November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal
by Drazek, Keith Nov. 18, 2015

Nov. 18, 2015

All, Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the 2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC's participation in the community mechanism: The CCWG's mandate is to empower the community as a whole to better hold ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or encourage such change in the future. This process should not be used by individual groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That's why we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs and SOs. Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want three new "powers" that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board rejection of consensus advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition of consensus that would trigger the Board's special obligations. Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change current practice on the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups. No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board's obligations kick in only when the GAC's consensus is consistent with current practice - reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others. By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes. In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied. Thanks and regards, Keith

12 16

SIDE BY SIDE on Regulation/Contract language
by Burr, Becky Nov. 18, 2015

Nov. 18, 2015

I am recirculating the slide that compares the 2nd Draft Report language with alternative language discussed on our last call. Although some who participated in the discussion found the definition of services to be a bit clunky, folks generally felt that this language could work as direction to drafters. We need to reach closure on this issue. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:29 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract I have prepared a side by side comparing the 2nd Draft Report language with Greg’s suggested language. I hope this will make our discussion later on more productive. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract * ICANN shall not impose regulations on: * services (i.e., the software processes by which commands received via the Internet are processed and a response is generated and transmitted via the Internet, to be viewed in a web browser, email client, or the like) which use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or * the content that such services carry or provide * ICANN shall have the ability to enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties, in furtherance of its Mission.

7 28

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Agree, Keith. Let’s please copy this note to the ST18 email list as well. As an example that supports your point, the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) that I represent has long wanted to gain voice and representation of its components — BC, IPC, and ISPs. That’s why we supported “split” voting for the GNSO — allowing the CSG to have a partial decisional role. But we realize that the community moved towards binary (SUPPORT/OPPOSE) decisions by AC/SOs, in Dublin. And we have not insisted on fixing our long-suffering situation as part of this transition. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal All, Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the 2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC’s participation in the community mechanism: The CCWG’s mandate is to empower the community as a whole to better hold ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or encourage such change in the future. This process should not be used by individual groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That’s why we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs and SOs. Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want three new “powers” that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board rejection of consensus advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition of consensus that would trigger the Board’s special obligations. Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change current practice on the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups. No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board’s obligations kick in only when the GAC’s consensus is consistent with current practice – reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others. By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes. In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied. Thanks and regards, Keith

1 0

Revised SIDE BY SIDE on Regulation/Contract language
by Burr, Becky Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

I have attached a revised side by side that reflects the different proposals reflected in Greg’s email including: 1. Alternative definitions of services (one offered by Andrew Sullivan, and an alternative, which is a composite of language proposed by Greg, Milton, and James Bladel. 2. The contract language we discussed on the call last week, with an alternative proposed by Milton. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 6:12 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] SIDE BY SIDE on Regulation/Contract language insofar as those agreements are consistent with

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for ST18 Meeting #1 - 16 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the ST18 Meeting #1 - 16 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/V7xYAw A copy of the notes and action items 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. Deliverable: provide language to CCWG-ACCT by next week Scope: 1) assessment of existing options and areas of agreement/disagreement; 2) Provide CCWG-ACCT with short summary of options.; 3) Report to CCWG so that consenus can be assessed We need to final global consensus. Urgency to find way forward. Outline of proposals --> Suggestion to Julia's proposal as substitution -> Suggestion to find common ground text and insert options in brackets Do we want to treat all ACs equally in the bylaws as a requirement? Should notation of support be added as an additional requirement? Suggestion to give advice from two different processes (full unanimous advice - consensus advice) to be given same treatment Should there be any qualifications to the definition of the term "consensus"? Should this be less about GAC and more about 'all' ACs? Jorge proposal: 1st) we are now in a different situation, where we are considering the whole picture. 2) GAC is committing to consensus, which was something required by stakeholders during the 2014 discussion 3) other safeguards are being established, as the narrow Mission statement ACTION ITEMS/CONCLUSION Update document by substituting Denmark proposal to column on right. Recirculate it with comparison table. All to comment and suggest amendments in next 24 hours. Discussion on requirements show that: 1) GAC should not be singled out; 2) There should be degree of flexibility to avoid delegation have de facto right - have not been taken into account yet. On basis of recent proposals from Denmark and adjusting it, prepare any feedback for next call Encourage enhancement options. ST18 group to reconvene in approximately 48 hours.

1 0

Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
by Padmini Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear all, (Apologies for cross posting at the outset) At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition. This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are : - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power. - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tra… We welcome comments on this. Warm Regards Padmini Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore

6 5

FW: IRP implementation oversight team
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record. Grace From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:52 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Subject: IRP implementation oversight team Hi Grace, Brenda, and Bernie, I would be happy to serve on the IRP implementation oversight group that Thomas mentioned Nov. 5th, subject to more qualified candidates stepping forward. I have been involved in the ICANN community for around eight years: as a policy manager for Verisign (present position), a journalist for Bloomberg covering ICANN, and as a staff member at ISOC. Prior to that I was a corporate lawyer/manager in the software field. I have trial experience as an advocate; in addition arbitration experience as an arbitrator in about five commercial arbitrations (none recently, however). I have not participated in an IRP proceeding in any capacity but have reported on them and reviewed many IRP decisions, both final and interim. Best regards David McAuley

