress of the >(exec)Board decisions, well under control of the constituencies....... > > >Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez >ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >skype carlos.raulg ><tel:%2B506%208837%207176>+506 8837 7176 (New Phone number!!!!) >________ >Apartado 1571-1000 >COSTA RICA > > > >2015-01-27 10:03 GMT-06:00 Greg Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: > >California non-profit law states that a >non-profit corporation may have delegates, who >would have some or all of the powers of >members. It is my understanding that these >delegates would not be "statutory" members of >the organization (and that the organization >would not be a "membership" non-profit). > > > >It is possible that using delegates could solve >some of the issues raised about members and the >concept of "membership." I have not read beyond >the statute itself, so consider this only a >rough starting point (and certainly not "legal advice"). > > > >Here is the statutory language, from Cal. Corp. Code Â§5152: > > > >5152. A corporation may provide in its bylaws for delegates having > >some or all of the authority of members. Where delegates are provided > >for, the bylaws shall set forth delegates' terms of office, any > >reasonable method for delegates' selection and removal, and any > >reasonable method for calling, noticing and holding meetings of > >delegates and may set forth the manner in which delegates may act by > >written ballot similar to Section 5513 for written ballot of members. > >Delegates may only act personally at a meeting or by written ballot > >and may not act by proxy. Delegates may be given a name other than >"delegates." > > > >Greg Shatan > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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

1 0

"Delegates": A Possible Alternative to Members
by Greg Shatan Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

California non-profit law states that a non-profit corporation may have delegates, who would have some or all of the powers of members. It is my understanding that these delegates would not be "statutory" members of the organization (and that the organization would not be a "membership" non-profit). It is possible that using delegates could solve some of the issues raised about members and the concept of "membership." I have not read beyond the statute itself, so consider this only a rough starting point (and certainly not "legal advice"). Here is the statutory language, from Cal. Corp. Code §5152: 5152. A corporation may provide in its bylaws for delegates having some or all of the authority of members. Where delegates are provided for, the bylaws shall set forth delegates' terms of office, any reasonable method for delegates' selection and removal, and any reasonable method for calling, noticing and holding meetings of delegates and may set forth the manner in which delegates may act by written ballot similar to Section 5513 for written ballot of members. Delegates may only act personally at a meeting or by written ballot and may not act by proxy. Delegates may be given a name other than "delegates." Greg Shatan

3 4

Late Apology
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Sorry about missing the call, major power failure in my suburb, and I am not going to be able to do this through the 4G... el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

1 0

Contingencies and Board Risk Committee
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of our call, I want to share two items of relevance for the contingency discussion. 1) Questions for "repurposed" WA4 In Frankfurt we agreed to further investigate on the contingency list by providing answers to several questions on each contingency. There was discussion about the phrasing of the questions. Below is a proposal attempting to merge the Charter deliverable questions with our discussion : * How relevant is the threat to the transition of the IANA stewardship ? ie how does the transition affect the likelihood of the threat, or the severeness of the consequences ? * Are there existing remedies in place ? Are these remedies robust ? * Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ? 2) Input from the Board Risk Committee You may remember we had requested communication from the Board Risk Committee regarding the list of contingencies that they consider in the course of their mission, which includes overseeing Icann's risk management framework. Thanks to Bruce Tonkin, our Board Liaison, as well as the members of this Committee, we have now received communication of this list. I have attached the document. Our group should now be able to check whether the list contains contingencies we should add. Looking forward to discussing this on our upcoming call. Best regards, Mathieu Weill -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated to make some decisions
by Robin Gross Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

