December 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG / Responses to requests for information made by Dr Eberhard Lisse on 24 November 2015
by Xavier J. Calvez Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Dear Eberhard, Dear members of the CCWG, As indicated last week, I wanted to provide feedback by the end of this week on the requests that Eberhard made in the email below. I have repeated below the requests from Eberhard¹s email, adding numbering and a title for ease of reference. I have also retitled this email to refer specifically to the content of Eberhard¹s email. 1. Meeting¹s travel support report, in CSV Format Full text of the request: ³The Constituency Travel Support group publishes a PDF report after each meeting detailing the flight costs. I would like to have the data uses to prepare these already published reports in a format amenable to further analysis, such as CSV.² Response: We have produced the reports in a CSV format for the meeting¹s reports provided since the beginning of 2014, and have published them on the Community Wiki. Please see at https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Travel+Report. We will produce this report in both PDF and CSV formats going forward. If there would be earlier meeting¹s reports that you would specifically like to obtain in CSV format in addition, please provide a list and we will consider also adding those to the wiki page, dependent upon feasibility and workload. 2. USG Transition travel costs, in CSV Format Full text of the request: ³I would then like to have all travel costs related to Transition in the same format.² Response: We can and will produce this information in the requested format. This information has not been compiled into 1 document until now, and we have started working on producing a similarly laid out document to be published on the USG Transition costs page (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015- 10-16-en). Considering the current level of workload, I expect that we could finalize the document and published it by 18 December. I will notify this group when publication will have occurred. 3. Staff hours Full text of the request: ³I would like to have the workload of staff in hours, including time spent in transit.² Response: I have assumed that this request is in relation to the USG Transition project. If this is not correct, please let me know. ICANN does not identify by activity or project the time spent by its employees on an on-going basis. On an as-needed basis, ICANN may estimate staff time spent on specific activities or projects. For the USG Transition project, ICANN has identified staff members involved in the project in a ³significant² fashion. ³Significant² is determined on the basis of an estimated percentage of time spent on the project at or exceeding 10% and above, provided by these staff members or their managers. It can be as a result of an on-going activity carried out on a partial basis, or a dedicated full time during a limited period. It is intended that management involvement is excluded from this list, in order to limit the information to specific involvement rather than general involvement. In other words, not every staff member who spends time on the project is listed, to be conservative in this assessment exercise. This approach is not intended to provide precise information but a reasonable itemized information that gives a directional quantification of the resources involved. The list of staff members for FY15 (actual data) and FY16 (Budget data), as well as the percentages of estimated time spent on the project is displayed in the attached document, which will be published shortly on the USG Transition project webpage. 4. Consulting fees Full text of the request: ³I would like to have the consulting fees (not necessarily by name) and the fees for experts.² Response: I have assumed that this request is in relation to the USG Transition project. If this is not correct, please let me know. We believe that a comprehensive view of the professional services expenses (equivalent to the notion of consulting fees) has been provided in 2 documents appearing in the paragraph ³Professional Services Expenses Breakdown² that can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015-1 0-16-en. This section of the page, along with the personnel and travel cost items, subject to your questions above, represent the entire set of costs of the USG Transition project, meaning that there is no other costs in relation to this project. If you believe there is information relativeto consulting fees that you would like to see and would not appear in the documents referenced above, please let me know. As a general comment, the information referenced above, that can be found on the following page [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015- 10-16-en], is intended to be updated on a quarterly basis, with the next update planned after the end of the the 2nd quarter of ICANN¹s fiscal year 2016 (Oct to Dec 2015). I trust this addresses the requests for now and I will follow up as indicated above where relevant. 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 On 11/24/15, 5:58 AM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: >Dear Xavier, > >The Constituency Travel Support group publishes a PDF report after each >meeting detailing the flight costs. > >I would like to have the data uses to prepare these already published >reports in a format amenable to further analysis, such as CSV. > >I have asked Travel Support but can not find a response thereto in my >in tray. > > >I would then like to have all travel costs related to Transition in the >same format. > >I would like to have the workload of staff in hours, including time >spent in transit. > >I would like to have the consulting fees (not necessarily by name) and >the fees for experts. > >The legal costs seem to have been published in a reasonable format >already. > >greetings, el > > >On 2015-11-06 01:15, Xavier J. Calvez wrote: >[...] >> * I am unfamiliar with the request that Dr Eberhard Lisse is >> referring to below. >[...] >-- >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >PO Box 8421 \ / >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

