October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NelsaHost Web Hosting Promotion
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

The mailing list membership is publicly readable except for those who explicitly request privacy - https://mm.icann.org/mailman/roster/accountability-cross-community. Alan At 18/10/2015 10:35 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Who should be held accountable for nelsahost spamming the entire list? > >How were the individual email addresses accessed? > >On Sunday, October 18, 2015, ><<mailto:admin@nelsahost.com>admin(a)nelsahost.com> wrote: > > >PROMO!!! UNLIMITED HOSTING 1.50$/month or 15//year >cPanel or Plesk ,your choice >cPanel Unlimited > >Starting at $1.50 > > Unlimited Domains > Unlimited Bandwidth > Unlimited Diskspace > cPanel Control Panel > Backups & Script Installer > Rv site builder > Cloud Linux as host OS > Unlimited Subdomains > Unlimited Addon Domains > Unlimited Parked Domains > Unlimited MySQL 5 Databases > Unlimited Email Accounts > Automated R1Soft Backups > POP3/IMAP/SMTP Access > PHP version from 4.0 up to 5.6, > Perl,CGI,Ruby*,RoR*,Pear*,Python* > FTP and FTP Manager > Web-Enabled File Manager > Password-Protected Directories > Customizable Web Error Pages > Web Statistics (AwStats) > Raw Web Log File Access > PhpMyAdmin,Cron,Curl > Automated Website Builder* > Softaculous One-Click Installer > One-Click SSL Installer > FFMPEG-PHP w/ H.264 Support* > LAME MP3 Encoder* > Mencoder and MPlayer* > mod_flvx* > ImageMagick* > GD Graphical Library > Ioncube,Zend Optimizer > >Plesk Unlimited > >Starting at $1.50 > > Unlimited Domains > Unlimited Bandwidth > Unlimited Diskspace > Plesk Control Panel > Backups & Script Installer > site builder > Cloud Linux as host OS > Unlimited Subdomains > Unlimited Addon Domains > Unlimited Parked Domains > Unlimited MySQL 5 Databases > Unlimited Email Accounts > Automated R1Soft Backups > POP3/IMAP/SMTP Access > PHP version from 4.0 up to 5.6, > Perl,CGI,Ruby*,RoR*,Pear*,Python* > FTP and FTP Manager > Web-Enabled File Manager > Password-Protected Directories > Customizable Web Error Pages > Web Statistics (AwStats) > Raw Web Log File Access > PhpMyAdmin,Cron,Curl > Automated Website Builder* > Softaculous One-Click Installer > One-Click SSL Installer > FFMPEG-PHP w/ H.264 Support* > LAME MP3 Encoder* > Mencoder and MPlayer* > mod_flvx* > ImageMagick* > GD Graphical Library > Ioncube,Zend Optimizer...and more > > > ><https://nelsahost.com/blesta/order/main/packages/unlimited-cpanel/?group_id…>https://nelsahost.com/blesta/order/main/packages/unlimited-cpanel/?group_id… > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Correct, the CCWG proposal is not dependant on a supermajorty of the Board supporting it, or in fact any Board support, since it is not one of the CCWG's chartering organizations. But that is not what I said. At the point when our recommended changes are to be implemented, the current Bylaws must be amended. Under the current Bylaws, the "Bylaws of ICANN may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws adopted only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board". Under their fiduciary duty, each Board member may only vote to adopt new Bylaws if he/she believes it is in the interest of ICANN and its mission and core values to do so. It was THAT action that I was referring to. Alan At 18/10/2015 09:53 AM, Chartier, Mike S wrote: >The CCWG proposal is not dependent on support "by a supermajority of >Board directors". >The requirement is that there is not a determination that it is not >in the global public interest by a 2/3 majority of the Board. > >-----Original Message----- >From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:42 AM >To: CCWG Accountability >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models > >In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in >August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being >proposed, but preferred something far less complex and >lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of >enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had >specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of >participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs. > >In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, >along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out >sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. >Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members >present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model. > >I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. >Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by >the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who >ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to >approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), >then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NelsaHost Web Hosting Promotion
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Who should be held accountable for nelsahost spamming the entire list? How were the individual email addresses accessed? On Sunday, October 18, 2015, <admin(a)nelsahost.com> wrote: > > > PROMO!!! UNLIMITED HOSTING 1.50$/month or 15//year > cPanel or Plesk ,your choice > cPanel Unlimited > > Starting at $1.50 > > Unlimited Domains > Unlimited Bandwidth > Unlimited Diskspace > cPanel Control Panel > Backups & Script Installer > Rv site builder > Cloud Linux as host OS > Unlimited Subdomains > Unlimited Addon Domains > Unlimited Parked Domains > Unlimited MySQL 5 Databases > Unlimited Email Accounts > Automated R1Soft Backups > POP3/IMAP/SMTP Access > PHP version from 4.0 up to 5.6, > Perl,CGI,Ruby*,RoR*,Pear*,Python* > FTP and FTP Manager > Web-Enabled File Manager > Password-Protected Directories > Customizable Web Error Pages > Web Statistics (AwStats) > Raw Web Log File Access > PhpMyAdmin,Cron,Curl > Automated Website Builder* > Softaculous One-Click Installer > One-Click SSL Installer > FFMPEG-PHP w/ H.264 Support* > LAME MP3 Encoder* > Mencoder and MPlayer* > mod_flvx* > ImageMagick* > GD Graphical Library > Ioncube,Zend Optimizer > > Plesk Unlimited > > Starting at $1.50 > > Unlimited Domains > Unlimited Bandwidth > Unlimited Diskspace > Plesk Control Panel > Backups & Script Installer > site builder > Cloud Linux as host OS > Unlimited Subdomains > Unlimited Addon Domains > Unlimited Parked Domains > Unlimited MySQL 5 Databases > Unlimited Email Accounts > Automated R1Soft Backups > POP3/IMAP/SMTP Access > PHP version from 4.0 up to 5.6, > Perl,CGI,Ruby*,RoR*,Pear*,Python* > FTP and FTP Manager > Web-Enabled File Manager > Password-Protected Directories > Customizable Web Error Pages > Web Statistics (AwStats) > Raw Web Log File Access > PhpMyAdmin,Cron,Curl > Automated Website Builder* > Softaculous One-Click Installer > One-Click SSL Installer > FFMPEG-PHP w/ H.264 Support* > LAME MP3 Encoder* > Mencoder and MPlayer* > mod_flvx* > ImageMagick* > GD Graphical Library > Ioncube,Zend Optimizer...and more > > > > > https://nelsahost.com/blesta/order/main/packages/unlimited-cpanel/?group_id… > > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Position on Membership
by Phil Corwin Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Point of information: I know what the member and designator‎ models are - but what is the reference model? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Drazek, Keith [kdrazek(a)verisign.com] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 8:46 AM To: James Gannon Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Position on Membership I agree an explanation would be helpful. Particularly around the choice of timing. Keith > On Oct 18, 2015, at 1:43 PM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Given the announcement a few moments ago that the ALAC has voted to no longer support the reference model as presented in the second draft, for those of us who were not able to be in the room I think it would be great if some of our ALAC participants could give a brief overview of the reason for this change and give us some context for this vote taken by the ALAC just so we are fully informed and up to speed. > > I don’t want to start a debate but merely would like to be better informed as to the reasoning and background. > > -James Gannon > > _______________________________________________ > 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

