March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 3 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 3 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+3 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items ACTION ITEM - Comparison table for the power ACTION ITEM - Read CWG letter to set the scene. Notes WP1.A Block Changes to ICANN Bylaws Jordan Carter - WP 1 rapporteur walked the CCWG through 1.A Block changes to ICANN's Bylaws. feedback included: - Suggestion to separate Bylaws changes -------> suggested by Board or Bylaws changes that went through bottom-up process. - Circumstances for community veto should be described. - Suggestion to use "considerations for community voting: language - Ultimate resort of blocking would be a positive way to strengthen - For budget, we have a public comment process but it is not in bylaws. - We had experience with Bylaws changes - change of standard of work independent review. This is a valid remedy. How would initiate idea of Bylaws change would need to be defined. - Supermajority vs. majority - need to define this. - Need to be very clear on percentages (e.g. GAC MO) - No feedback received from members on feasibility - What happens if a group sits out voting? Endangers supermajority. - GAC is undergoing revision of operating principles - that may include right to vote - vote should be involved in these decisions whatever way is felt appropriate - Consensus call on power - Voting threshold, quota should be clarified - Should mission creep contingency be factored into this conversation? - Questions of how independent panel would this. - Do we want to prohibit changing mission? For each Bylaw lay out what requirements are needed for change ACTION ITEM - Comparison table for the power WP1-7A Removing the ICANN Board of Directors Jordan Carter - WP 1 rapporteur walked the CCWG through 7A Removing the ICANN Board of Directors. Feedback includes: - Did you consider rather than having committee using SO/ACs - having bylaws mandate each SO/AC needs to go through process. There would be a cross community discussion but that vote would occur in each SO or AC. - Who makes the Committee? - What is the minimum Board size and composition required under California law. - Should Board who served on spilled Board be ineligible? - Variations for how this power might work: 1) last resort mechanism, stability is of high priority, broad community support (# of So/Acs) needed and last resort potentially a document such as AoC; 2) high threshold but by setting lower threshold for starting conversation but discussion would happen within community council rather than before you get there. A substantial element of community would have venue to go to to place grievance (forum.) 3) based on idea of Board serves several communities and must command confidence of each community it serves (-vote of no-confidence). What kind of power do we want and when would we want to use it (under realistic circumstances. - Objective decisions - Back-up solution needed - interim Board - Theses decisions must engage SO/ACs directly - Supervisory Board is in place which would fill management function - not in our case - liability risks are involved. - Issue of whether SO/ACs have to vote: no difference if conveyed through member. Moral authority of community needs to be acting - Caretaker board to step in - you cannot have objective reasons - Strawman 2 requires a lot of work - 2 constituencies in GNSO - 3 regions in ccNSO does not mean anything - Strawman 3 is unacceptable - Community council needs to vote on it in the end. Supermajority vote needed in the end - Forget about petition - Remove 2 and 3 - Decisions be made in SO/ACs is a sensible suggestion - Both sides of SO/ACs should have voice in it --> 2 and 1 combo - Objective criteria can be defined. - Two elements of Sidley letter to CWG meeting: 1) powers commonly given to members are removing directors without cause --> no need to delineate standards of removal; 2) removing IANA functions from ICANN - nuclear option - is one way of discipline but ultimate nuclear action is for stakeholders to select other Directors ACTION ITEM - Read CWG letter to set the scene. - Who can trigger process, what is the threshold? - Level of petition matters. motion of no-confidence is very disruptive. Not indifferent to have a high or low level of threshold. Need to take into account extreme perception it gives. High level of threshold is needed to avoid giving impression ICANN is in crisis mode Conclusion - No objection to dropping # 3 - Merge dropping # 1 and # 2 - High threshold for no confidence - More support for subjective criteria (incl. objective criterai Community Veto - Wish to keep veto process - Call for flexibility - Multitude of mechanisms created - concerns - Community empowerment of Frankfurt meeting was that this apply to limited set of issues - not a provision for WP1 to work on generic mechanism - Did we want to limit community veto mechanism? - Multitude of mechanisms would be merged - Budget/strat plan should be WS1 because allocation of resources is a way for ICANN to go outside its mission. Community should be empowered to check if that happened. Out of touch with community expectation - Put process to place that is community consultation mechanism that would become part of mandate process to be use including a process for community veto. That would give option to work within timeline. It has to be realistic for it to work. - Get a timeline and determine what needs to be slot it - Blco mechanism has a designed characteristic that it does not delay process. - Concept of budget expenses - formulating directions - WS2 aspirational moves to improve processes - delineate WS1 and WS2 Community Empowerment Recap Override decisions All of them need to take into account continuity impact Voting is involved and needs to be transparent Need work on supermajority, how manage abstentions etc Votes would not directed by SO/ACs Reducing to to 1 mechanism Thresholds will need to be simplified/harmonized - Different rules for voting of different processes - SO/ACs vote Community Council Community Council - which groups do we think should be represented and how are the powers balanced? CCWG Threshold - Discussions needed on who we think should be on it or not - needs to be based on facts rather than thoughts. - Dangerous to differentiate between SO/ACs suggestion of a opt-out - observers/liaisons. SO/ACs should be represented - Opt out for ACs - Any member of community needs to be represented - everyone is represented - Inclusiveness is important - We need to make sure we are enabling outsiders - external stakeholders need to be given opportunity to appeal

