December 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

FW: FY 16 Omnibus Appropriations bill extends IANA Transition Freeze, does not contain DOTCOM Act
by Phil Corwin Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

The bill is now available at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR2029-AM…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.house.gov_billsthi…> It is expected to be passed by the House and Senate today, as US government funding expires at midnight tonight. Here is the text, at pp. 221-22; it is in Title V of Division B, General Provisions (Including Rescissions): SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. I'm not quite sure what the effect of Section b is, as this is only an appropriations bill for FY 16 and next year Congress could extend the freeze into FY 17. Could the reference to "any other law" contemplate enactment of the DOTCOM Act? In any event, this extends the freeze on transfer of the IANA functions through September 30, 2016. The total bill is 2009 pages long. I have just reviewed Division O (Other Matters) but the DOTCOM Act is not in it, nor is it in the Department of Commerce provisions in Division B (NTIA section starts p. 115; all DOC provisions run from pp. 109-132). There is no other part of the legislation in which it would likely be placed. Of related interest, the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 has been included in the bill, constituting the whole of Division N. It remains to be seen whether news of the freeze extension will affect the timetable for Chartering Organization/community/general public review and delivery to the Board of the CCWG-ACCT Proposal. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
by David Post Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

At 05:27 AM 12/16/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >We had recommended splitting the text into a >simple mission statement followed by a scope of responsibility. > >The Mission Statement should be a short and >simple statement that conveys what ICANN's >purpose is and relates to the specific sector of >activities in which ICANN operates. Short and simple is always a good goal. But the problem is that the Mission Statement has to serve as an ENFORCEABLE limitation on ICANN's powers. It is the primary backstop that will ensure that ICANN does not stray into areas that it should not be in. If it is too "short and simple" it cannot serve that function at all, and we will be left with an entity that can do whatever it wants to do. To illustrate the point, why not make this the Mission Statement: "ICANN shall help coordinate Domain Name System operations"?? Short, simple, and accurate. But that Mission that will not be effective as an enforceable limitation on ICANN's powers, because just about anything it chooses to do it can be seen as "reasonably appropriate" for THIS mission. Not to repeat myself, but the CCWG Mission Statement embodied two principles which the Board would apparently like to see eliminated: the "picket fence" and the requirement for consensus policy-making. I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing (a) any good reason they should both be eliminated, or (b) any substitute language the Board is proposing that would similarly incorporate these two principles into the corporation's structure. >BT: "Scope of Responsibilities: The Board >suggests that the purpose of this section is to >define ICANN's current scope of responsibilities >within its Mission and in service to its >Mission. It should describe what ICANN does, not >how it does it, and must not change ICANN's >existing role because that would have >consequences for ICANN's operations, >commitments, and responsibility to the Community." What is the point of doing this ? What good does it do - as a means of constraining ICANN's exercise of its powers in the future -- to say, as the Board proposal says, that "ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the DNS ..., and coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system, ... and coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top--most level of IP and AS numbers ..., and collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries ..."? What's the point of that? I would note that under the Board's proposal, ICANN would not even be bound to comply with that Statement of Responsibilities; the promise is just to act "in accordance with and only as reasonably appropriate for the Mission," which does not include the Statement of Responsibilities. Not that that would do much good, in any event - the responsibilities are so generally phrased ("coordinate" and "collaborate") that they can't really serve as useful limitations on anything the corporation decides to do. Nor does the Board intend for this to be an exclusive list of ICANN's responsibities - that is, there's nothing (unless I'm just missing it) that says that ICANN can't take on other "responsibilities" in the future. I still fail to see how the Board's comments and the CCWG proposal can be reconciled - or more importantly why they should be reconciled. David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Jordan Carter Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

