November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting | 2 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 2 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CbJYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. 1. Review of Agenda JCarter chairing. SDB - is transparency WP1 or 2 - TR WP2 and BB will report at the CCWG on this. Agenda accepted as is. 2. Community Decision making 2a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs Discussion KA, TBJ, RG, CD, J Cancio, TR J Carter - There is no significant support for splitting votes. It is important to note that each SOAC must have to ability to decide how it arrives to a decision and all efforts must be made so that all voices are heard on Conference Calls or Public Forums. 2b) Participating SOs and ACs SSAC has advised that they do not want a role in decision making. RSSAC has not responded on this topic. J Carter - WP1 recommends to the CCWG that decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers Discussion R Gross, C Disspain, TBJemaa, KAresteh, JCancio, Temperature check 13 for and 4 against JCarter - There is no clear consensus on the recommendation. 2c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs JCarter - the recommendation for discussion is: WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers. Discussion TBJemaa, RGross, Temperature check 13 for and 4 against Conclusion - JCarter the proposed recommendation has consensus. 2d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism Document: <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents see 2 nov 2015 Decision Making Conclusion - Agreed. 3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path JCarter - on all powers? Discussion SDBianco. Conclusion - Only for IRP. 4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available) JZuck is not available. 5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next TRicker - this will be covered in the CCWG meeting. 6. Any Other Business Confirmation of time of CCWG meeting tomorrow. Conclusion of meeting.

1 0

[ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: Re: [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement]
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Another of the previous failed postings. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:53:25 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> To: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, SSAC SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, ROELOF MEIJER <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl>, Lyman Chapin <lyman(a)interisle.net>, "IAB(a)Iab.org" <iab(a)iab.org>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 05:41:38PM +0100, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: > There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where? > This isn't about only DNS unique identifiers (which anyway do not in fact need global co-ordination except in the root zone -- that's the whole point of the design of the DNS). It's about many different kinds of identifiers, only some of which are co-ordinated by ICANN. Protocol parameters are co-ordinated in the IETF. There is no need to integrate that co-ordination into ICANN, and it would be a poor fit if we tried. In any case, I don't think it's helpful now to talk about radical restructuring of the way work happens or the responsibilities of different organizations. The only thing the IAB has been asking is that a bylaw that is proposed to be modified anyway by the CCWG be modified in an accurate way so that it reflects the actual scope of ICANN's responsibilities. Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct
by Robin Gross Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Thanks, Steve. All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document). Thanks, Robin On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below). > > <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png> > > From: <wp1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter > Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM > To: "wp1(a)icann.org" > Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC > > Hi all > > Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours. > > The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer. > > 1. Review of Agenda > > 2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism > This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach". > > To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: > - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper > - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism > > If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular. > > Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table. > > My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views. > > a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach? > > b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC? > > c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC? > > > We also need to address the following: > > d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC? > > e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework? > > > > 3. Other Work Required by WP1 > I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants. > > 4. Any Other Business > > > > Papers > > I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting. > > The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH…> > > The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-W…> > > You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%20…> > > 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 > > <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ > WP1 mailing list > WP1(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

