February 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Draft legal questions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Dear all, In the following link you will find the first draft set of questions developed by the legal sub-team for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xi-hs-i5z0XSicHxMjJlLiQ4xhFo1_IOQnEMXDp… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xi-hs-i5z0XSicHxMjJlLiQ4xhFo1_IOQnEMXDp…> Please keep in mind that this is work in progress and the list of questions is not a closed list but rather a list subject to add questions that are still missing. Robin Gross is in the process of drafting a framing letter that will provide context to the external lawyers as to where we are at now and our aims. The document is enabled so anyone with the link may comment but not edit. Please add any suggested edits as comments so they can be merged after review by the legal sub-team. I am also attaching a PDF version of the document for your convenience. Best regards, León

11 13

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February
by Brenda Brewer March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #14 call on 24 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889476 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 Notes 1. Statement of interest to be uploaded/updated - contact staff if help needed 2. Activity report from Work Parties WP 1 - WP1 has developed a draft work plan, has agreed on working methods, is working with an aggressive deadline and plans to deliver WP output by March 11. - Volunteers are developing templates for each power and mechanism. Current gaps will be picked up. Editors will review content. - Triggered and non triggered categorization has been applied to items in paper, resulting in an initial allocation between two Working parties. WP1 is awaiting WP2 feedback to allocate tasks. - WP1 has structured mechanisms around powers and finds the accountability mechanism template challenging in some ways: some questions are more relevant to mechanisms and vice-versa. It envisions to produce recommendations on how to improve it. It was commented that questions would not have same relevance to both categorizations and will be reviewed and addressed as progress is made. - It was observed that a mechanism gives structure to power and there is need for a procedure and vehicle to support the power. Threshold (consensus/full consensus) also comes into play. - The recommendation is to commence with the analysis of powers and to attach them with mechanisms. - The WP1 walked the CCWG through proposed Bylaws additions on amending ICANN Bylaws to incorporate AOC reviews. The text is merged with periodic structural reviews text that currently exists in Bylaws. Edits to the AoC review process were also suggested. Feedback to suggestions included: should Bylaws give a prescriptive headcount? Stakeholder Groups being subordinates to a structure, is it really necessary to include them? ; It is important to reflect diversity and balance; While support for selections made by SO/ACs, lack of diversity was flagged as a downside and an aspect that could be preserved through selectors; Specifics may change in the future. With the objective of stable Bylaws, consider high level principles that can be included in the Bylaws instead, along with a reference to an external document where specifics would be given. In this approach a very high threshold on ability to change that document would be added; A Bylaws categorization was proposed: 1) fundamental and constitutional provisions (stable); 2 functional and operation (less stable); 3) rules relations to elections etc; consider more lengthy timelines. - No decision will be made on the call. --- WP2 - WP2 has produced a revised scoping document to reflect changes and results of WP 1 work on triggered and non-triggered. Scoping documents for WP1 and WP2 are harmonized. - Close coordination with WP 1 is needed. - A work plan and working methods (based on WP1 modus operandi) has been circulated. Standards of work will be discussed. - WP2 plans to have a document available by face-to-face meeting (17 March tentatively) --- ST-WP - ST-WP wrapped up presentation of stress test 18 (If GAC changes operating procedures from consensus to majority voting). A contributor suggested looking into the preliminary injunction (IRP) regarding delegation of Persian and noted absence of GAC advice and a group of GAC members invoking IRP. Objections were raised by another contributor i.e. outside CCWG mandate and references made to the South Africa communiqué. ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline - ST-WP walked the group through stress test 17 (ICANN adds a new TLD in spite of SSR concerns). Feedback included: What is our definition of success within context of stress tests?; Stress tests are going to be measures of degrees -t say yes/no answers will be rare. - No decision will be made on the call. ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 3. Legal Subteam Update - Questions have been suggested and the Subteam is awaiting questions from WP1 and WP2. - Robin is working on framing questions into a letter that can be delivered to law firm that will be selected. Background and context will be included. - Call with final list of law firms will be held. Update on final candidate that will be put forward for hiring by ICANN will be shared asap. - Questions are divided into 3 categories: 1) corporate governance; 2)jurisdictional matters; 3) protection of ICANN, antitrust and other law suits. - Given concerns about ccTLD delegation and redelegations remedies (e.g. dispute resolution), feedback is needed. - Feedback included: formulate questions to be list of powers and ask for mechanisms that can accomplish powers as opposed to putting mechanisms up; frame questions using how to trigger response (as opposed to yes/no); lawyers need to know what our requirements are so that can advise what empowerment can be implemented. In context of jurisdictional: global survey of jurisdiction can take ages and cost a fortune; changing jurisdiction will make transition impossible: the group needs to decide if these questions are for WS1; Keep jurisdictional issues open: are there any arbitration or international panel can go to for jurisdictional issues, is there a way to get step into resolution with something simpler to begin with; Jurisdiction might be too complicated, keep it simple (recall Board, Independent Appeals mechanism etc). ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 4. F2F meeting - Confirmed for 23-24 March 2015 at Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center. - Agenda will be circulated in time. - Discussing May F2F meeting in coordination with CWG-stewardship leadership. 5. A.O.B The CCWG discussed removal of individual Board members with a note that architecture needs to be revisited if allowing for entire Board or individual Board. Feedback includes: - Current Bylaws allow that Board can dismiss individual board members if CoI. Individual removal might lead to unhealthy environment, create a witch hunt. - Be careful to not penalize whole group if one group is concerned. - Spilling of Board is a nuclear option and disruptive step. We are seeking incremental, implementable ways to challenge Board decision. The community does not have anybody that represents their interest. We need ability to override and challenge decision. - Board members are appointed because they share a mindset if not in line with mindset, should be able to remove this Board member. There is also the case of NomCom appointed members: ability to remove them is needed. Significant consensus among SO/ACs would be needed the member would be removed for serious reasons. On the other hand, removal of entire Board is a whole set of issues (interim etc). - A mechanism is needed for the three above: spilling entire board is not disruptive as long as there is a defined method; spilling an individual Board members is a SG/C decision, not a community decision to make. Recall mechanism within process defined for NomCom would take a lot more time. Vote of non-confidence on the Board or all the other need to be in WS1. - Predictability and stability is important: recall of Board members will undermine predictability/stability. Consider reducing term and don't reelect. - Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community). - We should not allow community removal of one Board member in particular must come from the concerned community.

