March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: AW: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making
by Mathieu Weill March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find below a response to our request by Thomas Schneider, Chair of the GAC, relating to our stress test #14 (amendment of GAC's operating procedures). Please note that this response is based on his own experience as well as exchanges with some GAC members. I suggest we discuss this in our call later today when we come to the WP-ST update. Best, Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : AW: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making Date : Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:56:55 +0000 De : Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch Pour : Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr, rickert(a)anwaelte.de, leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx Copie à : adam.peake(a)icann.org, gac(a)icann.org Dear Co-Chairs of the CCWG Accountability, dear Thomas, Leon and Mathieu Thank you for your request for input from the GAC on the prospect of a contingency induced by a potential change in the GAC's decision making procedures. And thank you all for the good exchange we had on the phone last week. Given the short time available, it has not been possible to undertake broad consultations with the whole GAC about this issue. In this situation, I can only give you some feedback based on my own experience as well as exchanges I had with some GAC members in the past days. I hope you will get more feedback from GAC members and observers before, during and after the f2f meeting of the CCWG in Istanbul next week. First of all, I - like many of my colleagues - do not really see a contingency related to the GAC as a body with regard to the CCWG's Work Stream 1 (accountability related to the IANA functions). As we do not recall the GAC having had an role in the IANA stewardship function so far and as one of the conditions put forward by the NTIA is that no other single country or intergovernmental body should take over the IANA stewardship role, it is difficult to see why the GAC's operating principles should have an effect on the IANA stewardship function at all. With regard to the overall accountability of ICANN (WS2), the GAC may indeed have a role in contributing to enhancing ICANN's accountability and to the organisations' checks and balances in the future. However, it should be noted that - unlike the GNSO or the ccNSO - the GAC does not develop or decide about policies, but is - in its role as advisory body of the ICANN board - giving advice to the board on public policy matters. The board can either ask the GAC for advice on an issue or the GAC can advise the board on its own initiative. In both cases, according to the current bylaws, the board is only asked to take GAC advice "duly into account", but is not obliged to follow GAC advice. In case the board decides not to follow GAC advice, the board shall inform the GAC about its reasons for not doing so and will try to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution is found, the board is still free to take its decision without the GAC as a committee having any means to force the board to follow its advice. It is then up to individual GAC members to act according to their "rights and obligations ... with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities". According to its operating principles, the GAC works on "the basis of seeking consensus among its membership". Where consensus is not possible, the chair shall "convey the full range of views expressed by members" to the ICANN board. So, under the current operating principles, the GAC may address advice to the board which is either informing the board about a GAC consensus or about the existence of diverse views among its membership on an issue. Again, the board should then take this advice "duly into account". In the past, there have been several examples where there has been a diversity of views among GAC members on an issue which have been communicated to the board. In the current operating principles, it is not specified how - in the case of diverse views in the GAC on an issue - this diversity should be communicated to the board. In the attempt to enhance accountability of ICANN's processes as well as the accountability of governments to their citizens and the global community, but also to improve ICANN's checks and balances and to avoid any risk of capture by an individual or a small group of governments, it may be useful to enhance transparency about the range and spread of diversity of views among GAC members, so that - before taking a decision - the board is best informed about this diversity and also the whole community is able to see on what basis GAC advice is formulated and that it is able to assess to what extent such advice has been "duly taken into account". I am happy to discuss with you how the GAC can help to contribute to enhancing ICANN's accountability and I am sure that other GAC members (and observers) will contribute to this deliberations as well. I am looking forward to a fruitful and constructive discussion in Istanbul Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider chair of the GAC -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 17:43 An: Olga Cavalli; Suzanne Radell; Julia Katja Wolman; brumark(a)telia.com; alice(a)apc.org; Schneider Thomas BAKOM Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; Adam Peake Betreff: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making Dear GAC members of the CCWG Accountability, Dear Thomas, [Cc: CCWG Co-chairs] As you are aware, the CCWG Accountability has identified a number of contingencies and is applying stress tests to its proposals to check how they would mitigate them. Consistent with the principle set out by the NTIA that the transition proposals should not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution, one of the identified contingency is currently defined as such : Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for advice to ICANN’s board. Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. [...] While investigating whether the measures currently proposed by the CCWG would provide adequate mitigation, concerns were raised that, despite the ability for the community to veto a Board decision, changes in the GAC decision making rules might infringe on the principle set out by the NTIA. It was proposed within the CCWG that a mitigating measure might be to amend Icann Bylaws so that the provision of article XI 2.1.j of the Bylaws (duly taking into account GAC Advice) would only apply to consensus advice (see current proposal here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%20…) Some similarity could be drawn out from the gNSO policy recommendations Bylaw provisions (Annex A, 9.a) where supermajority votes from the gNSO can only be vetoed by the Board if there is a 2/3 majority to do so. We are aware of the high sensitivity of this question within the GAC as well as with the community. The GAC is also one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG Accountability. Therefore our group wishes to engage with the GAC to identify how we can meet both the NTIA requirements and a solution that is consistent with the GAC expectations. Ideally, we would welcome inputs via GAC appointed members to the CCWG and/or specific discussions between ourselves. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill Co-chairs, CCWG Accountability

