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

Work plan in January/Meeting schedule
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 27, 2015

Dec. 27, 2015

Holiday Greetings to all! Please find the January schedule of meetings below and also attached in pdf. Calendar invites soon to follow. You may also look at the CCWG Accountability Meetings Calendar wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg (located bottom of wiki page) 2016 January CCWG ACCT Meeting Schedule (subject to updates) Tuesday Calls Thursday Calls 5 Jan 19:00-22:00 UTC 7 Jan 19:00-22:00 UTC 12 Jan 06:00-09:00 UTC 14 Jan 06:00-09:00 UTC 19 Jan 12:00-15:00 UTC 21 Jan 12:00-15:00 UTC 26 Jan 19:00-22:00 UTC 28 Jan 19:00-22:00 UTC Kind regards, Brenda From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 5:22 AM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)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

8 13

Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
by Jordan Carter Dec. 27, 2015

Dec. 27, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jonathan Robinson* <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Monday, 14 December 2015 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org All FYI *From:* Michelle Bright [mailto:michelle.bright@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','michelle.bright(a)icann.org');>] *Sent:* 14 December 2015 06:17 *Subject:* ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations Attached, please find the ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. Kind Regards, Michelle Bright Michelle Bright Board Operations Content Manager, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Direct: +1-310-578-8678 Mobile: +1-310-570-8296 http://icann.org -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

25 77

Our timetable -- some personal observations
by Jordan Carter Dec. 25, 2015

Dec. 25, 2015

Hi all I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point. First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question. Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to these proposals. That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase. Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe: - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle. - pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done. - the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months. So I have been able to live with that. Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN Board has involved itself in this process: - non involvement in the first parts of the process - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and, problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting. - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process. - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!". It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both within the CCWG and with the other operational communities. That said: we are where we are. So for the next few weeks I offer this observation. If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require: - diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs. This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not more. That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.) ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.) So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in a manner that: - accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down. I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following: - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments? - do you feel comfortable with delay if required? best, 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 *

15 30

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 19:00 UTC | Thursday, 7 January
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

For the ones where I can't establish my availability right now, I will advise closer to the time. As we do not need to spend 6 hours per week on this, I'll see if and when I can make it. el On 2015-12-24 19:19 , Brenda Brewer wrote: > Hi Eberhard! > > Noted. Thank you. > > Brenda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.NA] > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 11:18 AM > To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: CCWG ACCT Meeting | 19:00 UTC | Thursday, 7 January > > I will be in transit. > > el > > On 2015-12-24 18:09 , Brenda Brewer wrote: >> *CCWG-Accountability Meeting*– Thursday, 7 January 2016 from 19:00 – >> 22:00 UTC > [...] >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 12:00 UTC | Thursday, 21 January
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

I have to work for a living and can, perhaps, attend from 12:00 to 13:00 UTC. el On 2015-12-24 18:05 , Brenda Brewer wrote: > *CCWG-Accountability Meeting *– Thursday, 21 January 2016 from 12:00 – > 15:00 UTC [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CWG ACCT Meeting | 06:00 UTC | Thursday, 14 January
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

I will be in transit. el On 2015-12-24 18:07 , Brenda Brewer wrote: > *C**CWG-Accountability Meeting *– Thursday, 14 January 2016 from 06:00 – > 09:00 UTC [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 19:00 UTC | Thursday, 7 January
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

I will be in transit. el On 2015-12-24 18:09 , Brenda Brewer wrote: > *CCWG-Accountability Meeting*– Thursday, 7 January 2016 from 19:00 – > 22:00 UTC [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?
by Mark Carvell Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