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 4 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 4 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+4 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism Notes NOTES: Day 1 Session 4 Community Council - Composition of community council: comments on NRO and ASO being same but that is not the case. NRO is 5 RIRs and ASO is a representation of community - All constituencies within ICANN should be engaged in this body to which ICANN Board is accountable. This presents key question for role of Governments. Would governments be able to contribute to votes that underpin decisions? It is a migration from advisory to operational. Modalities of votes - would we in place of voting contribution be advisory? Obvious option for GAC to consider. Would want a formal liaison functionality in respect to council. Modalities will need to be looked at. - Anybody that has power to exercise this must be in a position to do so. - It is important to have group large enough for representation but consider efficiency: 1 instead of 2 or 3 - anyone that is a stakeholder should have legitimate representation body - it is arbitrary whether happen to advise, vote or develop policy - Work of ICANN to both develop and execute. there are dramatically different groups in GNSO. Should not restrict to SO/AC - - Equal representation needed - Need to discuss question of who gets the power -Constituency process to ensure representative is bringing in position well supported by community. Suppot IAB, NRO etc - as many different views as possible needed. We wont be increasing accountability if decreasing number of communities participating in process - With 2 people form organization, not representing diversity - Presence, input and making decision is different. ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder Independent Review Panel Is the a new process or enhancement? Is it a panel? Standing/non standing? Binding? Becky Burr walked the group through independent Review Panel template with a note that current process is inaccessible. Inconsistent decisions - no avenue for community to expression views. Objective: develop internal consistency. There is strong support in community in making decisions binding but in what manner? To what extent? Triggered/non-triggered: group in community. Board could follow procedure to challenge or overturn this. This process is designed to be flexible and could be used by others part of community. Substantive and procedural standards. Have recommended a standing panel of 15 (geographic diversity, maps different legal regimes) including fixed terms, prohibitions on post term appointments. Election, appointment process (variations). They could be recalled for specific cause - how removal would be initiated -> WP1 mechanisms could be used to provide that evolution. ICANN would bear costs of maintaining panelists (allocation of costs associated with proceeding, loser pay system). This would be included in bylaws as golden bylaw. Evolution of IRP, not creating a new body. CEP is a parcel of what needs to be fixed. Feedback included: - This increases access because more accessible and affordable. Experts are experienced. Work faster - Artificial surge in number of IRPs due to new gTLD program. Even if extending scope, waste of resources of time. 5 instead of 15. Rules and procedures have to be easily understood. Panel members who are able to steer things through need to be selected - without being capture by lawyers. Avoid getting process that is too legalistic because it will inaccessible. intervenor process; add couple of lines on parties invited to be heard. - Potential areas where this could off the rails. Standing: any decision. Binding nature of IRP is important but careful when concerns commercial. Don't want to poison innovation that drives this industry. - Quality of decision-making of panelists - to what extent will we ensure consistency in decision-making. To what extent is precedent documented? Traditional rule of law needs to be taken into consideration - documentation of decision-making. To what extent allowing for minority opinion to be expressed. Compromise agreement needed - Redress against panel is offtrack - doesn't follow process which creates delays. What impact delays having in community in terms of services. Affecting creation or support. Issue of accessibility and stressing importance of regular updates regarding particularly other affected parties. Simplify process to ensure it is understandable - Depending on powers of IRP, could make it mandatory to have panel size for envisionned outcome. Summary proceeding: preliminary injunction type or fast track. Suggestion to have expert in area do implementation as we do with legal advice, respecting prescribed principles. - Procedures for dealing with requests that have already been dealt with or - Possibility of response into RfP - clear about what actions are per panel. - not equitable to have binding decision on ICANN but not on applicant - Ongoing retainer for ability but paying for actual work. - Over time believe this will reduce the need to use it. - Call for consensus on IRP being in WS1. Implementation challenges are really high - How can it be binding? under what structure? - Proposals says standing panel members are nominated by Board and need to be confirmed by community - should we point community to mechanism discussed earlier? yes - Existing stress tests cover risks on party implications and unintended consequences. ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism - Beyond mission and values, there might be need for standing review to include contract dispute, also mention of applicable laws. - Stress test will define how much implementation will be needed. - Stress test #13 - - Standard would need be written by ccNSO (stress test #21 CONCLUSION DAY 1 We have confirmed WS1 proposals we have been working on - still working on principles, independent panels - in a process that is not reinventing itself. Starting to see more clearly mechanisms for foundation boxes. While still lot of details to work out, aiming for quality proposals but level of details can be margin maneuver to make progress on regular cycles. Discussions tomorrow - AoC, jurisdictions, value in discussing reconsideration process. Synch with rapporteurs to identify needs - timeline & next steps (how do we organize for public comment, level of detail - need for greater clarity)