5 5

Fwd: [client com] FW: Preparation for Istanbul -- Sidley Response to Questions in Legal Scoping Document
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding this information from the CWG list as it may contain important information for our work too. Best regards, León Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Fecha: 19 de marzo de 2015, 3:24:34 AM CST > Para: "'Client'" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [client com] FW: Preparation for Istanbul -- Sidley Response to Questions in Legal Scoping Document > Responder a: jrobinson(a)afilias.info > > All, > > Please see attached for Sidley preliminary draft response which we will pick up with them in the Client Committee meeting today @ 14:00 UTC and thereafter of course in Istanbul. > > Jonathan > > From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com] > Sent: 19 March 2015 05:45 > To: 'Jonathan Robinson'; Greg Shatan; Lise Fuhr; Maarten Simon > Subject: Preparation for Istanbul -- Sidley Response to Questions in Legal Scoping Document > > Jonathan, Lise, Maarten and Greg, > > Attached please find Sidley’s preliminary draft response to the CWG Scoping Document Legal Questions. Please note that this is our initial response to the questions, is based on our investigation and diligence to date, and was prepared under tight time constraints so as to be ready for the Istanbul meetings. We tried to follow your questions to the extent possible, but the amount of time or length of response given to a particular topic should not be inferred to represent any endorsement or preference. Rather, this should be viewed as a work in progress that will undergo continued iterations as we gain a deeper understanding of the issues, challenges and priorities presented by the transition. > > We look forward to your feedback and review. Please feel free to forward this document as appropriate. > > Cheers, > Josh > > JOSHUA HOFHEIMER > Partner > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) > +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) > +1.323.708.2405 (cell) > jhofheimer(a)sidley.com > www.sidley.com > SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP > > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

2 1

Agenda for WP1 meeting #5 - 18 March 2015, 21-23h UTC
by Jordan Carter March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Hi all Here is proposed agenda: *1. Review of Agenda* *2. Review of CCWG meeting and any actions arising* *3. Substantive Content to Review:* Note our *progress/status chart* is at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaROrG8fIGVEdwuBv-GBKP3cG8UJGQUPKjF… Note also that *content* should all be available on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents *Powers matters:* - AOC incorporation - Matthew Shears (as just circulated by me) - Removing ICANN Board - Malcolm Hutty (see his previously circulated amendment to Removal of Board template) - Updates on any missing ones as per the chart *Mechanisms matters:* - A - Existing SO/AC structures - Jordan - B - Permanent CCWG - Jordan - C - Statutory Delegates - Edward - D - Statutory Members - Edward - G - Community Council - Jordan *4. Our meeting Sunday 22 March 17:30-1900 local time in Istanbul* *5. Any Other Business* best 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 *

6 8

decision making by the community - tool to play with
by Thomas Rickert March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