6 8

Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

All: Here's an email that I recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun Ojedeji noted the Senator's concern with the possible capture of ICANN by foreign governments in the long term, and that a key goal of the transition must be protecting ICANN from any possible capture as it continue to operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by the NTIA. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> All: The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. The full transcript may be found at: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument… (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather forecasting than on IANA) Greg SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT February 26, 2015 Thursday EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE … SHELBY: Senator Langford. LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. PRITZKER: Thank you. LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. PRITZKER: Why? LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American stewardship from the internet? PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and it remains that the internet will remain free and open. The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see for the internet. LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. … KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will have adopted some core key principles about protection from government capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there was any movement towards it. PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a free and open internet. All of those are priorities. We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC All Rights Reserved CQ Transcriptions -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

4 3

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP2 Meeting #1 27 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #1 - 27 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890535 Action (all): Volunteer for subteams. And volunteers to lead! Notes WP2 Call #1 - 27 February 2015 This call is being recorded WP2 documents can be found at: <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+Draft+Documents * In this draft, have takem out things that belong in WP1 and focused on things that are in our remit. * We are looking at mechanisms that are "triggered," not standing mechanisms * We have a list of principles out of Frankfurt --> no comment * Next, is inventory of suggestions (WA1 and WA2 product) * "Changes to Bylaws and Articles" as well as "Mechanism for review of Board or management in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles" could be issues for WP1 but we'll keep for now and make sure to coordinate on work Working Methodology Create different groups * Ombudsman Chris LaHatte Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader * Reconsideration Chris LaHatte David McAuley Robin Gross Need: leader * Independent Review Paul Rosenzweig David McAuley Jonathan Zuck Robin Gross Chris LaHatte Need: leader * New Mechanisms Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader * Standards Robin Gross Paul Rosenzweig Need: leader Volunteers are welcome to work on more than one Ombudsman (Chris) would like to be involved with group working on Ombudsman so that responsilibitiles and abilities of the role are clear Concern about how standards review fits in "triggered" Need for a standard by which to evaluate community empowerment over a Board decision Remember that these issues are cross-cutting --> Get the first bit of work done and then return to the cross-cutting issues Action (all): Volunteer for subteams. And volunteer to lead! 4 more meetings between now and Istanbul Thursday was the day that seems to accommodate most people's schedule (starting time and 8 hour rotation until we get to IST) Monday call is a duplicate call, so there is no need to attend if you were able to make this call

