February 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

ARTICLE OF INTEREST .ram, Chrysler and India
by Carrie Devorah Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/domain-names-politics-chrysler-migh… Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 Founder THE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHTS INTEGRITY www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com Where ARTS, IP, ID, IT and ENFORCEMENT Come Together In One Voice Against Online Theft Of Content and Commerce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I93F73UYmsw&feature=youtu.be CCIA : Profiler : trained MPI : LACBA-DRS : CA-BSIS Actively built the 1st discrete site crime analysis lab on a campus in North America *COFFEE @ CLOCKERs "A Sense Of Place"* Licensor http://ybltv.com/?p=306 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 18 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #1 18 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889645 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Jordan to touch base with Becky to OK lists ACTION ITEM: Jordan to discuss with coChairs and WP2 ACTION ITEM: Volunteers to provide input on how templates work ACTION ITEM: Staff to put template into google doc ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate Wiki tutorials to CCWG Notes 1. Scope of this Working Party, WP1 Triggered / Non-triggered were suggested by CoChairs in Singapore. WP1 is non-triggered group WP1-WP2 coordination needed on triggered / non-triggered Move AoC reviews to Bylaws to make them non-triggered Triggered by whom? events, individuals ACTION ITEM Jordan to touch base with Becky to OK lists 2. Work Plan and Working Methods Volunteers needed to populate templates Powers and mechanisms are different - distinction needs to be described - suggestion to have name of the power listed in title, instead of mechanism ACTION ITEM Jordan to discuss with coChairs and WP2 Flexibility in filling out templates - not requirement to have all of the sections filled out VOLUNTEERS Roelof - 1 A,B,C Steve - 2 A,B,C,E Matthew - 2 A,B,C,D,E & 5A Fiona - 2 A,B,C,D,E Keith - Jonathan - Editor Keith - 5 A,B Kavouss - 2A,B,C 5B-2 ACTION ITEM Volunteers to provide input on how templates work ACTION ITEM Staff to put template into google doc ACTION: Staff to circulate Wiki tutorials to CCWG END Best regards, Brenda

4 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Mr R.T. Daniel Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi,IamnotsureigetthedistinctionaboutICANNbeingprivateorganisation,doesitmeanthereisalsoproblemwithallRIRthataresetupasanot-for-profitorganisationlikeICANN.Ithinkthefactorsyouindicateaselementsofmultistakeholderismareadequatelycoveredwithinthepublicinterestphrase.Whatmattersmostforanon-legalindividuallikemeisthatialwayshavetheopportunitytoparticipateinthepolicydevelopmentprocessthatwoulddeterminehowigetservedbyICANN.Solongasigetthat,myrightsarecoveredandmultistakeholderismwillbefelttobeinaction.Regards OnThu,Feb19,2015at5:16PM,RobinGrossrobin@ipjustice.orgwrote:TheproblemisthatICANNisaprivatecorporationanditisengaginginpublicgovernancefunctions. Thequasipublic-privatestructurecreatesachallengebecauseifitwereatraditionalgovernment,itwouldberequiredtorespecthumanrightsintheperformanceofpublicgovernancefunctions,andsomearguethatbecauseitisaprivatecorporationithasnoobligationtorespectrights(yearsagoICANNslawyersarguedinthexxxcasethat,asacontracteetotheUSGovt,itwasobligatedtoprotectfreeexpression). Sothetraditionalframeworkbreaksdownbecausewevegotaprivatecorporationundertakingpublicgovernancefunctions,butwithoutthetraditionalprotections(respectinghumanrights)intheperformanceofthosepublicfunctions. Ifthisholeisnotplugged,themulti-stakeholdermodelisinadequateforInternetgovernance. Out-sourcingpublicgovernancefunctionstoprivatecorporationsisfine,solongaswedontlosetheprotectionsaffordedbypublicgovernanceinstitutions. IfthereisnodutytoprotectfreeexpressionandprivacybythoseorganizationswhosetpoliciesgoverningtheInternet,wevetakenastep-backwardwithmulti-stakholderism,althoughitisnottoolatetofix. Atitscore,whatImarguinghereisthatICANNshouldrespectfreespeech,privacy,anddueprocessrightsinitscarryingoutofitspublicgovernancefunctions,sowhenICANNmakesapolicy,itdoesntderogatefromthefundamentalrightsaffordedtoInternetusersintraditionalgovernanceinstitutions. IfICANNwantstoengageinpublicgovernancefunctions,itmustacceptpublicgovernanceresponsibilities.Best,RobinOnFeb18,2015,at4:36PM,GregShatanwrote:Carlos:Nobodysreducinganything.Firstoff,theFirstAmendmentisreallyirrelevanttothisdiscussion,aswonderfulasitis. Itpreventsthefederal governmentfrommakinglawsabridgingfreedomofspeech,freedomofthepress,freedomofassemblyorrespectinganestablishmentofreligion. WearenottalkingaboutactionsoftheU.S.governmenthere,andICANNhasneverbeenconsideredapartoftheU.S.government. TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotapplytoprivateentities. SotheFirstAmendmentreallyhasnothingtodowiththisconversation,otherthantoconfuseit.ICANN,asaprivateentity,hasneverbeensubjecttotheFirstAmendment,sonothingschanginginthatregard. Furthermore,itsinaccurate,misleadingandunhelpfultorefertothisasaprivatization. TheprivatizationoftheInternet,ifsuchathingcaneverbesaidtohaveoccurred,occurreddecadesago. ThestewardshipoftheUSgovernment,whilebroaderthantheIANAFunctionsthatareatthecoreofthatstewardship,neverextendedinanywaytoapplyingFirstAmendmentprotectionsorprohibitionstoICANNsaction,muchlessmakingICANNanarmofthestate.Also,nothingschangingwithregardtoICANNsobligationtoperforminthepublicinterest. ICANNspublicinterestobligationsdomakeitdifferentfromprivatefor-profitentities. AdoptingaCorporateSocialResponsibilityprogramandpolicywouldnotinanywaydiminishorreplaceICANNspublicinterestobligations. Rather,CSRpolicieswouldcomplementandactasa(non-exclusive)manifestationofICANNscommitmenttothepublicinterest. A