All, the composition of the community council (or whatever we might ultimately call it) is still unclear. Open issues - amongst others - are: - voting vs consensus calls - mandated voting vs non-mandated voting - number of representatives from SOs/ACs - voting thresholds - weighting of votes … As indicated during the call yesterday, we have been working with Berry on a spreadsheet, which you find attached to this e-mail and which allows you to test different scenarios. You can enter the number of representatives per group and their voting behavior and then see how that impacts the outcome of decisions for different voting thresholds. We do know that this is not the silver bullet solution, but it helps to better understand the impact of different approaches. We hope you find this helpful and encourage you to come up with concrete suggestions for the composition of the "community council“. Kind regards, Thomas

1 0

Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress
by Robin Gross March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Hello, This email is to kick-off the discussion for the Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Mechanisms. Volunteers so far: Robin Gross, Ed Morris, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Carlos Gutierrez (please send a note to <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> to volunteer for this sub-group). This WP2 sub-group should will look specifically at issues to be addressed with respect to improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms involving a reconsideration process of a board or management decision. Specific Task: To review the current rules under which reconsideration occurs, and to propose appropriate changes to those rules to create adequate accountability. Existing "Reconsideration Request" accountability mechanism: See ICANN Bylaws Art. IV, Sec. 2) Board reconsideration of: - One or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for Change/Enhancement ICANN's Reconsideration Processes: 1. Mechanism for review of Board or management action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. 2. Mechanism to require community (members, AC/SOs, etc.) to require Board to act on, implement, amend, accelerate implementation of, a previously approved ATRT recommendation. 3. Change bylaws for Reconsideration Process: trigger when board acts arbitrarily or capriciously; decisions subject to Independent Review. 4. Reconsideration of staff action/inaction. 5. Broadly expand grounds on which ICANN decisions and operations can be challenged; lower threshold to succeed in a challenge. 6. Reasonable time deadlines and other due process considerations. What else? ------------------ Proposal to address implementation and operational issues including: · Standing · Standard of review · Composition · Selection · Decision-making · Accessibility * Implementation * Due process Work Party 2 Reconsideration mailing list – wp2-reconsideration(a)icann.org – is now active. Public archives may be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/ May this sub-group please have a wiki page? Thank you. Please volunteer for this sub-group - especially if you have any experience with ICANN's reconsideration process. Thanks, Robin

7 10

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability STRESS TESTS SubTeam - 18 March
by Brenda Brewer March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability STRESS TESTS SubTeam call on 18 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892161 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday ACTION ITEM - Steve to split 3 and 4 ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order. ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20 ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements) Notes ST-WP - Call # 2 - 18 March 2015 ST-WP Wiki Page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents - ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday - ST-WP breakfast meeting on Monday, 23 March at 7:30 Stress test # 3 & 4 - Suggestion to split stress test into two rather than combined (refer to Sam Eisner comment) ACTION ITEM - Steve to split 3 and 4 Stress test #19 Designed to surface role of root zone maintainer (publishing function). Injunction is what would happen in this scenario. If that happens, the community could hold Board and management accountable to execute community approved policy. There is no immunity that goes to the root zone maintainer by virtue of IANA functions contract. Issue being posed is what is the root zone maintainer supposed to do if receives verification to publish root but then competing court order that objects to publication. Ingenuity clause? Can the community find a way to hold Board and management accountable to implementing community-developed policy. Whether or not the root zone maintainer has immunity or not does not change what the stress test is supposed to be about. This stress test could also be compliance driven. Raises issue of foreign jurisdiction and impact on this. ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order. Would ICANN be engaged in process to enforce views? What would ICANN's reaction be? What could the community do to influence this reaction? ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday Stress Test #20 How can community assert its views - relates to #19 (court order etc). Community should be empowered to ask ICANN to litigate and execute policies - Is it the right accountability mechanism? What if community asks ICANN to litigate but no basis to litigate? Insurability issue - health of organization - business integrity should be considered. Whether or not there may need to be any limits, conditions for this accountability measures may be a question for legal experts. ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20 Stress test # 10 & # 24 Tied to "golden bylaw" (mission creep). No feedback. Stress Test #12 Tied to supermajority to avoid capture. Look holistically at capture or undue influence. Standing CCWG e.g.: what protections are we building into that to make sure no entity can influence across stakeholder groups? What are the mechanisms in SO/ACs, what mechanisms of responsibility/accountability are there across structures within organization to have protection against capture? Do these need to be checked and reinforced? There is a broader issue. Evaluate In addition to super majority, what constitutes adequate quorum mechanisms within SO/ACs comprising community to guard against capture. ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture Stress Test #13 How do we prevent purposeful paralysis of ICANN (review redress mechanisms)? We set objective to have review redress more accessible, affordable etc. should the affordability and accessibility be restricted to community? Stress test #16 No feedback. Stress test #18 Relates to government capture. Stress test should stand but further dialogue needed with the GAC. Stress test #22 No feedback. Stress test #23 ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements) Stress test #14 No feedback. Stress test #15 No feedback. Stress test #25 Relates to CWG and ICG. No feedback. V8 will be circulated on Friday (doc, pdf, redline)