1 0

Call for requirement on the issue of jurisdiction
by Mathieu Weill March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear Colleagues, During our call yesterday we decided to engage with you to gather input on a requirement based approach to the issue of jurisdiction which has been raised. So far this issue has been raised when discussing some of the stress tests, the incorporation of the AoC into the Bylaws, as well as in generic discussions. What we are looking for to ensure we keep our discussion at the level of accountability and root it into stakeholder expectations, are descriptions of accountability requirements that lead you (or some of you) to raise the question of jurisdiction. Topics such as applicable jurisdiction of Icann contracts have been raised so far for instance. Thank you in advance for contributing to shaping this important aspect of our work. responses are expected before March 20th so that we can organize work in Istanbul. Best -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

8 12

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Hi all, > >On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant >interest in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions. > >However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest >of the multistakeholder community in the CSC. I don't think this is >what the NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key >Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder >community." A customer only CSC with no other organized oversight >body sounds like a registries paradise, but not a multistakeholder reality. > > > >I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a >customer committee for the customers, that body isn't the >multistakeholder oversight body. It can't function as such. > >If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer >representation, multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it >is not going to be able to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion. > >cheers >Jordan I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the Accountability mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS component for transparency and the ability to raise red flags does not change the overall nature of the body. Alan

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WG: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul
by Adam Peake March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hi Thomas, Your letter now on the website https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Correspondence Apologies for the delay. Best, Adam From: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM To: "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: WG: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul Hi to you all i have not seen the document distributed to the CCWG and put up on the CCWG website. Thank you for doing this as soon as possible. Best regards Thomas Von: Schneider Thomas BAKOM Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 07:58 An: rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx Cc: Adam Peake; Grace Abuhamad; 'Alice Jansen'; gac(a)icann.org Betreff: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul Dear Co-chairs of the CCWG Attached you find a contribution from the GAC to this week¹s CCWG-Accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul. Given the short time to work on this since the ICANN Singapore meeting, this is a text to be seen as GAC consensus based on a best effort consultation. Individual GAC members will bring in additional views into the CCWG¹s work. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

1 0

Fwd: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached GAC’s contribution the the F2F meeting in Istanbul. Staff, could you please have the document placed in the wiki? Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> > Para: <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Cc: <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, <gac(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul > Fecha: 23 de marzo de 2015 8:57:49 GMT+2 > > Dear Co-chairs of the CCWG > > Attached you find a contribution from the GAC to this week’s CCWG-Accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul. > > Given the short time to work on this since the ICANN Singapore meeting, this is a text to be seen as GAC consensus based on a best effort consultation. > > Individual GAC members will bring in additional views into the CCWG’s work. > > Best regards > > Thomas > > > > Thomas Schneider > Chair > ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) > >

