October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

New Schedule as posted by Dr. Crocker in his blog - "plenary session" now changed to "Discussion"
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Can anyone tell from the schedule posted by Dr. Crocker in his blog who is actually running the Discussion Sessions on Monday and Wednesday? (The CCWG-ACCT is not mentioned in these Discussion Sessions.) [cid:image001.png@01D105AC.24FC18B0] https://www.icann.org/news/blog/dublin-and-transition ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Two blogs about ICANN54
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear all, In an effort to reduce the number of emails in your inbox, I¹m providing a 2-in-1 email update for you. There are two blogs related to accountability that have been posted to the ICANN website in the past 48h. I¹ve copied them below for your convenience. 1. Steve Crocker, Dublin and Transition (https://www.icann.org/news/blog/dublin-and-transition) 2. Nick Tomasso, Increasing Community Discussions on Enhancing ICANN Accountability at ICANN54 (https://www.icann.org/news/blog/increasing-community-discussions-on-enhanci ng-icann-accountability-at-icann54) 1. Dublin and Transition (Steve Crocker) Original Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/dublin-and-transition I look forward to seeing many of you on the Emerald Isle at ICANN54. I personally have been reinvigorated witnessing the commitment of the community, the CCWG-Accountability in particular, as we work towards completing the last piece of a proposal that will move ICANN to an independent, improved and even more accountable organization. We all know the reality of the situation we're facing today, not just the timelines but also the need to come together on this last piece of the puzzle. It's not about the Board, nor about any other single stakeholder it's about the whole community coming together. As I've said before, though I and the other Board members are on the Board now, we are only here for a while, and then we will leave. In two years one of you will take over my seat and I will return to my former role in the wider community. We're all stakeholders that's the beauty of the ICANN multistakeholder model. Everyone has a voice and as soon as anyone says differently or tries to exclude people, well, that's not the Internet community I've participated in and watched evolve over the last 30 plus years, and that's not what ICANN is about. It's about wading through a noisy, and at times robust, but good faith discussion to come together and agree upon a final, balanced approach. Right now, it happens to be about the CCWG-Accountability analyzing and addressing the 93 comments from the last round of public comment, listening to all possible views and opinions from across the community including those that come forward in Dublinand developing a final consensus proposal. We are in the final stretch of this and it's time for everyone, however involved you've been, to help work towards a consensus. Dublin will be key as we show the world what our multistakeholder model can accomplish. I know many on the Board are deeply engaged alongside many of you in the working parties and will continue participating in community discussion throughout this process. The CCWG and the broader community both have a lot of discussions ahead. The Board looks forward to participating as one stakeholder of many, and I thank you all for your energy and commitment to this effort. It really is a wonder to behold. For those of you following the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes in Dublin or from your computer at home, below is a quick reference guide to the latest transition-related meetings. At the community's request, the ICANN staff identified additional times forICANN Accountability discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/increasing-community-discussions-on-enhanci ng-icann-accountability-at-icann54> with as little disruption as possible to the current meeting schedule. Please don't hesitate to join in the discussions no matter where you are in the world. We are nearly there. It is a historic moment, and truly a testament to the strength of the multistakeholder model. DateTimeSeesion TitleRoom Friday, 16 October08:30-18:30CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face MeetingLiffey H2 Saturday, 17 October08:30-12:00CCWG-Accountability Sub-team BreakoutsLiffey H2 Saturday, 17 October13:00-17:00ICG Face-to-Face MeetingLiffey B Sunday, 18 October09:00-12:00ICG Face-to-Face MeetingLiffey B Sunday, 18 October16:45-18:15Transition Perspectives: From Internet Pioneer and the U.S. CongressAuditorium Monday, 19 October10:15-11:45CCWG-Accountability Engagement SessionAuditorium Monday, 19 October12:00-13:00ICG Engagement SessionAuditorium Monday, 19 October14:00-18:30Discussion on Enhancing ICANN AccountabilityAuditorium Wednesday, 21 October09:30-11:00CWG-Stewardship Working SessionWicklow H2 Wednesday, 21 October15:30-16:30IANA Stewardship Transition ImplementationWicklow H2 Wednesday, 21 October17:00-20:00Discussion on Enhancing ICANN AccountabilityAuditorium Thursday, 22 October08:00-10:30CCWG-Accountability Working SessionLiffey H2 Thursday, 22 October10:30-12:30ICG Working SessionLiffey B Friday, 