6 10

Fwd: CORRECTED Agenda - WP1 - 2 Nov at 18h UTC
by Jordan Carter Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Dear CCWG as a whole As ever, you are invited - meeting begins in around 11 hours. see icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability for the meeting. best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 2 November 2015 at 19:58 Subject: CORRECTED Agenda - WP1 - 2 Nov at 18h UTC To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all *I clicked send on the last email before finishing it - please ignore and use this one.* We have a WP1 meeting scheduled for Tuesday 2 November, from 18h UTC with a max time of 120 mins. I hope the meeting will be a little shorter. Here are the proposed agenda items in brief - a fuller annotated version follows below. *If you have items to add*, please share them with the list ASAP. *Brief Agenda: WP1 Call on 2 Nov 2015* *1. Review of Agenda* *2. Community Decision making* a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs b) Participating SOs and ACs c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism *3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path* *4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)* *5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next* *6. Any Other Business* Here is a more detailed agenda that sets out how I propose we tackle this. For each item I've tried to distil my own impression of the sense of the last call, the discussions in Dublin and more broadly from the email traffic among CCWG members. This is in the service of us coming to some conclusions. As was suggested by Roelof in the last meeting, and amended a little, I'm framing these as "WP1 recommends to the CCWG that......" statements. We can either sign them off, change them, or agree we can't agree and kick it up to the CCWG. *1. Review of Agenda* *2. Community Decision making* In dealing with this agenda item, besides the Working Paper circulated previously < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH…>, I attach a slightly updated version of Steve's "homework" paper, Robin's paper with different distribution of decision making power, and the charts that Greg prepared, fyi. a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs *WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each SO or AC should come to a decision by means of its own processes, and that "split" decisions or delegating decisions to sub-units will not be available.* b) Participating SOs and ACs *WP1 recommends to the CCWG that decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers.* c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs *WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.* d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism *WP1 recommends to the CCWG that the levels of agreement among SOs and ACs in support of exercising a power, and the limits to levels of opposition, be agreed as those set out in the paper from Steve DelBianco updated by Jordan Carter and discussed at this meeting.* *3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path* To the best of my knowledge the WP1 hasn't discussed the escalation path as a group. I have some specific concerns about the appropriateness of a "resolution/dialogue" step in exercising some of the powers - removal of individual directors, and the standard and fundamental bylaws. In those powers I think adding this step simply slows down what needs to happen - for individual director removal it's the SO and ACs decision and the chances of it coming out of the blue are low. For the bylaws powers, the appropriate step once the community has not adopted or blocked a bylaws change is a resolution process that leads to a new proposed bylaws change. With public comment etc. That's what would happen today, and that's the right resolution -- not some kind of negotiation. For the remaining powers - say, rejection of a budget etc - this resolution / dialogue might be useful. But we would have to specify WHO the resolution or discussion was between. Is this simply handing a new role and responsibility to the SO/AC leadership cadre? If not, to whom? Remember, our Community Forum and Community Mechanism are not committees, have no representatives, and just act on the decisions of the SOs and ACs. *4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)* *5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next* It would be great to hear from ICANN staff what they need for us to do as WP1 to make the 15 November deadline. *6. Any Other Business* *Papers* The papers mentioned above - from Steve/me, from Greg, from Robin, are attached. Thanks all, speak soon, 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 *

2 2

[ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: Re: [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement]
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

The second note to Malcolm. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:37:32 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, "IAB(a)Iab.org" <IAB(a)Iab.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> Hi Malcolm, On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 09:13:46AM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > > The Mission of The Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at > the overall level, certain core Internet > registries, and in particular to ensure > the stable and secure operation of the > Internet's unique identifier systems. > Specifically, ICANN: > [details in points 1,2,3,4 - all as you propose] > > I think this would better achieve the aim you describe, and would > satisfy me entirely. Does this work for you? I really like this. I think it's an improvement over the earlier proposal, and I can support it without reservation. I've spoken to some of my colleagues on the IAB who are most involved in this issue, and they seem to be supportive also. I have not undertaken a formal consensus call with the IAB, but I can if that would be helpful (it takes at least 48 hours and in the next couple weeks will probably take longer -- this is IETF week in Yokohama so everyone's super busy, and then people will have to travel home). But I'm pretty confident this would find general support in the IAB. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1

[ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: Re: [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement]
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