1 0

Topics that need to be addressed in Istanbul
by Mathieu Weill March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As discussed yesterday during the call, we are actively building an agenda for the Istanbul meeting. The working parties deliverables we discussed yesterday (community powers and mechanisms, independent panel, AoC incorporation, mission & value statement) will certainly take most of our time. We have however identified the need to discuss other questions. Mentioned in the call yesterday were : - (realistic) timeline and next steps for our group - jurisdiction related issues Please consider this email as the "last call" for any important issue or topic you believe our meeting in Istanbul should address. It would of course be much appreciated if you could outline why you think this issue if of particular importance at this point of our work. Thanks for your prompt reply, in any case before the March 20th deadline. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1

Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
by RENU SIROTHIYA March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Drawing from the Mathieu's propositions, I propose a matrix for comparative mapping. Version 1 workbook is attached, if agreed then it may be further developed, refined, populated, and weights may be assigned and added to reach conclusion. * Inline text not in matrix form. *Parameters and Questions to Map and Compare Effectiveness of Accountability Options * *Comparison Parameter* *Corresponding Questions* *Option A* *Option B* *Option C....* Legitimacy Is one of the options more legitimate in its nature due to higher scope for transparency, inclusivity and rationality? Legality Is legality of one of the options more apparent and/or easy to establish? Feasibility (Practical) Is implementation of one of the options more practically feasible due to exclusivity of system, simplicity of design and legality of process? Viability (Financial) Is one of the options more viable due to the simplicity of operation, including of level of attention and resource required from the community to make the mechanism work? Acceptability (Recognition) Is one of the options more supported and recognized due to historic reasons or current legal and stability concerns? Rationality Is explaining one of the options, internally and externally more easy due to its rationality and simplicity of design? Utility Does one of the options provide improved review and redress? Inclusivity Does one of the options provide better consultation and extend accountability to more relevant stakeholders? Indispensability Is one of the options indispensable due to some legal and strategic reasons? Tenacity Is one of the options more tenacious due to higher potential of ensuring check and balance and predictability on one hand, and of mitigating capture and immunities on other? Regards, Renu Sirothiya On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Apologies for first cut off email. > > A discussion was raised with WP1 about how we would reach decisions when > comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working > on. > > In anticipation of our CCWG call please find below a first draft list of > questions which should enable us to, at least, clarify the merits of the > various options before we reach conclusions. This is of particular > importance before our meeting in Istanbul. > > You will be provided an opportunity to comment during the call tomorrow, > but this can also be achieved via mailing list. > > Best, > Mathieu > --------------------------------------- > Key criteria to compare options : > > 1) Comparing enhancements to accountability > > a) Aspects of accountability > - does one option provide greater transparency ? > - does one option provide better consultation ? > - does one option provide improved review ? e > - does one option provide improved redress ? > > b) Qualities of accountability mechanisms > - does one option provide better checks and balances ? > - does one option provide better independence ? > > c) Stakeholders : does one option extend accountability to more > relevant stakeholders ? > > d) Purpose : does one option enable accountability to more of the > relevant accountability purposes ? > > 2) Effectiveness : Would one of the options be more effective ? > > 3) Simplicity : is one option simpler / easier / faster to set up ? > a) Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to > implement and to explain, internally and externally? > b) Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and > resource required from the community to make the mechanism work? > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