3 3

AGENDA - CCWG MEETING #68 - 17 November | 19:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #68 <https://community.icann.org/x/h7VYAw> - Tuesday, 17 November from 19:00-21:00 UTC ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&… ah=2> time converter) please find below a proposed agenda: PROPOSED AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Opening remarks - publication of Summary Document - engagement with Chartering organizations 3. ST-18 subgroup update 4. PDP interaction with Standard Bylaws Veto 5. Mission Discussion 6. Decision-making - thresholds of support 7. Timeline Discussion 8. AOB Adobe Connect: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you. Kind regards, CCWG Staff

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin
by Hillary Jett Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Original posting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on- progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on -progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin> CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin Context This is a brief and preliminary overview of the proposal for improving ICANN's accountability developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) over the past year. It includes a very high-level summary of the main changes being proposed by the community and outlines what will be described in the full proposal. This 36-page document is designed to update the community on recent progress in and after ICANN54 in Dublin and raise awareness of the proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability as a more detailed proposal is finalized. While this formal update reflects the current consensus positions of the group, there are outstanding elements that remain to be finalized. These finishing details are highlighted in the document, and will be confirmed and detailed in the Third Draft Proposal. Download the Formal Update here. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-draft-2-proposal-work-strea m-1-recs-15nov15-en.pdf> The full Third Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations will be shared with the public on 30 November 2015, which will include further explanation and detail about the accountability improvements outlined in this document. It will also explain why the changes have been suggested, how the community arrived at these recommendations and the options considered and ultimately rejected in development of the proposal. We welcome feedback on this document, and encourage all interested stakeholders to view the full proposal for any outstanding questions or concerns. Summary Over the last year, a working group of ICANN community members has been developing a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability to the global Internet community. This effort is integral to the transition of the United States' stewardship of the IANA functions to the global Internet community, reflecting the ICANN community's conclusion that improvements to ICANN's accountability were necessary in the absence of the accountability backstop that the historical contractual relationship with the United States government provided. The accountability improvements set out in this document are not designed to change ICANN's multistakeholder model, the bottom-up nature of policy development nor significantly alter ICANN's day-to-day operations. The main elements of the proposal are outlined below. Together with ICANN's existing structures and groups, these accountability enhancements will ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community. * A revised Mission statement for the ICANN Bylaws that sets out what ICANN does. This Mission statement clarifies but does not change ICANN's historic mission * An enhanced Independent Review Process and redress process with a broader scope and the power to ensure ICANN stays within its revised Mission * New specific powers for the ICANN community that can be enforced when the usual methods of discussion and dialogue have not effectively built consensus including the powers to: > * Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans > * Reject changes to ICANN's Bylaws > * Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws (see below) > * Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board > * Recall the entire ICANN Board * An additional new power that gives the community a say in decisions about the IANA Function Reviews and any separation of the IANA Names Functions * All of these community powers can only be exercised after extensive community discussions and debates through processes of engagement and escalation. The process of escalation provides many opportunities for the resolution of disagreements between the parties before formal action is required. The accountability elements outlined above will be supported through: * Additions to the ICANN Bylaws to create an Empowered Community that is based on a simple legal vehicle that will act on the instructions of ICANN stakeholder groups to exercise the Community Powers. The Empowered Community is granted the status of a Designator (a recognized role in law) and has the standing to enforce the Community Powers if needed. * Core elements of ICANN's governing documents (the Articles and Bylaws) being categorized asFundamental Bylaws that can only be changed with agreement between the ICANN community and the ICANN Board. In addition, further proposed changes include: * A recognition of ICANN's respect for Human Rights * Incorporation of ICANN's commitments under the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments with the United States Department of Commerce into the Bylaws, where appropriate * Improved accountability and diversity for ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees * A commitment to discuss additional accountability improvements and broader accountability enhancements in 2016, following implementation of this core set of accountability improvements To develop these recommendations to improve ICANN's accountability, the Working Group: * Relied on suggestions and proposals generated inside the Working Group and by the broader Internet multistakeholder community * Conducted public comment periods to gather feedback on earlier drafts and discussed iterations of its recommendations across the world at ICANN meetings and through online webinars * Rigorously "stress tested" ICANN's current and proposed accountability mechanisms to test their strength against problematic scenarios the organization could potentially face * Engaged two external law firms to ensure the legal reliability of the proposed accountability enhancements * Made the minimum enhancements to ICANN's accountability necessary to meet the baseline requirements of the community, as required for the IANA Stewardship Transition * Met the requirements of the group that developed the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal for the Domain Names community * Met the requirements of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Agency for theIANA Stewardship Transition We look forward to your thoughts and feedback on our Third Draft Proposal on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

3 2

Paris Terrorist Attack
by Contact - Https Card - Internet Identity Card Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

As I 'm french and I live in Paris, I would like to thank all the people who support us after the terrorist attacks yesterday... My heart and my thoughts are with all the victims and their families. We will never forget and never forgive! Michael Benaudis President Https Card - Internet Identity Card https://www.internetidentitycard.com Official IIC: https://www.httpscard.com/michaelbenaudis/

5 4