To flesh this proposal out a bit further: The "Community" could overturn a board decision on a limited number of key issues via an ombudsman mediated process in which a decision could be rendered via the "Community". Each individual component of the Community (for example, GAC, GNSO, AT-Large, CCNSO, etc.) would have a proportional weight in the over-all decision of the Community. Currently, each of these individual components already has internal mechanisms in place to make decisions (take policy positions, elections, etc.) through which the decision of the Community is actually rendered. This way, we don't need to create a new super-structure to be "Representational". We can do away with that additional layer entirely - creating the "super board" because decisions can be made in the individual component's internal mechanisms. This would be a much more bottom-up method of reaching a "Decision of the Community" regarding a particular board decision. The ombudsman could act as the facilitator of this process: put the issue to vote, collect and tally the votes of the individual components to render the "Decision of the Community". The board would then be required to adopt this Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or super-majority) to not adopt the Decision of the Community, which could be stipulated to in bylaws. The board would retain ultimate decisional authority as required by Cal Corp law, but it would be very difficult for it to ignore the bottom-up Decision of the Community. Coupled with a mechanism to recall recalcitrant board members, this overall model could solve many of our problems and remake ICANN in a more bottom-up fashion without too much structural redesign. Thoughts? Thanks, Robin On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, David Post wrote: > > With the caveat that I know next-to-nothing specifically about CA non-profit corporation law, it certainly looks to me like Robin's idea fits quite comfortably within the statute. The Board delegates a decision-making function to some other body, as it is allowed to do; it agrees to abide by the decision of that other body, subject to its "ultimate authority" to change its mind and decide NOT to abide by a decision of that other body; but it can only do that by a supermajority, or even a unanimous, vote at the time. It seems to me that gives the Board (as a whole) the "ultimate direction" of corporation - it does get the "final say" - but it also gives the body to which the Board has delegated decision-making power real "teeth" (because the supermajority or unanimity required to overturn its decision will be very difficult to achieve) - > > David > > ******************************* > David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation > blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post > book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com > ******************************* > > > > At 10:45 AM 1/20/2015, Robin Gross wrote: >> CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION >> >> Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp: >> >> >> >> 5210. Each corporation shall have a board of directors. >> Subject to >> the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or >> bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members >> (Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the >> activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all >> corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the >> board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the >> corporation to any person or persons, management company, or >> committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs >> of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be >> exercised under the ultimate direction of the >> board. >> >> >> 2 part solution proposal: >> >> 1. So the board may be able to delegate some of these management activities to "the community" - and reserves its ultimate direction to be able to over-turn such a decision by full negative consensus. {i.e. every board member is against it). The board would have to put this restriction on itself in bylaws: the requirement for all board members to vote against a community decision in order to over turn it. >> >> 2. If we then added the ability to remove board members, this mechanism might be able to provide the kind of oversight and control the community is looking for without creating super-boards, membership orgs, and still complies with California Corporation law about board retaining ultimate control. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

10 11

[CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
by Jordan Carter Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Hi all I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability. The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised. At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws). There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on. A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner. Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with. In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made: a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user. If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too. cheers Jordan -- 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.*

19 30

Update on definitions & scoping document
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear Colleagues, FYI, as discussed in Frankfurt, the document on definitions & scoping has been updated, and circulated for Advice to the group of Advisors. You can find the latest version in the drafts section of our wiki, which has recently benefited from a new layout thanks to Grace and Alice. Please note that the redline version includes mentions of edits as well as the origin of edits. Many thanks to all contributors. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountab… As soon as we receive feedback from the Advisors, we will share it to the group. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

*Please note that the CCWG-Board session is not yet listed. This session is being confirmed. We'll add an addendum when the session is confirmed and on public schedule. To view the original announcement, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb 243d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=linkedin&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-2015-01-26-en&title=Joint%20CWG-Stewardship%20%26%2 0CCWG-Accountability%20Chairs%27%20Statement%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89/-/-/54c6befc73130645/2&frommenu=1&uid=54c6befc7176ac61&ct=1&tt=0&cap tcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=sinaweibo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-2015-01-26-en&title=Joint%20CWG-Stewardship%20%26%2 0CCWG-Accountability%20Chairs%27%20Statement%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89/-/-/54c6befc73130645/3&frommenu=1&uid=54c6befc30ef4f9c&ct=1&tt=0&cap tcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IA NA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez, & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> As both Cross Community Working Groups prepare for community engagement and work sessions at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability would like to recognize the interdependence and connected nature of the work of their respective groups, as set out by the ICANN processes1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#foot1> and further reinforced by each working group's Charter.2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#foot2> Following the ICANN 51 Meeting in Los Angeles, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs and the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability Charter Drafting Team started to hold update and coordination calls, a practical and early recognition of the requirement for active collaboration on their respective work efforts. These weekly interchanges and updates are ongoing and serve to keep each other informed about questions and issues arising from their respective working groups. Moving forward, the Chairs commit to continue to actively work together, and synchronize insofar as possible, on timelines and milestones, especially where there are accountability mechanisms that may be relevant for both groups. To assist in broader community understanding of the interdependencies of the parts of Work Stream 1 that relates to the CWG, a schematic illustration of the dynamics between the two working groups is available in a flowchart <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Link%20with%20CCW G%20Accountability%20-%20updated%2026%20January%202015.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 154 KB]. Work in Progress The CCWG-Accountability has just concluded a two-day meeting <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en> in Frankfurt, Germany (19-20 January), during which they discussed their Work Stream 1 requirements, with initial input from the CWG-Stewardship on accountability dependencies. Both working groups are expected to continue this dialogue as work progresses. The CWG-Stewardship, following an intensive work weekend <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en> on 10-11 January, is in the process of reviewing its timeline for submission of a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). A vital part of this endeavor is the seeking of legal advice on questions related to the viability of key elements of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. As the CCWG-Accountability also moves forward to seek legal advice, the Chairs will inform each other of the process used and advice received, so as to further ensure efficient synchronization in light of dependent and compressed timeframe. ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (9-13 February 2015) The Chairs intend to all be present at both CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability related sessions during the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> , including the ICG-organized events. This will reinforce the working groups' commitment to a productive meeting, advancing discussions and improving collaboration. Below is a compiled list of engagement sessions and working sessions that are relevant to both processes: *All times in local time (UTC +8) IANA Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountabilit y> Olivia Meeting Room Sunday, 8 February 17:30-19:00 Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship> Padang/Canning Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 10:30-13:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 16:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 9:45-11:15 CWG-Stewardship Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 17:15-19:15 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 07:00-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 10:30-11:45 The full schedule for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore is available here <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full> . 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#note1> On 6 June 2014, ICANN, in its role as facilitator, published a community-driven process for the IANAStewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en> . Community discussions on the IANA Stewardship Transition led to the development of an additional process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en> , which was published on 10 October. 2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#note2> The CWG-Stewardship Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/2grxAg> was circulated for adoption on 14 August 2014. The CCWG-Accountability Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> was circulated for adoption on 3 November 2014.

