January 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

Hello Kavouss, >> I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community" >> What is that magic term "community» covers? >> Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders? >> As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic. For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way: "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments. In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations. Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way. The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

16 34

[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT Meeting #6 Notes, Action Items
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability Meeting #6 call on 13 January are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414987 Also here is a summary of the action items: Action: Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. Action: Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list. Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. Action: Include time for an update from CWG Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies Action: Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like. Action: ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process. Agenda and Notes: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI 2. CWG update and high level principles 3. WS1/WS2 recap 4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion 5. Contingencies : finalize list 6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting 7. AOB 8. Closing remarks 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI * On the call: Alice Munyua, Julia Wolman * No updates to Statement of Interest * Six advisors have been appointed by the PEG. A call between the co-chairs and advisors to get the advisors on-board is scheduled later this week. One advisor, Jan Scholte, will join the F2F in Frankfurt. A search for an international legal expert is ongoing. * Independent legal advice on California law - discussion with ICANN staff ongoing, the action is in progress * Apologies from Olga Cavalli 2. CWG update and high level principles * CCWG high level principles and CWG intense work weekend. 4 CWG calls over the weekend 10-11 January * Updates from CWG members * Avri Doria: CWG reviewed the surveys of members and participants and others to gauge impressions on aspects of the public comments received for all customer standing committee (CSC), MS review team (MRT), the independent appeals panel (IAP) and Contract Co and alternate proposals. * Discussion of various points of agreement and disagreement. * On CSC, MRT and IAP, consensus not agreed but some agreement on how they may be set up. On Contract Co, strong lack of consensus, with one notion of alternate proposals being worked on. * A list of the various accountability issues that came up in the CWG discussion is being drawn up. Hopefully in time for CCWG Frankfurt F2F. And how the accountability requirements may differ for the different proposals. * Do not expect consensus by January 15. * Would have been better if CCWG Accountability were further along. Some catch-up required and alignment of work of the two groups. * Greg Shatan: new sub-group has been formed to look at an "internal to iCANN" solution that does not involve a Contract Co. And the required accountability measures that an internal solution would necessitate.Cheryl Langdon-Orr: suggestion to add possible agenda item for Frankfurt to speak to ongoing work of CWG and new working group RFP3B. 3. WS1/WS2 recap * WS1, mainly about the community prevailing over ICANN * What do we mean by consensus? What is the "community"? Who would the community itself be accountable to? (Russian dolls or balance based on separation of powers) * Balance of different types of powers (judicial, legal, executive). * What happens if some ICANN accountability mechanisms disappear with the transition. * Affect of CWG discussions. * Inventory of WS1 and WS2 items (WA2) is being reformulated. * Question for the group: what would we consider "committed to", in what form the commitment might take. Will require further work. Action: Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. Action: Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work 4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion * Who are the stakeholders in directly affected, indirectly affected, and parties affecting ICANN? * The purpose of ICANN's accountability: (1) compliance purposes, (2) acceptable to achieved certain level of performance. In addition (3) that ICANN should be accountable to comply with relevant legislation. (4) ICANN accountable to ensure its decisions are in the interest of all stakeholders. * Preferred mapping of stakeholder and whether to use NETmundial? * The NETmundial definition is not felt as appropriate for CCWG work. Need to clarify wording in the document. Appropriate categorization of indirectly affected parties and others, particularly the impact on ccTLDs. Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list. Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. 5. Contingencies : finalize list * Discussion in WA4. Stress tests and whether certain items should be taken off the list if the contingency was felt very unlikely to occur. The Charter does not suggest probability of a contingency - Should we take into account probability of a contingency when including or not in the list? * Importance to understand the likelihood opt something happening, for binary issues or other. Some scenarios seem to re-state the same problem set, e.g around financial issues. Suggestion to discuss what success conditions might look like. * The list is not finite and new items can be added via sub-group WA4. With discussion in Frankfurt. 6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting * Progress on scope * Progress on WS1 and WS2 * Conclude the work on the inventory of current ICANN accountability mechanisms Action: Include time for an update from CWG Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies * Volunteers to provide what they think as the ideal outcomes, 2/3minutes. 4 or 5 "pitch visions" of that the post transition accountability might look like. Action: Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like. Action: ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process. 7. AOB * Issue of independent legal advice. Ongoing discussion, and the independent expert advisors may also be able to advise. Goal to provide legal advice in Frankfurt. 8. Closing remarks * Please provide feedback on the documents to be discussed in Frankfurt. Comment or Edits. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best regards, Brenda

