October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Greg Shatan Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

Brett, The issue of "final authority" in the comparison of member and designator is not monolithic and in many cases not far different under either model. I think significant changes to DIDP policy and to lobbying disclosure policy, each with numerous subparts with new concepts, and a reach that may go well beyond the stated subject matter (e.g., contacts with all government officials starts to look like law enforcement contact disclosure, which should be a topic unto itself), amounts to a trainload, or at least several boxcars. I have concerns with process, timing and substance. Frankly, my concerns on substance are probably the most limited (though not insignificant within those limitations). I am more concerned about getting this done, and burying the limited but necessary need for 6333-type disclosure (and perhaps other statutory disclosure, as Rosemary pointed out) in a big multipart package. I think there is quite a bit of heavy lifting here, and a few radical points. We should give this the breathing room it deserves and save the negotiation and discussion of this for WS2. Or let's just blow up all of WS2 and bring it in to WS1. We should not be too greedy in WS1 -- "Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered." BTW, I never said I was opposed to it because it was "new." I'm not some sort of accountability Luddite. But it is a significant chunk of work beyond what is necessary now, even in light of the shift in models. As to your question in your follow-up email, I'm saying that moving the entire subject of transparency into WS1 signals a failure to believe that WS2 is real and can be relied on. If I'm a fool to believe in WS2, then we have bigger issues than where to deal with broad transparency reforms in our workflow. Greg On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: > Greg, > > I disagree. The question of where final authority rests is fundamental. > > I also disagree with your characterization of this as a trainload of new > reforms. It is an important clarification of an existing policy, DIDP, and > incorporation of a well established disclosure standard. > > This is not heavy lifting or radical. It seems that your sole case for not > doing it is that it is "new". It is not. It was sidelined last December on > part based on the model we were considering. This would have been a much > more live issue absent membership. > > Also, designator is new. Should we not consider that either? > > Best, > > Brett > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > > __________ > > On Oct 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > > Brett, > > I disagree with this as a justification for bringing in a trainload of new > transparency demands. > > If the Community wants to spill the Board because it is refusing to accept > the exercise of a specific reserved power, that is all the justification we > need to spill the Board, or as many Board members as needed to successfully > exercise the power. There's no need to build a case beyond that. > > You are also vastly overstating the "reversal" -- the spill/recall rights > are statutorily identical under the Designator model, and the bylaw rights > are functionally identical. Only the budget/op plan rights are diminished > from an enforcement and "fiduciary duty" perspective. > > Finally, the most rapid recourse under EITHER model is to spill the > Board. Anybody who thinks that litigation will provide "rapid recourse" > hasn't been involved in litigation; under our circumstances, litigation as > a form of "rapid recourse" is even more unlikely than for a typical > litigant. > > Greg > > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Schaefer, Brett < > Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: > Greg, > > I agree on the specifics of the right of inspection, but I think you are > overlooking the broader enforcement issue. > > Under the membership model, final authority for various power resided in > the member, not the Board. > > The designator reverses that authority – the power now remains with the > Board, not the designator. Under the designator, as we heard repeatedly > last week, the most rapid means of recourse is to spill the Board or remove > a director. To do that in a responsible way, you need justification. That > requires more robust access to information, ICANN documents, etc. to build > a case. > > In my mind, greater transparency is instrumental if the designator is to > avail itself of its far more limited power. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:01 PM > To: Seun Ojedeji > Cc: Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > There seems to be an attempt at severe "mission creep" (or in this case, > "mission leap") taking place here. > > When we moved from "member" to "designator" as our reference model, we > gave up the statutory right of inspection under Section 6333 of the > California Corporations Code. In order to bridge the gap between "member" > and "designator," we discussed trying to give the Sole Designator > essentially the same rights that the Sole Member would have had under > Section 6333. The member's rights under 6333 are actually quite limited. > This was not intended to move all transparency issues from WS2 to WS1. Yet > it seems that there's a move by a "small subgroup" to try and take this > narrow opening and wedge an entire transparency wishlist into Work Stream > 1. This urge to overreach should be resisted by the CCWG, and even by the > small subgroup. > > Section 6333 reads as follows: > > 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. > > We