January 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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

Jan. 20, 2015

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

1 0

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

Jan. 20, 2015

1 0

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

Jan. 20, 2015

To take advantage of the the prior efforts of work area 2, I went thru our 15-Jan version<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WA2%20Inventory%2…> of WA2 inventory and extracted some ‘requirements'. Just did the first page here, focusing on items that seemed to have consensus: Note1: ‘Community’ refers to cross-community accountability group, whether by Members, Supervisory Board, or other mechanism. Community powers: Community appoints representatives to the Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams. Community has standing to send any board decision to independent Review Panel (may begin the IRP with a Cooperative Engagement Process) Community has standing to begin a reconsideration request on decisions of board or ICANN management, on matters of process or of substance. Community may approve/disapprove proposed ICANN annual budget. Community may approve/disapprove proposed changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. Community may recall one or all ICANN board members. Review and Redress Mechanisms: Decisions of Independent Review Panel are binding on ICANN’s board. Panelists in the IRP pool should be selected by the Community. The standard for Independent Review should be lower. The cost to prosecute an Independent Review should be reduced. IRP should address errors or ethical lapses. Ombudsman should be able to investigate any accountability-related complaint brought by an ICANN employee, while protecting confidentiality of the employee Affirmation of Commitments: The Affirmation of Commitments should not be a bilateral agreement with USG that can be canceled by either party. It could be merged into ICANN bylaws, for example. The Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) could recommend sunset of previously required reviews, and create new reviews. Mission/Scope of ICANN: ICANN should be prevented from imposing obligations on others, unless supported by consensus of affected parties and necessary to protect the integrity and availability of unique identifiers in the DNS. ICANN should be prevented from acting outside its Bylaws and Articles — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

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

Jan. 20, 2015

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

2 1

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

2 1

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

1 0

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

2 3

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

1 0

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

1 0

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

Jan. 19, 2015

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

4 3

[CCWG-Accountability] Documents
by Alice Jansen Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear All, To help you navigate through documents, please find attached the following: * Agenda; * CWG Stewardship accountability dependencies (link to google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn…) * CWG Statement; * 4 questions (contingencies) * CCWG Accountability WS4 - Scenarios; * CCWG Accountability - Problem definition - Strawman proposal;. Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Additional Scenario raised in Frankfurt F2F (Monday)
by James M. Bladel Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Team: Per Leon's request, here is a (rough) write-up of the new scenario/contingency I raised on Monday: (Proposed) 22. ICANN delegates or subcontracts its obligations under a future iANA agreement to a third party. Would also include ICANN merging with or allowing itself to be acquired by another organization. Thank you, J.

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Snapshot of CW-Stewardship Accountability dependencies
by Avri Doria Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Hi, Apologies for this last minute contribution to our meeting, but the CWG is still developing its solution and it has proven challenging to nail down the accountability dependencies. The attached document, is a draft/snapshot of where we have gotten to at this point. The issues are still under discussion as we have both the mainstream 'Frankfurt' model that was the subject of our comment draft and have several alternative 'Internal model' proposals that are being discussed based on comments received. Some of these dependency concerns may be more applicable to one model than another, but even that is still difficult to accurately delineate. Also in some instances, like the IAP (Independent Appeals Panel) we have yet to 'decide' whether this uses a mechanism that the CCWG-Accountability might create or is a structure the transition team builds separately. The dependencies paper is short and does not include much by way of description or explanation - the Stewardship solution is still under discussion. I will be happy to provide as much explanation as I can during the meeting, as I am sure the various other members/participants of the CWG-Stewardship who are attending this week's meeting will do. I will bring back to the CWG-Stewardship any comments the CCWG may have on thses issues. I suggest that the WA3 will be able to continue to dig deeper after our meeting. Thanks avri