23 October09:00-17:00ICG Working SessionLiffey B 2. Increasing Community Discussions on Enhancing ICANN Accountability at ICANN54 (Nick Tomasso) Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/increasing-community-discussions-on-enhancin g-icann-accountability-at-icann54 As participants from around the world are preparing themselves for ICANN's 54th Public Meeting, theICANN Meetings Team has been hard at work to finalize the meeting schedule. Last week during an SO-AC-SG-C-RALO Leadership Call, ICANN staff was asked to provide options for community consideration to increase time in Dublin for discussions around the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process. Given the important circumstances and timely nature of the request, we identified timeslots for EnhancingICANN Accountability discussions where we could insert new sessions with as little disruption as possible to the current meeting schedule. After a few days of brainstorming, our team was able to provide the community with three options for increasing CCWG-Accountability discussion time in Dublin. These options varied from little change/minimal disruption to significant change/significant disruption to the ICANN54 schedule. After discussions amongst the broader community on these three options, the SO-AC-SG-C-RALO Leadership Team reached consensus this morning on a middle-ground option, which would increase EnhancingICANN Accountability discussions without significant disruption to the current meeting structure. Finalization of agendas and details of these new sessions are forthcoming; the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs will provide these details tomorrow, Tuesday, 13 October. > Friday, 16 October > Removal of the SO-AC-SG-RALO Community Roundtable > This will provide SO-AC-SG-RALO Community Leaders the opportunity to join the > CCWG-Accountability Working Session from 15:30-18:30. > Monday, 19 October > Addition of a full-afternoon, community-wide session to discuss Enhancing > ICANN Accountability from 14:00-18:30 in the Auditorium. > This timeslot will allow for the broadest possible participation pending final > agenda from the CCWG-Accountability. Given the Auditorium configuration, the > session will include 2-4 standing microphones rather than desk microphones for > participants. > Tuesday, 20 October > Addition of the Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board & SSAC to the end of the day > from 18:00-19:00 in the Auditorium. > This would be moved from Wednesday to allow more time for an Enhancing ICANN > Accountability Session. Additionally, the ICANN Board Cocktail Reception with > the GAC will now run from 19:15-20:15. > Wednesday, 21 October > Addition of a second community-wide discussion on Enhancing ICANN > Accountability session from 17:00-20:00 in the Auditorium. > This timeslot will allow for the broadest possible participation pending final > agenda from the CCWG-Accountability. Given the Auditorium configuration, the > session will include 2-4 standing microphones rather than desk microphones for > participants. To see the entire ICANN54 meeting schedule please see here <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule-full> . We look forward to continuing to support the community in any way possible. Please note that with sessions starting in the next few days, any further changes to the schedule, with the exception of session cancellations, will not be feasible. We appreciate the flexibility of those of you who will be affected by these changes. Thank you all and see you in Dublin!

5 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
by avri doria Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Agreed. The biggest threat to the model is showing icann to have been a broken implementation. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> </div><div>Date:10/12/2015 9:43 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin </div><div> </div>+1 The original impetus of this whole transition effort was to save the MSM as embodied within ICANN in the wake of the Snowden revelations. The MSM is weakened, not saved, by rejecting and rewriting its output. 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:18 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem. In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right. It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems. More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading. Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation. Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation. Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers. In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality. And then, there is the last sadder point: Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies. If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition. If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly. Either prospect is daunting Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Mike, >> Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14? We will do both. If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process. 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4435/10780 - Release Date: 10/08/15 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

7 9

