October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Statement on behalf of the ISPCP
by Malcolm Hutty Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Please find attached a statement on behalf of the ISPCP. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

1 0

Join us today, Wednesday at 17:00 Dublin time (16:00 UTC) in the Auditorium for CCWG Working Session II
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Dear all, Please join us this afternoon for the CCWG Working Session II (see details below) Wednesday, 21 October 2015 from 16:00 - 19:00 UTC | Time zone converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit… 20151021T16&p1=1440&ah=3> here (Local Dublin time: 17:00 AM - 20:00 AM/IST) -- Room: Auditorium Adobe Connect: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium Today's agenda: 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) Also, you may follow the Dublin meeting on the CCWG Wiki meetings page here: https://community.icann.org/x/d4pYAw See in less than 1 hour for the meeting. Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Reminder: working meeting in approx. 2h
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Dear all, The meeting this afternoon will be a working session, not an engagement session. See you there! Wednesday, 21 October 2015 from 16:00 19:00 UTC | Time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit y+Engagement+Session&iso=20151021T16&p1=1440&ah=3> (Local Dublin time: 17:00 AM 20:00 AM/IST) -- Room: Auditorium Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium> Grace

1 0

Shift to Designator Model
by Guru Acharya Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

The co-chairs noted yesterday that they have seen a lot of traction for the designator model. To me it is apparent that an offline decision to shift to the designator model has already been made by the community leaders in order to reach consensus; and there will be a move to that effect in the upcoming meeting. In my opinion, in case a shift to the designator model is made, the following minimum conditions must be met by the CCWG to ensure that the CWG requirement of separability (Power 7) is not weakened: 1) First, the bylaws must provide a clear and unambiguous responsibility for the board to not reject the result of the community separation process unless the board comes to the conclusion that the community had vitiated the established procedure. 2) Second, transparency mechanisms, including DIDP reforms, must be shifted to Work Stream 1 in order to ensure that ICANN can not frustrate arbitration proceedings by refusing to provide documents in case of an ex-parte arbitration. 3) Third, the NomCom must make take measures to ensure that the replacement board, which is selected after a board spill, does not take the same decision as the previous board. These measures may include increased transparency in selection process or molding interview questions according to community decisions. 4) Fourth, there must be a new round for public comments for the changed proposal; and community feedback must be sincerely taken into account while determining consensus. I hope these suggestions are constructively taken into account. Regards, Guru

1 0

There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
by Robin Gross Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list: There is an open issue that we haven't yet dealt with (although people were asking to in our last session). According to the public comment analysis tool, there is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees and there is concern in the community for dilution of authority and influence of SO community. Comments expressed support for treating SOs and ACs along the lines in the current board structure. This is beside the fact we seem to be moving away away from voting and toward consensus but about weight in decision making. We need to deal with the fact we don't have consensus on these points. The below statements are in our paper on "the model" which analyzed public comment: • Lack of consensus on the voting allocations between SOs and ACs. Comments expressed concern for “dilution and authority and influence of SO community”. Most commenters on this issue expressed support for voting allocations along the lines of ICANN’s existing board structure. • Lack of consensus on the composition of the community within the Model (e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Comments indicated concern over the possible “duality” of the governmental role in the Model. Several comments expressed concern that providing votes to GAC will fail to meet NTIA requirements. We haven't gone through these papers which analyzed public comment yet. So, WHEN are we going to address these concerns expressed in public comment on which there is no consensus in the community? Today? Thanks, Robin

8 11

Summary of points that I covered in my comments
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Hello All, Here is a summary of my comments. - the Board has been encouraged by discussions that have been held over Friday and Saturday in Dublin where the CCWG work has continued to evolve in response to public comments - in general the Board supports the new community powers and was very encouraged by the progress on how these powers should be executed in the discussions on Saturday morning. - the board also agrees that the community powers should be enforceable. We continue to support approaches that ensure the enforceability can be achieved using simple approaches, without major changes in corporate structure. We believe that most disputes can be resolved through a community independent review panel (IRP), and that in the unlikely event that a future Board doesn't comply with the IRP outcome, the community should have solid foundation to achieve enforcement. - with respect to enforcing the outcome of a community IRP in court, we have noted that there has been some discussion over what legal entity, or legal entities, should be used for the community to have standing in court, and what legal status it should be given within our bylaws. - with respect to the bylaws status of the legal entity, the board supports the consideration of the designator model as the closest to our current governance model - Board members will continue to actively participate in refining how best to implement the community powers, and participate in investigating how a sole designator model could be implemented Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3

There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
by Robin Gross Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

There is an open issue that we haven't yet dealt with (although people were asking to in our last session). According to the public comment analysis tool, there is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees and there is concern in the community for dilution of authority and influence of SO community. Comments expressed support for treating SOs and ACs along the lines in the current board structure. This is beside the fact we seem to be moving away away from voting and toward consensus but about weight in decision making. We need to deal with the fact we don't have consensus on these points. The below statements are in our paper on "the model" which analyzed public comment: • Lack of consensus on the voting allocations between SOs and ACs. Comments expressed concern for “dilution and authority and influence of SO community”. Most commenters on this issue expressed support for voting allocations along the lines of ICANN’s existing board structure. • Lack of consensus on the composition of the community within the Model (e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Comments indicated concern over the possible “duality” of the governmental role in the Model. Several comments expressed concern that providing votes to GAC will fail to meet NTIA requirements. We haven't gone through these papers which analyzed public comment yet. So, WHEN are we going to address these concerns expressed in public comment on which there is no consensus in the community? Today? Thanks, Robin

1 0

New blog post from Internet Society
by Konstantinos Komaitis Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Dear all, The following blog post by Kathy Brown may be of interest to you. http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/10/were-almost-there… Thanks Konstantinos Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Senior Policy Advisor, Internet Society komaitis(a)isoc.org tel: +41 22 807 1453

4 4

NRO EC Statement in today's CCWG Engagement Session
by Athina Fragkouli Oct. 20, 2015

Oct. 20, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the NRO EC statement of this morning's engagement session. Thank you, Athina ========= Dear Colleagues, We can see the intense and productive work that is being done on accountability. It seems to be moving positively, but slowly, towards some critical shared goals. We agree that community empowerment is one of these goals; the ICANN community deserves to be sufficiently empowered to ensure ICANN’s accountability. However this work only has meaning in the context of the IANA Stewardship Transition: that is the goal that has brought this process about; and the wider Internet community also deserves to see this work finally completed. We urge community members to only seek sufficient power to achieve this, and to seek a compromise towards any of the various ways to do so. There is not only one “correct” solution here. If we do not bring this process to a conclusion, soon, inevitably other options will be explored. But those, I'm sure, will not be better options. As signatories ot the Montevideo Statement of 2013, which called for “accelerating the globalisation of ICANN and IANA functions", we urge the community to take this opportunity; to come to a conclusion on accountability soon enough to allow the transition process to proceed. Thank you. ===========

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal
by Ron Baione Oct. 20, 2015

Oct. 20, 2015

"The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC." 75% Majority should be lowered to 2/3 majority in my opinion. Ron

1 0