1 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

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

5 8

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F
by Lars-Erik.Forsberg＠ec.europa.eu Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Dear Erika Only Monday morning at 9.30 from Brussels Hope to see you there! Lars Erik From: Erika Mann [mailto:erika@erikamann.com] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 11:22 AM To: FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT) Cc: Grace Abuhamad; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; HARTOG Eddy (CNECT) Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F When are you both arriving, Lars? Erika Erika Mann ICANN, Board of Directors +32 498 12 13 54<tel:%2B32%20498%2012%2013%2054> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM, <Lars-Erik.Forsberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>> wrote: Dear Grace, Paying quite a lot of attention to this meeting the European Commission has now decided to also send me to the meeting as participants. That means that both Camino and I will be present. Hope that is OK with you. As you know we have no claims for travel support. Best regards Erik From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 7:00 PM To: FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT); accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: MANJON Camino (CNECT); HARTOG Eddy (CNECT) Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F Hi Erik, Thank you for the notice of your attendance to the face to face meeting in Frankfurt. Camino has been added to the list. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In-Person+Attendees To confirm, ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members only, 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. Best, Grace From: "Lars-Erik.Forsberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>" <Lars-Erik.Forsberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>> Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 10:14 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "Camino.MANJON(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu>" <Camino.MANJON(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu>>, "Eddy.Hartog(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Eddy.Hartog@ec.europa.eu>" <Eddy.Hartog(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Eddy.Hartog@ec.europa.eu>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F Dear Grace, The European Commission is planning to be represented by Camino Manjon (participant) Please add her name to the list. Best regards Erik From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:53 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Attendance at Frankfurt F2F Importance: High 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 • _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Level of Discourse / Rules of Order
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, I wish to file a formal complaint about the disorder during the last telephone call and demand that this be dealt with forthwith. After an apparent technical issue regarding Mr Arasteh, having being allegedly repeatedly phoned under an incorrect number, when he finally connected to the bridge he raised his voice and repeatedly interrupted the chair, while not having the floor/having been recognized. In 25 year of dealing with this stuff I have never experienced an outburst like the one displayed by the ICG Liaison and Participant. It is furthermore disturbing to me since the gentleman is a professional negotiator of 40 years experience and a GAC representative. I also believe that such conduct is unacceptable under ICANN's rules of behavior but in any case it is not acceptable to me and I demand that steps are taken to prevent this from happening again. Non withstanding the above I suppose an investigation into the allegations of him being unable to be contacted might be in order, and I for one look forward into find out what actually happened and what can be done to prevent this from happening again, if anything. That said, I notice with alarming regularly issues with individuals being unable to access Adobe Connect and/or connecting to the call. This is equally disturbing and hence I would appreciate if this could be looked into as well. I for one am setting aside some time on TechDay on Monday of the ICANN meeting in Singapore, for an Adobe Workshop of sorts, where we could among other issues demonstrate how one can not only listen but also speak (directly) through the net, ie without requiring a dial in/out. Then there is the possibility to use Skype's dial out which works, free of charge to US based toll free numbers. Finally, I use a privately owned Asterix switchboard via a (Bria 3) soft-phone on my Mac to dial a UK based toll free number, which works extremely well with very little bandwidth from (the developing country) Namibia. I have asked Bart Boswinkel a while back to look into setting up SIP access of sort, I could envisage an Asterix server which only allows the dialing of toll free numbers (related to ICANN work). I have not heard back from him, yet. This is not meant as criticism, in particular not of the chairs, who have been bending over backwards in order to be inclusive. greetings, el

8 12

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
by Paul Rosenzweig Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: * Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; * Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: * Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. * All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