should strive to give the Designator similar rights in WS1 and nothing > more. Widespread transparency "reforms" are well beyond the scope of WS1 > or the time we have on our timeline to debate and consider each of the > various proposals embodied in the small subgroup's document. Rather than > using that document as a starting point, I suggest we park that document > for use in WS2, and use Section 6333 as our starting point. > > Key points of Section 6333: > > 1. It is a right exercised only by a member. In our prior model, it > would have been a right exercised only by the Sole Member. Now, it should > be a right exercised only by the Sole Designator > 2. It is limited to particular types of materials: > > * "accounting books and records" > * "minutes of proceedings of the members" > * "minutes of proceedings of ... the board" > * "minutes of proceedings of ... committees of the board" > > 1. It is a right that can only be exercised "for a purpose reasonably > related to" the member's interests "as a member." > 2. It requires the member to activate the right by making a "written > demand on the corporation" to initiate the right; the corporation is not > obligated under 6333 to disclose anything on its own initiative or due to > its mere existence as a corporation. > 3. It is a right to "inspection." > Terms like "accounting books and records" and "open to inspection," among > others, have fairly specific legal meanings in the context of 6333. Our > counsel can enlighten us on the specifics, but it is important to be aware > that these are limited terms. > > Our job should be to translate 6333 into the Bylaws as faithfully as > possible. No more, no less. I hesitate to suggest any flexibility, lest > there be another attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. > > A final note -- Section 6336 provides a specific enforcement right if a > corporation refuses a "lawful demand" under Section 6333. This should also > be imported into the Bylaws. > > Greg > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hello Brett, > > I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being > done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things > required for stewardship transition to happen. > > I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely > dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should > always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a > continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be > carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members > route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will > designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not > "draw much water". > > Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be > appreciated as I have not found one yet. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: > Seun, > > It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do > list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of > the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models > was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at > the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I > don’t think this would have happened. > > Best, > > Brett > > From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: > seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM > To: Schaefer, Brett > Cc: James Gannon; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was > decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that > transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working > party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting > modalities/timelines are. > > That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this > last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. > > Thanks again for your response. > > Regards > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: > Seun, > > At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from > member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, > including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns > being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > > Best, > > Brett > > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] On Behalf Of Seun > Ojedeji > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM > To: James Gannon > Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > Hi James, > > If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? > Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A > pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto: > james(a)cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin > including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had > something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > > -James > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>> on behalf of Greg > Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. > To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> > Cc: CCWG-Accountability Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > > Thanks! > > Greg > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto: > robin(a)ipjustice.org>> wrote: > All: > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on > improving transparency at ICANN: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > > > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on > this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > Thanks, > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > 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<mailto: > 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<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >

1 0

Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Robin Gross Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

All: Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on improving transparency at ICANN: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! Thanks, Robin

7 9

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Greg Shatan Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

Brett, I disagree with this as a justification for bringing in a trainload of new transparency demands. If the Community wants to spill the Board because it is refusing to accept the exercise of a specific reserved power, that is all the justification we need to spill the Board, or as many Board members as needed to successfully exercise the power. There's no need to build a case beyond that. You are also vastly overstating the "reversal" -- the spill/recall rights are statutorily identical under the Designator model, and the bylaw rights are functionally identical. Only the budget/op plan rights are diminished from an enforcement and "fiduciary duty" perspective. Finally, the most rapid recourse under EITHER model is to spill the Board. Anybody who thinks that litigation will provide "rapid recourse" hasn't been involved in litigation; under our circumstances, litigation as a form of "rapid recourse" is even more unlikely than for a typical litigant. Greg Greg On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: > Greg, > > > > I agree on the specifics of the right of inspection, but I think you are > overlooking the broader enforcement issue. > > > > Under the membership model, final authority for various power resided in > the member, not the Board. > > > > The designator reverses that authority – the power now remains with the > Board, not the designator. Under the designator, as we heard repeatedly > last week, the most rapid means of recourse is to spill the Board or remove > a director. To do that in a responsible way, you need justification. That > requires more robust access to information, ICANN documents, etc. to build > a case. > > > > In my mind, greater transparency is instrumental if the designator is to > avail itself of its far more limited power. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > > > > > *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:01 PM > *To:* Seun Ojedeji > *Cc:* Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > There seems to be an attempt at severe "mission creep" (or in this case, > "mission leap") taking place here. > > > > When we moved from "member" to "designator" as our reference model, we > gave up the statutory right of inspection under Section 6333 of the > California Corporations Code. In order to bridge the gap between "member" > and "designator," we discussed trying to give the Sole Designator > essentially the same rights that the Sole Member would have had under > Section 6333. The member's rights under 6333 are actually quite limited. > This was not intended to move all transparency issues from WS2 to WS1. Yet > it seems that there's a move by a "small subgroup" to try and take this > narrow opening and wedge an entire transparency wishlist into Work Stream > 1. This urge to overreach should be resisted by the CCWG, and even by the > small subgroup. > > > > Section 6333 reads as follows: > > > > 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. > > > > We should strive to give the Designator similar rights in WS1 *and > nothing more*. Widespread transparency "reforms" are well beyond the > scope of WS1 or the time we have on our timeline to debate and consider > each of the various proposals embodied in the small subgroup's document. > Rather than using that document as a starting point, I suggest we park that > document for use in WS2, and use Section 6333 as our starting point. > > > > Key points of Section 6333: > > 1. It is a right exercised only by a member. In our prior model, it > would have been a right exercised only by the Sole Member. Now, it should > be a right exercised only by the Sole Designator > 2. It is limited to particular types of materials: > > > 1. "accounting books and records" > 2. "minutes of proceedings of the members" > 3. "minutes of proceedings of ... the board" > 4. "minutes of proceedings of ... committees of the board" > > > 1. It is a right that can only be exercised "for a purpose reasonably > related to" the member's interests "as a member." > 2. It requires the member to activate the right by making a "written > demand on the corporation" to initiate the right; the corporation is not > obligated under 6333 to disclose anything on its own initiative or due to > its mere existence as a corporation. > 3. It is a right to "inspection." > > Terms like "accounting books and records" and "open to inspection," among > others, have fairly specific legal meanings in the context of 6333. Our > counsel can enlighten us on the specifics, but it is important to be aware > that these are limited terms. > > > > Our job should be to translate 6333 into the Bylaws as faithfully as > possible. No more, no less. I hesitate to suggest any flexibility, lest > there be another attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. > > > > A final note -- Section 6336 provides a specific enforcement right if a > corporation refuses a "lawful demand" under Section 6333. This should also > be imported into the Bylaws. > > > > Greg > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello Brett, > > I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being > done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things > required for stewardship transition to happen. > > I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely > dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should > always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a > continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be > carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members > route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will > designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not > "draw much water". > > Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be > appreciated as I have not found one yet. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > wrote: > > Seun, > > > > It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do > list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of > the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models > was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at > the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I > don’t think this would have happened. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM > *To:* Schaefer, Brett > *Cc:* James Gannon; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was > decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that > transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working > party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting > modalities/timelines are. > > That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this > last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. > > Thanks again for your response. > > Regards > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > wrote: > > Seun, > > > > At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from > member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, > including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns > being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun > Ojedeji > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > Hi James, > > If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? > Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A > pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin > including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had > something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > > > > -James > > > > ------------------------------ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of > Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. > *To: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > *Cc: *CCWG-Accountability Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> wrote: > > All: > > > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on > improving transparency at ICANN: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ…> > > > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on > this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >

1 0

Fwd: FW: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Paul Rosenzweig Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android -------- Forwarded message -------- From: "Schaefer, Brett" < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Cc: farzaneh badii < farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com> , Tamir Israel < tisrael(a)cippic.ca> , Padmini < pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com> , Edward Morris < egmorris1(a)toast.net> , Robin Gross << a href="mailto:< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org ">< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org> , Jyoti < jyoti(a)cis-india.org> , Pranesh Prakash < pranesh(a)cis-india.org> , "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> , "< a href="mailto: kdrazek(a)verisign.com "> kdrazek(a)verisign.com " << a href="mailto: kdrazek(a)verisign.com "> kdrazek(a)verisign.com> , Becky Burr < becky.burr(a)neustar.biz> , "< a href="mailto: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz "> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz " << a href="mailto: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz "> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> , James Gannon < james(a)cyberinvasion.net> , "Wilson, Christopher" < cwilson(a)21cf.com> , "Matthew Shears (< a href="mailto: mshears(a)cdt.org "> mshears(a)cdt.org )" << a href="mailto: mshears(a)cdt.org "> mshears(a)cdt.org> , "Lane, Rick" < RLane(a)21cf.com> , Michael Karanicolas < michael(a)law-democracy.org> , "Karel Douglas" < douglaskarel(a)gmail.com> , "Robin Gross (< a href="mailto:< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org ">< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org )" << a href="mailto:< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org ">< a href="mailto: robin(a)ipjustice.org "> robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2015, 04:13PM -04:00 Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG >Sorry, I really need to get posting privileges. See exchange below. > >From: Schaefer, Brett >Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:12 PM >To: 'Greg Shatan'; Seun Ojedeji >Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > >Greg, > >I agree on the specifics of the right of inspection, but I think you are overlooking the broader enforcement issue. > >Under the membership model, final authority for various power resided in the member, not the Board. > >The designator reverses that authority – the power now remains with the Board, not the designator. Under the designator, as we heard repeatedly last week, the most rapid means of recourse is to spill the Board or remove a director. To do that in a responsible way, you need justification. That requires more robust access to information, ICANN documents, etc. to build a case. > >In my mind, greater transparency is instrumental if the designator is to avail itself of its far more limited power. > >Best, > >Brett > > > >From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com ] >Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:01 PM >To: Seun Ojedeji >Cc: Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > >There seems to be an attempt at severe "mission creep" (or in this case, "mission leap") taking place here. > >When we moved from "member" to "designator" as our reference model, we gave up the statutory right of inspection under Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code. In order to bridge the gap between "member" and "designator," we discussed trying to give the Sole Designator essentially the same rights that the Sole Member would have had under Section 6333. The member's rights under 6333 are actually quite limited. This was not intended to move all transparency issues from WS2 to WS1. Yet it seems that there's a move by a "small subgroup" to try and take this narrow opening and wedge an entire transparency wishlist into Work Stream 1. This urge to overreach should be resisted by the CCWG, and even by the small subgroup. > >Section 6333 reads as follows: > >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. > >We should strive to give the Designator similar rights in WS1 and nothing more . Widespread transparency "reforms" are well beyond the scope of WS1 or the time we have on our timeline to debate and consider each of the various proposals embodied in the small subgroup's document. Rather than using that document as a starting point, I suggest we park that document for use in WS2, and use Section 6333 as our starting point. > >Key points of Section 6333: >* It is a right exercised only by a member. In our prior model, it would have been a right exercised only by the Sole Member. Now, it should be a right exercised only by the Sole Designator >* It is limited to particular types of materials: >* "accounting books and records" >* "minutes of proceedings of the members" >* "minutes of proceedings of ... the board" >* "minutes of proceedings of ... committees of the board" >* It is a right that can only be exercised "for a purpose reasonably related to" the member's interests "as a member." >* It requires the member to activate the right by making a "written demand on the corporation" to initiate the right; the corporation is not obligated under 6333 to disclose anything on its own initiative or due to its mere existence as a corporation. >* It is a right to "inspection." >Terms like "accounting books and records" and "open to inspection," among others, have fairly specific legal meanings in the context of 6333. Our counsel can enlighten us on the specifics, but it is important to be aware that these are limited terms. > >Our job should be to translate 6333 into the Bylaws as faithfully as possible. No more, no less. I hesitate to suggest any flexibility, lest there be another attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. > >A final note -- Section 6336 provides a specific enforcement right if a corporation refuses a "lawful demand" under Section 6333. This should also be imported into the Bylaws. > >Greg > > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > wrote: >Hello Brett, >I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things required for stewardship transition to happen. >I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not "draw much water". >Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be appreciated as I have not found one yet. >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > wrote: >Seun, > >It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I don’t think this would have happened. > >Best, > >Brett > >From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto: seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com ] >Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM >To: Schaefer, Brett >Cc: James Gannon; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > >Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting modalities/timelines are. >That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. >Thanks again for your response. >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 >heritage.org >On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > wrote: >Seun, > >At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > >Best, > >Brett > >From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org ] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji >Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM >To: James Gannon >Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > >Hi James, >If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A pointer will be appreciated. >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 >heritage.org >On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" < james(a)cyberinvasion.net > wrote: >Hi Greg, > >A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > >-James > >From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. >To: Robin Gross < robin(a)ipjustice.org > >Cc: CCWG-Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > >In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > >Thanks! > >Greg > >On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross < robin(a)ipjustice.org > wrote: >All: > >Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on improving transparency at ICANN: > >https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > >The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > >Thanks, >Robin > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting modalities/timelines are. That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. Thanks again for your response. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: > Seun, > > > > At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from > member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, > including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns > being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun > Ojedeji > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > Hi James, > > If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? > Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A > pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ------------------------------ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin > including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had > something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > > > > -James > > > > *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of > Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. > *To: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > *Cc: *CCWG-Accountability Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> wrote: > > All: > > > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on > improving transparency at ICANN: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ…> > > > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on > this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18
by avri doria Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