5 5

United States Senate Hearings on "Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance"
by Greg Shatan Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Hearings have now been announced for February 25. Those announced as testifying are Fadi Chehade, Larry Strickling and David Gross (partner in the law firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding and ex-Department of State). http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id… Greg Shatan

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Edward Morris Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad > On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > > Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. > > The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] > Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 > À : Tijani BEN JEMAA > Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 > > Yes, I made this suggestion. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > > Dear Adam, > > I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. > > Tijani > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 > À : Accountability Cross Community > Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 > > Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > > > <~WRD000.jpg> > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

21 37

FW: NTIA blog post: Stakeholders Continue Historic Work on Internet DNS Transition at ICANN Singapore Meeting
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

See below for NTIA take on ICANN52 Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: Joelle Tessler [mailto:JTessler@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:46 AM To: Joelle Tessler Subject: NTIA blog post: Stakeholders Continue Historic Work on Internet DNS Transition at ICANN Singapore Meeting Stakeholders Continue Historic Work on Internet DNS Transition at ICANN Singapore Meeting February 19, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholders-continue-historic-work-intern et-dns-transition-icann-singapore-meeting Last week, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held its 52nd meeting in Singapore, where the global multistakeholder community continued progress on a proposal to transition the United States role related to the Internet Domain Name System. I was pleased to see the amount of energy and professionalism exhibited by the nearly 1800 participants at the ICANN meeting. The Internet's stakeholders are driving this transition and are demonstrating that businesses, technical experts, and civil society groups are best equipped to set the future direction of the Internet. Under this multistakeholder model, no one party can control the Internet or impose its will. And that's what's enabled the Internet to flourish and evolve into this global medium that has torn down barriers to free speech and fueled economic growth and innovation. It is so important that we get this transition right. If it doesn't take place, we will embolden authoritarian regimes to seek greater government control of the Internet or to threaten to fragment the Internet, which would result in a global patchwork of regulations and rules that stifle the free flow of information. Now that we are nearing the one-year anniversary of our announcement, it is important to take stock of where this transition process stands. Stakeholders have organized two major work streams to develop the overall plan: one group is focused on the specifics of the IANA functions and the second is addressing questions of the overall accountability of ICANN to the global community of Internet stakeholders. In the first track, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), representing more than a dozen Internet stakeholder communities, is developing proposals for each of the three primary IANA functions - protocol parameters, numbering, and domain names. Two of the three stakeholder groups have already finished their draft proposals: the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, and the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which worked collaboratively in developing the numbering proposal. The third group, the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on the naming related functions, continues to deliberate on how best to assure effective and accountable oversight of these naming functions in NTIA's absence. Once a consolidated proposal has achieved broad community support, the ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA. In the second track, stakeholders are working on a proposal to enhance ICANN's accountability to the global Internet community in the absence of the contractual relationship with NTIA. While it started later than the IANA transition process, the Accountability working group is making considerable progress. It's important that the two tracks remain in sync. We will only consider a coordinated and complete transition plan. While in Singapore, I participated in meetings and discussions with ICANN, other governments and the stakeholder community with respect to the transition. NTIA also continued to represent the U. S. at the meetings of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee. In these discussions, I posed several questions for stakeholders to consider. I want to ensure that any proposal developed by the stakeholder community meets the conditions NTIA outlined last March, including: supporting and enhancing the multistakeholder model; maintaining the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System; meeting the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintaining the openness of the Internet. In addition, I want to ensure that our role is not replaced by a government or intergovernmental organization. As both groups continue their work, any new process proposed must be tested to ensure that it actually works. The results will help inform our review of the final transition proposal. As for timing, both groups are aiming to deliver a transition plan to us in the summer. While September 2015 has been a target date, because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires, we have the flexibility to extend the contract if the community needs more time to develop the best plan possible. The Internet community is undertaking truly historic work at a pivotal moment in time. I thank them for their tireless dedication to this effort. The outcome of this process will impact the way the Internet is governed for years to come. Joelle Tessler Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce jtessler(a)ntia.doc.gov