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] definitions of consensus
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

Hello Mathieu, >> I do not know whether Icann has a documented definition of consensus other than that ? Maybe there is within the gNSO for PDP purposes ? In the past the GNSO used the term "Supermajority" to be a 2/3 majority. A supermajority is required before something can become a Consensus Policy. When the GNSO Council was divided into two houses the definition was changed to: "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." The GAC uses this definition: " The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership. Consistent with United Nations practice, consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. Where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed by members to the ICANN Board." Not sure if that helps. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] 6th Meeting CCWG-Accountability – Tuesday 13 January 2015 from 06:00-08:00 UTC
by Julia Katja Wolman Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

I am sorry for joining the call late. I am not able to join the adobe meeting room but I have now connected through the phone line. Best regards, Julia Wolman Denmark, GAC ________________________________ Fra: ccwg-accountability-notify-bounces(a)icann.org [ccwg-accountability-notify-bounces(a)icann.org] på vegne af Brenda Brewer [brenda.brewer(a)icann.org] Sendt: 13. januar 2015 00:03 Til: ccwg-accountability-notify(a)icann.org Emne: [CCWG-Accountability-Notify] 6th Meeting CCWG-Accountability – Tuesday 13 January 2015 from 06:00-08:00 UTC *please download the .ics file to import into your calendar CCWG-Accountability – Tuesday 13 January 2015 from 06:00-08:00 UTC Time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit…> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: CCWG ACCT For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. _______________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: COUNTRY Number Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear Tijani, The first use of a phrase, e.g., "stakeholder" in the context of persistent identifier to resource association over interconnecting datagram networks, by some author, e.g., the organizers and participants of a meeting, is incidental to the scope of the benefits of persistent identifier to resource association over interconnecting datagram networks. The beneficiaries during the hosttables period included government funded research universities, government agencies, and government contractors, and, using similar mechanisms, private and public institutions, including governments, and the first subscriber-based and otherwise unrestricted "public access" providers. Over time both SRI and its data consumers transitioned from hosttables to the DNS, and users of similar mechanisms transitioned to the DNS, and the benefit expanded to include support for persistent identifiers in scripts other then Latin, e.g., Arabic Script, Han Script, Hangul Script, Cyrillic Script, ... Were we to take the notion of "Stakeholder" from any time prior to the addition of support for these scripts to the IANA root zone, users of those scripts could be considered "customers" of the Verisign IDN testbed, but not "stakeholders" in the community which participates in the technical coordination of unique global endpoint identifiers -- the "ICANN community". Even today, as a speaker of minority languages, using extended Latin Script characters, and Scripts not yet present in the IANA root zone, I don't consider my language communities, as communities or institutions, at this point in time, to be "Stakeholders". Ironically, a MENOG mailing dropped into my inbox while reviewing the paragraph above -- ICANN has openings for IDN Program Managers -- in Istanbul and Singapore -- which are unlikely to be competent to address the needs of speakers of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Clearly we are not yet "Stakeholders". All this is simply to develop your point that the definition of "stakeholder" were to be static the consequences would be unfortunate, and on a very large scale. Finally, as a friendly nuisance (or nuance), the parents, siblings and extended family members of students have an interest in the schools their school age dependents attend, as do the taxpayers (public schools) and donors (private schools), textbook vendors, lower level schools (student producers) and higher level general and vocational schools (student consumers), as well as the community as a whole. This little bit simply to say it is more than students, teachers and staff that make a school. Sincerely, Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 1/12/15 9:59 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Bruce, Kavouss and all, > > Stakeholders were defined for the first time in the World Summit on > Information Society (WSIS) as: > > ·Governments > > ·International Organizations > > ·Private Sector > > ·Civil Society > > Where Academic and Technical community were included in the civil > society. And then, the international organization was dropped and > Civil society was split in 2 parts: Civil Society and Academic and > technical community. > > I don’t think this definition is static and believe that stakeholders > for the WSIS couldn’t be other thing that the 4 listed components > because it was used to make the civil society activists participate in > the room instead of demonstrating outside and having confrontation > with the police. > > In a school, we can define 3 stakeholders: teachers, staff and > students since the interest of each of those components is different. > In ICANN, you have civil society in At-Large and the non commercial > stakeholder group in the GNSO. You may also find them in other SO and > AC. You may find private sector in the GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, etc. > > Defining the ICANN stakeholders as Civil Society, Governments, Private > sector and technical and academic community is not relevant in my > point of view; they are more At-Large, Registries, Registrars, > business constituency, non commercial stakeholder group, GAC, etc…. > because those group have each its own interest and the > multi-stakeholder model is intended to represent the interest of the > whole community. > > Coming back to the global public interest, it was clearly explained in > the articles to be the *benefit of the* *public and not the private > gain of any person (financial, political, etc.).* > > The publicis everyone, and the global public interest is the common > interest of all this public. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *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 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part > de Bruce Tonkin > Envoyé : samedi 10 janvier 2015 12:22 > À : accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community" > > Hello Kavouss, > > >> I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone > refers to "community" > > >> What is that magic term "community» covers? > > >> Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders? > > >> As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto > agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil > Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, > Governments > > I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group > considering some definitions around that topic. > > For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way: > > "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in > the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and > attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from > GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, > ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal > view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil > Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, > Governments. > > In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are > members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the > various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I > am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part > of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large > Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia > may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be > a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in > turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that > chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative > to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have > any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations. > > Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global > public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in > this context as Internet users. However you could also consider > public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even > people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication > mechanism are probably affected by it in some way. > > The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise > their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best > interests of the global public interest, taking account of the > interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any > individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for > determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" > described above. > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > <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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] WA4 and next steps
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear all, as you know, WA 4 is working on a list of contingencies that we need to address when working on accountability mechanisms. This work is still in progress and we will surely discuss the individual items on the list in Frankfurt to then make a determination as to whether the list is complete and whether all items that are currently on the list are in scope of our work. While this work is going on, we recommend that either WA4 or other individuals start going through the list of contingencies (as well as contingencies that you think should be on the list, which are not yet there) and start analyzing whether these contingencies are already being taken care of by existing accountability mechanisms or work previously done by ICANN (and its community). Such analysis will help us to better understand whether the list is complete and accurate. The outcome of this analysis can be the following: - A determination is made that the contingency is adequately addressed by an existing mechanism. In this case, we would conclude that no further work needs to be done on this item by this group and write a rationale to explain this. - A determination is made that the contingency is not adequately addressed by an existing mechanism. In this case, we would need to define what is missing and write that as part of our report. As we move on, we will then see what needs there are and analyze those. As an outcome of that analysis, we will potentially need to amend one or multiple existing accountability mechanisms or, where that proves insufficient or not feasible, establish new accountability mechanisms. Ideally, we would be able to cluster additional demand to ensure that we need to make as few changes / inventions as possible by coming up with responses that each cover multiple issues. We will discuss this during tomorrow’s call, but we would like to encourage you to review the current list and pick one or more contingencies that you would volunteer to work on. Thanks, Mathieu, León and Thomas