2 3

Engaging the community - some thoughts
by Arun Sukumar March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

I understand the CCWG has identified who the community is based on who will be "directly" or "indirectly" affected by ICANN's actions, but most of the proposals, if not all of them, tabled today - be it on community empowerment, powers to remove the Board, etc -- seem too focused on static ICANN constituencies. This is fine if the CCWG feels it is not within the group's remit to think beyond the SO/ACs of ICANN. Personally, I think any exercise to enhance the Corporation's accountability should consider the audience it will cater to in the future. It is not enough that "business" or "at large" or "non-commercial users" are labelled so as ICANN constituencies. Where is the discussion in the CCWG on the concerns of representation within them - based on gender, age, geographical representation, nature of internet access? The most appropriate policy intervention that the CCWG can make in this regard to draft an expansive Mission Statement and Core Values. Yet, we seem happy to confine its vision to conform to ICANN Bylaws (which, wearing my lawyer's hat is difficult to understand given the preamble is always more expansive than the operational statute). I raise this only because the question of ICANN accountability is not a technocratic/legal exercise alone. The issue of accountability was brought to the table only later in 2014, although the NTIA did not feel it necessary to include it in its original announcement. A political opening, therefore, requires, I hesitate to add, an equally sensitive response. Otherwise, the accountability working group's output will be seen as moving far too little in this direction. cheers arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

2 1

WG: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul
by Thomas.Schneider＠bakom.admin.ch March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hi to you all i have not seen the document distributed to the CCWG and put up on the CCWG website. Thank you for doing this as soon as possible. Best regards Thomas Von: Schneider Thomas BAKOM Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 07:58 An: rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx Cc: Adam Peake; Grace Abuhamad; 'Alice Jansen'; gac(a)icann.org Betreff: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul Dear Co-chairs of the CCWG Attached you find a contribution from the GAC to this week's CCWG-Accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul. Given the short time to work on this since the ICANN Singapore meeting, this is a text to be seen as GAC consensus based on a best effort consultation. Individual GAC members will bring in additional views into the CCWG's work. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

2 1

New accountability issue
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

This is NOT an issue related to the IANA transition, but in my mind is a serious accountability issue. The issue is not a new one, but has recently been raised again in the context of the GNSO WG on Policy and Implementation. One of the outcomes of that WG (should it be approved) is that ALL issues that impact stakeholders, regardless of when the issue arises in the policy-implementation continuum, must be referred to the GNSO and subject to a MS decision-making process. At the present, some stakeholders believe that some similar decisions have been made unilaterally by staff or the Board. The potential accountability issue is whether the GNSO is capable of addressing issues where the Public Interest may be at odds with the desired of the Contracted Parties, and if not, how do we fix it. The problem is that contracted parties have a very strong vested interest to attempt to ensure outcomes that support their needs and can invest significant resources in ensuring satisfactory outcomes. That is a completely natural position for them to take. Those who are defending the public interest tend to have few such resources. This can impact WG outcomes. Moreover, ultimately, contracted parties, working together, have an effective veto within the GNSO (although clearly not one they would prefer to use). Past situations have resulted in either watered-down results which did not come anywhere near meeting the public interest needs in the view of non-contracted parties, or have resulted in deadlock. Although no one is advocating the Board taking unilateral decisions in such cases, it DOES have the ability to decide that the Public Interest is of paramount import in any specific case. Please note that this is not an accusation against specific contracted parties or their representatives. But it does reflect a scenario that MIGHT arise and where ICANN must be able to take decisions that are in the public interest. This is very closely related to the issue that we are always reminded of - ICANN Directors must look at the Public Interest EVEN IF a decision is counter to the wishes of the AC/SO that appointed them. How do we ensure that the Policy Processes below the Board are as accountable? Alan

3 2

WP2 documents - 23 March
by Alice Jansen March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, Becky's documents can be found on the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents I have also included them in the email attachments. Best Alice

1 0