February 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Feedback from GAC session
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Dear Colleagues, This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it. FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place. > Inputs from GAC room : > -Argentina (Olga) : > current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more > engagement outside, especially in Latin America. > also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. > This will be a sensitive issue for GAC > > - Spain: > When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond > US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. > Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, > independent, affordable > > - France : > Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports > the principles. > Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight > > - Brazil : > Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. > Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. > Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be > very sensitive for them. > > - Germany : > Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines. > > I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with > input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

4 5

FW: ICYMI: Goodlatte & Grassley Op-ed -- Ensuring Trust in Internet Governance
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Colleagues The below may be of interest. The authors are chairmen of two of the four committees of Congress with the most direct interest in the IANA transition Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key February 11, 2015 Ensuring Trust in Internet Governance By Representative Bob Goodlatte & Senator Chuck Grassley This week in Singapore, important decisions are being made about the future of the Internet at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 52 conference. At stake are fundamental questions: Should the American people surrender stewardship over core technical functions that have preserved the open and neutral operation of the Internet since its inception? Should the Obama Administration cede this authority to an organization many consider to be non-transparent, unaccountable and insular? If the administration insists on a transfer, what guarantees, capabilities and conditions first should be demanded and stress-tested by the global multi-stakeholder community? This discussion began with the surprise announcement by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Department of Commerce, which asked ICANN to develop a proposal to transition NTIA's role as "the historic steward of the Domain Name System (DNS)." The announcement came as a shock to many who follow Internet governance issues and others who depend upon the Internet to communicate freely or conduct commerce around the world. Indeed, NTIA's announcement appeared to directly contravene long-standing positions of both the legislative and executive branches that the United States should retain its stewardship in overseeing the management of the Internet for the benefit of users worldwide. Since this announcement, the administration's process and the factors it weighed preceding this decision have not been fully disclosed. However, evidence suggests that the proposal to transition the responsibility for administering changes to all top-level domains, as well as serving as the historic guarantor of the DNS, was dictated not by technical considerations but rather in response to political motives. Moreover, questions persist as to whether the Obama Administration had the authority to commence such a transition without congressional oversight and approval in the first place. In its original press release and subsequent communications, NTIA referred to two congressional resolutions, S.Con.Res.50 and H.Con.Res.127, which were passed by the 112th Congress. These resolutions affirmed House and Senate opposition to attempts by foreign governments and inter-governmental organizations to assume control over the Internet and generally endorsed the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. These resolutions were specifically intended to signal U.S. opposition to efforts by other nations to enlist the United Nations and empower the International Telecommunications Union as the global regulator of the Internet. However, neither resolution mentioned ICANN, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions that NTIA now proposes to transfer oversight over, or contained a suggestion, explicit or otherwise, that the United States should contemplate surrendering stewardship over the administration of these critical functions to ICANN or any other entity. In fact, two other resolutions passed in 2005, H.Con.Res.268 and S.Res.323, affirmed that operation and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing system should remain under the oversight of the United States. The administration's practice of playing fast and loose with clear statements of Congressional intent is not the way to inspire confidence, build support or work towards achieving consensus. Serious questions remain about the wisdom of ceding this authority, as well as the specifics of any transition. Our committees have been conducting oversight of ICANN and we will continue to closely examine the processes of the United States government and ICANN as these transition discussions continue. We welcome NTIA Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Larry Strickling's recent acknowledgements that there are no hard and fast deadlines for completing this process. If the administration is determined to give up oversight of ICANN and the IANA contract, permanent improvements to ICANN's accountability and transparency are critical to building public and congressional trust for any proposed transition. Any consideration of such a transition must be done carefully and in close coordination with Congress, rather than in a unilateral way. Further, we encourage members of the public and the many constituencies with interests in this process to make their voices and concerns heard. We also encourage ICANN to ensure that whatever results from this process shows that the outcome emanated from a true bottom-up multi-stakeholder process and was neither imposed on nor unduly influenced by ICANN's leaders, staff, or members of its board. The U.S. has served as a critical and responsible backstop against censorship and threats to openness and free speech on the Internet. As a result, the Internet has thrived. We must ensure that these principles remain intact for all Internet users across the globe. The future of the Internet as a medium for free speech, the flow of ideas and global commerce is at stake, and must be protected. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150211_ensuring_trust_in_internet_governance /