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ISC-Ops #61821] AutoReply: ISC Decomissioning the Redwood City Datacenter: Namibia
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim, I will be in Dublin for the ICAN meeting, so if someone from ISC is there we can talk about it. But, if it is possible to move it another ISC location we would like that. greetings, el On 2015-10-13 18:49 , ISC Operations - Hosted@ via RT wrote: > > Greetings, > > This message has been automatically generated in response to the > creation of a trouble ticket regarding: "ISC Decomissioning the > Redwood City Datacenter: Namibia", a summary of which appears > below. > > There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket > has been assigned an ID of [ISC-Ops #61821]. > > Please include the string: > > [ISC-Ops #61821] > > in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > To do so, you may reply to this message. > > Thank you, hosted(a)isc.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- > > > Eberhard, > Over the last several years, ISC has been working hard to focus our > attentions on how we can best serve the public good of the > Internet, while at the same time keeping our costs under control. > As part of that analysis, we took a long hard look at the costs > associated with continuing to use 950 Charter as a hosting > facility. With the exorbitant power costs of the bay area, the > circuit costs and repair and maintenance of the cooling and UPS > systems, particularly in light of the declining costs of > public/cloud hosting, it just doesn’t make sense for ISC to > continue hosting in that facility. We are spending much much more > than we’re taking in. > > In light of that, we notified most of the Hosted@ guests in 950 > Charter early in September that we’d like them to find another home > by Oct 31st of this year. Unfortunately, you got missed in that > initial email. However, as a critical infrastructure operator, > we’d like to work with you to figure out what steps for your hosted > equipment makes most sense for all involved, including possibly > moving it to another ISC location. Could we setup a time at ICANN > to discuss? > > - Jim Martin, Director of Operations, ISC > - -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVh09y5cFHaN5RT+rAQJnGw//RDbzvLWfWx2hIVjhWRTWoOhn1bcm/5Ie yXIsTsyyImhTjealuoNYE9jLlXFcusO0HBzZ0zK1dbTmC4GtjNLR96x7RwTCKofA KBHEqJX1hBERI8uxa95tMjQ1r9ke9AVIFeQaJmzHN4zFWZHnMZdxATN/xYWFEHHM f28qpJZjLt2WEd74XhkpEMPJgFVjKLiqfG6WtfuBqzHOP+l6Cnxu7C/v5vHMGbXA eRp3csm8WdiUbeuUiWALILpPlzaMLo/zDlxnpQYCoPFUqj7ZCNvIjj1ZMivA2yYJ Rq9+Q2uo333n2oPfAeKygDMSGPPgfeisp+GJ2pBVSGv0lprJg2FN+33jAS0ZUALw F/MFdHwVZgHgq226tAg0LEqJE8b5HKTlNc2d2BUdNRag2a3ePep6rmQ0Y1TwZmnB IgnDb1XDQRQ44FJm8mXOxVstSrFjEvEIiOeH7i7PR8V0VT4AMzT7blS3Ds9CNpZp LDomNBbTpvFaAMgZ6CKKbeWdgGT3efdmD4ddBpXtd4S6bUcfE0PL0+KYDwe079Lc sBI0xWpJNpmwKYmg00IQha2Pnbr/jJ1Yq0O9dkhNemF2+iPRww/pHda7HLoxrg3E 30x11brtT9LEyxxy92/LgesCeU6tCWEW864XaKV/RjR0KCe7QNrK0IUWTc4WF3l3 XQU7BFfZLdE= =jybd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #59 - 13 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #59 - 13 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sKJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. WP status updates A google doc link - <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_k… g> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_k… - was circulated prior to the call to provide an overview of "where we stand". All subteams are working on analysis of PCs. Most visible area of disagreement may be community mechanism. This scorecard will help track areas of progress in Dublin. We need to concentrate on work. ACTION ITEM: Concerns on scorecard to be sent by 12:00 UTC tomorrow Feedback: - How are we reflecting comments on our first report? --> Rapporteurs of subteams should dig into history of documents WP1 We incorporated more recent discussions in addition to PC. Two papers produced: 1 compiles areas of consensus/disagreements etc - 2 compiles the options for consideration. In particular we need to resolve: community mechanism and decision making, as well as enforceability. Comes into equation MEM and plan B. Budget power - teased out conclusions. We are waiting for overall architecture to be resolved prior to fleshing out powers. ST-WP We are working on rationale for ST18. Our call is today at 19:00 UTC. ST 35 is area for refinement Feedback: - ST 18 needs to be discussed within GAC to have clear position. WP2 Issues involve refinement. We are delayed on circulating papers. Comparison chart of IRP and MEM is important. There are issues with respect to mission, commitments, core values - we need to get wording right. We have no clear consensus on retention of language regarding private sector leadership. Feedback: - On private sector, no need to emphasize a particular group. ICANN is multistakeholder. - Suggest that use multistakeholder instead of private sector. --> We will need to discuss and determine whether consensus. - There has been no opportunity to arrive at WP2 common positions. WP3 Documents have been added to reading list. WP4 Final version reflect different areas of consensus/divergence as well as different actions we took to provide language. Legal Requests Outline of overall legal costs was sent to