Dear Phil and Greg Man of your concerns are familiar of course from last year's consultation on proposed bylaw changes following the joint Board and GAC "BGRI" discussions and agreement on how to implement the ATRT2 recommendations relating to the status of GAC advice and related procedures. Such is the extent now - much more so than in the first 15 years of ICANN - of meaningful interaction between the public policy experts on the GAC and the non-governmental stakeholders directly engaged in developing ICANN policy (witness the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group), as well as between the Board and the GAC thanks largely to implementation of the recommendations of both ATRT reviews, thankfully we can expect substantial rejection of GAC advice by the Board to be an extremely rare occurrence. I would underline in this context that substantial rejection of the advice of such a large number of governments (GAC membership is now 155) acting in concert to safeguard the global public interest and ensure consistency with national and international laws, would be a major, politically highly contentious step for the Board to take. While I can understand stakeholder anxiety about risk of extending the role of governments to the detriment of the successfully embedded multi-stakeholder model that is ICANN, this is why I would argue it is not unreasonable for a decision to reject public policy interest-based advice to be accompanied by a higher threshold than simple majority. The evaluation of that support for rejection needs to be rigorous and a formally instituted and fully accountable voting procedure is the most appropriate means for achieving this. You will recall it was decided in October 2014 to put "on hold" the Board's and the GAC's agreement to institute the two thirds threshold for rejection in the bylaws - partly because the rationale was not well-communicated (and as a consequence an avalanche of objections was received) but also because the timing was wrong as IANA stewardship transition loomed large. I would argue the timing is as right as it will ever be in the context of Stress Test 18 and I welcomed its addition to the proposed text developed by the sub-group. The Board and the GAC have agreed a set procedures consistent with ATRT recommendations for ensuring GAC advice does not fall between any cracks or hang in limbo. See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt-implementation-report-29ja… <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt-implementation-report-29ja…> All elements of formal GAC advice are tracked on an open register that allows the response and follow up to be monitored https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/GAC+Register+of+Advice This serves to maximise transparency of whether advice is accepted or rejected - and if the latter, of the enactment of the procedure to negotiate and determine if a mutually acceptable solution is possible. Default to acceptance of advice if the Board does not respond to the GAC would not happen. I hope this is helpful in explaining why I believe the procedure in the current formulation of Stress Test 18 should be supported: a) it ensures precision, shared understanding and transparency of fully-informed Board decisions in these rare cases when rejection is a possibility; b) it enables the GAC to fulfil its role and responsibilities in respect of safeguarding the global public interest; and c) it serves the best interests of the ICANN community. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 18 December 2015 at 15:16, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > As the issue of the role of the GAC within post-transition ICANN is the > one most likely to cause Congressional (and perhaps even NTIA) opposition > to the transition proposal -- if there is a perception of an unacceptable > level of governmental influence over ICANN -- it is important to come to a > common and acceptable understanding on this matter. As the ST18 subgroup > came to an agreement only in the last few minutes of its final call it is > perfectly understandable that there may be differing views on the text’s > meaning. > > > > Greg raises an interesting question as to what happens if the GAC provides > some very unpalatable advice and the Board neither advises the GAC that it > intends to take an inconsistent action , or declines to take a formal vote > when the GAC advice is of the consensus variety. Does the advice just wait > in limbo indefinitely, or is there a point in time when it is deemed both > accepted and in effect if the Board has declined to take any action? > > > > *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* > > *Virtualaw LLC* > > *1155 F Street, NW* > > *Suite 1050* > > *Washington, DC 20004* > > *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct* > > *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax* > > *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell* > > > > *Twitter: @VlawDC* > > > > *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, > Brett > *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2015 9:55 AM > *To:* Greg Shatan; Alan Greenberg > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw > create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board? > > > > Greg, > > > > Agree entirely. This is not what I understood to be the intent of the ST > 18 language. > > > > The more Paul and I have gone over this, the more concerned we have become > over the language. We have expressed similar concerns in our public comment > along with suggestions for alternative text. We need to fix this before > moving forward. > > > > I fully admit to bearing part of the blame in this – we should have > thought this through during the ST 18 discussions. But then we were under > an enormous pressure to meet the deadline and text was being proposed on > the fly during the Adobe chat sessions. The past few weeks have finally > provided some time to reflect and think things through. That reflection > should be taken into account. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg > Shatan > *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2015 12:52 AM > *To:* Alan Greenberg > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw > create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board? > > > > Alan, > > > > Nowhere does it say that there needs to be a "formal decision." If the > existing Bylaws required a vote, or even a "formal decision," before > entering into the "mutually acceptable solution" process, the Bylaws would > say so. Instead, a more flexible term was chosen -- "determines to take an > action." Assuming competent lawyers, these language choices are meaningful > and deliberate. Elsewhere, the Bylaws clearly state when there are votes > required (some variation of the word "vote" is used ~200 times in the ICANN > Bylaws). "Determines to take an action" is a unique phrase within the > bylaws and virtually unique outside of it -- indeed, all but one Google > result when searching on that term is a reference to this particular > Bylaw. It's fairly clear to me that something less formal than a vote was > intended