4 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"
by David Post March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

At 10:41 PM 3/15/2015, Rahul Sharma wrote: >+1Â David and Phil > >Â > >Since IRP is only meant to review if Board >decisions are in line and consistent with >procedures and principles established, and as >such cannot challenge any Board decision, a Body >that ensures that ICANN adheres to international >laws, and if its decisions are legitimate or not >Â and should be challenged should be (1) an >independent body, constituted by a process >independent from ICANN and (2) and have >expertise in international law, and not just commercial arbitration Rahul: Just to be clear: it wasn't my understanding that there would be a body the "ensures that ICANN adheres to international laws." In my opinion (which may or may not be shared by others), an Independent Review Panel, which ensures that ICANN adheres to (a) its commitment to consensus decision-making (b) within the stated mission (i.e., only makes policies reasonably necessary for security and stability of the DNS), that will go a long way to keeping the Board within proper limits. I'm not convinced that a second body charged with enforcing international law would be helpful or necessary, and might just over-complicate the process. David >On 16 March 2015 at 05:10, Phil Corwin ><<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > >Thatâs exactly right, David, and what we just >saw in the IRP brought by Booking.com over the >finding that .Hotels and .Hoteis were in the same new gTLD contention set > >Â > >The available accountability mechanisms were >restricted to reviewing whether proper procedure >had been observed, but could not reach the >admittedly questionable merits of the original >decision that found them confusingly similar at the gTLD level. > >Â > >So when should the merits of a Board decision be >susceptible to modification or reversal, who has >standing to bring such a challenge, and what >should be the standard of review? Important questions, and not easy to answer. > >Â > >Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > >Virtualaw LLC > >1155 F Street, NW > >Suite 1050 > >Washington, DC 20004 > >202-559-8597/Direct > >202-559-8750/Fax > >202-255-6172/cell > >Â > >Twitter: @VlawDC > >Â > >"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > >Â > >From: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of David Post >Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:26 AM >To: Accountability Cross Community >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law" > >Â > >At 08:16 PM 3/14/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > >Under its Articles of Incorporation ICANN >already operates Ã¢for the benefit of the >Internet community as a a whole, carrying out >its activities in conformity with relevant >principles of international law and applicable >international conventions and local law.Ã¢ÂÂ >Â See: ><https://wwww.icann.org/en/about/governance/articles>https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/articles > >The Independent Review Process allows parties to >challenge Board decisions that are inconsistent >with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. > >[SNIP] > > >Just by way of clarification, while it's true >that the IRP allows parties "to challenge Board >decisions that are inconsistent with the >Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws," the IRP >panel does not have the power to actually decide >the question of whether or not a Board decision >WAS inconsistent with the Articles or Bylaws.Â See Bylaws, Art IV sec 3(4): > >"The IRP Panel must apply a defined standard of >review to the IRP request, focusing on: > * did the Board act without conflict of interest in taking its decision?; > * did the Board exercise due diligence and > care in having a reasonable amount of facts in front of them?; and > * did the Board members exercise independent > judgment in taking the decision, believed to be > in the best interests of the company?" > >That's a much narrower scope of inquiry than >whether the Board acted outside the ByLaws, for example. > >David > >******************************* >David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation >blog (Volokh Conspiracy) ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post >book (Jefferson's >Moose)Â ><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2nÂ >Â Â Â Â >music ><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic >publications etc.Â http://www.davidpost.comÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â >******************************* > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com >Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date: 03/13/15 > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