13 15

[CCWG-Accountability] Preparation for Frankfurt
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of the meeting, the Chairs have asked me to share some documents for you to review as well as a reminder about the rules of engagement: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting * Members are expected to communicate the views of the communities that have selected them to the CCWG, but also communicate back the information and deliberations from the CCWG to their respective communities * Members and participants are expected to be conscious of time and the queue of speakers so as to allow all opportunities to speak, including those participating remotely. We have a timer on hand if we need to limit speaker time to guarantee participation * Members and participants are expected to be familiar with and remain consistent with the pre-existing documents and documents developed during the course of the work of the CCWG. The list is as follows: > * Agenda > * Charter of the CCWG-Accountability > * Definitions & Scope document > * CWG diagram + Statement of Chairs from intensive work weekend > * WA1 inventory > * WA2 inventory > * WA4 list of contingency doc > * Advisors engagement proposal > * Timeline (slides + detailed project plan) All of these documents will be available for download on the Wiki shortly. Safe travels to all. See you Sunday. My mobile is listed below in case you need anything. Best, Grace Grace Abuhamad Public Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [ccnso-members] RE: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dmitry, Stephen, Chris, the more I think about it the more we already have the accountability measures in place that Chuck apparently is not aware of: 1) The current GAC Principles. Yes, you read right :-)-O The more I read them, the more I can live with them, because they (are sufficiently vague to) cater to the incumbent ccTLD Manager, including (Intellectual Property) rights. They also state the obvious, namely that an individual or entity finding oneself in a particular country is subject to that country's law (however harsh). 2) The Framework of Interpretation ("FoI") Principles. They basically state that the IANA function Manager has no recourse against a ccTLD Manager, other than revocation. They also state that a revocation can only happen against the wishes of the incumbent ccTLD Manager if said incumbent ccTLD Manager has substantially misbehaved. These two Principles together are all the accountability a current (incumbent) ccTLD Manager needs. If a ccTLD Manager asserts rights, which NA-NiC and I do with regards to .NA, and perform a reasonable, honest and competent job, there is nothing that ICANN, or rather the IANA function Manager can do, unilaterally. That some governments allege "sovereignty" over two characters, does not mean they have, whatever it is they actually mean, nor that the IANA Function Manager can act, unilaterally. I have not formed a position on what should happen during a DELEGATION, be it de-novo, ie the next one should be .SS, or after a revocation. The FoI Principles declare two "classes" of stakeholders, namely "Interested Parties" and "Significantly Interested Parties" ("SIP"). The government automatically (and quite rightly so) is a SIP. This is helpful in the current stakeholder debate. Just because one is a stakeholder does not mean that one has powers beyond one's "stake". We need to define this more. Bruce Tonkin's suggestion of contract AND policy is a good first step. As long as the IANA Function Manager abides by the above Principles by policy all is well. However, if it doesn't, it depends whether the IANA Function Manager is actually entitled to act. At present the USG alleges the Teranode Contract gives it the right, though it uses the word "stewardship", which, as an aside probably means it does not have actual rights. But, once the USG relinquishes control, no amount of contract between the IANA Function Manager or ICANN with a third party (let's call it Contrac-Co) can bind a ccTLD (another third party). greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Jan 16, 2015, at 13:33, dmitry kohmanyuk <dk(a)cctld.ua> wrote: > > > >> On 16 січ. 2015, at 13:53, Stephen Deerhake <SDeerhake(a)nic.as> wrote: >> >> >> Chris, >> >> Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with >> drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and re-delegation" >> is a complete non-starter. >> >> How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG? > > I am seconding this. > >> >> I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I >> don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger problem >> is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the >> FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date. > > And before FOIWG, there was another working group on delegation and redelegation (which work led to decision to start FOI-WG effort.) > > >> >> Best, >> >> /Stephen >> >> Stephen Deerhake >> Director of Registry Services >> AS Domain Registry >> GDNS LLC >> +1 212 334 3660 >> +1 212 656 1982 (fax) >> sdeerhake(a)nic.as >> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org >> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris >> Disspain >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM >> To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; cctldworld(a)icann.org >> Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG >> Proposal(s) >> Importance: High >> >> All, >> >>> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that >> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. >> >> >> I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand >> before I stop and let it go. >> >> Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an >> accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? >> >> Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the >> interpretations of the FoI WG? >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >> Proposal(s) >>> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT >>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA >>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>> >>> Alan, >>> >>> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: We >> need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that >> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. >> This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal >> within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not >> sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that >> would be preferred though. >>> >>> Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 (Independent >> certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of >> gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or re-delegated >> would happen before any certification would occur. The certification would >> simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I >> think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification >> happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would need >> to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world. >>> >>> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that is >> something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my >> view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a >> certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability >> processes. >>> >>> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs >> from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability mechanisms >> from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for >> the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the >> accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM >>> To: CWG IANA >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>> Proposal(s) >>> >>> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or >> accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two >> proposals currently under consideration. >>> >>> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG is >> considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which the >> community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might provide >> additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely required >> to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a >> judgement call that not all might agree with. >>> >>> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one >> additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna >> during the third meeting that listed several other potential accountability >> issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an >> error in saving it. >>> >>> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list that >> the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do not >> believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the >> interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale >> for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so >> that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with the >> proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as to >> under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict >> with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being binding. >> I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more generalized >> IAP (once the request goes to IANA). >>> >>> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my >> discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. >>> >>> Contract Co. Model Requirements >>> >>> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions >>> >>> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to be >> defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions Panel >> would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. >>> >>> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests >>> >>> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes >> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The >> replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and >> re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on >> these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. >>> >>> 3. Independent Appeals Panel >>> >>> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested changes >> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still >> ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed that >> the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need for >> an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the >> appeal process. >>> >>> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the >>> change request going to IANA >>> >>> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and >> gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms >> not being followed). >>> >>> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements >>> >>> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: >>> >>> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. >>> >>> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other >> non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, or >> to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to >> consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need >> to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS >> community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be >> restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be >> practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an >> IANA-related decision). >>> >>> 6. Ability to Remove Directors >>> >>> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or >> all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a mechanism >> would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement >> regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall >> their appointed Director(s). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >> >> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [ccnso-members] Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

