October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

GAO report
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

All, The General Accountability Office hast just published its report, which you can find here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642 Best, Thomas --- rickert.net

4 5

Definition of public policy advice from the GAC
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

To the GAC members on this list, I note that in the bylaws the GAC has a role in providing "public policy" advice to ICANN. Does the GAC have a working definition of what this means? Is there a UN standard definition of some sort? and I must admit I have never fully understand the term. I had originally expected that the GAC would provide advice on national laws and international treaties as it relates to ICANN. I can understand that each country may have "policies" that are perhaps written documents and may vary by which government is in power at the time. E.g. a national government may have a written immigration policy or a foreign trade policy etc. These policies presumably have been approved by one or more Government ministers, and would generally be public. Not sure how the GAC provides advice on "public policy" - should there be some sort of written national policies that support such advice? e.g. ICANN policies are documented, approved by the Board, and made public. Thanks, Bruce Tonkin

11 14

Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
by Greg Shatan Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*

17 25

Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
by Burr, Becky Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

CCWG Members – The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.” This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely: ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process? STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include: Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal IAB Proposal ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers” ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries” ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”) ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers” ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.” As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

26 55

proposed language for Mission statement on contract enforcement
by Burr, Becky Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

In Dublin we discussed, both in our working meetings and over two brown bag lunches, an approach to addressing concerns about the Mission Statement prohibition on regulation of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. The following language (in blue) is proposed to address this concern: ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with, and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. Without in any way limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. In service of its Mission, ICANN shall have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to established means of community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on registries and registrars. What we discussed (over the lunches) as a reasonable check and balance (in addition to existing mechanisms such as public comment, etc.) is a new mechanism whereby registries and registrars are permitted to sign RAs and RAAs subject to a public reservation that they intend to challenge one or more specified provisions of such agreements on the grounds that the provision(s) would exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission. This mechanism will need to be developed. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

9 20

Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG… Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabili… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabili…> &modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2 page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello Greg, >> 6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc. We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year. If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality. I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

22 43

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Hi, I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the original was copied all over. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: > The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are > core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is > removed from ICANN? They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA, records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says. I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I don't think it's worth exploring in detail.) Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct
by Robin Gross Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Thanks, Steve. All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document). Thanks, Robin On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below). > > <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png> > > From: <wp1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter > Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM > To: "wp1(a)icann.org" > Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC > > Hi all > > Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours. > > The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer. > > 1. Review of Agenda > > 2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism > This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach". > > To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: > - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper > - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism > > If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular. > > Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table. > > My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views. > > a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach? > > b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC? > > c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC? > > > We also need to address the following: > > d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC? > > e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework? > > > > 3. Other Work Required by WP1 > I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants. > > 4. Any Other Business > > > > Papers > > I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting. > > The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH…> > > The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-W…> > > You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%20…> > > cheers > Jordan > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > Web: www.internetnz.nz > > A better world through a better Internet > > <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ > WP1 mailing list > WP1(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

6 10

Fwd: Notice of WP1 meeting
by Jordan Carter Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

fyi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 31 October 2015 at 08:58 Subject: Notice of WP1 meeting To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all For your diary - WP1 agreed just now to have a further call on Monday 2 November, 18h-20h UTC. Diary notes should follow soon. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

ICANN Audited Financial Statements for FY15 Have Been Published
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

For those that like transparency: [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-10-29-en ________________________________ ICANN Audited Financial Statements for FY15 Have Been Published 29 October 2015 ICANN continues to provide accountability and transparency regarding its financial results, with another unqualified audit report from the independent auditors, BDO LLP. The Report of Independent Auditors and Financial Statements for ICANN for the years ending 30 June 2015 and 2014 is available on the "Financial Information for ICANN<https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials>" page of the ICANN.org site and also included in this announcement. In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's Bylaws, the audited financial statements are to be posted within 120 days following the close of the fiscal year, or by 31 October 2015. ICANN's FY15 Audited Financial Statements are now posted<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun15-en…> [PDF, 192 KB] and are available to the community. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions.

4 3