One of two to Malcolm Hutty. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:56:38 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, "IAB(a)Iab.org" <IAB(a)Iab.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> Hi Malcolm, On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:52:36PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is > to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely > reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today. That's the intent, yes. > On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s > system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a > broadening of scope. > > I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" > is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text > intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale. The change was actually intended to _limit_ scope, rather than broaden. Let me try to explain what we were thinking. You will note that the change to "core Internet registries" does _not_ say "all core Internet registries". This is on purpose. ICANN-as-IANA does not, in fact, today operate all the core Internet registries, and does not operate or even co-ordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers either. For instance, IANA does not operate the enum registry; it's operated by RIPE. The time zone database was handled on purpose separately from the normal IANA registry approach, too, and the IAB's role is different with respect to that database than with the rest of the IANA registries. As a less subtle example, ICANN as IANA certainly does not operate the twitter.com or gmail.com zones; but they also contain important unique identifiers on the Internet. The IAB thought that limiting the role to (some) Internet registries more accurately captured ICANN's role. We thought "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" suggested a more direct role in operations than ICANN necessarily has. It happens to operate one of the names in the root NS set, for instance, but it's not clear that's a core part of ICANN's mission and anyway it's only one of 12 independent operators. Similarly, ICANN has no role at all in either operation or zone policy at levels lower in the DNS tree. For instance, ICANN policy wisely restricts labels in the root zone to letters, digits, and hyphen (IDNs use IDNA to make this happen, which is where the xn--[something] labels come from). Lower in the DNS tree, there are lots of other conventions used. Those conventions are not useful in the root because they don't work for general cases, but they are useful in other conditions and entirely appropriate in those other parts of the tree. Such rules are not developed, co-ordinated, imposed, managed, or directly affected by ICANN, but they're an important part of the global Internet's system of unique identifiers. ICANN has nothing whatsoever to do with the local part of email addresses (in left to right scripts, the part to the left of the @ sign, such as ajs in ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com) but email addresses are plainly part of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. There are more examples, but this is probably enough to illustrate. It's our view that the language about "global Internet's system of unique identifiers" is part of the reason many people continue to think (and write news stories to the effect) that ICANN is somehow in control of the Internet. If the mission were clearer about just how limited (while still crucial) the IANA remit were, perhaps we would not be facing overblown worries about "giving the Internet away" and so on -- worries that have made the IANA transition itself more controversial than it ought to be. I hope this makes plainer at least what our thinking is. The IAB is not trying to be firm about the precise way things are stated, and I am more than happy to try to find better language. We're just trying to make the language itself precise, so that ICANN's mission accurately reflects what it does (and doesn't include things that, I think everyone agrees, ICANN shouldn't and doesn't want to do). Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

[ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: Re: [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement]
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