4 4

Rationale for Stress Test 18
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

In GAC session today, some said they did not understand why we needed Stress Test 18. In case it has been lost in all the email traffic, I want to explain the rationale for the Stress Test and for the bylaws change. I am at your service to discuss any time that you like. Best, Steve Stress Test 18 was among the plausible scenarios that could test how and whether the ICANN community could challenge actions taken by the ICANN corporation. The rationale to develop this stress test involves two factors: First, ICANN community members were aware that some GAC members had expressed a desire to change the GAC’s historical method of using consensus for its decision-making, where “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection”. Moreover, it would take only a simple majority of GAC members to change its decision-making methods to a lesser standard, such as majority voting. Second, the CCWG realized that ICANN’s present bylaws obligate the board to seek “a mutually acceptable solution” if it decided not to follow GAC advice. That level of required deference is unique to the GAC and not required for advice from other AC and SOs. More important, the board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution applies to all GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by GAC consensus, and even if that advice were opposed by a significant minority of GAC members. For these reasons, CCWG added Stress Test 18 to the draft proposal, and the stress test working party concluded that existing accountability measures were not adequate to let the community hold the ICANN board accountable for its actions if the board were obliged to seek a negotiated solution with the GAC. In order to address Stress Test 18, CCWG proposed an amendment to ICANN bylaws regarding the board’s obligations with respect to GAC advice. The amendment would preserve the requirement for ICANN’s board to seek a mutually acceptable solution, but only for GAC advice that was supported by consensus among GAC members. The rationale for proposing this bylaws amendment in response to Stress Test 18 is two-fold. First, CCWG wants to reserve ICANN’s board’s obligation to negotiate with the GAC for only that advice which is supported by a consensus of governments. GAC advice that is opposed by a significant minority of governments should not trigger the board’s obligation to enter bi-lateral negotiations with the GAC on a matter that affects the global Internet community. A negotiation between ICANN board and GAC should be reserved for resolving differences between ICANN and governments – not to resolve differences among governments themselves. Second, the proposed bylaws change would provide a strong incentive for the GAC to continue seeking consensus for the advice it provides to ICANN, which is the practice presently used by the GAC. While the GAC could at any time change its decision-making methods, this bylaws change would continue to elevate the influence of GAC advice that was supported by consensus of GAC members. Similar incentives for consensus policy and advice are already present in the ICANN bylaws, which require supermajority support for policy recommendations coming from GNSO and ccNSO. The rationale above is meant to explain why Stress Test 18 was developed, and to explain why CCWG proposes a bylaws amendment to preserve ICANN board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution when GAC advice is supported by consensus. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

7 7

ALAC Position on Membership
by James Gannon Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Hi All, Given the announcement a few moments ago that the ALAC has voted to no longer support the reference model as presented in the second draft, for those of us who were not able to be in the room I think it would be great if some of our ALAC participants could give a brief overview of the reason for this change and give us some context for this vote taken by the ALAC just so we are fully informed and up to speed. I don’t want to start a debate but merely would like to be better informed as to the reasoning and background. -James Gannon

3 2

Notes from Saturday breakout session on Community Decision Making
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Just wanted to circulate my notes from the Saturday morning breakout session on Community Decision-Making to exercise any of the new community powers. The attached document shows the table we presented, along with notes about the table. Members of the breakout — please reply quickly with corrections to my draft. I attached a photo of the easel board, too. CCWG members who worked on the Community Forum idea — please share your thoughts on that critical element of the process. All CCWG members — please reply with your thoughts on improving this proposal. This clearly needs further discussion and development, and I leave it to co-chairs to decide when and how to convene that discussion. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

2 2

Fadi on our work
by Jordan Carter Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. 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 *

17 22

Budget Veto sub-team memo
by Jonathan Zuck Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Just a working document from yesterday on which the members of the sub-team have not commented. We will endeavor to reconvene shorty. Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association

1 0

Scorecard for Dublin
by Thomas Rickert Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

All, Mathieu has kindly updated a Google doc he had prepared some time ago. It is a scorecard displaying the various areas of work and their respective completion status. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_k… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_k…> There's a lot of yellow "to be refined" which we should be able to turn into green in Dublin. Kind regards, Thomas

6 6