October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fadi's Contribution to ICANN Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

Dear all, Further to conversation on list this week including requests from Thomas, James, and Anne (apologies if I missed others) to have information shared and distributed to this list here below are a message and an attachment from Fadi Chehade that are being shared with the community. Grace ICANN Colleagues: It's wall-to-wall Accountability in Dublin! Together, we shall coalesce around the tremendous work that has been done by the CCWG to enhance ICANN accountability ahead of our historic transition from U.S. Stewardship. As I was preparing for Dublin, I became aware that I needed to understand better where we stood and that I, and many in our community, have not been able to keep up with the extensive documentation emanating from the CCWG's work. Furthermore, there are many legal memos that are dense with content and hard to digest for those who are not versed in legal matters as well as non-native English speakers. I sympathize! For this, I built the attached presentation. It is my personal, objective, and considered contribution into the process. A summary of where we stand on Accountability and what I believe we still need to sort in Dublin. I share it with you as a personal contribution and hope it will help you get ready for Dublin -- a historic meeting to strengthen ICANN accountability and pave the way for a safe transition. Fadi Note: I built it as an interactive PDF file. So, when you click on any of the main chart's rows, it will link you directly to the slide that describes the element of accountability in that row. To go back to the main chart, I put a link at the bottom that gets you back to the top (main chart). On each slide describing a row, I tried to capture in plain English where I believe we have broad agreement and what open questions remain (with blanks to be filled by the community). On most rows, I showed one implementation approach. On the two rows where we have alternative implementation approaches, I put both approaches (you can toggle between them by clicking on the approach tab).

11 14

Trivia Time Allotment Application Request
by Ron Baione Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

This request is to ask the group to provide the link to the ICANN website for the "Trivia Time Allotment Application" as I too wish to start a trivia session, but I fear that if there may be an application or form that needs to be filled out in advance, I will be criticized promptly for unqualified contribution if I do not fill out said form. Who signs off on that b the way, the allotment of crucial time for trivia time without criticism, as not a single person raised their pen in objection there must be some method to initiating said trivia time without fear of insults, insinuations and criticism. Regards, Ron

1 0

Recap of yesterday's discussion on the models
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

Dear colleagues, This is a recap of the discussion we have had yesterday, based on the summary I have provided at the end of the session. This is intended to capture the progress we've made to support our further work. ---------------------------------- Our group has agreed that Multiple Member or Designator options presented higher risks of capture and of complexity, and that arbitration based options (such as MEM) presented some legal uncertainties that the group preferred to avoid. We have focused our work on Sole Member and Sole Designator Models and started to compare them based on a list of criteria. The list of criteria discussed so far was : •Enforcement –Direct or Indirect enforceability –Worst case enforcement delay –Cost of worst case enforcement •Capture risk –Derivative action against Board –Right to dissolve organization –Balance between the various SOs or the Acs –Scope of issues whereBoardbusiness judgement is applied (fiduciary duty) •Transparency –Access to corporate records •Complexity –Necessity to create legal persons for SO/Acs –Necessity for individuals to act as legal persons –Ease of understanding –Ability to explain that the change is minimal The discussion has confirmed that : * Member model provides direct enforcement of Separation recommendation * CWG requirements could be met with either model * Board can be constrained in the Designator model if a separation process is incorporated in the Bylaws * CWG recommendations request a form of co-decision regarding Separation. * Going to Arbitration for some specific powers has some level of uncertainty both for Member and Designator models * Member enforcement of the various powers implies a year of legal action * IRP enforcement is not different in each model in terms of timing * Litigation is very unlikely, not only because of the time and cost associated, but also because Board recall would provide a faster way. Our lawyers have been tasked to investigate whether and how the articles of Association could clarify that the Purpose of the organization includes the need to promote and enhance the bottom up multistakeholder model. If so, this might align the duties of Directors with consensus decisions by the community.

4 6

CCWG-Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs Statement
by Hillary Jett Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