First of these I'm forwarding. I'm sorry this will break the threading on the list. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:02:38 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> To: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Steve Crocker <steve(a)stevecrocker.com>, "IAB(a)Iab.org" <IAB(a)iab.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> Hi, I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the original was copied all over. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: > The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are > core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is > removed from ICANN? They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA, records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says. I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I don't think it's worth exploring in detail.) Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Introduction/presence advisory and some forthcoming messages
by Andrew Sullivan Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Hi all, I gather some messages I sent over the course of the last few days that were cc:d to the list could not be posted because I wasn't a list member. ICANN staff, in their usual efficient way, noticed this and asked whether, since there was already a declaration of interests on file for me from CWG contributions, I wanted to join the list. Since I guess there's a small topic that might be made more smooth if I can reply directly, I said I would. So I'm going to forward a few mails from the last few days that didn't get copied here, but that should have. I thought I'd warn you. Since I'm posting anyway, I want to emphasise that I do not intend in any way to swoop in at the last minute and pretend I'm some kind of contributor. I repeat what I said in Dublin: I'm impressed with all the hard work that's been going on, and I'm going to try to stay out of most conversations unless someone asks my opinion. I have my own views about some things, of course, and if you think I'm failing in my plan to keep quiet on topics where I haven't the relevant history (and it doesn't directly touch on that IAB/IETF thing), please feel free to tell me about the short pier where I should go a-strolling. I do know a lot about how we resolve certain things in the IETF and, differently, in certain free software communities; if it would be helpful to know about that, maybe, please don't be afraid to goose me. Finally, since I'm here anyway, if there's text you want fresh eyes on, feel free to send it my way. I'm likely to ask stupid questions, but often when you want fresh eyes those questions can help. I hope that I can make a small contribution to bringing everything to a successful conclusion. Thanks for your indulgence. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP4 Meeting | 2 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-4 meeting on 2 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mrNYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Item ACTION ITEM - Greg Shatan to add sentence that would address interpretation sentence. ACTION ITEM - Niels and Greg to finalize and freeze document by 21:00 UTC so that it may be sent out to the CCWG. ACTION ITEM - David to provide Niels, Tatiana and Greg with suggested text. 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. See <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bm0NnIq35j3-EwmBwKEjSOJia-c10wv0mhHytng…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bm0NnIq35j3-EwmBwKEjSOJia-c10wv0mhHytng… On public comments paragraph. Should we be recommending changes to our approach? Feedback: - Build on WP4 fruitful discussions. Add this text to the document to show that we are transparent and document our conclusions as well as thinking. Conclusion: - Remove two highlighted paragraphs (consider level of support & Need for More Detail) and replace with statement that we have addressed public comment concerns. - Remove paragraph on drafting alternative formulations We need to consider what our actual Bylaw suggestion would look like. "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights" was winner but minority of comments approved it. More comments rejected this version of Bylaw. Feedback: - Number of people who opposed the text was not that large but some called for more details. In Dublin - James Bladel asked for refinement. His concerns were addressed in text of analysis. Analysis added to transitonal Bylaw should address concerns. - Only one party raised these concerns which refer to "operations". This is largely addressed through rationale and explanatory note as well as transitional Bylaw. How do we refine "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights"? (per Dublin action item) Feedback: - Transitional Bylaw should give comfort that there won't be unintended consequences. - In Dublin there was no closure on references to add. Transitional Bylaw would put text on hold until document on human rights is enforced. Refinement could be seen as transitional Bylaw. - Board concern is that it should not extend ICANN's mission and responsibilities i.e. not involve content. We need language that limits the mission and operations. There is need to build firewall around it. Board is committed to including language but some concerns remain. Concerns that there may not be enough time to address issues. We need careful analysis of implications. Any provision in Bylaw should include a reference to international human rights (UDHR) while clarifying that mission limited to protocol parameters etc. - Agree that need for firewall. It is placed in two places: 1) Bylaw text within its mission and operations; 2) Transitional Bylaw: in Work Stream 2 or any charter CCWG - commitment to work on development. First bylaw will not become active until second step is done. It will be a firm commitment that this will happen and will give us time to study and elaborate on framework. --> We should come back to group with refinement with note that we refine mission to narrow technical. Clarification of meaning would be made through work of WS2. - Respect for human rights, not protection. It's a difference in level of commitment/enforcement. - Suggestion to have a hard stop for Bylaw to become effective with or without framework of interpretation. - Caution against deadline. Human Rights is a complex. In addition we should not minimize Work Stream 2. - We should think of enforcement of process. Explanatory note or transitional bylaw should include Bylaw language assessed as part of WS1. - Consider solution where come back to group with addition to Bylaw text: "this is simply a statement of respect and not protection - i.e no enforcement". This would be instead of transitional Bylaw. - Concerns that above suggestion may not survive public comment period. We need to assure community. - Consider keeping transitional Bylaw that would ensure WS2 work. - Concern that it would be opening to freedom of interpretation. Continuing need for transitional Bylaw and framework of interpretation. - We need transitional Bylaw - it should be explicitly stated group will be established for implementation. - Commitment would be given shape in WS2. If we commit to human rights we need to understand what that means. - Develop a framework of interpretation for the Bylaw. It would need to take place in PDP/non PDP working groups. Idea was to create a relatively succinct guide or framework for what is meant as fundamental. Is it about internal operations or policy or does it dictate what third parties do? WRAP-UP/ CONCLUSION - Call for objections on David's suggested text: 1 objection (contingent about what we do with transitional Bylaw) Do we support having transitional Bylaw that supports that WS2 work will be carried out? It would not delay enactement of Bylaw on human rights. --> Concerns that it will be interpreted as see fit. - On transitional Bylaw - agreement with part 1 ACTION ITEM - Greg Shatan to add sentence that would address interpretation sentence. ACTION ITEM - Niels and Greg to finalize and freeze document by 21:00 UTC so that it may be sent out to the CCWG. ACTION ITEM - David to provide Niels, Tatiana and Greg with suggested text. David Mc Auley's proposal is supported subject to refinements Greg and Niels will make.

1 0

Call tomorrow / Apology
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Grace, please not my apologyfor tomorrow, the call interferes with my work. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6s

2 1