2 1

OP-Ed from the Hill
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Some food for thought from an internal discussion within my company, where the Transition and the CCWG work enjoy serious attention. Read, in true ICANN manner from the bottom up. el > Again it gets down to "the way they are going about it". As I've said many times, ICANN has serious deficiencies with its internal capacity. There are too many people there lacking the skills to successfully negotiate this transition. That's why we get the confusions just experienced in Singapore with for example the accountability framework working group. There is no clear message and too many people being Chiefs when they should be toeing the party line. > > [...] > >> On Feb 13, 2015, at 09:39, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: >> >> They are staking their territory early. >> >> I don't see it happen by September, if at all, myself. And most certainly not the way we are going about it. >> >> el >> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 01:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>> Colleagues >>> >>> The below may be of interest. The authors are chairmen of two of the four committees of Congress with the most direct interest in the IANA transition >>> >>> >>> Paul >>> [...] -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

1 0

Fwd: New ASO appointment to CCWG
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please join me in welcoming Jorge Villa, who joins us as a member representing ASO. Welcome to our group Jorge ! Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : New ASO appointment to CCWG Date : Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:26:44 +1000 De : German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> Pour : Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Copie à : ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net>, Axel Pawlik <axel.pawlik(a)ripe.net>, Jorge Villa <villa(a)reduniv.edu.cu>, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp>, Fiona Asonga <fasonga(a)kixp.or.ke>, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> Dear Thomas, Mathieu and Leon cc: Louie Lee - ASO AC Chair cc: Axel Pawlik - NRO EC Chair I'd like to confirm to you the selection of Jorge Villa, ASO AC member from Latin America, to become the 4th member of the ASO representatives in ICANN CCWG. May I request to help Jorge to join the CCWG discussions at your earliest convenience. Kind Regards German Valdez NRO Executive Secretary

4 3

Fwd: statement Steve Crocker
by Jordan Carter Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *WUKnoben* <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de');>> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2015 Subject: statement Steve Crocker To: Cooper Elisa <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com');>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marilynscade(a)hotmail.com');>>, Metalitz Steve <met(a)msk.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','met(a)msk.com');>>, Smith Tim < tim.smith(a)ciparx.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tim.smith(a)ciparx.ca');>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com');>>, Christian Dawson <dawson(a)i2coalition.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dawson(a)i2coalition.com');>>, Graves Angie < angie(a)webgroup.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','angie(a)webgroup.com');>>, MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maem(a)nic.ad.jp');>>, "Shatan Gregory S." < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>>, Sridhar Aparna < aparnasridhar(a)google.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aparnasridhar(a)google.com');>> Please find here the statement as read. We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals 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. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. It will also be posted Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #12 12 February/Singapore
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #12 call on 12 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188 Action Items * ACTION: to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors * ACTION: Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki * ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? * ACTION: for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving ICANN's variable fees and amend the stress test example Notes Notes CCWG meeting #12 (Thursday, 12 February, Singapore) Item 1. Welcome, roll call & SOI No updates Item 2. Input received during the week ASO. Discussed with the NRO AC. 1. any proposed solution should not be a delaying factor for IANA trans 2. simple with minimal change 3. not interfere wont the IANA number function 4. not interfere with the consensus based decision of the operational community ALAC no formal discussion. Pleasure speed of work. AFRALO statement (Aziz Hilali) (see CCWG meeting #12 page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188) Accountability mechanisms should be 1. based on MS approach including genre and other diversity 2. must be implemented once adopted 3. avoid bringing ore changes to the organization 4. preserve the MS modeled, make sure the community remains accountable 5. no prove of one party of anther 6. preserve the security and stability of the Internet LAC RALO * Must be mindful of cost * Mindful of not creating excess bureaucracy GAC. From Communique < <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COM> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMM…> 1. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to develop the proposals for enhancing ICANN¹s accountability, with reporting back to the GAC and guidance on major issues from the GAC as a whole; 2. The GAC will work to identify particular issues for governments as both individual or collective participants in any new or enhanced mechanisms; 3. The next stage of the GAC input to relevant work streams will include public policy principles that could guide development of any new or enhanced accountability mechanisms; 4. The GAC will contribute to the work of the CCWG towards a consensus proposal for submission to the ICANN Board. Both processes will have the highest priority for GAC inter-sessional work, the GAC being mindful of the updated timeline." ccNSO CCWG ccNSO members engaged in an information session. Some concerns raised, not necessarily a position of the ccNSO: 1. need for complicity and not adding complexity 2. risk of adding bureaucracy and paralyze ICANN 3. case where ICANN might relegate a ccTLD outside policy 4. need for coord with the CWG 5. one member expressed the view that the CCWG was in wrong direction, and shield reconsider its approach * CCWH co-chairs engagement with the 2 advisors here Jan Scholte and Ira Magaziner. need for simplicity, that the outcome will be widely read and so needs be easily understandable * inclusiveness of the ICANN model should be on our radar as a key goal. * Legal contingencies, * Financial contingencies Input on the scoping document from Jan Scholte, Willie Currie and Nell Minow ACTION: to update the scoping document to reflect input from expert advisors GNSO briefing - Engagement session Feedback suggests CCWG in control and asking the right questions Input (ICANN Fellow) keep accountability procedures and improvements as simple as possible. How to create simple and precise accountability procedures. Canadian remote hub: include recommendations from the At Large Summit, London ICANN meeting (this has been done) - Other sessions Item 3. WP1 / WP2 way forward New slide deck on working process (see CCWG Meeting #12 page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233188) To explain how the work of the group was sticking together There is a difference between doing something simple and doing something simplistic Principle and bylaws: there are some things that won't fit in the bylaws. The process presented is consistent with the messages from the community which were strongly in favor of simple clear processes. And appreciated the graphic representation. Concern that it was rapidly moving in the direction of a solution A skeleton to enable the minimal changes we need to move forward GAC. Presentation triggers a few questions: What is the role of governments in all this. And underline the importance of inclusiveness. Presents a clear story of what we are doing About feedback. To archive simplicity might not mean making minimal changes. More effective mechanisms might mean a significant program of change to leave the organization better off. Care that not everything may fit in the boxes, it is a story-telling tool, and not prejudge ongoing work. Contacts are the only truly binding acc models to date and not captured in the diagram. Chairs' intention was to guide you through the presentation Not just bylaws buy bylaws policies contracts. Not just about splining the board. Escalation only if all other fails. Role of governments, not included as proscriptive to single out any particular stakeholder. Suggestions on how to organize our work: Based on the straw man document. ACTION: Take the input of WP1 straw man and adding to wiki Refer to standard rather than principles. Creating and normative statement of how we want the community to inter-related. WS1 is before the transition, WP1 and WP2 may need to disappear and wrap the work into the new recipe and templates. Start work early on mechanisms on how the community empowered. A consistent community structure that exercises these powers, ensure consistency in structures. Item 4. Legal group update Legal sub-group met, Robin Gross holding the pen to draft the first scoping document on questions for external legal advice Item 5. WP-ST progress review of the 5 stress test examples Examples: Test 14. Termination of the AoC by ICANN or NTIA. ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? Test 16. Does ICANN engage in programs that go beyond ICANN's narrow mission. A non-trigger action might be to reject that part of the budget. Or, a trigger action to prevent an action. And would require a bylaws amendment. ACTION: are the existing remedies adequate to support this stress test? ACTION: for test 16, for the group to consider the positions in the assessment, the rapporteurs to note that the mechanisms for approving ICANN's variable fees and amend the stress test example. Test 22. ICANN Board fails to comply with the bylaws. How does the community react to Board inaction. For example if IANA is not functioning, and the Board is not taking action, what is the remedy? 6. Timeline Update on the next call 7. Next steps F2F Information in a few days, coordination call with the CWG chairs. Communication 8. AOB None 9. Closing remarks