by choosing this unique phrase. > > > > It's my understanding that this distinction is carried out in the Board's > actual practices, which have utilized the flexibility offered by this > language. As presently drafted, the Board is able to identify a situation > where it appears that they are going to take an action that would be > inconsistent with GAC Advice; at that point, they would approach the GAC, > tell them why and enter into the "mutually acceptable solution" process -- > without requiring a formal vote of the Board. This gives the Board more > flexibility and leeway to work with the GAC, and it's my understanding that > the Board has in fact worked in this manner. The CCWG proposal would take > away that flexibility and mandate a formal vote of the Board, requiring the > Board to take an adversarial stance with the GAC. [Choosng to use the > flatly negative word "reject" instead of the more nuanced phrase "take an > action that is not consistent with" is just the icing on the cake.] > > > > There is another issue raised by this new language. With this revision, > it is far from clear what the status of GAC Advice that not been rejected > by a 2/3 vote? If the Board takes a vote, but the rejection fails to pass, > is the GAC Advice now "accepted" (possibly by a vote of 1/3+1) and binding > on ICANN? What about GAC Advice on which no vote has been taken -- is that > Advice "accepted" and binding on ICANN and, if so, when? [Compare this to > the Community's right to reject a standard bylaws change -- if the > community does not elect to do so, or attempts to do so and fails, that > bylaw clearly become binding upon ICANN.] > > > > The combination of a 2/3 threshold and a mandatory vote to reject GAC > Advice creates a presumption that GAC advice will be accepted. This > presumption is novel and clearly elevates GAC Advice to a new level of > deference within the ICANN process. > > > > Although none of this is explicitly stated in the detailed explanation in > Annex 11, the more I consider this and the more people I talk to, the more > convinced I am that what I've laid out above is exactly what was intended > by some of those involved in the drafting process for the Bylaw revision, > and the rest of us just didn't see it at the time. Since it's not brought > out in the CCWG's explanation, this fundamental change can "fly under the > radar" until the Proposal is approved. > > > > I don't believe that this was the intention of the CCWG. If it's not the > intention of the CCWG, then my alternative wording would remove this > concern. If this is in fact the intention of the CCWG then I think it > needs to be part of the explanation set forth in the proposal, so that the > intent and effect are clear, and any reader can clearly understand what we > have wrought. > > > > Finally, I have to say that this is not an "implementation level" > concern. This is, if you will, a "policy level" concern. If this gets > baked into the accepted proposal, then the implementers will essentially be > bound to carry this out in the implementation (i.e., the drafting of the > "real" Bylaw language). Any later attempt to change a concept stated in > the accepted and transmitted final proposal will face a very high set of > hurdles, at best. Now is the time to deal with this. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > wrote: > > Greg, you say that the current Bylaws do not reference voting. The current > wording ( > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j) is > "In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not > consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice..." > > How else is the Board able to formally decide on anything other than by > voting? > > Alan > > At 16/12/2015 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > All, > > In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my > constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing > "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the > proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to > reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. > Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a > vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice > becomes binding on ICANN. > > These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in > red): > > The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters > shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of > policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action > that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it > shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to > follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by > a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the > practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any > formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the > Board, and tThe Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will > then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a > mutually acceptable solution. > > â€‹The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to > the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a > reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the > introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. > Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of > the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such > vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is > bound to follow. > > I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether > they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of > the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of > those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently > required, then that is even more troubling. > > I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring > back to my group. > > I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to > remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my > group. > > I suggest the language below. This m > ore closely track > â€‹sâ€‹ > the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," > with its potential unintended consequences: > > The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters > shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of > policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action > that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it > shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to > follow that advice. > > â€‹ > > If the Board > > â€‹ > > determines to take an action that is not consistent with > > Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental > Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting > decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, > > â€‹ > > â€‹such determination must be supported by > > two-thirds of the Board, > > and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, > in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually > acceptable solution. > > â€‹ > > > > I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. > Thank you. > > Greg > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