3 2

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Tijani, As much as I can live with a definition of stakeholders, it does not follow that it gives stakeholders any stake, per se, but if so only specific. Just because, for example, governments are stakeholders, it does not follow that they can tell anyone what to do, per se. Stakeholders or better Interested Parties, or Significantly Interested Parties, are not involved with a CURRENT ccTLD Manager (due to the retro-activity implied). We had us 5 years worth of work coming up with the interpretation that during the selection of a NEW ccTLD Manager (by way of creation of a new ccTLD, the next one would be .SS probably, or after revocation) Interested Parties and Significantly Interested Parties have a role to play But in the context of Internet Governance, no stakeholder has ANY input into CURRENT management as long as the current ccTLD Manager does not substantively misbehave. This comes from the safety, stability requirement but also from the requirement to do a competent, honest and equitable job as per RFC1591. It's debatable whether this even applies to preexisting ccTLDs, but as it is easy to not substantively misbehave, it achieved unanimous consent. That does not mean that a particular government may or may not act harshly against a ccTLD Manager, but it does not get into the realm of Accountability, of Internet Governance. greetings, el On 2015-01-12 19:59 , Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Bruce, Kavouss and all, > > > > Stakeholders were defined for the first time in the World Summit > on Information Society (WSIS) as: > > · Governments > > · International Organizations > > · Private Sector > > · Civil Society > > Where Academic and Technical community were included in the civil > society. And then, the international organization was dropped and > Civil society was split in 2 parts: Civil Society and Academic and > technical community. > > > > I don’t think this definition is static and believe that > stakeholders for the WSIS couldn’t be other thing that the 4 > listed components because it was used to make the civil society > activists participate in the room instead of demonstrating outside > and having confrontation with the police. > > > > In a school, we can define 3 stakeholders: teachers, staff and > students since the interest of each of those components is > different. In ICANN, you have civil society in At-Large and the > non commercial stakeholder group in the GNSO. You may also find > them in other SO and AC. You may find private sector in the GNSO, > ccNSO, SSAC, etc. > > Defining the ICANN stakeholders as Civil Society, Governments, > Private sector and technical and academic community is not > relevant in my point of view; they are more At-Large, Registries, > Registrars, business constituency, non commercial stakeholder > group, GAC, etc…. because those group have each its own > interest and the multi-stakeholder model is intended to represent > the interest of the whole community. > > > > Coming back to the global public interest, it was clearly > explained in the articles to be the *benefit of the* *public and > not the private gain of any person (financial, political, etc.).* > > The publicis everyone, and the global public interest is the > common interest of all this public. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"
by Lisse Eberhard Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, through the co-chairs I find it disrespectful to produce replies that are hard to read by way of (or rather lack of) formatting, lack the use of a spelling checker, and/or, as paragraph 4) are plain incoherent. I find it amusing when in the discourse one side uses arguments that the other did not make did not make to counter arguments that the other side did make, are valid but are not addressed. Though it’s well known negotiations tactics. With regards to the Board being the final arbiter, virtually no one, other than the governments concerned wants governments to run the Internet or have significant input on its management. I have similar concerns, by the way about Big Business dominating ICANN. Whether a (as in one single) state has sovereign rights over the ccTLD corresponding to an ISO string, is heavily debatable in the first place, and even if it were so it would be a bilateral matter between that individual state and that ccTLD. The ccNSO has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and would in any case been barred from making such a policy. I also wish to point out that many governments are fundamentally opposed to what we are trying to achieve here, namely achieving and/or preserving Net Freedom. That governments can use the process to twist it on its head, ie equate ‘control’ with ‘accountability’ is one of these facts in life that we have become accustomed to. I wish to point out that I am not here to increase comfort levels, but with regards to “speaking friendly” it’s content that matters not volume (in the double sense). And I am well known now for many years to write what I mean and mean what I write. greetings, el > On 11 Jan 2015, at 21:07 , Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dr. Eberhard > Thank you very much again for your thoughtful reply > There are areas that we agree and areas that we disagree. > Having said that > I have the following Comments : > 1 ,you did indicate that > Quote > > "On the other hand I have noted an enormous volume of contributions > by an ICG liaison who also happens to be a GAC representative of his > country, hardly any of which I can see as originating from or > representing the ICG, so it is not clear who this person is > representing" > Unquote > My reply wouild be that all those so-called enormous volume of contributions > by an ICG liaison who also happens to be a GAC representative of his > country, were submitted AS A PARTICIPANT and NOT AS ICG LIAISON. > If you dear Dr. Eberhard are of the view that I do not have the right or I should not be allowed to contribute as Particpant to the activities of CCWG and remain silent like many other other participants ,While I respect your personal views I do not wish to waste even a minute and arfgue with you . Istead we believe that MEMBERS OR PARTICIPANTS all need to put hand in hand and put their thought together to deal with this veryy important issues that we have before us and not contesting why a participant contribute . > I hope you would agree with me ? Just hope > > 2. You have also mentioned that > Quote > > "And in any case, the current role of governments hardly rates as > lower status, the GAC has more influence than most other > stakeholder. I am sure you have become aware during your tenure, > that GAC Advice has a specific formal status in the Bylaws if I am > not mistaken" > Unquote . > > But the same Bylaw provide that the Board can reject GAC Recommendations just with simple majority. > There was a notion at GAC to upgrade that simple majority with super majority of category 1 ( 2/3 ) ,there are other siupermajorities 3/4 and 4/5. In fact US NOW REQUIRED ICANN TO DECIDE WITH SUPER MAJORITY OF CATEGORIES 2 OR 3. > However, the request of GAC approved by the Board but after public comments it was rehjected . > I do not wish to say who were those individual who opposed to that 2/3 the so-called strong position of GAC is at merci of simple majority of the Board still I do not know whther they really represent the Golbal Multistakeholder as they are designated by SO or proposed by Nomom and the Global Multistakeholders has no direct influence on that designation . > > 3. You did also referred to the role of ccTLD managers > Qoute > > "In particular since a ccTLD only has a bilateral relationship with > the IANA Function Manager, each ccTLD for itself, if any, and there > is no and can be no organization, entity or government that can > speak for ccTLDs" > > Unquote > > Sorry to disagree with you totally . > The arrangem,ents and contract between ccTLD manager and IANA is something and the sovereign rights of Member States ( governments ) over their ccTLD is other thing > As you may know well there are givernments that do not abide with any ICANN on their ccTLDs .Out of 206 ( almost couzntries or dépendent territories about 70 countries do not have any relation with ccNSO . > You may defend your own position which is legitimate but you may allow others to defend their position as they deem appropriate .If a simple relation between ccTLD mANGER AND iana fully and adequately address and observe the entirte vast and complex issue of ccTLD then we do not need these SO on Naming because whatever they comeup would be useless as the contract bet ween ccTLD manager in IANA Manager is totally independent of all thes > I do not know what we are talking about ? > There are legal gap between what you determined as the objectives. purposes, scope of activities of CCtzld manager and IANA Manager and the ccTLD itself. > 4. I wish to clarify the following > I am not defending that Goverments should have an exclusive role on the matter but they must be abale to play their role in a multistakehoder inclussive approach or model > What you declared is ,if I understand it correctly that > > Qoute > > "and there is no and can be no organization, entity or government that can > speak for ccTLDs". > > Unquote > That is a surprising and strage opinion with which I am not comfortable ( the most soft disagreement as you seems to speak friendly) > Have nice Sunday Evening > Kavouss > […]