2 1

Next f2f CCWG
by Kavouss Arasteh Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Dear Co -Chairs, Dear All, I have humbly and respectfully informed you that I am ties up in anotzher meeting from 23 March-023 April, May I request you to kindly consider an alternative date . I really wish to attend the meeting if you kindly make it possible to do so Regards Kavouss

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Suzanne Radell Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Thank you, Tijani, for flagging this issue. My notes from Frankfurt also reflect that the issue was raised but not agreed, suggesting that the "Problem Definition" characterization should still stand. Regards, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA [tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:09 PM To: 'Robin Gross' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ [cid:~WRD000.jpg]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

2 1

Current list of Consensus Policies that must be complied with by gTLD registries and registrars
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en ICANN's agreements with accredited registrars and with gTLD registry operators require compliance with various specifically stated procedures and also with "consensus policies." Sponsors and registry operators of sponsored TLDs may be required to comply with consensus policies in some instances. The following policies are specifically identified as having been adopted as consensus policies by the ICANN Board of Directors as of the dates shown below. * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (adopted by ICANN Board 26 August 1999; form of implementation documents approved 24 October 1999). * Whois Data Reminder Policy (adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 16 June 2003). * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (effective 1 June 2012). * Whois Marketing Restriction Policy (effective on 12 November 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 12 August 2004). * Restored Names Accuracy Policy (effective on 12 November 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 12 August 2004). * Expired Domain Deletion Policy (effective on 21 December 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 31 October 2003; implementation documents issued 21 September 2004). * Registry Services Evaluation Policy (effective on 15 August 2006, adopted by ICANN Board 8 November 2005; implementation documents posted 25 July 2006) * AGP Limits Policy (effective on 1 April 2009, adopted by ICANN Board on 26 June 2008; implementation documents posted 17 December 2008) * Expired Registration Recovery Policy (effective 31 August 2013, adopted by ICANN Board on 28 October 2011; implementation documents posted 28 February 2013) * Additional Whois Information Policy (effective date to be announced), adopted by ICANN Board 6 May 2012; implementation documents posted 2 July 2014)

1 0

Current "picket fence" defined in the current new gTLD registry agreement
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

For information – here is the current “picket fence” restrictions around Consensus Policies as defined in the latest new gTLD registry agreement: From Specification 1: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved… 1. Consensus Policies. 1.1. “Consensus Policies” are those policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 1.2 of this Specification. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws may be revised from time to time in accordance with the process set forth therein. 1.2. Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: 1.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, security and/or stability of the Internet or Domain Name System (“DNS”); 1.2.2 functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services; 1.2.3 Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; 1.2.4 registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; 1.2.5 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names); or 1.2.6 restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. 1.3. Such categories of issues referred to in Section 1.2 of this Specification shall include, without limitation: 1.3.1 principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g., first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration); 1.3.2 prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars; 1.3.3 reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); and 1.3.4 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning domain name registrations; and procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD affected by such a suspension or termination. 1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: 1.4.1 prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; 1.4.2 modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or termination of the Registry Agreement; 1.4.3 modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies; 1.4.4 modify the provisions in the registry agreement regarding fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN; or 1.4.5 modify ICANN’s obligations to ensure equitable treatment of registry operators and act in an open and transparent manner.

1 0