3 3

Work plan in January
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

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

1 0

[blog] IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 23, 2015

Dec. 23, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-… IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning: Taking Stock of the Last Two Months and Looking Forward to 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…> The last update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation> I provided was just over two months ago as we were heading into ICANN54 in Dublin. Our goal at that time was to receive feedback and better understand the community's need for reporting and oversight of implementation planning for the IANA Stewardship Transition. In looking back at our progress since October, we achieved this and much more. We are now providing monthly status updates on implementation planning efforts to the leadership teams of the CCWG-Accountability, CWG-Stewardship, CRISP Team, IANAPLAN WG, GNSO, ccNSO,IETF, IAB, and RIRs on the Transition Program Facilitation Management calls<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en>. Additionally, we have established a reporting cadence with the CWG-Stewardship by providing more detailed implementation planning status updates on the group's bi-weekly calls. We are also working with all of the operational communities on defining service levels and documenting our relationships with them, as well as on theIANA Intellectual Property Rights. On the CCWG-Accountability side, we look forward to engaging with the group once its Work Stream 1 Recommendations are finalized. Shortly after ICANN54, we launched a dedicated web page<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> to provide the community with updates on implementation planning activities. We have been building out this web page to provide a more seamless browsing experience, including sort and filter capabilities. Be on the look out for more on this in the coming weeks. On the U.S. Government side, we have been engaging with NTIA on our planning efforts. The feedback from NTIA has been very helpful in developing our plans and overall timelines to allow ICANN to plan for implementing as early as possible while respecting the current IANA Functions Contract. In my pre-ICANN54 blog, I wrote that our assessment showed that we would need four months to complete the IANA Stewardship Transition implementation, assuming the proposals are approved. This timetable has not changed. However, we hope that our continued collaboration with the community, engagement with NTIA, and careful project planning will enable us to complete the necessary implementation as efficiently as possible to meet a conclusion in time for a transition in 2016. We will continue to monitor progress, and regularly report back to the community. As we head into 2016, our team looks forward to further collaboration with the community toward a successful and on-time transition. Happy holidays to those celebrating this season and best wishes into the New Year!