2 3

Q&A from 2 December Webinars available on Wiki
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hello all, Please find the Q&A posted to the Webinar Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/woJlAw Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #71 - 8 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability Meeting #71 held on 8 December will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/AcFYAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a reminder to Kavouss Arasteh that an Expression of Interest is needed. * ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to update draft and send * ACTION ITEM: Becky to provide rationale 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. Webinars and Board call debrief All Chartering Organizations are encouraged to hold calls. We are also encouraging you all to conduct outreach A document that concentrates all Q&As will be published later today. Co-Chairs held a call with Board for informational discussion. Transcript will be published. Board gave overview of comments submitted. Agreement that Board would go deeper into detail. We were invited to hold another call that might take place next Sunday with objective of having Q&A to guide Board on comments. This call is not a negotiation. Board input will be treated at same level as community input. Refer to Bruce Tonkin's email for topics on which clarification needed: Human Rights, inspection rights, Board consideration of GAC advice. IRP Subgroup Responsible for substantive process design. Becky will lead. Review of EOIs received. We had determined that if too big of a group, we would define selection criteria. The proposed group is of a manageable size. In addition to size, diversity is important. Suggesting to keep numbers of individuals as is. We will keep group opened for any additional contributors that would allow for better geographic representation. If a policy that deployed independent review council, the policy would need to specify manner in which IRP would resolve any inconsistencies. Lawyers will draft paperwork and implementation oversight team will review. There is no requirement to be lawyer or prior experience but it is important to have key contributions. Kavouss Arasteh has volunteered. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a reminder to Kavouss Arasteh that an Expression of Interest is needed. Timeline There is room for publishing a supplemental report if need be. Co-Chairs have prepared an email hat could be sent to Chartering Organizations. Review of proposed letter. Provisions for formal resolutions need to be consistent with timeline. There is precedent for CWG where one of the COs issued a non-objection statement. Charter is not fully explicit on this Formal approval is better than anything else. It would be inappropriate to take absence of answer as support or objection. We will need to assess level of support. We need to be aware that we are asking to endorse recommendations which may leave implementation details open for dialogue (handled during implementation phase). It is important to communicate it to Chartering Organizations. We will need to assess consensus for clarity. Recommendations are based on public consultations. CCWG-ACCT also charged with looking at overall comments. Consensus will need to be revised if major concerns. Chartering organizations need to define process in own timeline. ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to update draft and send AOB ALAC made comments on Mission Statement on Second Proposal. We need to understand rationale why not included. ACTION ITEM: Becky to provide rationale Marrakech: Since there is no confirmed plan for CCWG-ACCT to have a meeting adjacent to Marrakech, there will be no travel funding for the CCWG members to attend ICANN55. In the past, CCWG members have received funding for ICANN meetings as an exception to attend meetings outside of the ICANN program and extend stay for program. The CCWG will have working sessions on the ICANN meeting schedule, for which there will be remote participation available. Any funding for CCWG members who wish to attend Marrakesh should be discussed with the appointing SO/AC since SO/ACs receive travel funding for ICANN meetings per the ICANN travel policy Documents * PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56148225/IRP%20Implementat… df?version=1&modificationDate=1449604037100&api=v2> IRP Implementation Oversight Team.pdf * PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56148225/CCWG%20Timeline.p… nDate=1449604147070&api=v2> CCWG Timeline.pdf * DOC: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56148225/Proposed%20note.d… onDate=1449604001138&api=v2> Proposed note.docx | PDF: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56148225/Proposed%20note.p… nDate=1449603853946&api=v2> Proposed note.pdf

1 0

Translated CCWG Webinar Slides
by Hillary Jett Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hello everyone, Please find attached the translated slides from the 2 December 2015 CCWG-Accountability webinars. The slides are also located on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/woJlAw Thank you, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering
by Burr, Becky Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion. 3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission. 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>