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG Meeting on 13 January at 6:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for our next call on Tuesday, 13 January at 06:00 UTC. The call details will follow shortly. 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI (5') 2. CWG update and high level principles (15') 3. WS1/WS2 recap (20') 4. Definitions / scoping document : PI discussion (20') 5. Contingencies : finalize list (20') 6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting (15') 7. AOB (5') 8. Closing remarks (5') Best, Grace

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Non-profit and public-benefit legal structure
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Hello Phil, >> I would envisage the Board having to be compliance with all Corporate Governance Codes specific to Companies Law in the country of incorporation, subject to a community consensus override. But what is its corporate status - not for profit or for profit - as different codes would apply ? The legal status of ICANN is as specified in its articles of incorporation: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en "This Corporation is a non-profit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Non-profit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes. The Corporation is organized, and will be operated, exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes within the meaning of § 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), or the corresponding provision of any future United States tax code. Any reference in these Articles to the Code shall include the corresponding provisions of any further United States tax code." Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_nonprofit_corporation "A public-benefit non-profit corporation is a type of non-profit corporation chartered by a state government, and organized primarily or exclusively for social, educational, recreational or charitable purposes by like-minded citizens. Public-benefit nonprofit corporations are distinct in the law from mutual-benefit nonprofit corporations in that they are organized for the general public benefit, rather than for the interest of its members." I believe it was deliberately set up as public benefit rather than a member organization - to avoid the situation where the members become limited to say gTLD registries and registrars and hence it ends up operating primarily for the benefit of the domain name registration industry. Any move away from a public-benefit corporation to a membership corporation - would need to carefully consider how to ensure that the members are reflective of the broader Internet community and don't become limited to a few members as interest in "ICANN" drops over time. I.e. a failure scenario of membership organisation is what happens to the membership base over time and how it can be protected from capture. I have seen some membership based ccTLDs get into problems when their membership becomes dominated by domain name investors for example. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

20 35