Hi, To say all advice on some hypothetical plane is the same would be silly of me. To say that the advice on route server security, public policy, security and stability, and user concerns is equally important is easier. Perhaps different questions require different advice, and different groups have different utility depending on the issue under discussion, but yes on certain issues, especially issues that concern the overall well-being of ICANN, its service to its mission, and accountability of the organization, I believe all ACs, and SOs for that matter, are equally important. As for new SOs or ACs, if the CM and board someday agree, it would require a bylaw, that a new one needs to be created, then I assume it would be done because some equally important need had been discoverered. And yes I would probably consider them equally important. As for trying to create rules that prevent the future from evolving differently, I personally wouldn't try. If ever we all wanted to create some body that gave something like advice that wasn't equally important, we would call it something else like a suggestion group. But for now, in the matrix organizational architecture ICANN has, considering all AC and SO equally important when discussing accountability makes sense to me. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> </div><div>Date:10/27/2015 11:03 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 </div><div> </div>Avri, Thank you for making your position clear. Is your rational for equity that all advice is equally important? Is your rational for equity that all advisory committees are equal? Or do you allow for some advice having greater utility to the Board than some other advice, and for some advisory committees having advice which is of greater utility to the Board than some other advisory committees? If the latter, does the privilege you seek to make universal across all of the bylaws advisory entities arise from mere existence of an bylaws advisory committee? Do you propose to prevent some future Board from creating an advisory body it is not obliged to entertain beyond staff review of the body's advisory work product? Eric On 10/27/15 4:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 27-Oct-15 17:13, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >> Could any conceivable accountability mechanism ameliorate what you see >> as "a privilege given to no other advisory committee"? > I think so. > > I have long argued that all ACs should have the same privilege. > > And that the Board should be able to say no after ascertaining that the > process had taken the issue into account and decided otherwise. And if > the issue had not been taken into account, then they needed to send it > back into the process to be properly and fully considered. > > As long as the Board adheres to its rule of _never_ making policy, not > even when cloaked as implementation, the special privilege amounts to > the courtesy of being heard and of having ones issues fully considered > before acceptance or rejection of the recommendations coming from the > Bottom Up Multistakeholder Process (BUMP). And if they don't that is > where other escalation and enforcement comes in. > > Now with the GNSO PDP models of WGs being open to everyone and all the > special early engagement work being done with the GAC, new issues not > previously considered should become more and more rare. And if the GAC, > or any other AC, abused the privilege with too much advice on issues > that had already been dealt with or which had not been introduced into > the process at the right time, then the evaluation of the advice would > become easier and more negative. Being a hopeful sort, I expect the > system would eventually reach a suitable balance where most issues were > considered and no one got a second or a special bite at the apple. And > reasonable appeals related to ICANN mission and core values, and its > bylaws would be properly addressed. > > That is how the issue is ameliorated. Only some of this is about WS1 > accountability, i.e. making sure the articles and bylaws are up to > snuff, much of it is a conversation for another time and place (WS2). I > only meant to question the whole special privilege thing. > > The problem with stress test 18 is that it is largely not an ICANN > multistakeholder process issue, but is an intergovernmental issue. We > are the intermediary. > > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #64 - 27 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #64 - 27 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/vbJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to examine precedent of CO approval process - positive/negative/abstention/absence of negotiation ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to explore option of a tabular form for COs approval. 