fyi. J ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 15 December 2015 at 19:35 Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal To: Mike Silber <mike.silber(a)icann.org> Cc: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, ccTLD Community List < cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, "cctldworld(a)icann.org" < cctldworld(a)icann.org> First off, I would like staff to make sure this reply goes to the whole of the lists involved. On the main point, see in line below: On 15 December 2015 at 04:35, Mike Silber <mike.silber(a)icann.org> wrote: > Let me add a very emphatic +1 to Chris’ comments and let me join him in > his offer to engage. > > I would also like to offer one example of a place where Chris and I were > very concerned: the veto rights in respect of the IANA (or what will be > post-transition IANA) budget: > > - The CCWG report gave the empowered community the power to veto the > IANA functions budget (see paragraph 149 on page 28). > - Now this concerns me as someone from the ccTLD world, as it seems > there would be a veto exercisable by parties who are not IANA customers, > over the IANA budget – potentially impacting the services IANA customers > can expect. (For example – money needs to be spent on IANA improvements. > The operational communities approve it. However non-operational communities > believe that money should rather be spent on an extra meeting, or more > travel support.) > - I was somewhat soothed by the suggestion (at 151) of two distinct > processes. > - However I examine the detailed annex (annex 2) and cannot find any > difference in the process between rejecting the ICANN budget and rejecting > the IANA budget. > - I suspect this is purely an oversight and has no more sinister > motivation – but right now this puts the IANA budget partly in the hands of > parties who are not IANA customers and I think that is not appropriate. > > I tried to raise this matter in the course of discussions about the use of this power. It seemed to me logical that the customer groups should decide re any IANA veto. But this idea got no traction. Fixing this now, of course, creates substantial delays. Unless we can agree that it would be adjusted in WS2. More broadly, Mike and Chris, can you untangle a confusion for me? ICANN has been pushing very hard to get this transition done and dusted. We in the CCWG leadership were told very emphatically that delays beyond late December would destroy the prospects of getting it done before September 2016. Both at LA and now with this comment, much less aggressively this time, the Board comments introduce delays into the process. Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? My preference is the latter. I have been prepared to go along with the former. Can you help tease this out? Many thanks Jordan > > - I am of the view that this oversight can be resolved quite easily > and the Board has made some suggestions how to do this. You may or may not > agree with the exact suggestions – but I think you will all agree that this > situation causes concern. > > I would really encourage you to review the board comments and test your > reaction: > > - You do not agree with the comment at all; > - You agree with the comment and the possible solution; or > - You agree with the comment but have a better / alternate solution. > > Please do this as soon as possible and let the CCWG have your reaction. > > Regards > > Mike > > On 14/12/2015 12:57, "Chris Disspain" <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org on > behalf of ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > > Hello All, > > You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some > comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an > accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, > they are attached. > > I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to > write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to > discuss them with you at your convenience. > > I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide > you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about > where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the > comments and what some of the comments might mean. > > In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled > with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. > The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the > report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of > the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been > agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. > Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft > proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board > and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments. > > Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better > if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully > considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions > for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be > other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested > solution. > > In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern > recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board > applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution > of 16 October 2014 ( > https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) > there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those > recommendations do not meet that test. > > I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our > best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you > to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of > the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect > that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of > the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and > ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well > intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current > CCWG draft. > > I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the > transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition > at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line > is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very > real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been > nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act > in their best interests. > > I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk > to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to > get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. > > Cheers, > > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > > .au Domain Administration Ltd > > T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 > > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au > > auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator > > > > > -- 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 * -- 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 *