10 11

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #17 17 March
by Brenda Brewer March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #17 call on 17 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890273 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting to be productive. Notes All participants in the adobe connect room Next stop: Istanbul Link to information about the Istanbul <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276 WP1 and WP2 will hold informal meetings on Sunday afternoon: * * WP1: 16:00 - 17:30 * WP2: 17:30 - 19:00 * followed by cocktails XPLANE will support the F2F meeting. Following discussion in WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working on, document "comparing accountability mechanisms" sent to the CCWG list. Purpose is to propose options, based on work we have been doing to date rather than introducing new ideas at this stage. The spreadsheet is not proposed as a full tool to compare the qualities of one mechanisms against another. If certain parameters are present for some mechanisms but not for other then will help us in the substance of discussions Activity reports WP1 report Jordan Carter * Last WP1 call consider how to write mechanisms on the the bylaws, the community veto and the updated template. And the new mechanism of the community council. * Question of jurisdiction keeps coming up, need to agree how to handle this or it may become a problem * The existing SO/AC model is based on decisions based on their own democratic processes and own thresholds and aggregated across the collective SO/ACs. Other suggestion is for the creation of a community council mandated by the SO/AC, with either directed or independent vote. And members discuss issues. * Questions being asked if each SO/AC should have the same weight in the decisions making process. * There are difference between mandated and non-mandated decisions. * with WP1 powers when talking about veto etc are very far from the usual policy making decisions of ICANN. There should be high thresholds. * Currently working on a tool to test how voting behavior of different groups will impact the outcome. Some mechanisms may have a lower voting threshold than others. WP2 Becky Burr * Core deliverables will be on the mission statement, community values. Will be prepared for March 20 and distribution. * Good discussion of independent review and expect good outcomes * work stream on ombudsman and reconsideration have had a lower start and will be the focus of informal meeting on Sunday in Istanbul * The constitution" document, and about to what extent, if any, ICANN's mission statement should be allowed, and the evolution of the mission should be a very high bar. Is there a need for * a constitutional court in addition to an independent review. Group seems to be favoring and combination. * Discussion about access ti the independent review and constitutional court are accessible both from point of view of standing and cost (looser pays, frivolous claim) * Mission statement core values: the group considers it important to ensure that there is no mission creep. Should there be a specific statement outlining what ICANN is trying to achieve. A vision statement might be useful, perhaps noting the security, stability, interoperability and resiliency of the Internet through coordinating the unique among and numbering system. Stress Test Working Party * The test regarding GAC consensus advice and requirements of the bylaws for the Board to act in response. Thomas Schneider's letter in response to co-chair's communication about the test. * All 25 stress tests have been drafted against the current mechanisms were have designed. * Tests 1 and 2, combined: * Change if delegation authority for IANA rootzone ceases to function. This is a test is an attempt to cover the needs of the CWG. The current contract held by NTIA could be revoked by NTIA, and this provides leverage. * Test 11. Compromise of credentials. Regarding security breaches and ICANN's standards for security training, follow-through on required training. To be able to enforce implementation of adopted security standards. Not directly related to the transition. Legal sub-team * Close to reaching agreement, had calls with a number of law firms. Call tomorrow (18 March) to finalize agreement. And hope to have representation from the external legal advisors present in Istanbul. Further refinement of the scoping document is required. * Will the legal firm be able to answer questions about international jurisdiction matters, or is this a matter for the CCWG expert advisors? * Might ask the experts while in Istanbul why we are talk about jurisdiction. CCWG colleagues might agree on what the requirement for jurisdiction debate are. Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting to be productive. Public comment approach structure of public comment, using question format and allowing for free form replies. Desire is to structure the public comment to the format of WP1 WP2 and stress tests. Asking questions about the approach, do you support or not. With a free form text field to allow comment to explain their answers. Anticipate large number of comments. Concern noted about the time line and that we will have a final proposal for WS1 by April 6. We are proposing significant changes to ICANN's organizational structure. Need to receive legal advice. And then go to our communities for their views, and then may be ready for public comment. The timeline will be an important discussion point for Istanbul.

1 0