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. - Kavouss Arasteh - Avri Doria - Christopher Wilkinson not in AC - IGF will be addressed in A.O.B. - Principles agenda item is postponed Steps toward Chartering Organizations' endorsement of our proposal We will submit our recommendations to Chartering Organizations when posting them for public comment. Refer to paragraphs SO/AC support for the Draft Proposal and Supplemental Draft Proposal from Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter Per our timeline we will submit our draft proposal in November. We need to prepare SO/ACs for this proposal so that we may be in a position to assess whether our draft proposal has been approved by all or whether we need to issue a supplemental proposal which in turn might lead to adoption during month of January. Intersessional might be an option, as needed by COs. CoChairs have been invited to SO/AC leadership call this week to explain timeline and raise awareness for timeline responses. The plan will be to organize SO/AC specific webinars. Process dictated by Charter Feedback: - Process could be prolonged if SO/AC approves November report but others don't or if approves section of it. --> An option for COs will be to determine what they can adopt and what is unacceptable. See supplemental paragraph. Report should highlight number of recommendations. We should clarify that recommendations are not for "cherry picking" but it is possible that some recommendations will not be adopted by some. - Consider approval table for recommendations. --> We will need to have clarification on whether endorsement/no objection. We will need to refer to precedent. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to examine precedent of CO approval process - positive/negative/abstention/absence of negotiation ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to explore option of a tabular form for COs approval. CCWG-ACCT Process & Timeline ICANN staff have secured resources to take on writing duty. Susannah Gray has been given proof of concept assignment on budget. A second resource is currently being investigated. Key principles for interaction will be according to Dublin: terms of reference, bullet points of what matters in terms of content as well as reference materials. This will be under supervision of Work Parties. They will be given opportunity to review. Approval of documents will be within CCWG. We will encourage to focus on whether document reflects choices of group and not focus on wordsmithing. We are working on timeline with expected deliverables so we have visibility on expectations. Feedback: - Audience of report? --> Summary of 20 pages intended for broad audience (political level etc). Core proposal will be SO/AC, ICANN community targeted. These are two levels of audience. - Remove SO/ACs, acronyms etc in first component. AOB Suggestion to meet at IGF These discussions would be held in informal environment and would not entail decision-making. They would enable us to iron out details in advance of group discussion. You are invited to fill in a form to determine who can attend so that we may make a decision as to whether or not we can hold the "gathering" - <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1diDLY_uFmvqkpPmI858MfRx4_0FMTGYLMuD… g> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1diDLY_uFmvqkpPmI858MfRx4_0FMTGYLMuD… - James Gannon will be looking into RP option. Feedback: - No harm in having gathering. Suggest having a report of communications at IGF to show progress to "non-ICANNers" - Use this opportunity to report /communicate to IGF on accountability. Not appropriate to have CCWG-ACCT discussions - decision-making without appropriate opportunity to join. Disruptive mails on list Continue work in a constructive way and in compliance with standards of behavior. Posting rights have been restricted. Suggestion to have restriction lifted in two weeks time and to revert to permanent restriction if still disruptive post deadline. Documents * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144573/Excerpt%20from%20… dificationDate=1445971867697&api=v2> Excerpt from Charter.pdf