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

If the Chairs want to certify the legal questions, I think these would be: 1. Is it possible for a Director to bring suit for libel, slander, or other causes of action during the community enforcement removal process or thereafter based on the “written justification” laid out by the SO/AC and/or oral statements made during the required conference calls in the Community enforcement process? 2. Could a Director seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief to interrupt the community enforcement process toward removal? If so, would SOs/ACs and officers who are sued be required to mount their own defense? How expensive would this be? 3. Is there insurance coverage available for SOs/ACs and their officers in relation to possible suit by a director in jeopardy of being removed or who has been removed from the Board? If so, how expensive is it? These are not questions about how likely the action is to occur. That does not really figure into the “chilling effect” that is of concern when the officer of an SO or AC is drafting the “written justification” and/or encouraging open discussion in the required (and recorded for posterity) conference call. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D13672.C22150F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:14 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve DelBianco' Cc: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; 'Phil Corwin'; cwilson(a)21cf.com; Rosemary Fei (rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) Thomas Rickert; ipc_accountabilityct(a)icann.org; 'Gomes, Chuck' (cgomes(a)verisign.com) Rosemary Fei (rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers We must await further direction from the co-chairs whether this is something that they would like research on under California law HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 3:03 PM To: Gregory, Holly; 'Steve DelBianco' Cc: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Phil Corwin'; cwilson(a)21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>; Rosemary Fei (rfei(a)adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>); Thomas Rickert; ipc_accountabilityct(a)icann.org<mailto:ipc_accountabilityct@icann.org>; 'Gomes, Chuck' (cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>) Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers Holly – I would tend to agree if in fact the SO or AC could remove a director without cause and did not have to state its reasons, but the community process requires this and it is discussed fully throughout four steps of the Community process to director removal. The SO or AC must state “written justification”, to which the Board has now added its “Clear Rationale” comment. One need only look at the differences of opinion that arose with respect to .africa to understand that a stated reason for removal which has a “written justification” or Clear Rationale from the SO/AC standpoint could easily form the basis of a suit by a director. It does not require much by way of theory for a plaintiff’s lawyer to allege claims of libel and even irreparable harm. The SO/AC would likely need legal advice just to draft the “written justification.” Again, I do not think indemnification represents a reasonable risk to ICANN as a corporation. The risk should be limited by contract when directors take office. Directors should not be suing the SO/AC and/or its officers for removal. Otherwise, the ultimate enforcement mechanism in the Sole Designator Model is not effective. You may not have seen this fact situation occur. That does not mean it would not occur at ICANN. We have some fairly feisty folks in our midst. The risk of suit is of course much higher than the risk of success on the merits. I would say it is hard to measure in dollars the potential damage to an individual associated with being removed from the ICANN Board with “written justification”. It could be a pretty good strategy for a director who wants to interrupt the Community Enforcement process. He or she may also have the full support of other Directors willing to testify. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D13672.C22150F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=CwMGa…> From: Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 12:43 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve DelBianco' Cc: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Phil Corwin'; cwilson(a)21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>; Rosemary Fei (rfei(a)adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>); Thomas Rickert Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers Anne, My sense is that the concerns you raise present an extremely low risk of suit – and hence low risk of indemnification and cost of indemnification. In my many years of corporate governance practice I cannot recall a lawsuit for libel or defamation by a director in an instance of removal. But we can research under California law if the co-chairs certify. Also, I am not aware of any theory of libel or defamation that would give rise to injunctive relief delaying such removal where the designator has the right to remove with or without cause as here. Again, we have not researched this specific point under California law but will do so if certified. Holly HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> f the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

7 11

holiday cheer
by Mueller, Milton L Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

What with the Board's comments, it appears that we will be working on the proposal all through the Western world's holiday season. Some might grumble, but I myself choose to respond with true holiday spirit. And what could be more cheery than a Christmas carol? I'm thinking of classic holiday songs like: "I'm dreaming of an AdobeConnect Christmas." But here is one especially tailored to the CCWG. It's called "Working in the ICANN Wonderland," and if you don't know the melody,you can hear the original, pre-ICANN tune here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o45DZzfe2LU&feature=youtu.be&t=34s WORKING IN THE ICANN WONDERLAND Alarm bell rings, are you listenin'? Inadvertent omission... The proposal's a mess, we're all in distress Working in the ICANN wonderland Oh the board gets indigestion, when we try to get inspection They want to be free, of accountability, Working in the ICANN wonderland In the meantime we can write some bylaws, then pretend that we have got a clue They'll say "are they accountable"? We'll say "No Man!" But we can do the job in Workstream Two! Later on, we'll conspire, to set human rights on fire Let's not be afraid, of the plans that we made, Working in the ICANN wonderland Happy holidays, all! --MM