The gTLDs need may be to be explained, again, the necessity of their input into ccTLDs/ccNSO, which is as much as we need another deluge. I am unaware of such nonsense having made it towards CCWG-Accountability and will object against it, should it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > On Jan 16, 2015, at 13:05, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > > I’m beginning to think that I may have a blind spot here. Help me to figure this out. > >> Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated. > > Agreed. So the remarks by Chuck re ccTLDs are surprising. > >> The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent. > > How does that sit with Chuck’s suggest that the CCWG... > >>>>> provide an accountability process that registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>>> law. > > Unless I’m misreading this then it is saying that coming up with such a process is the job of the CCWG. > >> The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt. > > Agreed that this is the CWG’s role. Chuck’s point was about the expectations of the CCWG on Accountability. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > >> On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:43 , Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Chris >> >> Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated. >> >> During yesterday's call it was recognised that (the majority of) ccTLDs Registries have a very different relationship with ICANN than that of gTLDs Registries. >> >> The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent. >> >> The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt. >> Over the holiday period the process has been captured and the simple (accountable) structure has become seriously over-complicated. Overburdening the structure is a game currently being played by some to sink the initiative, or capture it, and time is needed to redress the balance and loose the excess baggage. >> >> IMHO it is out of scope for the IANA Accountability process to have a sanction to remove an ICANN Director - but this also needs more time to play out. >> >> Best >> >> Paul >> >> >> Chris Disspain wrote: >>> Understood Roelof. >>> >>> My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>>> On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Chris, All, >>>> >>>> I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s >>>> accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc. >>>> I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the >>>> deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is >>>> enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be >>>> inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs. >>>> >>>> Yes, I am an optimist, life is great >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Roelof >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Chris, >>>>> >>>>> Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with >>>>> drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and >>>>> re-delegation" >>>>> is a complete non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG? >>>>> >>>>> I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I >>>>> don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger >>>>> problem >>>>> is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the >>>>> FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> /Stephen >>>>> >>>>> Stephen Deerhake >>>>> Director of Registry Services >>>>> AS Domain Registry >>>>> GDNS LLC >>>>> +1 212 334 3660 >>>>> +1 212 656 1982 (fax) >>>>> sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>>>> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org >>>>> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris >>>>> Disspain >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM >>>>> To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; >>>>> cctldworld(a)icann.org >>>>> Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG >>>>> Proposal(s) >>>>> Importance: High >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>>> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process >>>>>> that >>>>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>>> law. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand >>>>> before I stop and let it go. >>>>> >>>>> Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an >>>>> accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? >>>>> >>>>> Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the >>>>> interpretations of the FoI WG? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>>>> Proposal(s) >>>>>> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT >>>>>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA >>>>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan, >>>>>> >>>>>> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: >>>>>> We >>>>> need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that >>>>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>>> law. >>>>> This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal >>>>> within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not >>>>> sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that >>>>> would be preferred though. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 >>>>>> (Independent >>>>> certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of >>>>> gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or >>>>> re-delegated >>>>> would happen before any certification would occur. The certification >>>>> would >>>>> simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I >>>>> think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification >>>>> happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would >>>>> need >>>>> to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world. >>>>>> >>>>>> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that >>>>>> is >>>>> something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my >>>>> view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a >>>>> certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability >>>>> processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs >>>>> from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability >>>>> mechanisms >>>>> from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for >>>>> the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the >>>>> accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chuck >>>>>> >>>>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>>>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icannorg] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM >>>>>> To: CWG IANA >>>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>>>>> Proposal(s) >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or >>>>> accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two >>>>> proposals currently under consideration. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG >>>>>> is >>>>> considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which >>>>> the >>>>> community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might >>>>> provide >>>>> additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely >>>>> required >>>>> to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a >>>>> judgement call that not all might agree with. >>>>>> >>>>>> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one >>>>> additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna >>>>> during the third meeting that listed several other potential >>>>> accountability >>>>> issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an >>>>> error in saving it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list >>>>>> that >>>>> the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do >>>>> not >>>>> believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the >>>>> interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale >>>>> for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so >>>>> that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with >>>>> the >>>>> proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as >>>>> to >>>>> under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict >>>>> with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being >>>>> binding. >>>>> I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more >>>>> generalized >>>>> IAP (once the request goes to IANA). >>>>>> >>>>>> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my >>>>> discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contract Co. Model Requirements >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions >>>>>> >>>>>> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to >>>>>> be >>>>> defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions >>>>> Panel >>>>> would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all >>>>>> changes >>>>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. >>>>> The >>>>> replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and >>>>> re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision >>>>> on >>>>> these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Independent Appeals Panel >>>>>> >>>>>> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested >>>>>> changes >>>>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still >>>>> ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed >>>>> that >>>>> the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need >>>>> for >>>>> an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the >>>>> appeal process. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the >>>>>> change request going to IANA >>>>>> >>>>>> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and >>>>> gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms >>>>> not being followed). >>>>>> >>>>>> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements >>>>>> >>>>>> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other >>>>> non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, >>>>> or >>>>> to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to >>>>> consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need >>>>> to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS >>>>> community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be >>>>> restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be >>>>> practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an >>>>> IANA-related decision). >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. Ability to Remove Directors >>>>>> >>>>>> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or >>>>> all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a >>>>> mechanism >>>>> would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement >>>>> regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall >>>>> their appointed Director(s). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cctldworld mailing list >>> Cctldworld(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld >

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] F2F Agenda and Call for Volunteers
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for the face to face meeting on Monday and Tuesday next week. You can also find this posted on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414991> . Please note that, as discussed on the call this week, we'd like some volunteers to sign up for the "visions" portion of our first day (highlighted below). Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested in making a pitch to the group. With such a diverse group, it would be great to illustrate the spread across the group by stakeholder groups and geographic region, and other types of diversity. Agenda (all times in local time UTC+1) DAY 0: Arrive Sunday 18 November Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 19:00-21:00 (Includes word from co-chairs (re: rules of engagement and agenda)) DAY 1: Monday 19 November (9:00 18:00) 08:30 09:00: Coffee & Introductions by Chairs and Theresa Swinehart 09:00 - 09:50: Update on CWG (RFP 3B + synchronizing timelines) 09:50 10:40: Finalizing list of contingencies 10:40 11:00: Coffee Break 11:00 13:00: Informal Pitch introductions of "visions" regarding outcome of our group 13:00 14:00: Lunch 14:00 14:50: Refining list and categories of stakeholders 14:50 15:40: Finalize wording on purpose of accountability 15:40 16:00: Coffee Break 16:00 17:00: Finalize rest of scope & definition document (including independence) 17:00 17:45: Advisor engagement update, provision of (independent) legal advice 17:45 18:00 Summary of Day 1 and action items DAY 2: Tuesday 20 November (8:00 17:00) 07:30 08:00: Coffee 08:00 09:40: Consensus building around WS1 definition 09:40 10:00: Coffee Break 10:00 12:45: identify candidate mechanisms to investigate within WS1 12:45 13:45: Lunch 13:45 15:25: Taking stock session (including discussion of potential Chair¹s report) 15:25 15:45: Coffee Break 15:45 17:00: Action items for initiating WS1 and preparation for Singapore End at 17:00 Later today, I will circulate a list of documents for reading in anticipation of the meeting. Best, Grace

