December 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

FW: Constituency Travel Reports CSV
by Xavier J. Calvez Jan. 13, 2016

Jan. 13, 2016

Dear Eberhard, and all, In an effort to constantly extend our transparency, the Constituent Travel team (consisting of 1 individual, Joseph) has decided to convert all travel reports since 2008 in a .CSV format. We hope this demonstrates further the commitment of the staff to strive for continued better support and that the information will be helpful. See the link below. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 From: Joseph de Jesus <joseph.dejesus(a)icann.org<mailto:joseph.dejesus@icann.org>> Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Cc: Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org<mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org>>, Stacy Hoffberg <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org<mailto:stacy.hoffberg@icann.org>> Subject: Constituency Travel Reports CSV Dear Xavier, This is to let you know that we were able to get all historical Constituency Travel Reports into CSV format (2008 - present). Going forward, we will be releasing the reports in PDF and CSV format. The Travel Reports can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Travel+Report Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Best wishes, Joseph de Jesus Travel Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1.310.301.3880<tel:+1.310.301.3880> Mobile: +1.562.881.7326<tel:+1.562.881.7326> Fax (Private): +1.424.832.1074<tel:+1.424.832.1074> Email: joseph.dejesus(a)icann.org<mailto:joseph.dejesus@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

4 4

Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

All, please find below our note to the Advisors as discussed during the previous CCWG call. Thomas > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Datum: 23. Dezember 2015 um 22:31:46 MEZ > An: ccwg-advisors(a)icann.org > Betreff: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest > > Dear Advisors, > as you will have noted, the ICANN Board has filed comments on our 3rd draft report a few days back (attached). Our group thanks the Board for these comments, some of which can be addressed during the implementation of our work. > > However, there are a few areas where the Board has raised concerns with respect to the Global Public Interest. > > These are: > > Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community Powers > > Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Engagement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers > Budget & start plan > > Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects of ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values > > Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN’s Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out its Mission > > Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2 > > In its resolution of October 16th, 2014, the Board had clarified that it would test whether final recommendations are in the Global Public Interest. > > We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending. > > However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest. > > We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on > > 1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use; > > 2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and > > 3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified. > > > Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, > Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert > > > Thomas Rickert > Rechtsanwalt > tel: +49.228.74 898.0 > fax: +49.228.74 898.66 > email: thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/> > > RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) > Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany > HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert > > _______________________________________________ > CCWG-Advisors mailing list > CCWG-Advisors(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

16 32

TR: Practical suggestions for constructive CCWG-Board dialogue
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Dear Colleagues, For your information, a correspondence sent by the co chairs to Steve Crocker in his capacity of Chair of the Icann Board. Staff will shortly add it in the correspondence section of our Wiki. Best wishes to all of you. Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : jeudi 24 décembre 2015 12:26 À : 'Steve Crocker' Cc : 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Fadi Chehade'; 'Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org)'; Thomas Rickert (thomas(a)rickert.net) León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx) 'ACCT-Staff' Objet : Practical suggestions for constructive CCWG-Board dialogue Dear Steve, The CCWG-Accountability 3rd public comment phase is now closed and we appreciate and value the amount of effort dedicated by the Board, through a series of meetings, in order to provide our group and the community with comments in this process. As you know dialogue has started on our list regarding several items raised by the Board and we look forward to continuing this fruitful dialogue. Our group is actively preparing the analysis of all the comments received, in order to finalize its recommendations, and want to inform you of these plans as well as offer a constructive way forward for a constructive dialogue. In the CCWG-Accountability process, the Icann Board holds two distinct roles : - the Board is one the affected stakeholders, and as such, its contributions, as well as those of the individual Board members are welcome and encouraged ; - the Board also committed, in its 16 October 2014 resolution to assess CCWG Accountability recommendations on the basis of global public interest, and engage into a special dialogue with the CCWG Accountability in case it found that implementation of a recommendation is not in the global public interest. After the Los Angeles face to face meeting, and during the Dublin meeting, the recommendations from our group greatly benefitted from the significant increase of Board member participation into our deliberations. We strongly encourage the Board and its individual members to maintain this high level of engagement. Starting in early January, our group will increase the frequency of its plenary sessions to two per week. The calls will be open to all, and include topic based agendas to facilitate participation of interested parties. We hope that, beyond our Board liaison, the interested Board members will actively engage in this process. Beyond this first role, the latest Board's comment on our Draft Report stressed the importance of some of its concerns by stating that, unless theses concerns are addressed, the Board would have to consider "whether it believes the specifics of the recommendation meet the global public interest". Understanding and taking into account these global public interest concerns as part of our deliberations is a very high priority for our group. Chartering Organizations should be informed of any such remaining concern before they are requested to endorse our final recommendations. That is the reason why we had requested some clarification from the Board, through our Board liaison. We appreciate the response that was provided. Beyond these clarifications, since the next few weeks will be key in finalizing our recommendations, we would like to offer the following practical suggestions to establish a constructive dialogue around these issues : - the Board could appoint specific Board correspondents for each of the global public interest concerns raised. These correspondents would engage in the respective CCWG Accountability discussions in order to clarify the Board's concerns and provide rapid, of not real-time, feedback on whether potential refinements are addressing these concerns ; - as the CCWG-Accountability finalizes each of its recommendation, the Board could hold short, regular (for instance, weekly) meetings to collectively confirm these views (through the Board liaison or these correspondents). - should there be remaining concerns from the Board when a Report is sent to the Chartering Organizations, these could be documented in our Report, just like we currently document minority statements. This approach would not only significantly enhance the cooperation between the CCWG Accountability and the Icann Board. It would also enable all involved parties, including the Chartering Organizations, to make a fully informed decision. Last, but not least, this approach effectively addresses the need to deliver a fully thought-through proposal while at the same time improving the timeliness of the delivery of a consolidated IANA Stewardship Transition to NTIA. We are looking forward to working with you and the Board to a successful conclusion of these important efforts, and hope that you and the Board can take a few days rest over this holiday season. Best wishes and happy holidays, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu CCWG Accountability co-chairs