1 0

F2F: Current List of Attendees
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees The CCWG-Accountability will hold a face-to-face meeting in March 2015 to align with its deliverables. Dates: 23-24 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * Approved arrival is Sunday 22 March with departure on Wednesday 25 March. * ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> and the three liaisons in the CCWG: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek, who are the ICG-designated liaisons, and Avri Doria, who is the ATRT Expert. While these three liaisons are participants, they play an essential role in the work of the CCWG, representing related processes that affect, and will be affected, by the output of the CCWG. * The meeting is open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is Monday, 2 March. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. * The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed Members 1. Olga Cavalli (GAC) 2. James Bladel (GNSO) 3. León Sanchez (ALAC) 4. Sébastien Bachollet (ALAC) 5. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC) 6. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 7. Samantha Eisner (Staff Representative) 8. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) 9. Alan Greenberg (ALAC) 10. Pär Brumark (GAC) 11. Alice Munyua (GAC) 12. Steve Del Bianco (GNSO) 13. Becky Burr (GNSO) 14. Thomas Rickert (GNSO) 15. Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) 16. Robin Gross (GNSO) 17. 18. Izumi Okutani (ASO) 19. Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO) 20. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 21. Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 22. Jorge Villa (ASO) Participants/Observers 1. Sabine Meyer (participant) 2. Hubert Schoettner (participant) 3. Greg Shatan (participant) 4. Chris Disspain (participant) 5. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (participant) 6. Erika Mann (participant) 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim (participant) 8. Markus Kummer (participant) 9. Kavouss Arasteh (ICG liaison) 10. Vika Mpisane (participant) 11. Avri Doria (ATRT expert) 12. 13. Thomas Schneider (participant) 14. 15. Finn Petersen (participant) 16. Martin Boyle (participant) 17. Keith Drazek (ICG liaison) Advisors 1. Jan Scholte If you have any questions, please let staff know. --Grace

1 0

Yesterday's Senate Hearing on the IANA Transition
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

For those interested, an archived webcast of the entire hearing may be viewed here: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9> &ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9 The entire event runs a bit more than 2 hours. Cheers 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/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #2 25 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #2 - 25 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889694 Notes 1. Report of activities given on CCWG call - Roelof and Steve walked CCWG through the work conducted. Feedback on AoC reviews merged into Bylaws: - Balance (gender and geographic) and diversity baked into Bylaws - Headcount but believe It should not be limited to one per SO/AC - Sam and Sebastien recommended separate document - Kavouss suggested division of Bylaw -> Concerns about complications this might create. -- Removing Selectors from review process is a sticky point. Need to be prescriptive about Review Team composition to preserve balance and diversity - More robust description of composition is needed. Everyone should have opportunity to participate in these RTs. Agreement that it is not simple a copy and paste - refinement is needed. -- Restructuring Bylaws is a far bigger task - Need to open it up to SGs for diversity -- Issues of representation are complex - GNSO is a mini multistakeholder group -- CCWG Meeting confirmed for 23-24 March to be held in Istanbul - rapporteurs will help design agenda 2. Review of Drafts Section 2 - Non-Triggered Accountability Mechanisms with regard to the AoC and related reviews Note on ATRT review: provision added on termination of review (as deemed necessary), access to documentation, frequency of reviews (5 years as opposed to 3 years) -- Concerns about termination - potential loophole? It is counter to what we are trying to achieve. -- Objective is to empower community -- Note on SSR review: Similar to ATRT - Chair of Board not a member. -- Consider AoC as a whole into account (public interest etc) Note that in Senate Hearing, ICANN CEO said ICANN jurisdiction must remain in the USA. --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template Section 1.A Black Changes to ICANN's Bylaws Questions need our attention Belief that geographical and gender diversity not something we should go explicitly after - not necessary to go into Bylaws - others disagree. Feedback on composition needed. --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template for Section 1.B Board or Management Action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template for Section 1 C Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget Independent review needs to have a standard of review - this mechanism is a veto for budget/strat plan - this demands a super majority rather than a simple majority. It would be extraordinary to block budget. Clarify that independent advice from expert. We would lose multistakeholderism if allow simple majorities - should avoid them unless there is a very good reason. Roelof will change language of draft to super majority. --- Volunteers Wp1-3A - Jordan ACTION ITEM: Jordan will contact Keith Drazek to get update on 5 Wp1-6 - no need to focus on this now (WS) -- A.O.B - Wp2 will have a meeting prior to CCWG meeting in Istanbul on 22 March Potential WP 1 dinner on 22 March - Senate Hearing - recording to be shared - comments invited.

