November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Separability process and role of community in decisions (was Re: Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process)
by avri doria Nov. 5, 2015

Nov. 5, 2015

Hi, I do not think it is inconsistent. If you notice I overlapped the community and board process in scwg and was thinking very much of a process similar to the one we are evolving for ccwg. Each is independent yet they overlap and need to work together. The desert of the process to the right of the overlapping diamonds is what happens if they can't agree. Though perhaps I did not understand. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:11/05/2015 2:00 PM (GMT+09:00) </div><div>To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> </div><div>Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Separability process and role of community in decisions (was Re: Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process) </div><div> </div>Dear Jordan and Avri , Dear All, For the first part of the Question , who draft separation Bylaws? My suggestion is CWG start and sends its finding to CCWG For the second part of the question, we need to formally seek the views of the Board ( not individual Board but the entire Board) on the Process . My suggestion would be to start with a co-decision making., If wWe could handle the case in a murually acceptable manner with the Board after being informed of their views in a formal manner through a Note from Co-Chair . But if there is divergence, then we prefer that the last words to be given by CCWG ,i.e.,the Board start to decide and then CCWG consider the matter and make final decision ,as appropriate Regards Kavouss 2015-11-05 5:24 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>: hi all, hi Avri Thanks for these diagrams, which I've had another look at today. I was drawn back to them because one of the "not closed" things in my mind is the role of the community as a decision-maker at the final approval stage of a transition of the Names IANA Functions - if that is recommended by a Special IFR. My reading of the CWG-Names final proposal is that the group was after a co-decision process - that both the ICANN Board, and the community organised through some mechanism, would have to approve separation before it could be done. This is similar to the approach we have used for changes to Fundamental Bylaws. I think with the Community Mechanism we have the vehicle to make the Community part of the co-decision. And through independent review of Board decisions or non-decisions, we have some tools as a community to deal with a Board part of the co-decision with which we don't agree. If people agree with this co-decision approach, my remaining question is which group is drafting the relevant bylaws - us, or the CWG. If people think actually there is meant to be a separate Community decision after the Board decision, they should say so now... Also, I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR. My thought is not, consistent with Avri's slides. But keen on others' thoughts. cheers Jordan On 28 October 2015 at 07:38, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

CCWG ACCT Meeting | 06:00 UTC | Friday, 13 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 5, 2015

Nov. 5, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of our 15 November deadline for publishing the executive summary, we would like to hold an additional call next week on Friday, 13 November at 06:00-08:00 UTC to approve the document that will be sent for public consultation. We are cognizant that this may not be a convenient time for all but thank you for your understanding and flexibility. Best, CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs

2 1

Separability process and role of community in decisions (was Re: Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process)
by Jordan Carter Nov. 5, 2015

Nov. 5, 2015

hi all, hi Avri Thanks for these diagrams, which I've had another look at today. I was drawn back to them because one of the "not closed" things in my mind is the role of the community as a decision-maker at the final approval stage of a transition of the Names IANA Functions - if that is recommended by a Special IFR. My reading of the CWG-Names final proposal is that the group was after a co-decision process - that both the ICANN Board, and the community organised through some mechanism, would have to approve separation before it could be done. This is similar to the approach we have used for changes to Fundamental Bylaws. I think with the Community Mechanism we have the vehicle to make the Community part of the co-decision. And through independent review of Board decisions or non-decisions, we have some tools as a community to deal with a Board part of the co-decision with which we don't agree. If people agree with this co-decision approach, my remaining question is which group is drafting the relevant bylaws - us, or the CWG. If people think actually there is meant to be a separate Community decision after the Board decision, they should say so now... Also, I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR. My thought is not, consistent with Avri's slides. But keen on others' thoughts. cheers Jordan On 28 October 2015 at 07:38, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > 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 > >

3 3

updated side by side and slides 4 November 2015
by Burr, Becky Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

In an attempt to keep up to speed, the attached documents reflect my understanding of the current state of play on (1) Mission statement; (2) contract enforcement; (3) transparency J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] October 2015 Balance Due Statement
by Guru Acharya Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

Hi Bruce, Just out of curiosity, what does Versign bill ICANN for? I always thought it was the other way round - that Verisign paid ICANN per domain as the .com and .net registry. Is this the amount that Verisign bills ICANN for the RZM function? Sorry if its a naive question. Im new to all this. Regards, Guru On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: > Apologies - another inadvertent mail message copied to the wrong > "accounts" email address. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 1

Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
by Greg Shatan Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

All, There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now. I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1. Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can. *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*

17 25

ICANN mission statement
by Alissa Cooper Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

Dear CCWG, During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the mission statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented. This is especially important since the mission statement is intended to become a fundamental bylaw. We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made suggestions. For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… <https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c…>. From the ICG point of view, the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure with and without the PTI, otherwise it will be an additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. The ICG asks the CCWG to make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw. Thanks for your consideration, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call
by Eric Brunner-Williams Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

It has been suggested to me off-list that "at the top level, co-ordination of the root name server system is one of ICANN's functions, as the text makes quite clear" and that "the regulation of local resolvers is a local matter". If we look back at the SSAC, mid-year, 2008, following on its prior work on the same subject in 2004, and 2006, there are a significant number of "advisories", and in this period Steve Crocker (Shinkuro) chaired the SSAC -- all on the issue of when a resolver functions incorrectly. Which fantasy are we to entertain? That Steve et al thought they were advising local authorities when writing SAC 013, SAC 15, and SAC 32, because local authorities hang, breathless in anticipation, on the notes produced by some ICANN advisory committee, or that Patrick et al -- the current SSAC leadership and members -- now think, and will continue to think, that as they go about writing Board-advisory notes, that the correct function of resolvers is something to which the Board is necessarily indifferent. I suggest that Steve et al thought, and Patrick et al think, that when they advise the Board, it is on a subject matter the Board can, and in the informed view of the SSAC, should act upon. Or shall we tell the SSAC, the RSSAC, and others, that we are indifferent to anything but contract, for that is the complete scope of ICANN's mission. Eric

1 0

Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
by Burr, Becky Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

CCWG Members – The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.” This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely: ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process? STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include: Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal IAB Proposal ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers” ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries” ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”) ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers” ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.” As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

26 55

objections to "decisions" taken in CCWG #65
by Robin Gross Nov. 3, 2015

Nov. 3, 2015

I had to step away from today's CCWG meeting #65 and so want to be sure my views are on the record on a couple issues. 1. I agree that bullet 4 on transparency reforms (disclosure of the lobbying efforts) belongs in WS1. The move to the designator model makes dependence on transparency more critical than previously thought and this issue can be quickly accommodated. 2. I strongly disagree with the decision making model proposed in the meeting and declared as the new reference model. I remain concerned about the re-allocation of decisional power away from the SO's and towards the AC's, and in particular changing GAC's role away from "advisory" to having a decisional weight equal equal to SO's. This change is in the opposite direction of that called for in public comments. 3. I also don't support the new proposal to ban split decisions within SO's and AC's, which is a significant change to what was in our first two draft proposals and has no public comment mandate and will silence minority views in the decisional process. I will attach more detailed dissenting opinions on these issues to the final report. Thanks, Robin

3 2