2 1

Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in China
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 4, 2016

Jan. 4, 2016

Hello All, I have had a few requests for information on ICANN's participation in the World Internet Conference which was held in Wuzhen, China: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/cnleaders/2015WIC/ and http://www.wicwuzhen.cn/english ICANN sent a contingent to the conference as part of its Strategic Goal 1.2 "Bring ICANN to the world by creating a balanced and proactive approach to regional engagement with stakeholders." Fadi attended as CEO and gave a speech, and George Sadowsky attended as a Board member. Subsequent to the conference, the conference organizers announced that Fadi would co-chair a high level advisory committee for the next conference. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-12/18/c_134928240.htm The Board had a call with Fadi to get a briefing. Fadi has now posted a blog that notes that he has accepted this role in his personal capacity, and the advisory committee will meet after his term as CEO is completed in March 2016. See: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/my-transition-from-icann-ceo-an-update Regards, Bruce Tonkin

24 48

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
by James Gannon Jan. 2, 2016

Jan. 2, 2016

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO. -Jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January Dear Colleagues, In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January. As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly. Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary. Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly. We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate. Best regards Mathieu – Thomas - León

15 40

Marrakech CCWG meeting
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 2, 2016

Jan. 2, 2016

Dear Colleagues, During our call on Tuesday, we promised to come back to you quickly regarding organization of the Marrakesh meeting. In order to help you plan for travels, this is to inform that we have requested that a full day meeting be organized for the Friday before the Icann week (March 4th). We have not yet received a formal response from Icann about this request but wanted to update you on progress. More precise informations will follow as soon as we receive confirmation. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 10

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Boating in January. Was: Work plan in January
by Roelof Meijer Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

Chris, Nigel, Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip? And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel) Cheers, Roelof On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: >I'm very personally in the same boat. > >I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the >nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point >of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation. > >I'm sure others are in this boat with me ... > >On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be >> able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same >> boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as >> soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have >> missed it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Chris >> >> >>> On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All, >>> >>> Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision >>>to >>> schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email. >>> >>> Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was >>> discussed during that call >>> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612) >>>Key >>> take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying >>> subgroups. >>> >>> While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the >>> timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to >>>organize >>> our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about >>>the >>> comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two >>>hours >>> of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues >>> that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully >>>understand >>> concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all. >>> >>> We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough >>> analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the >>>best >>> use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain >>>driven >>> by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and >>> find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group >>>can >>> do. >>> >>> If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on >>>intensive >>> days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are >>>aware >>> of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as >>>much >>> as possible. >>> >>> As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting >>>#73, >>> we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on >>> January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and >>> suggestions. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leon, Thomas & Mathieu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

7 8

Global Public Interest discussion
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

Dear all, following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission. On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on 1. whom we asked 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any. With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points. Ad 1 Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group. We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page. Ad 2 With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further. Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no universally applicable definition. We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest. Ad 3 As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the GPI. We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI. Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker) will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage. We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations. Kind regards, Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net

6 8

US Government Brief re: ccTLD is not "property"
by Paul Rosenzweig Dec. 31, 2015

Dec. 31, 2015

Colleagues As a part of our discussions, some have asked about the nature of the function that is being transitioned - is it property? If not what is it? On the cusp of the New Year, the US government filed the attached brief in a case in the DC Circuit. In (very brief) summary, some victims of terrorist attacks have been trying to get the US courts to allow them to seize the ccTLDs of countries they say are terrorist sponsors. The victims lost in the first court case and have appealed their defeat to the DC Circuit (which is, more or less, the second highest court in the US). The US government did NOT file any papers in the initial matter, but they have now filed a "friend of the court" brief in the appeal stating the formal US government position on the question. [For those of us in the US, the list of names on the first page is a sign that this position has been carefully thought out at some of the highest levels of the US government]. Long story, short: The US thinks that ccTLDs are not "property" or "assets" under US law. Anyone who wants more in depth detailed thinking on this is welcome to contact me off line (though I probably won't answer until after the holiday) Happy New Year to everyone Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>

1 0

What Are the Criteria for Process-Oriented Decision-Making in the CCWG
by Paul Rosenzweig Dec. 28, 2015

Dec. 28, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs I wonder if you can enlighten me. I have read the Charter of CCWG-A quite carefully, and it is silent on most matters of pure process, presumably giving the co-chairs significant discretion regarding things like the timing of meetings and phone calls, etc. Perhaps you could share with me, and the group, the metric you use for establishing the suitability of a proposed way forward? I ask only because there has been significant (at least in volume and depth of feeling) objection to the proposed 8 calls @ 3 hours/call for the month of January. Some of have suggested a FTF meeting instead; others have suggested a development of process options approach. Others (me included) have suggested that so rushed a process is exclusionary and calls into question the substantive output that may result. So that I might better understand how you make decision, I was hoping you could tell me (us?) all: How do the co-chairs account for these objections and determine a way forward? What is your process and what are the evaluation criteria you are using? Thanks much, Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>

2 1