list. We will be requesting meeting/travel costs. ACTION ITEM - Request outline of meeting/travel costs. Summary of outstanding legal requests. They are tracked on wiki - <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Feedback - Requests for single document that concentrates all advice received from legal counsel --> Unsure this would be best way to go. We will think of way to get quick reference doc. - We need reply from Board on clarifications needed for MEM ACTION ITEM - Leon to send a follow-up to Bruce to ask for clarifications on MEM - Question 68 should not be closed. ACTION ITEM - Check whether question 68 has been properly addressed. Update on plan B Discussions It looks at enforceability required for community powers. This would consider a post transition mechanism that would allow us to conduct a governance review. If Board blocks move to membership, we would have opportunity to recall Board. We have tasked legal counsel to populate grid. Feedback: - Evaluate time it takes to enforce. There is a difference in terms of when community achieves results and time it takes. ---> Legal enforcement is looking into degree of enforceability and practical difficulties. - Should stress tests be applied to same chart (MEM and designators). Seeking guidance on whether should produce full chart and summary chart. - We are adding "current state of affairs" column to chart. - Do we need a row to deal with IANA functions reviews? --> This has been added. - When organizing agenda, provide opportunity to review our proposal against comments that come in. Our position should be baseline. We should have open opportunity for discussion. --> We will continue to analyze all comments received. Larry Strickling asked that we properly document options. We need to document that all options were considered. - Board to approve proposal - not just any stakeholder. We have to be very mindful of complexities we put into our work. Timelines Review of proposed timelines. Feedback: - Is there an in-between scenario? --> We will be updating timelines with NTIA information on process. Scenario #2 would still allow for transition to happen. - NTIA has renewed contract to next year and that process would take 5 months. It appears end of December would be new deadline for this to be finalized. Scenario 1 can work if no substantial deviation from second proposal. If there is, we need to go to third PC period. - NTIA never referred to accountability as key to transition - Face-to-Face in February for approval? No such plan for now. We will be able to flesh out plan by end of Dublin. It is imperative for community to understand what we are doing. Update on community Leaders Call Two topics discussed on call: 1) potential to make more time for CCWG discussions; 2) Slide-deck Fadi produced. SO/AC Chairs were gathered to discuss three options put together per SO/AC Chairs request. Preference was given to option B. SO/AC Chairs want to be certain we are making good use of time. On Saturday, break out will be used to flesh out options. On Monday we should bring community up-to-speed on where we are after weekend sessions with a view to presenting preferred options identified by subteams. We need to make sure these sessions are not taken over by individuals who want to make broad statement about accountability. These sessions need to be structured debates/conversations. On Tuesday we will have SO/AC discussions. On Wednesday we will work further on refinement. On Thursday we will take stock of week and finalize the work plan/timeline. Feedback - Question usefulness of plenary sessions --> We could use town hall to present findings of group, speak to changes after PC period. It would be a presentation of outcome of wkd. We should invite other community members to sit in with us. By Wednesday we hope to have visualizations of updated recommendations produced by CCWG. Supporting materials can be used for opening mics. - Plenary sessions could contain quotes that might later be used in hearings in a way that no one currently intends. We should make sure to educate them to make sure all understand. --> We need to consider whether we use morning session to report (educate) and Wednesday to give community opportunity to chime in on work result so that we have it further refined. - Seeking preference from community instead of new ideas would be preferable. - Risk some may skip Monday morning session. There has to be educate at top of each open mic session - Show more focus and restraint in email traffic. CoChairs should more actively interface. Conclusion: We will plan for meetings to be working sessions except for Monday morning session and Wednesday session. They will be sessions with community. On Monday, we will educate and go through chapter per chapter. Wednesday: we will educate and provide feedback on further refinements. On item 3, we have promised to work with Fadi on revised presentation that is more accurate. A.O.B - Board proposal and CCWG proposal - distinction in that CCWG asks beforehand who would participate. Opportunity to bring these two proposals closer. - It will be difficult for GAC to join Wednesday session. You should be collecting views on most controversial items and give floor to those who have not been able to speak through the CCWG.