Hi everyone, Please find below the statement presented by León at today¹s Public Forum on the progress made on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process during ICANN54 in Dublin. Thanks, Hillary Original posting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-i cann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs' Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing -icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement#> Presented at ICANN54 Public Forum by León Sanchez: Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Dublin, Ireland from 16-22 October 2015 at ICANN54. Over the past seven days, the CCWG-Accountability has held more than 25 hours of formal meetings, with additional discussions taking place in various SO-AC-led sessions, in the hallways and often times over meals and drinks. After some voiced concerns with the speed of progress leading into Dublin, we as co-Chairs, called on the community for full mobilization and reinvigorated dedication to making measurable progress over the week in Dublin. We are extremely pleased to announce that the community tackled this challenge head on and succeeded. In what the group has coined ³an environment of collaboration,² CCWG-Accountability members, participants, ICANN Board Directors, external Advisors, legal counsel and interested observers came together to identify outstanding issues in the 2nd Draft Report and moved towards consensus on solutions. A summary of key decisions and agreed-upon next steps are outlined below: Sole Designator as Reference for Enforcement The group reached broad agreement to move forward with the Sole Designator as the new reference enforcement model for the next draft proposal. The group will next attempt to finalize "patching" the model to alleviate any outstanding concerns on their next draft proposal. Decision-Making Model The group begun defining a consensus based decision-making model, which includes a community consultation period. Discussions on the topic were informed by concerns raised in the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Report about unintended concentrations of power. Independent Review Process The group confirmed support for the proposed IRP enhancements, and is now moving into the implementation phase. To spearhead this phase, a drafting sub-group with expert support will be constructed to develop and draft bylaws and detailed operating procedures. Community Power: Review/Reject Budget and Operating Plan The group has identified a balanced process and approach for the One-Year Operating Plan and Budget, which was an outstanding item coming into Dublin. Community Power: Recall Individual Board Directors The group confirmed a decision method for removal of a director appointed by the Nominating Committee, and a separate decision method for removal of a director appointed by an Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization. Mission and Core Values The group confirmed its support for a clarification of the Mission Statement and articulation of the Commitments and Core Values. An example of a clarification includes ICANN's ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to reasonable checks and balances. Human Rights The group reached consensus to include a general human rights commitment into the Bylaws. However, further work is needed on language and has been tasked to the Human Rights Working Party. Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws The group finalized outstanding details of the incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Review into the bylaws. There is high confidence that these bylaws are nearly ready for consideration in terms of implementation. Work Stream 2 The group adopted a focused list of Work Stream 2 items, with an emphasis on transparency requirements. There was also broad agreement to bring some of these transparency requirements into Work Stream 1 in consideration of the discussions around the Sole Designator enforcement model. Timeline and Next Steps The CCWG-Accountability has had intensive discussions on the group's work plan, anticipated progress and next steps towards finalization. As such, the group has adjusted its timeline in a manner that attempts to balance the various timeline constraints, both inside and outside of the community. While details are still being solidified, the timeline is rigorous, and will likely keep the CCWG-Accountability busy through January. However, the co-Chairs, members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability understand the importance of and will execute an inclusive, open and bottom-up process. The current timeline proposes posting a high-level overview of recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal for a 35-day public comment on 15 November 2015. Alongside the 35-day public comment, the CCWG-Accountability will submit these resources to the Chartering Organizations for initial feedback. The CCWG-Accountability plans to issue a full detailed report, including annexes and in-depth documentation, mid-way into the public comment period for roughly 20 days of consultation. After synthesis of the comments received, and assuming no major changes, the group currently projects submission of Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the ICANN Board in late January 2016. We sincerely thank the community for their dedication to our unprecedented goal. We'd like to give special recognition to the GAC, ALAC, ASO and SSAC for their comments on our proposal while in Dublin. In addition, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, Advisors and independent counsel who put in a tremendous effort this past week. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and the deepest recognition. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Thomas Rickert Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

22 OCT - Working Session
by Alice Jansen Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your working session today - Thursday, 22 October - in Liffey H2 at 08:00-10:30 IST - 07:00-09:30 UTC, please find attached an agenda and slide-deck. Link to Adobe Connect: https://meet16733133.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall2 Meeting archives will be made available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56143880 Thank you Best regards Alice

1 0

Timeline (comment analysis)
by Chartier, Mike S Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

I think the process worked well last time. However regardless of whether or not we keep the current timeline for comment analysis, I think it would be a good idea to assign roles for whatever we need analyzed early, this way we can get a head start as comments come in. [cid:image003.png@01D10C18.8EA76AE0]

2 1

AGENDA - Session on 21 Oct
by Alice Jansen Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Dear all, Please find below a proposed agenda in anticipation of your session scheduled for tomorrow - 17:00-20:00 UTC - 16:00-19:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…>) 1. Welcome, Roll call, SoI (17:00-17:05) 2. Further assessment of merits of the models (17:05-18:05) 3. Taking stock and next steps (18:05-18:50) 4. Removal of individual Board director (18:50-19:05) 5. AoC into the Bylaws (if time permits) 6. Work plan (19:05-19:50) 7. A.O.B (19:50-20:00) Your session will be held in Auditorium. Link to the Adobe Connect room is as follows: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium. Kindly refer to the calendar invite for dial-in details. Your reading list can be found on the wiki at - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+-+Dublin Thanks, Best regards Alice

7 14

impressions around the accountability discussions
by Jari Arkko Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Andrew and I have written a brief article about our personal impressions on the accountability discussions, and particularly reflecting them to our experience on similar arrangements in other organisations. We hope this is a constructive contribution to the discussion: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/10/strange-but-familiar-in-dublin/ Jari Arkko

2 1

Draft Table to compare Sole Des and Sole Mem
by Jordan Carter Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Hi all As mentioned in the AC room chat, I've drafted a table based on what Mathieu set out in the slide - bringing together criteria for assessing the two "Sole" models. It's a google doc here: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bu6ze45ONESJyO_f3RCpEafQsb1VAPgCFHtmWsN… > PDF and Word docs attached. In thinking about these criteria, I'd urge a look back at our Counsel's work on comparing the two models. Also attached. This might be up for review and then we might use it on Wednesday. Feedback welcome! cheers Jordan

3 4

ccNSO discussion on models
by Jordan Carter Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Hi all the ccNSO members meeting talked accountability today and here is my sum of the specific discussion about the Enforcement Model question: *Rough consensus*: no fundamental objections to either model. (Small minority concern raised about statutory rights of a member) This was followed by a temperature check. Temperature check: significant preference for designator than member. (approx 60% for D, 40% for M; ~⅔ participated in temp check) cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0