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #72 - 15 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #72 - 15 December will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/VIJlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: CCWG to send recommendations and proposals for work during ICANN55 to the mailing list by 16 December (end of day UTC). Action: Liaise with ICANN on activity PICS and reframe the question for legal counsel in light of that input. Action: CoChairs to relay questions from Kavouss through Board liaison 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. Welcome * Cheryl & Barrack on audio only at the moment. 2. Follow-up discussion on Marrakech meeting * Questions around what types of meetings would be held and whether or not there will be travel support. * Three sessions during the ICANN meeting have been tentatively planned. * Discussion on what topics need to be addressed in Marrakesh and whether or not a meeting outside of the ICANN meeting is needed. * According to our timeline, the WS1 report will be with NTIA by the time ICANN 55 starts * One potential topic for the meeting could be reviewing the draft Bylaws. Another is WS2. Action: CCWG to send recommendations and proposals for work during ICANN55 to the mailing list by 16 December (end of day UTC). 3. Clarification of potential request to lawyers re: PICs and mission statement * Work requested for Counsel to review * Ask ICANN legal if there are examples on list * Legal counsel concerned it does not have the specificity yet * Question will be certified or not based on examples from ICANN legal Action: Liaise with ICANN on activity PICS and reframe the question for legal counsel in light of that input. 4. Update on CWG Draft Comment * CWG-Stewardship will discuss report on call today * There are questions raised on: 1) whether IRP clearly addresses needs of CWG-Stewardship; 2) whether limitations of a removal process for Director is adequately addressing CWG-Stewardship requirements; 3) concerns about delays of escalation processes; 4) concerns about level of detail on IANA functions budget question * Flag section of report you identify as problematic in an email to staff for proofreader 5. Update on SO/AC endorsement timeline * Document from ALAC to review * Request to clarify that Chartering Organizations should comment in early January * The public comment period is intended to receive a heads-up from Chartering Organizations on problematic areas * ASO will hold call today and plans to review Board comments on Mission and IANA Budget. Appeals mechanisms also shortlisted as area that raises concerns. The rest should not be an issue. * ccNSO council call planned. Outreach and activities planned. Concerns on efficiency of process were raised. * SSAC is drafting response that reflects limited role. * GNSO will discuss on 17 Dec - comments are under development. Plan is to determine if there are issues for approval * GAC has virtual meeting on Dec 18th and a process leading to endorsement decision has been set out by GAC Chair. * Clear that if major issues/changes, it wll need to be resubmitted to Chartering Organizations. No risk that Chartering Organizations approve report without knowledge of changes 6. Update on Board interactions * Co-Chairs welcome attending any meetings you wish to schedule * Co-Chairs attended call with ICANN Board without knowledge of Board comments. We received outline of comments on call, reminded Board of timeline and requested (as with Chartering Organizatons) to leave details for implementation. Board was asked to limit comments * SO/AC leaders call on Thursday which Board plans to attend * Board comments will be handled with same care as comments received from ICANN community * Board will determine whether any of our recommendations is against global interest. if 2/3 of Board determines it is, recommendation will not be passed and the Board will engage with the CCWG-Accountability to fix this. * Board vote will reflect community input and final report from CCWG-ACCT. Action: CoChairs to relay questions from Kavouss through Board liaison 7. Closing remarks CCWG-ACCT is committed to making this work.