1 0

Expenses
by Stephen Deerhake Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Greetings Co-chairs. Might I ask you to provide the ICANN Community with a summary of CCWG expenses to date, broken out by (a) External Legal (b) ICANN Staff support (c) ICANN funded travel/lodging For the various meetings (both Adobe/phone and F2F) that have occurred to date? It doesn't grow on trees, and prior to the new gTLD exercise, the Organization was running "close to the bone". And that windfall, if I understand things correctly, is obligated and thus not really available to support the transition effort. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake

5 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Hello Paul, Regarding: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en The statement still holds. The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

10 16

Fwd: USG Transition project - Independent Legal advice costs - Summary
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear all, As requested by many in the list, I am forwarding the latest information on legal costs that we received just earlier today. As Xavier Calvez points in his e-mail, information is intended to be updated quarterly. We note that there is still more information to be received (overall costs as requested on meetings, travel, staff, etc.) and we will be requesting this information and come back to you as soon as we get it back. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 13 de octubre de 2015, 1:04:55 a.m. GMT-5 > Para: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby <Cherine.Chalaby(a)icann.org>, "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> > Asunto: USG Transition project - Independent Legal advice costs - Summary > > Dear all, > You will find attached an updated list of the independent legal advice invoice totals for both groups by month by firm. This document contains the most recent invoice information currently at our disposition. In the interest of transparency, it includes notably: > the legal advice costs incurred by ICANN with each of the 3 legal firms employed: Jones Day, Sidley & Austin, Adler & Colvin. > If invoices are unavailable for more recent months, an estimate was produced so as to reflect a most recent and up-to-date position. > This information will also be posted on a new webpage, subject of a separate link on the Home page of the Transition ICANN website (see the link box on this page: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>), with the intent to be updated quarterly. I trust this will support a full transparency on the legal costs incurred so far on the project (short of publishing the confidential invoice details that I sent to you separately). > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > > Best, > > > Xavier > > > Xavier Calvez > > CFO > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > > Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 > > Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 > > Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 > >

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

James, I am not George, but I will give you my response (and that of the ALAC), at least in regard to the GNSO. We have significant concerns in this area and have said that a number of times. You will find ATRT2 recommendations which are aimed at making the GNSO decision making more representative and, we have said it in all of our comments on the Policy and Implementation WG and in the more recent instance, as formal ALAC Advice to the Board. However, at the moment, the GNSO only makes recommendations and the Board has the freedom to reject them and remand them back to the GNSO if there is a strong belief within the Board that the public interest is not being met or if there is a belief that for whatever reason the recommendations do not sufficiently balance the needs and desires of the various stakeholders. That is the backstop function that the Board, and no other part of ICANN, plays and it is for that reason that the ALAC and At-Large has not been a fan of the absolute ability of the community to over-rule the Board in the current accountability proposals. Alan At 12/10/2015 07:21 AM, James Gannon wrote: >George, > > >Thank you for your thoughts. One question that >comes to mind is how then does the board >reconcile the issue of current consensus policy >as defined through the bottom up >multistakeholder process in the ASO, GNSO and >ccNSO with its apparent mistrust and concerns >over the governance an structure of the current SO's. > > >Jeff Neuman touched on this in his email to the >list last week, some selected quotes below (Links to his full post below). > > " > >If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not >sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN accountable, then >how can they ever argue that the community is sufficiently representative to >produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders for the purpose of developing >Consensus Policies. I have never heard the Board before make that >argument...that it could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the >contracted parties because they did not believe the community was >sufficiently representative. > > > > >... >You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently >representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for the >purposes of holding itself accountable >" > > >If this is the position of the board then we are >opening serious and dangerous debate. > ><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/…>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/… > > >-jg > > > >---------- >From: >accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org ><accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> >on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky(a)gmail.com> >Sent: 12 October 2015 08:33:13 >To: CCWG Accountability; Icann-board ICANN >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand? > >All, > >Where indeed? I'd like to contribute some >thoughts, with a view toward helping the process toward closure, if possible. > >My goal is to try to find a way through the >issues that appear to separate us, and to look >for areas in which agreement might be able to be >reached, and reasonably soon. By "us" in the >previous sentence, I mean