March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

NEW: Calendar Invites direct to your email address
by Brenda Brewer March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear CCWG, The ACCT-Staff would like to expedite the email information you receive regarding meeting calendar invites. We currently send you an iCalendar notice through the Notify list 24 hours prior to the call that you must download to your calendars. Going forward, we will move to send a calendar invite directly to your email address with as much lead time of event as available. If, for privacy purposes, you wish to NOT receive calendar invites directly to your email address, please advise me at <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> brenda.brewer(a)icann.org. If you do not want calendar invites directly to your email address you will continue to receive iCalendar invites 24 hours prior to call through the Notify list. As always, the meeting schedule is posted on the CCWG Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> here and on the calendar <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…> here. Thank you for your attention to this request. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Kind regards, Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer(a)icann.org

1 0

Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
by Mathieu Weill March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

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?

4 3

AGENDA - Call # 17
by Alice Jansen March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #1<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890273>7<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890273> - Tuesday, 17 March - 19:00-21:00 UTC: -- 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 2. Next stop: Istanbul Tentative agenda, Xplane Criteria to compare options Expectations to have documents ready by March 20 3. Activity reports WP 1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…> WP 2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress> ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…> Legal Subteam<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> 3. Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul 4. Public comment approach 5. A.O.B 5. Closing remarks -- Agenda item 2: please refer to the attached document. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
by Mathieu Weill March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear Colleagues, A discussion was raised with WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"
by David Post March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

At 08:16 PM 3/14/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Under its Articles of Incorporation ICANN >already operates âfor the benefit of the >Internet community as a whole, carrying out its >activities in conformity with relevant >principles of international law and applicable >international conventions and local >law.â See: 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. 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 book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

7 7

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] accountability of private sector organizations
by Bruce Tonkin March 15, 2015

March 15, 2015

Hello Rahul, >> ICANN is a not-for-profit private organization based out of California. According to applicable laws, I understand that Board of private sector organizations are accountable to none. Often Boards of private sector organizations are accountable to the shareholders of the organization. Many non-profit organizations have the Board directly accountable to the members of the organization (this is a fairly common arrangement for some ccTLD managers). As ICANN doesn’t directly have members, the Board is appointed through a combination of the various members of the supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC) that make up the ICANN community. Some Board members are appointed by a single supporting organization, and other board members are appointed by a nominating committee, which itself comprises members appointed by the SOs and ACs. Board Directors are appointed to terms of three years, which are staggered over time so that the whole board can’t change at once. At the end of each three year term, a Board Director is subject to a re-election process. Board Directors can serve a maximum of three consecutive three year terms ( I.e. total of 9 years). From my perspective ICANN is directly accountable to the ICANN community (comprising the members of the SOs and ACs), but under its Articles of Incorporation it operates for the purpose of promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet. I personally don't think it is correct to say that the Board is "unaccountable" - but I think it is fair to say that the Board can be made more tightly accountable to the community (e.g. through mechanisms to remove one or more board members in the middle of their terms, and better dispute mechanisms). The CCWG has been looking at mechanisms to allow either the replacement of individual Board members mid-term, or the whole Board based on certain parameters. There have also been discussion about implementing some form of membership organization structure for ICANN – and I understand that this will be subject to some of the external legal advice available to the CCWG. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"
by Bruce Tonkin March 15, 2015

March 15, 2015

Hell Rahul, >> Global laws or International law mean codes developed by collaboration of nation states and other stakeholders, whether developed as laws (eg: Law of Armed Conflict) or through multilateral treaties or International acceptable standards/ conventions (such as for human rights) or as code of conduct, that will be applicable to the body managing and coordinating critical Internet resources and their usage, and its policies. Arbitration matters can also be decided - whether to be taken to International Court of Justice (ICJ) or if alternate arrangements need to be devised. Under its Articles of Incorporation ICANN already operates “for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law.” See: 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. Although most international treaties etc are typically between Governments, I would assume that if the Board took an action that was inconsistent with relevant principles of international low or application international conventions – that the Board could be challenged. It would be worth considering making this more explicit in whatever new dispute mechanisms this group is considering. I guess it is a separate question as to whether Governments should be creating new international treaties to deal with domain names etc – I am a little unclear as to whether that was what you were suggesting – i.e. the creation of new international treaties versus ensuring that ICANN adheres to existing relevant international treaties. It could also be useful to identify treaties etc that the CCWG considers to be “relevant”. Note that new gTLD applicant guidebook identified general principles of international law as examples that may be relevant for a limited public interest objection, contained in the following instruments: (from: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf) - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) - The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women - The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights - The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - Slavery Convention - Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Convention on the Rights of the Child Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP
by Samantha Eisner March 14, 2015

March 14, 2015

ICANN received today the final declaration in the independent review proceeding filed by Booking.com<http://Booking.com>. The declaration can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-03mar15-en.pdf. Best, Samantha

27 41

Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on impressions from Meeting Notes.
by Sivasubramanian M March 14, 2015

March 14, 2015

Hello I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised here as a point to consider by the whole group: Notes: 2. Brief Discussion: > > - WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but needs > to take place post transition. > > > Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1. > > - Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors. > > > - Community empowerment over ICANN’s management. > > > - Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity. > > - One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing basis post transition. With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the formation of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such changes to the Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to recall members of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even Community empowerment over ICANN management. Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment such changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer blue print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise to think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive. I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the Accountability framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At best, WS 1 could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post transition, after more elaborate thinking. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

10 17

Testimony from Fadi Chehade at the USA Senate hearing
by Bruce Tonkin March 14, 2015

March 14, 2015

Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hi Kavouss, At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id… Best regards David

8 11