2 1

Fwd:.. Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement
by Jordan Carter Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

I didn't see if this was circulated on the list... Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: 27 January 2015 at 14:47 Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement To: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en ------------------------------ Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement 26 January 2015 Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson - CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez, & Mathieu Weill - CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…> As both Cross Community Working Groups prepare for community engagement and work sessions at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability would like to recognize the interdependence and connected nature of the work of their respective groups, as set out by the ICANN processes1 <#14b2912228a346c4_foot1> and further reinforced by each working group's Charter.2 <#14b2912228a346c4_foot2> Following the ICANN 51 Meeting in Los Angeles, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs and the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability Charter Drafting Team started to hold update and coordination calls, a practical and early recognition of the requirement for active collaboration on their respective work efforts. These weekly interchanges and updates are ongoing and serve to keep each other informed about questions and issues arising from their respective working groups. Moving forward, the Chairs commit to continue to actively work together, and synchronize insofar as possible, on timelines and milestones, especially where there are accountability mechanisms that may be relevant for both groups. To assist in broader community understanding of the interdependencies of the parts of Work Stream 1 that relates to the CWG, a schematic illustration of the dynamics between the two working groups is available in a flowchart <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Link%20with%20CCW…> [PDF, 154 KB]. Work in Progress The CCWG-Accountability has just concluded a two-day meeting <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en> in Frankfurt, Germany (19-20 January), during which they discussed their Work Stream 1 requirements, with initial input from the CWG-Stewardship on accountability dependencies. Both working groups are expected to continue this dialogue as work progresses. The CWG-Stewardship, following an intensive work weekend <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en> on 10-11 January, is in the process of reviewing its timeline for submission of a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). A vital part of this endeavor is the seeking of legal advice on questions related to the viability of key elements of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. As the CCWG-Accountability also moves forward to seek legal advice, the Chairs will inform each other of the process used and advice received, so as to further ensure efficient synchronization in light of dependent and compressed timeframe. ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (9-13 February 2015) The Chairs intend to all be present at both CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability related sessions during the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/>, including the ICG-organized events. This will reinforce the working groups' commitment to a productive meeting, advancing discussions and improving collaboration. Below is a compiled list of engagement sessions and working sessions that are relevant to both processes: **All times in local time (UTC +8)* IANA Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability> Olivia Meeting Room Sunday, 8 February 17:30-19:00 Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship> Padang/Canning Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 10:30-13:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 16:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 9:45-11:15 CWG-Stewardship Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 17:15-19:15 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 07:00-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 10:30-11:45 The full schedule for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore is available here <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full>. ------------------------------ 1 <#14b2912228a346c4_note1> On 6 June 2014, ICANN, in its role as facilitator, published a community-driven process for the IANA Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>. Community discussions on the IANA Stewardship Transition led to the development of an additional process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en>, which was published on 10 October. 2 <#14b2912228a346c4_note2> The CWG-Stewardship Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/2grxAg> was circulated for adoption on 14 August 2014. The CCWG-Accountability Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> was circulated for adoption on 3 November 2014. -- 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.*

1 0

Proposed Agenda for CCWG-Accountability Call on 27 January at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 26, 2015

Jan. 26, 2015

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for our call tomorrow: 1. Welcome & Roll Call - update SOI 2. CWG update & joint statement 3. WS1 requirements : organising further work 4. Contingencies : organising further work (inc. feedback from Board committee) 5. Timeline update 6. Outreach plan for Singapore 7. AOB 8. Closing remarks Best, Grace

2 1