10 11

GAO report
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

All, The General Accountability Office hast just published its report, which you can find here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642 Best, Thomas --- rickert.net

4 5

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG Accountability co-Chairs Meeting with Lawyers on 4 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability co-Chairs Meeting with Lawyers on 4 December will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/1oZlAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to find the relevant email exchange. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to cross-check list. * ACTION ITEM: Legal counsel to update AOC Bylaws text. * ACTION ITEM: Certification to be added to the wiki list. * ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs will propose subgroups of recommendations to be worked on and reviewed in WPs jointly, in order to streamline the process. * ACTION ITEM: Lawyers will coordinate to provide estimate using CWG-Stewardship as a baseline early next week. Estimate will attempt to cover impact of coordination between law firms. Estimates will only cover the provision of 1st drafts, and not the intensity of iterations within the CCWG. 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. Update on pending requests - <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Legal Counsel identified IRP drafting and the memo on transparency (inspection rights) as the two outstanding requests. The memo on transparency (inspection rights) is missing from the wiki. ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to find the relevant email exchange. Legal Counsel observed that the wiki list does not comply with recollection from lawyers on certain items. ACTION ITEM: Staff to cross-check list. 2. IRP drafting Lawyers will have a draft ready in two weeks. On call #71, the CCWG-ACCT will discuss composition of the group. Legal counsel will produce detailed drafts and suggests that core language be included in Bylaws and details in a policy document. Legal Counsel indicated that there are some places in the proposal where there are ambiguities in terms of process ( e.g. Annex 7: can action and inaction of PTI be subject to IRP? What is standard of review etc.). Legal Counsel will need further guidance on these questions. The CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs clarified that this will be the role of the implementation group. Lawyers will make assumptions in the draft. The CCWG-ACCT will be asked to advise on whether right or wrong. Legal Counsel will work with implementation team on this. 3. AoC reviews incorporation update Comments from Adler were not sent and will be provided next week. Legal Counsel comments that the language being a moving target prior to posting of the third draft, the paper could benefit from an additional review. The Co-Chairs certified the request to update AOC review bylaws section in light of the Draft Proposal conclusions so that it may be circulated to the full CCWG-ACCT. ACTION ITEM: Legal counsel to update AOC Bylaws text. ACTION ITEM: Certification to be added to the wiki list. 4. Rest of Bylaw drafting Bylaws need to be approved by Board in April. Legal Counsel would welcome clear constructions. It was agreed that for efficiency purpose, Legal Counsel will begin drafting in January when the Final Report is issued. Legal Counsel anticipates it will be in a position to circulate a version for sign-off by mid February. Legal Counsel requested that the CCWG-ACCT identify whether there are group of recommendations that can be slotted for efficiency of reviews. ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs will propose subgroups of recommendations to be worked on and reviewed in WPs jointly, in order to streamline the process. 5. Overall cost estimate for incorporation into ICANN Budget ACTION ITEM: Lawyers will coordinate to provide estimate using CWG-Stewardship as a baseline early next week. Estimate will attempt to cover impact of coordination between law firms. Estimates will only cover the provision of 1st drafts, and not the intensity of iterations within the CCWG. 6. A.O.B Legal counsel will share its high level remarks on the Draft Proposal with Co-Chairs. They will be circulated to the full CCWG.

4 3

PDF of the Survey
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

I recall that someone said that the survey is available in PDF format. The only thing I could find was the part on Rec 7 which was hung off of the 26 November meeting page (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56148222) Can anyone point to the full survey document? Alan

2 1

CCWG - ACCT - Director Service Letter
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Holly, We are trying to find a Director Service letter Bernard referred to in the CCWG –ACCT Webinar last week. This is supposedly a draft letter for Directors to sign before taking office. So far no luck. Did you or Rosemary draft such a letter? (As you may know, I am looking for Directors to agree not to sue SO, AC, or Sole Designator if removed.) Thank you so much. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D130F7.7809AB50] 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/> ________________________________ 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.

3 3

Two Questions on Annex 9
by Greg Shatan Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews): 1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21) 2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164) Thanks! Greg

3 4