all of the people who >have been involved in the CCWG deliberations in >any way whatsoever, including Board members in their individual capacity. > >This is not an "us" versus "them" discussion; >there are a lot of different opinions among this >larger group of involved people, not to mention >the larger ICANN community that has been rather >silent but nevertheless observing. > >This entire message represents only my own personal opinions and concerns. > >I would like to make a contribution into >resolving the apparent stumbling blocks that >impede our progress on the accountability >issue. This is the purpose of this message. > >I've now followed and occasionally contributed >to this discussion for over two months. It has >been difficult following the various discussions >on the list because of the multiple issues that >are threaded and intermingled. The descent of >the discussion into opposing and apparently >irreconcilable legal views has not assisted my >understanding much and, perhaps naÃ¯vely, I had >hoped for a clearer set of answers that would >provide resolution on certain aspect. > >With respect to clarity of legal opinions and >options, I understand that sometimes what is >allowed is based on precedent, and where there >is no precedent, it may be impossible to say >with certainty what is allowed and what is >not. Given the level of uncertainty that this >introduces, I'd settle for 'relative certainty' if appropriately qualified. > >I'd like to provide two lists: (1) those things >that guide my own thinking regarding acceptable >solutions, and (2) questions that I wish could >be answered with short, definitive and useful >responses and that might contribute to some convergence in thinking. > >In my view, her are some of the issues that >concern me in my attempt to think through the >issues that we have been discussing: > >1. ICANN does have responsibility for more than >just being a secretariat for the ACs and the >SOs, i.e. what I think of as the inner ICANN >community. I put this in the category of the >global public interest. It doesn't dominate our >responsibilities, and in general it may only be >a sliver of what we think about, but it >exists. The ACs and the SOs may also reflect >and respond to their notion of the public >interest, but they are by their nature sectoral, >and I don't expect them to be totally neutral in >their thoughts or actions. They represent their >constituencies. Perhaps in theory, the varied >stakeholders cover the complete spectrum of >interests and balance each other out, but there is no guarantee of this. > >The overriding responsibility for balance and >interpretation for that sliver, even if it just >a very very small part of what comes up at >ICANN, is the Board's role and >responsibility. Any changes in structure that >have the possibility of the ICANN inner >community totally capturing the Board are therefore not acceptable. > >2. I understand and accept that there needs to >be an equilibration of power and authority in >any change in ICANN's structure. However, the >change should result in a balance, and not in a >reversal of what people believe is the current >situation, i.e.that the Board has all of the >power and the community has no recourse. Such >a reversal would be equally bad. > >This is what causes me to discount any model >that can lead to capture. The statutory powers >of the member or designator appear to be >powerful, and even if some are severely limited, >I worry that these limitations can be overcome, >and the Board will be disenfranchised. This >amounts to capture. I know that there is >disagreement about the nature an extent of such >statutory powers and the extent to which they >can be limited, temporarily or permanently and, >among other things, this uncertainty translates >for me into the possibility of capture. > >3. Replacement of the entire Board, if it >occurs, is a very serious event, It will have >significant repercussions not only within ICANN >but internationally with respect to competing >venues for so-called Internet governance. For >this reason, we need both a very high bar to it >occurring, and we need to ensure that there are >very good reasons for the action to be taken. > >For example, if every AC ad SO in the inner >community decided that the Board should be >replaced, that would be a signal that something >was seriously wrong, and the Board should be >replaced. However,if there were any significant >part of the inner community that disagreed with >replacing the Board, then initiating the action >to replace would be seen as a dispute between >parts of that community, taking the Board as >hostage and employing a Draconian procedure to >force a majority opinion on a minority of the >community. If this happens, it will turn ICANN >into a battleground, and we won't have to worry >about being taken seriously; we won't. The bar >should be high enough so that if this action is >taken, fit should be quite clear that no >significant part of the community is against it. > >4. I agree with the implication of Cherine's >argument that removal of any director should be >based upon a public rationale, an appropriate >due process, and should be the result of broader >community action, rather than that of a single >AC or SO. The counter argument that I've heard >is that other not-for-profit organizations can >replace their directors if they want, so why can't we? > >My response is that ICANN is not an ordinary >not-forprofit. On the contrary, the totality of >our membership consists of stakeholder groups >with different and often competing goals, and >under the currently proposed plan the >manipulation of Board representation therefore >can reflect attempts at control through the >Board. Such a change of behavior would >contradict current bylaws in ways that have been >articulated by Cherine and others. Most other >not-for-profits are considerably more >homogeneous and have shared goals, and the Board >is generally not an arbiter of long run competing sectoral goals. > >5. The models that we have been talking about >are legal constructs, and we will need to >respect their existence as frameworks for >governance. But we need to remember that are >the means to the ends that we want to >achieve. I would rather prefer to define the >goals precisely -- both the powers given to >the actors as well as the constraints on