1 0

FW: Expression of Interest for IOT-IRP
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Dear all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record on behalf of Olga Cavalli. Best, Brenda From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 3:20 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Expression of Interest for IOT-IRP Dear Brenda, this is my EOI, as requested. Best regards Olga I am involved in ICANN since 2006 and have been active in both the GAC and the GNSO. I have always worked towards a balanced participation of all stakeholders with a special interest in a better representation of the developing countries in the different ICANN Advisor committees and Supporting Organizations. I am also a universitiy teacher and organize several capacity building activities related with Internet Governance and Domain Names, focused in Latin America and the Caribbean. I am a PHD in Business Direction, MBA, Master in Telecommunications Regulation and Electronic and Electric Engineer. I speak Spanish, English, Portuguese and German, and can understand French and Italian. Summary of my professional experience: GAC Vicechair ICANN - Argentina Representative ISOC Argentina Chapter - President Former MAG Member - Advisor United Nations Secretary General - IGF (2007 - 2014) University teacher at Universidad de Buenos Aires Argentina representative in the WSIS Second Phase, Tunis (2005) Member of the Special Commission appointed by the Government of Argentina for the Cybercrime Law Member of the commission that developed the National Digital Agenda of Argentina. Main activities in the GAC: * GAC Vicechair, Argentina Representative. * Chair of the GAC working group of protection of geographic names in new rounds of new gTLDs * Chair of the GAC working group on participation of Goverments in the Nomcom Previous ICANN activities: * GNSO Vicechair and GNSO Council member * Chair of the Constituency Operations Working Team in the GNSO restructuring process * Chair of the the Outreach Task Force of the GNSO. * GNSO liaison for the ccNSO * GNSO representative in the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. * Chair of the GNSO Prioritization Working Team. * Chair of the GNSO Travel Drafting Team. * Member of the Vertical Integration Working Team. * Member of the Operations Steering Committee OSC (Alternate Chair). * Member of the Planning Team of the GNSO Improvements Process. * Member of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Report drafting team. * GNSO representative in the IDN PDP Working Group. Looking forward to serving on the IOT-IRP.

1 0

Draft ALAC Comments on the CCWG ACCT 3rd Proposal
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Attached please find the ALAC draft comments on the CCWG 3rd Proposal. This document addresses Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. At this point the ALAC is fully supporting Recommendations 1, 3 and 8-12. This document is based upon deliberations of the WG advising the ALAC and is still subject to modification by that group and by the ALAC based on comments from our entire community. Alan

1 0

Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract
by Burr, Becky Dec. 14, 2015

Dec. 14, 2015

Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: 1. The prohibition on the regulation of “content” is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. 2. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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>