1 0

Fwd: Agenda for WP1 mtg #2 - 25 Feb @ 21.00-22.30 UTC
by Jordan Carter Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Dear CCWG members - fyi. Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 25 February 2015 at 16:29 Subject: Agenda for WP1 mtg #2 - 25 Feb @ 21.00-22.30 UTC To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all, We have our next meeting coming up later today. The agenda below is based on our work plan ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v…) which said that at this meeting we would: - Review all drafts and amend/improve through discussion - Agree any updates to Work Plan - Reallocate volunteers if required to complete work on time Accordingly here are the items for the agenda: *1. Update from CCWG* We can discuss anything that came up at the CCWG call we need to share with the group. Many of us participated in that call. *2. Discussion of current drafts* So far templates have been prepared or content developed in a few of our powers/mechanisms, and we should get the drafters to present these for discussion - and they can share the feedback from the CCWG call too. To prepare, please *review* the documents and be ready to discuss them - they are linked on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents If you have some draft content not linked on the wiki, *please* circulate it on the list so we all have it, and staff will add it on the wiki ASAP. My general approach is that we shouldn't discuss documents that are circulated under 8hrs before a call, but we can discuss that if required at the call. This will be the main item for our call. We'll have to have it done by about 21.50 to make sure we have time to finish the rest. *3. Review the Work Plan* The work plan is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v… >From my point of view, I did not convene the group of volunteer editors for which I apologise. Two changes to propose to the Work Plan: - between now and the end of the weekend maybe we should focus on getting draft text ready in the powers/mechanisms not yet covered. T - the editorial group should make some suggestions to all docs available by say Sunday if these can improve them too, in time for people to look at by next Monday. Are there any other changes to suggest? *4. Volunteers* Thank you to those who have been already doing work for this Working Party. Are there any new volunteers who can commit some time in the next few days? If you can help please volunteer by return email or on the call. *5. Any Other Business* Thanks all and speak with you soon. bests Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Update on IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Please see the original links here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-02-24 -en https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion-24-feb ruary-2015 ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANAStewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe. An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions ICANN 52 During ICANN 52 <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> in Singapore, between 6 and 12 February, more than 41 hours were spent on discussions around the IANA stewardship transition and related ICANN accountability processes. The discussions consisted of: * Community-wide information and question and answer sessions * Public working sessions by: > * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://ianacg.org/> ) > * Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG Stewardship > <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN… > Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) > * Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG > Accountability > <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A… > ountability> ). * Stakeholder-specific discussions within individual Supporting Organizations, including many of the component constituencies of the GNSO, and within the Advisory Committees. The community-wide sessions provided online participation mechanisms and were webcast and transcribed live. Transcripts and audio of all sessions, including those not transcribed live, are nowavailable online <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/materials> . The following is a summary of transition and accountability-related discussions atICANN 52. Clarifications from NTIA: * NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> reiterated that although the current IANA contract expires 30 September 2015, that is not a deadline for the transition but a target date. The transition can occur whenever the multistakeholder community develops a plan both it and NTIA can accept. * NTIA expects a single proposal for the IANA stewardship transition. * NTIA does not expect any dissenting opinions to accompany the final proposal. * NTIA expects the IANA-related accountability mechanisms being developed through Work Stream 1 of CCWG Accountability to be submitted at the same time as the ICG proposal. * Although the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT91668/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT91668.pdf> [PDF, 3.44 MB] prohibits NTIA from spending any money to relinquish the contract through 30 September 2015, this does not prevent the NTIA from providing informal feedback when asked questions by the community nor does it prevent the community's ability to continue developing a proposal for the transition. Key ICG updates and discussions: * The ICG discussed the progress of the review of the protocol parameters and numbers community proposals the group had received, resolving <https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resol ved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0> a number of questions ICG members had had about both proposals. There was discussion about how to handle public comments on the names proposal, once submitted, due to concerns that the proposal could attract significant numbers of public comments and that it might not be practical to forward each individual comment to the CWG Stewardship for its consideration. * There were discussions about the effect that the extended timeline for the CWG Stewardship proposal would have on the ICG's final proposal, with agreement to review the ICG's current timeline based on more detailed review of the work that can be completed independent of the names proposal. It was noted that, as many members of the ICG were following the CWG Stewardship work, much of the ICG's work on the names proposal could take place before the final CWG proposal was formally delivered to the ICG. CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability: * The two groups confirmed they were planning to use the same legal counsel for advice on the legal viability of proposal ideas under discussion. Although ICANN would pay for the legal advice, the clients would be the CWG and CCWG, not ICANN. * Recognizing the interdependent and interrelated nature of the two groups, the Chairs of both groups are also in regular contact to ensure close coordination between the two processes. Key CWG Stewardship updates and discussions: * A final version of a Discussion Document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> [PDF, 447 KB] was published on 3 February to bring the wider community up to date on its work and encourage further community input. * The CWG Stewardship explained that the reasons the names component of the IANA stewardship proposal was taking longer than the numbers and protocol parameters components was due to the complexity of the names communities. CWG members were meeting very regularly – sometimes daily – to progress the work of the group. * The CWG Stewardship clarified that although there were still significant differences of opinion about the two main models on the table – "external" trust (oversight of IANA exists outside ICANN) versus "internal" trust (ICANN performs IANA stewardship function, with possibly a "golden bylaw" to ensure ICANN can be held accountable to community) – the vast majority of issues under discussion in the CWG were enjoying significant consensus. The CWG hoped that after it received legal advice on the external and internal options under discussion, some of the current proposal options could be found to be unviable and reduce the number of options from which the CWG needed to choose. Key CCWG Accountability updates and discussions: * Work Stream 1, which is examining the accountability mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA stewardship transition, has formed two Working Parties (WP): WP 1 is examining how the community can be empowered to hold the ICANN Board accountable while WP 2 is examining possible review and redress processes. There was a suggestion to clarify which accountability mechanisms in Work Stream 1 were "triggered" (by a specific action or non-action by ICANN) or "non-triggered" (part of regular ICANN processes). Governmental Advisory Committee: * In its Singapore Communiqué <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMM UNIQUE_FINAL2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423724031000&api=v2> [PDF, 113 KB], the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee(GAC <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee> ) committed to continue working with the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability both through individual GAC members and through the designated GAC representatives to both groups. The GAC also noted that the IANA stewardship process would have the highest priority for the GAC's intersessional work in the lead-up to ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> in Buenos Aires. More detailed information about post-ICANN 52 work in the ICG, CWG-Stewardship, and CCWG-Accountability will follow in the next update. Updates on other transition-related activities 1. ICANN Board 2. On 12 February, a short statement from the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en> was published. The key section of the statement is included below: > 3. "ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals [from the ICG and CCWG > Accountability] at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, > we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have > previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying > communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with > the community during the development of the proposals. […] With respect to > improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements." 4. 5. Internet Society (ISOC) 6. At its 15 February meeting <http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-board-trustees-encoura ges-continued-trust-multistakeholder-process-iana> , the ISOC Board stressed that "successful transition will reinforce the value of the collaborative, multistakeholder model", with the Board Chair noting that the process "is a true reflection of the power of the multistakeholder approach to bring parties together to solve complex problems". 7. 8. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 9. During the ITU's Member States-only Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet <http://www.itu.int/council/groups/CWG-internet/index.html> ), 2-3 February, one Member State proposed including theIANA stewardship transition as a topic for open consultations preceding the CWG-Internet's next meeting in October, with the aim of CWG-Internet providing input into the IANA stewardship process. There was support from some States at the meeting to hold such a consultation while others were opposed. Therefore, the topic will not proceed to public consultation. However, supporting States indicated they might suggest the IANA stewardship transition as a topic again at the October meeting for the CWG-Internet's subsequent open consultation. Upcoming key dates 24 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #23 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability meeting #14 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 19:00-21:00 UTC 25 Feb 2015ICG Call #12 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003106.html> , 4:00-5:30 UTC Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35 -56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&Y earDisplay=2015> – US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation hearing on IANAstewardship, 15:00 UTC 26 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #24 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 3 Mar 2015CCWG-Accountability meeting #15 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 12:00-14:00 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #25 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 4 Mar 2015Update on the IANA Stewardship Transition Process <http://www.internetsociety.org/ianaxfer> – ISOC webinar 14:00 UTC 5 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #26 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 23-24 Mar 2015 CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face meeting. Details to be confirmed. 26-27 Mar 2015 CWG-Stewardship Face-to-Face meeting. Details to be confirmed. Latest documents and drafts 12 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889466> 18 Feb 2015Feedback collected from ICANN 52 for review & analysis by CWG Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CollectedFeedback fromICANN52.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1424306998000&api=v2> [DOCX, 40 KB] CWG-Stewardship timeline <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150219/0e71f1df/CWG -Stewardship-ProjPlan-20150218-0001.pdf> [PDF, 243 KB] 21 Feb 2015ICG summary of internally resolved questions regarding the protocol parameters & numbers proposals <https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resol ved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0> IANA stewardship in the news Feb 2015ДО СИХ ПОР НЕЯСНА БУДУЩАЯ АРХИТЕКТУРА КОНТРОЛЯ НАД ФУНКЦИЯМИ IANA <http://pircenter.org/media/content/files/13/14243433340.pdf> [PDF, 388 KB], PIR Center [RU] 10 Feb 2015ICANN 52: Where does the IANA transition and Internet governance go from here?, <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/icann-52-where-does-the-iana-t ransition-and-internet-governance-go-from-here-i/> National Law University Delhi [EN] 10 Feb 2015The last third: Why the IANA transition for names is hard <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/02/10/the-last-third-why-the-iana-tr ansition-for-names-is-hard/> , Internet Governance Project [EN] 13 Feb 2015ICANN-Tagung: Experten fordern von den USA unabhängige IANA <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ICANN-Tagung-Experten-fordern-von-de n-USA-unabhaengige-IANA-2548976.html> , Heise Online [DE] 20 Feb 2015ICANN 52 reflection <https://internetnz.nz/blog/icann-52-reflection> , InternetNZ [EN] You can play a role in IANA's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org. This update can also be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-02-24 -en Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 23 February 2015

1 0

Another Stress Test to discuss
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Per a request from Adam Peake, we applied another of our stress tests against the draft package of proposed accountability measures. This is for stress test #17, shown below and on page 2 of the attached document. Stress Test: #17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. Consequence: DNS security and stability could be undermined, and ICANN actions could impose costs and risks upon external parties. Existing Accountability Measures: In 2013-14 the community demonstrated that it could eventually prod ICANN management to attend to risks identified by SSAC (security certificates and name collisions such as .mail, .home, etc.). NTIA presently gives clerical approval for each delegation to indicate that ICANN has followed its processes. NTIA could delay a delegation if its finds that ICANN has not followed its processes. Not clear if that would/could have been a finding if ICANN attempted to delegate a new TLD such as .mail or .home CCWG Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is to empower the community to force ICANN’s board to implement a recommendation arising from an AoC Review – namely, 9.2 Review of Security, Stability, and Resiliency. Another possibility is to empower the community to force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory committees like as SSAC. If the board took a decision to reject or only partially accept SSAC recommendations, the community could be empowered to challenge that board decision and/or refer to IRP. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is partially related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures were adequate to mitigate the risks of this scenario. Proposed measures enhance community’s power to mitigate the risks of this scenario.

1 0