their >activities, and then see which model fits best. > >To do that, we need to understand well the >differences between what the models offer, but >first we need to agree upon the goals in terms >of scope of authority, power and >constraints. Sometimes it seems we mix them up >in ways that obscure and even retard progress. progress. > >6. I watch in horror the multi-million dollar >duel of lawyers that has been going on for some >time and appears to have no end. Why is it not >possible to give them free rein to discuss the >issue more dispassionately and come up with >common positions with the possibility of >deviations? I fear that a need to win may be >transforming this part of our discussion into a >lose-lose scenario. If so, the lawyers will >still get rich, but ICANN, the community, and >the whole world will lose. Can't we lock them >in a room and not let them out until we see the >white smoke coming from the chimney? (:-) > > > >In order to assist in resolving our current >difficulties, here are some issues that I >believe are pertinent. I raise them in the form >of questions., for I believe that there is not a >common precise understanding of them. Is it >possible to provide simple and direct answers to >them that might be useful for establishing >greater understanding of the differences that >still exist and beginning to bridge them? That would be helpful. > >A. It appears that the single designator model >is very much the same as the single member mode, >but with the only statutory power being to >select or remove directors. In general, is >this correct? In brief, what are the other differences? > > To establish any new structure the community > still needs to address a range of open topics > to ensure ICANNs stability and freedom from capture: > * which SO and AC will participate in > the decision-making mechanism (which SOs and > ACs will opt-in)? For dismissal of the entire > Board, why should it not require active assent of all ACs and SOs? > * what will be the Decision basis among > participating SOs and ACs by _____ % of all SOs and ACs?? > * how will advice from those SOs and ACs > opting-out of the decision-making mechanism > (similar to GAC/Board advice?) be taken into consideration? > * how will will conflicts of interest > and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such > as public interest) will be factored into overall decision-making ? > >B. In Buenos Aires, there was discussion and >convergence (I thought) on an "empowered AC/SO" >model. Does this model offer any initial point >for movement to convergence of opinion? > >C. The Board proposal calls for each AC/SO to >decide if they are for or against and issue >instead of possibly dividing its "vote". Is this a show-stopper? > >D. The Board proposal allows any AC/SO to weigh >in on a particular issue (and decide to exercise >or oppose the use of one of the powers. The CCWG >proposal requires and AC/SO to decide ahead of >time whether it will participate in future uses >of the powers. Is this a show-stopper? > >E. What would the community take as evidence in >the short term that the Board is acting in good >faith? I'm concerned by what appears to be >Board bashing on the list, wherein many things >that any of us say or do are interpreted >negatively and perhaps conspiratorially. I >realize that the great majority of people >involved int he CCSG process do not have such >attitudes, but predictably it only takes a very >few individuals to sour and confuse a discussion and lessen its utility. > >I'm sure that these questions reflect my limited >and imperfect understanding of the situation, >and perhaps some naïveté also, but there aren't >many other ways to gain a productive understanding of it. > > >Comments welcome. > >George > > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Fwd: Question from Izumi re Comparison of independent review processes
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Below is the response from our Counsel regarding Izumi's questions certified as #81. The questions were : -Under the MEM proposed by ICANN, who exactly and on which basis has theright to commence proceedings in order to enforce the binding arbitration? -Should SO/ACs be unincorporated associations? Should SO/ACs give power of attorney to their chairs or one of their member? Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Question from Izumi re Comparison of independent review processes Date : Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:38:59 +0000 De : Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> Pour : leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, thomas(a)rickert.net <thomas(a)rickert.net> Copie à : ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com> Dear Mathieu, Leon and Thomas, With respect to Izumi’s inquiry, questions about how the MEM is intended to work are best addressed to the Board, ICANN Legal and Jones Day. Below are the memos (with links) where we attempted to compare the MEM to other models with respect to the enforcement of community powers based on our understanding of what has been proposed. Please let us know if there is anything else we can provide. ·Comparison of CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (Community Mechanism as Sole Member) and ICANN Board Proposal (*Link* <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>) oItem 15 - “The MEM model complicates the standing analysis because community members seeking to arbitrate must join together as a MEM Issue Group. It will be important for the Board to clarify whether they intend the MEM Issue Group to be considered an unincorporated association, which would be required to establish associational standing. If the MEM Issues Group does not come into existence until it is formed to file a complaint with the MEM, a question arises regarding how it can claim that it existed at the time of (and was materially affected by) the Board’s alleged violation. To file a MEM complaint, must all members of the Issues Group be materially affected or can the Group file a MEM complaint in collective support of a single SO or AC that is materially affected? The CMSM avoids the difficulty of a temporary “coalition of the willing” by existing as an unincorporated Sole Member entity prior to the filing of any claim with the IRP (or MEM).” ·KEY CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON: Community Mechanism As Sole Member Model & ICANN Board Proposal (*Link* <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>) oSlide 5 - “SO/AC can petition to invoke MEM Arbitration; upon reaching a certain threshold of SO/AC support a MEM Issue Group would be formed which (depending upon implementation) could have standing under Bylaws and legal capacity to initiate and enforce arbitration. Scope of permissible MEM arbitration (Fundamental Bylaw violation v. “new community power violation”) unclear. SO/ACs may bring actions in CA courts seeking enforcement of MEM award, although this may require legal personhood. No single SO/AC has standing to bring derivative suits against fiduciaries. The MEM Issue Group, as a separate unincorporated association, would be part of each MEM.” ·Comparison of Current Independent Review Process (IRP), IRP in CCWG 2^nd Draft Proposal under the Community Mechanism as Sole Member (CMSM) Model and ICANN Board Proposal re IRP and Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) (*Link* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896826/Sidley%20Adler%20…>) oItem 3 Who May Initiate; Harm Threshold - “MEM limited to Board action in violation of Fundamental Bylaws, and MEM petition must be initiated by an SO or AC . . .” oItem 7 – Capacity to Sue for Judicial Enforcement - “Three avenues are suggested: §an individual SO/AC or some collection of SOs/ACs could form an unincorporated association (UA); §the members of multiple SO/ACs could form one UA; or §the chairs of multiple SO/ACs could form a UA.” *HOLLY**J. GREGORY* Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice *Sidley Austin LLP** *+1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2015 03:57:11 AM *To:* Gregory, Holly *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Izumi Okutani; Samantha Eisner; ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes Hi Holly, I believe this is just a follow up isn't it ? My understanding was that Izumi's question was already addressed in the various memos ? Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Le 10 oct. 2015 à 01:19, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> a écrit : We will add it to the certified list of questions. Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMGaQ&c…>)** ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 05:53:46 PM *To:* Izumi Okutani *Cc:* Samantha Eisner; ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG; Mathieu Weill *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes Dear Holly, dear Rosemary, I think this is a key question. Could you kindly provide an answer? Saludos, León > El 09/10/2015, a las 5:02 p.m., Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> escribió: > > Thanks Sam for this information. > > I also have a follow up question and would be interested to hear the CCWG lawyers' (Sidley Austin and Adler Colvin) view on this. > > Under the MEM proposed by ICANN, who exactly and on which basis has the > right to commence proceedings in order to enforce the binding arbitration? > > Should SO/ACs be unincorporated associations? Should SO/ACs give power > of attorney to their chairs or one of their member? > > I would appreciate some clarification on this matter. > > > Thank you, > Izumi > >> On 2015/10/09 4:28, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: >> Thanks Sam. This is very useful information. >> >> It would be useful to know how this avoids going into the concerns raised by the Board on capture, complexity and uncertainty: >> >> Quote from Jones Day Memo >> >> "Specifically, under the Board’s Proposal, the decision could be enforced by an unincorporated association comprised of: (i) an individual participating SO/AC or some grouping of participating SOs/ACs; (ii) the members of multiple participating SOs/ACs; or (iii) chairs of multiple participating SOs/ACs. In the alternative, the individual (natural) people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs could enforce the award in an individual capacity." >> >> It would be great if we could have more clarity on this I think. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >>> El 08/10/2015, a las 1:47 p.m., Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> escribió: >>> >>> I am forwarding this on behalf of Jones Day, as they do not have sending rights to this list. >>> >>> Note from Jones Day: >>> >>> Dear CCWG, >>> >>> As Holly noted in her cover email, CCWG Counsel's "Comparison of Independent Review Processes" was provided to Jones Day in advance of it being circulated to the CCWG. In the interests of transparency, please note that Jones Day did not provide line edits identifying the areas of disagreement with CCWG Counsel, but instead provided the attached memorandum for CCWG Counsel's consideration. CCWG Counsel did not revise its Comparison document to reflect the thoughts set forth in the attached Jones Day memo. Sidley/Adler understood that this memo would be shared with the CCWG after their Comparison document was circulated. >>> >>> 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 "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> >>> Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM >>> To: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> >>> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes >>> >>> Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Members and Participants, Attached please find a comparison of key characteristics of (1) ICANN's current IRP, (2) the IRP under the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (in the context of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model), and (3) the IRP and MEM set forth in the Board Proposal as requested in L.A. >>> We shared this with Jones Day and ICANN Legal in advance so that they could provide any corrections regarding our understanding of the IRP and MEM as set forth in the Board Proposal. >>> Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMGaQ&c…> <http://www.good.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=CwMGaQ&…>>) >>> >>> From: Grapsas, Rebecca >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:45:50 PM >>> To: Gregory, Holly >>> Subject: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us >>> immediately. >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> <Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >

4 3