17 43

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 14, 2015

Dec. 14, 2015

The ALAC has been raising this issue multiple times with no answers. Another related question is whether we can require a binding pre-seating letter saying that the director waives all rights to sue for defamations (or whatever) related to the removal process. Alan At 14/12/2015 03:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >If the Chairs want to certify the legal questions, I think these would be: > >1. Is it possible for a Director to bring >suit for libel, slander, or other causes of >action during the community enforcement removal >process or thereafter based on the âwritten >justificationâ laid out by the SO/AC and/or >oral statements made during the required >conference calls in the Community enforcement process? > >2. Could a Director seek injunctive and/or >declaratory relief to interrupt the community >enforcement process toward removal? If so, >would SOs/ACs and officers who are sued be >required to mount their own defense? How expensive would this be? > >3. Is there insurance coverage available >for SOs/ACs and their officers in relation to >possible suit by a director in jeopardy of being >removed or who has been removed from the Board? If so, how expensive is it? > >These are not questions about how likely the >action is to occur. That does not really >figure into the âchilling effectâ that is of >concern when the officer of an SO or AC is >drafting the âwritten >justificationâ and/or encouraging open >discussion in the required (and recorded for posterity) conference call. >Anne > >[] > >Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP >One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 ><mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > >From: Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com] >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:14 PM >To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve DelBianco' >Cc: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; 'Phil Corwin'; >cwilson(a)21cf.com; Rosemary Fei >(rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) Thomas Rickert; >ipc_accountabilityct(a)icann.org; 'Gomes, Chuck' >(cgomes(a)verisign.com) Rosemary Fei >(rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com >Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers > >We must await further direction from the >co-chairs whether this is something that they >would like research on under California law > >HOLLY GREGORY >Partner > >Sidley Austin LLP >+1 212 839 5853 ><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > >From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >[<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 3:03 PM >To: Gregory, Holly; 'Steve DelBianco' >Cc: ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; >'Phil Corwin'; ><mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com; >Rosemary Fei >(<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) >Thomas Rickert; ><mailto:ipc_accountabilityct@icann.org>ipc_accountabilityct(a)icann.org; >'Gomes, Chuck' (<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com) >Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers > >Holly I would tend to agree if in fact the SO >or AC ccould remove a director without cause and >did not have to state its reasons, but the >community process requires this and it is >discussed fully throughout four steps of the >Community process to director removal. The SO >or AC must state âwritten justificationâ, to >which the Board has now added its âClear Rationaleâ comment. > >One need only look at the differences of opinion >that arose with respect to .africa to understand >that a stated reason for removal which has a >âwritten justificationâ or Clear Rationale >from the SO/AC standpoint could easily form the >basis of a suit by a director. It does not >require much by way of theory for a >plaintiffâs lawyer to allege claims of libel >and even irreparable harm. The SO/AC would >likely need legal advice just to draft the âwritten justification.â > >Again, I do not think indemnification represents >a reasonable risk to ICANN as a corporation. The >risk should be limited by contract when >directors take office. Directors should not be >suing the SO/AC and/or its officers for removal. >Otherwise, the ultimate enforcement mechanism in >the Sole Designator Model is not effective. > >You may not have seen this fact situation >occur. That does not mean it would not occur at >ICANN. We have some fairly feisty folks in our >midst. The risk of suit is of course much >higher than the risk of success on the >merits. I would say it is hard to measure in >dollars the potential damage to an individual >associated with being removed from the ICANN >Board with âwritten justificationâ. It >could be a pretty good strategy for a director >who wants to interrupt the Community Enforcement >process. He or she may also have the full >support of other Directors willing to testify. >Anne > >[] > >Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP >One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 ><mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > >From: Gregory, Holly >[<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com] >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 12:43 PM >To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve DelBianco' >Cc: ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; >'Phil Corwin'; ><mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com; >Rosemary Fei >(<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>rfei(a)adlercolvin.com) Thomas Rickert >Subject: RE: CCWG - ACCT - Recommendation 4 - Community Powers > >Anne, My sense is that the concerns you raise >present an extremely low risk of suit and >hence low risk of indemnificcation and cost of >indemnification. In my many years of corporate >governance practice I cannot recall a lawsuit >for libel or defamation by a director in an >instance of removal. But we can research under >California law if the co-chairs certify. Also, >I am not aware of any theory of libel or >defamation that would give rise to injunctive >relief delaying such removal where the >designator has the right to remove with or >without cause as here. Again, we have not >researched this specific point under California >law but will do so if certified. Holly > >HOLLY GREGORY >Partner > >Sidley Austin LLP >+1 212 839 5853 ><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > >f the intended recipients, and is covered by the >Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Â§2510-2521. > > >---------- > >This message and any attachments are intended >only for the use of the individual or entity to >which they are addressed. If the reader of this >message or an attachment is not the intended >recipient or the employee or agent responsible >for delivering the message or attachment to the >intended recipient you are hereby notified that >any dissemination, distribution or copying of >this message or any attachment is strictly >prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us >immediately by replying to the sender. The >information transmitted in this message and any >attachments may be privileged, is intended only >for the personal and confidential use of the >intended recipients, and is covered by the >Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Â§2510-2521. > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0