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #73 - 22 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #73 - 22 December will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9ItlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction. ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up 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. Public Comment Period Staff update: 80 replies. 4 of COs sent in comments (GAC, ALAC, ASO, SSAC). Input from a number of constituencies received. Staff uses spreadsheet. Discussion * * Input on geographic regions needed. * ACTION ITEM: staff to provide geographic statistics * On number of comments: less individual responses as requested to channel feedback through SO/ACs Update from Chartering Organizations * * ALAC: ALAC has 5 YES, 4 YES but with restrictions, and 3 NOs. * GNSO :The GNSO aims to have a consolidated position statement by the middle of January. The GNSO Council will have 2 calls in early January and plans to have a motion by January 14. Most GNSO SGs and Cs have submitted direct comments, but these will be consolidated in early January. * ASO: Positive feedback - we support Draft Proposal: model and recommendations. We intend to participate in community structure. Rec. 3: specify that talking about naming function. Rec 5 important to have reference to MoU. Rec 8 excluded Rec 11: support text that clarifies today's practices and can be supported by NTIA. * ccNSO: Call tomorrow. Possible to have input in next few days. * SSAC: SSAC has submitted one-page comment and deliberately not commented on individual recommendations as cannot comment outside limited scope. SSAC anticipates it will be able to support the final proposal on understanding that nothing changes between now and then. * GAC comment - <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30…> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30… Work plan for CCWG Review of proposed work plan. Issues will require substance discussions to identify common way forward We will focus on easy-to-fix issues as a priority and then focus on complex issues. Draft analysis will help us structure our work. Per our Charter - we will need to consider whether supplemental draft, public comment needed. We should not wait for January 14 (foreseen GNSO submission) to conduct assessment. We already have received a number of submissions from GNSO constituencies. Irrealistic to expect that potential supplemental report will be published by January 7. We will need to consider whether there is a need to increase frequency of calls or need to set up subgroups to address topics. Discussion: * * Supplemental report should go to public comments. * Flexibility needed to start discussing * In flavor of plenary discussion and more calls. Content for plenary discussions should be concise * Discussion to be continued on list. * Treat Board comment properly and timely. Response on GPI question on Board members' criteria is pending. We are considering asking Advisors for input. Input on how to address Board comments is welcome. Intent in addressing Board comments is to be as constructive as possible. Board has two roles: 1) chiming into consensus discussion; 2) Adopting report. We need support of COs first to evaluate impact on consensus and to assess whether final form of recommendations raise concenrs with Board. It would be premature to edit recommendations now. We need to think how to deal with GPI and understand Board's concerns. We need to offer rationale why we think GPI is not affected. Discussion: * * Agree with comment that we should examine Board comments objectively. Agree with approach to categorize Board comments. There may be varying degrees. Clarify with Board on how strongly they feel with these suggestions * Disagreement with proposed approach. * There is agreed definition of public interest. It will be endless discussion. ACTION ITEM: Remind Bruce of this request and provide an assessment of Board comments CONCLUSION: Plenary of the CCWG-ACCT will need to discuss outstanding items. Mission, Commitments & Core Values - Summary of status quo With respect to Board comments, we have fundamental divide about potential unintended consequences. Bruce requested to see there is language the Board could offer to help us close this. ALAC comments boil down to unintended consequences of what this language will do with respect to renewal of registry agreement, ability to sign those agreements after language is adopted and PICS specifications. GAC has been asking for legal opinion. Two key questions: (1) what does the prohibition on regulation mean; (2) what is the scope of grandfathering Discussion: * * Careful analysis of sensitive PICS was done. * Grandfathering: difference of opinions whether long term/short term. Policy vs implementation come into equation. * Determine whether limited to grandfathering. Different camps: 1) ICANN should not engage in any activity related to content regulation; 2) ICANN must be in a position to do so. How can we reconcile these differences? Suggestion to consider attempt mitigation friction by adding language that limits risk of ICANN exercising monopoly. Where contractory voluntary offers limits. ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Becky to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction. ACTION ITEM: Becky to send update to group next week ACTION ITEM : Request Advisors' input on GPI ACTION ITEM: Add GPI rationale to report Stress Test 18 - Summary of status quo Public comment period: We have softer support. Objections are dissenting. Discussion will be needed Discussion: * * Current Bylaw should remain as it is - sentence should be added: should GAC change consensus to majority then the text by CCWG could apply. * Revise language to clarify that all we are changing is 2/3 * In previous bylaw no mention was made on rejection. The Board may not always have used a formal decision. CONCLUSION: Only way to obligate Board is to have decision locked into consensus. ACTION ITEM: Steve del Bianco to follow up AOB Clarifications on CRISP notification on timeline: Board comments were listed as a specific example. Note intended for CoChairs but shared with full CCWG for full transparency

1 0

Third Draft Proposal
by Gregory, Holly Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw drafting effort. We sent the comments to CCWG in the interests of transparency so that the group is aware of our suggestions for the Final Report and/or implementation phase. We do not view our comments as suggesting any changes in policy approach. We are sorry to hear that our comments have been taken by some to criticize the work of the CCWG, Co-Chairs and Staff. That was in no way our intent. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

6 5

CCWG Accountability AGENDA - Call #73 | 22 December @ 12:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of the CCWG Accountability Meeting #73 <https://community.icann.org/x/9ItlAw> on Tuesday, 22 December from 12:00-14:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&… ah=2> ), please find below the proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SOI 2. Public comment period on Draft Proposal 3. Update from the Chartering Orgs 4. Work plan for CCWG 5. Mission, Commitments & Core Values - Summary of status quo 6. Stress Test - Summary of status quo 7. A.O.B Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda

3 3

Fw: [ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN BLOG ON WSIS+10 UNGA MEETING
by Mary Uduma Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

_______________________________________________ ccwg-internet-governance mailing list ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

6 8

Blog: IANA Stewardship Transition & Year End
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

* ICANN Blog * Author: Theresa Swinehart * 18 Dec 2015 Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end IANA Stewardship Transition & Year End This past year has been busy for the community on all the transition related work. It has been filled with many ups and downs, good moments and challenging ones, and a year of incredible work, compromise, negotiation and collaboration among all stakeholders. With the end of the year only days away, it's a good opportunity to reflect on all that has been accomplished and consider what's in store for the year ahead. In March 2014, we began the work of facilitating the IANA Stewardship transition process, working with the community to ensure it had what it needed to conduct its work. Earlier this year, in May 2015, NTIAreached out to the communities working on the transition proposal to ask how much time they thought they would need to finalize and implement their proposals. Based on the community's feedback, NTIA <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> announced the contract extension in August from 30 September 2015 to 30 September 2016, a period of time that includes the NTIA review and approval process and the implementation forecasts submitted by the community. Secretary Strickling <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-transition-facilitat…> has emphasized [PDF, 183 KB] the timing by which NTIA must receive the final proposals to allow sufficient time on their part. Working backwards from September 2016, and taking into consideration the NTIA review and the implementation time, the community has been working tirelessly to finalize their proposals in January. Also over the past few months, our implementation team, led by Akram Atallah, President, Global Domains Division, began administrative preparation for the necessary implementation actions, including identifying projects based on the current proposals, creating high-level timelines and engaging with the community to better understand their reporting and oversight needs. As communicated to the community, we estimate implementation to take a minimum of four months. In collaboration with the community we hold <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> monthly calls regarding any expected changes to the community timelines. This provides a useful opportunity for the community working together to keep each other appraised of how any of their work may impact the community-established timeline. After all the progress at ICANN54, both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability have noted their expected time frames. The ICG finalized its work at ICANN54 in Dublin, and provided a status update and proposal document shortly after the meeting concluded. The group awaits confirmation from CWG-Stewardship that its requirements have been met by the CCWG-Accountability, who <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-… nn54-co-chairs-statement> laid out a rigorous timeline to submit its Work Stream 1 Recommendations at the end of January 2016, which included development of a new Third Draft Proposal, public comment period and Chartering Organization approval. The Board submitted <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/…> initial thinking based on the summary report, and have already submitted their <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30…> full public comments to help meet the timeline, and the Chartering Organizations and many members of the community have been working diligently to get feedback in as soon as reasonably possible. While keeping the CCWG-Accountability busy through January, the goals set out by the CCWG-Accountability balance the various timeline constraints, both inside and outside of the community. However, while timeline concerns should continue to be addressed within the CCWG-Accountability, we cannot risk the ability of ICANN to effectively do its job on Internet identifiers for the sake of meeting that timeline. Staff will continue to do everything we can to help the CCWG-Accountability complete its work in time for NTIA to make a decision this year. What will the next year bring? The community's work reaching the next stages will be underway, and we look forward to supporting the community and its work. We want to be clear that as the CCWG-Accountability weighs the input from this public comment period, we are supportive of the timeline the community lays out both from a staffing and a resource perspective. As many, including Steve and Fadi have <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/thoughts-heading-into-los-angeles> said before, it is more important to get this done right than to get it done quickly, while considering all the interdependencies including the U.S. and NTIA context. For example, the U.S. Congress just passed a 2,009-page Omnibus spending bill that limits NTIA's ability to use funds to relinquish the IANA functions contract before 30 September 2016 (the final day of the current contract term), and we need to remain aware of this, but not let it derail or drive our process. We thank the CCWG-Accountability for their tremendous effort to meet this conclusion in time for a transition in 2016. I look forward to collaborating constructively with the community in whatever they need, and remain confident we will reach conclusion on the transition and achieve this historical endeavor together.

1 0