1 0

Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process
by Avri Doria Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

Hi, I have attempted to draw up a discussion set of slides on the connection between the CWG process for Separability and the CCWG accountability and enforcement measures. The drive doc is open for comments: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Nj… I have also attached a PDF. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 3

CCWG informal gathering at IGF
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

Dear all, As discussed in our last session, a lot of us will be attending the IGF in João Pessoa, Brazil, and it would be a good opportunity to continue advancing our work to finalize the drafting of the proposal. Pedro has kindly arranged a room for us to work on Tuesday, November 10 and on Friday, November 13, from 9 am to 12 pm both days. Please note that since this is not a formal CCWG meeting, ICANN will not be able to provide staff support or any remote participation capability for this informal meeting. Of course, no travel support either as this is only a plan to take advantage of the situation that many of us will already be there for the IGF. In order to organize ourselves, I suggest as a first step that we know who is attending so that we can figure out the logistics to make this work. Therefore, I would kindly encourage you to please fill in your name in the spreadsheet linked below so we can have a better idea of how we could organize for work. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1diDLY_uFmvqkpPmI858MfRx4_0FMTGYLMuD… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1diDLY_uFmvqkpPmI858MfRx4_0FMTGYLMuD…> This is a great opportunity to finalize our drafting. Let’s make the best out of it. Best regards, León

10 13

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18
by Arun Mohan Sukumar Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

>From Finn, circulated with permission: On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet(a)erst.dk> wrote: > Arun, > > > > The Danish position has not changed. > > > > In the email you attach we said “*From our (DK) point of view we fully > understand the need to have a stress test for such a situation, including > mitigating capture*, but it is our general view that any such proposal > should not lower the current threshold for the obligation of the ICANN > Board to duly taking into account GAC advice.” > > > > According to ST 18 the ICANN Board has only to try, in good faith and in a > timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution, when > GAC advice is supported by *consensus*. The ICANN Board has always to > duly take account of GAC advice – also advices that are not supported by > consensus in the GAC. > > > > Hope this helps? If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact > me. If you would like to know more about the Danish position on ST 18, > please read the transcripts from the GAC meetings. > > > > Looking forward to the correction. > > > > Best, > > > > Finn > > > > > > *Fra:* Arun Mohan Sukumar [mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org] > *Sendt:* 27. oktober 2015 18:15 > *Til:* Finn Petersen > *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community > *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 > > > > Hi Finn, this is what I went by: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html > > > > If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct. > > > > Best, > > > -- > > Head, Cyber Initiative > > Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi > > http://amsukumar.tumblr.com > > +91-9871943272 > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet(a)erst.dk> wrote: > > Dear Arun, > > > > Thoughts - here is one! > > > > You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and > Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable." > > > > Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18 - > your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!! > > > > Please correct this. > > > > Best, > > > > Finn, GAC - Dk > > Sendt fra min iPad > > > Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "arun.sukumar(a)orfonline.org" < > arun.sukumar(a)orfonline.org>: > > CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test > 18. > > > http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-b… > > > > Thoughts welcome! > > > > Best, > > Arun > > Sent from my iPad > > > > Head, Cyber Initiative > > Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi > > http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/ > > Ph: +91-9871943272 > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >

1 0