1 0

Slides/Graphics - Meeting #12
by Alice Jansen Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Dear all, Graphics/slides are attached to this email and may also be found here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52233188/CCWG_Graphics_150…>. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #11 9 February/Singapore
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #11 call on 09 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233184 Action Items 1. Work Party 1 and Work Party 2 rapporteurs to work on a proposal, in coordination with the WPs, on potential consolidation of streams or clarifications of work. 2. Legal sub-group to follow-up with legal counsel (JD) on there. 3. The Board Governance Committee is interested to know from CCWG if it is considering significant changes to the IRP and use of the panel, and it worth continuing down the path of creating a permanent panel. Notes 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI * No participants on the call 2. Interactions with CWG - update by Lise & Jonathan * A discussion document and slides available from the CWG Stewardship wiki: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404 * Focus on RfP3 which is the post transition work. With the goal of producing one model. * The goal is for the needs of the CWG in terms of accountability mechanisms are known to the CCWG * CWG asked questions on five issues: (1) Budget Accountability and Transparency. (2) Accountability for (re)delegations (3) Independent Review of Board Actions (4) Independent Appeals Panel (5) Control over ICANN Board decisions. Budget: * IANA costs are difficult to understand, including the ICANN overhead and how much is spent on serving other communities. * Reply to CWG of Jan 28 available on the CCWG wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Acco… > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Acco… Accountability for (re)delegations * Revised email of Feb 3. <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/…> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/… * CWG: response appears to meet the need. Independent Review of Board Actions * The CCWG response is in tune with the CWG needs and approach. * CCWG expects to provide some independent review mechanisms. Would be helpful standard of expect behavior in beginning an appeals process. * CWG to be specific and detailed. * Examples: service level agreements not being fulfilled. Keeping to procedure. 3 Legal advice update * CCWG meeting in Frankfurt developed some initial framing questions. Response from Jones Day. Not, to be seen as the external legal advice the group will seek, but informal to help the CCW G legal sub-group develop the scoping document for external advice. * Jones Day response available from the CCWG mail archive <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/…> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/… * CWG legal scoping document: * Type of counsel and type of legal expertise to respond to the types of questions arising from the CWG proposal. * Tight timeline - develop scoping document/questions by the end of February, and it is hoped the CCWG will be able to use the same firm as CWG, also end February. With expectation for response by the end of March, at the latest. * Noted that there was no disagreement to engaging with the same firm for external legal advice as CWG. * ICANN is committed to support the CCWG and will support outside expert legal advice. The engagement should be managed in a cost efficient way. 4 Update WP1 - Jordan Carter * Scope powers and mechanisms * Powers: the things the community should be able to do. * Mechanisms: ways to exercise those powers 5. Update WP2 - Becky Burr * Standard for review, redress and empowerment 1. An articulation of ICANN's mission that is actionable 2. Present and consider ICANN core values 3. Mandates: nondiscriminatory treatment, transparency, operational excellence, fiscal responsibility, avoid capture * To develop a clearly articulated standard against which ICANN's behavior can be evaluated. And the start of a roadmap to the bylaws changes that may be needed. * Suggested that the review and redress group would look at existing mechanisms and the empowerment group to look at new mechanisms. * Frankfurt Mindmap: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requi…> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requi… 6. Update WP Stress tests * Rolled up the inventory of stress tests to a consolidated group to be applied to mechanisms proposed. * This exercise will be undertaken for all 25 stress tests. * examples: The consequences of canceling the AoC, including the conduct of community reviews: community mechanisms to challenge to a board decision bring the AoC into the bylaws board attempt to remove the AoC from the bylaws: community veto of bylaws change Directly related to the transition * Financial Crisis or Insolvency * Domain industry financial crisis, reduced revenues, threaten ICANN's ability to operate. Not directly related to the transition. Board and management could make dramatic cuts, but the community has no opportunity to comment and react. * A reserve fund could be used for some period of time. Community veto, community challenge to Board's decision. Some helpful existing and proposed mechanisms. But they do not go far enough. END

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document
by Samantha Eisner Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

In terms of monetary awards, David, is this a suggestion to reform the IRP to include monetary awards (aside from costs/fees currently allowed?). This would be inherently tied to any expansions of the types of relief that an independent panel could provide (e.g., are they declaring that there was an issue with the decision, or directing a different outcome, etc.) Sam From: <Burr>, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:56 PM To: David McAuley <dmcauley(a)verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document Thanks David, this is helpful. I'm not opposed to binding, just not convinced it is absolutely required J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <McAuley>, David <dmcauley(a)verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document Thanks Becky, Given the fluidity of the situation, I am responding in my personal capacity in order to reply somewhat timely, not having yet had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues. Concerning substantive and procedural requirements near the top of the document, I would say that with respect to the IRP and to some extent Reconsideration Requests (RRs) it would be good to add consideration of: · Monetary award limitations (e.g., a prohibition on any money damages other than direct damages); · Some limited discovery rights (beyond the present ICANN document review policy) to interview witnesses and review documents; and · The precedential nature, or not, of IRP decisions (maybe including on RRs as well as IRPs). The one substantive thing I would like to comment on concerns the word "binding." It seems from our conversation yesterday that you might have a concern with the notion of binding independent review power. I remain of the view that the IRP (or some reviewing body) must have the power to take a decision that has teeth. At the end of the day, we are looking for a check on ICANN given the absence of NTIA. It seems clear that some entity other than ICANN should have the final (well defined and limited) power to act as a backstop. David McAuley From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:55 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

2 2

AGENDA - Meeting # 12 - 12 Feb 15
by Alice Jansen Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Hi everyone, In preparation for your meeting # 12 - Thursday, 12 February at 23:00 (11/02) - 02:00 UTC // 07:00-10:00 SGT - please find below the proposed meeting agenda: Proposed agenda 1. Welcome, roll call & SOI 2. Input received during the week - Engagement session - Other sessions 3. WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…> / WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress> way forward 4. Legal group<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> update 5. WP-ST<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…> progress - review of the 5 stress test examples 6. Timeline<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/ICG-CWG-CCWG_time…> 7. Next steps - F2F - Communication 8. AOB 9. Closing remarks The meeting will take place in the Padang meeting room. Breakfast will be served. The link to the virtual meeting room is as follows: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/sin52-padang Kindly refer to the calendar invite for call details. Language services are also available - see here<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> for details. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0