3 2

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Chris, this will not get unanimous consent, let me assure you. Though I seem to have overlook this particular morsel. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > On Jan 15, 2015, at 23:58, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > > All, > >> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that registry operators (c’s & g’s) and possibly governments in the case of ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. > > I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand before I stop and let it go. > > Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? > > Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the interpretations of the FoI WG? > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > 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. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s) >> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT >> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> >> Alan, >> >> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that registry operators (c’s & g’s) and possibly governments in the case of ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that would be preferred though. >> >> Alan – why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 (Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or re-delegated would happen before any certification would occur. The certification would simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would need to be defined. I won’t try to venture into the ccTLD world. >> >> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don’t think that is something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability processes. >> >> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability mechanisms from the CCWG but we don’t specifically need the one that would allow for the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM >> To: CWG IANA >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s) >> >> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two proposals currently under consideration. >> >> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG is considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which the community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might provide additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely required to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a judgement call that not all might agree with. >> >> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna during the third meeting that listed several other potential accountability issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an error in saving it. >> >> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list that the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do not believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with the proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as to under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being binding. I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more generalized IAP (once the request goes to IANA). >> >> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. >> >> Contract Co. Model Requirements >> >> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions >> >> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to be defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions Panel would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. >> >> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests >> >> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. >> >> 3. Independent Appeals Panel >> >> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed that the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the appeal process. >> >> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA >> >> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms not being followed). >> >> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements >> >> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: >> >> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. >> >> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, or to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an IANA-related decision). >> >> 6. Ability to Remove Directors >> >> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a mechanism would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall their appointed Director(s). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] F2F Agenda and Call for Volunteers
by Roelof Meijer Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dear Grace, all, I am interested to make a „pitch” to the group of my vision of a possible outcome / solution for enhancing ICANN’s accountability Regards, Roelof Meijer From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: vrijdag 16 januari 2015 08:43 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] F2F Agenda and Call for Volunteers Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for the face to face meeting on Monday and Tuesday next week. You can also find this posted on the Wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414991>. Please note that, as discussed on the call this week, we'd like some volunteers to sign up for the "visions" portion of our first day (highlighted below). Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested in making a pitch to the group. With such a diverse group, it would be great to illustrate the spread across the group by stakeholder groups and geographic region, and other types of diversity. Agenda (all times in local time – UTC+1) DAY 0: Arrive Sunday 18 November — Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 19:00-21:00 (Includes word from co-chairs (re: rules of engagement and agenda)) DAY 1: Monday 19 November (9:00 – 18:00) 08:30 – 09:00: Coffee & Introductions by Chairs and Theresa Swinehart 09:00 - 09:50: Update on CWG (RFP 3B + synchronizing timelines) 09:50 – 10:40: Finalizing list of contingencies 10:40 – 11:00: Coffee Break 11:00 – 13:00: Informal Pitch introductions of "visions" regarding outcome of our group 13:00 – 14:00: Lunch 14:00 – 14:50: Refining list and categories of stakeholders 14:50 – 15:40: Finalize wording on purpose of accountability 15:40 – 16:00: Coffee Break 16:00 – 17:00: Finalize rest of scope & definition document (including independence) 17:00 – 17:45: Advisor engagement update, provision of (independent) legal advice 17:45 – 18:00 Summary of Day 1 and action items DAY 2: Tuesday 20 November (8:00 – 17:00) 07:30 – 08:00: Coffee 08:00 – 09:40: Consensus building around WS1 definition 09:40 – 10:00: Coffee Break 10:00 – 12:45: identify candidate mechanisms to investigate within WS1 12:45 – 13:45: Lunch 13:45 – 15:25: Taking stock session (including discussion of potential Chair’s report) 15:25 – 15:45: Coffee Break 15:45 – 17:00: Action items for initiating WS1 and preparation for Singapore End at 17:00 Later today, I will circulate a list of documents for reading in anticipation of the meeting. Best, Grace

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG Work Area 2 (inventory of accountability suggestions -- updated 15-Jan-2015
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

here’s a follow-up for Work Area 2 (WA2) arising from our 13-Jan call (link<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985>). (Will post these to the WA2 wiki soon as I can get access) First, I updated the WA2 inventory to reflect the new proposed definition for Work Stream 1 (WS1), as discussed on our 13-Jan call. Second, I updated the inventory to reflect additional Accountability suggestions and detail provided by Malcolm Hutty, the GNSO-NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group), Robin Gross, Milton Mueller, the GNSO-IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency), and David Johnson. As rapporteur for WA2 I am trying to accommodate all suggestions, but also looking forward to the exercise of prioritizing this ever-expanding list of accountability mechanisms. Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] call for volunteers to analyze contingencies
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

All, following-up on my earlier note to the list and our last telephone conference, we would like to remind the group that we are looking for volunteers that take a look at contingencies of their choice (analzing all of them is too big of a task) and analyze whether these are already addressed by existing accountability mechanisms. As you will recall, we do hope to agree on the list that WA4 is currently working on. The exercise of analyzing the contingencies, which you can pick from the draft list, will help the group understand what contingencies are not yet covered by existing mechanisms, i.e. where we need to work on amendments of accountability mechanisms or establish new ones. Please let us know if you are willing to contribute to that task at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Thomas Rickert -- thomas-rickert.tel

2 1