March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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

March 23, 2015

I strongly support the need for a MS component in the CSC. I have routinely said it will not be swamped by such people even if there were no limit to the numbers (which we are not even contemplating) because there will be a moderately heavy workload with no companion mandate from employers. But we need some level of balance. Alan At 22/03/2015 11:25 PM, Greg Shatan 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. > >We've been round and round on this before, both in the CWG and in >RFP3. In RFP3, the conclusion was that there should be at least one >representative from the non-registries portion of the >multistakeholder community. This will aid in keeping this an open, >transparent process. > >There is at least one positive aspect of this suggestion -- we don't >have to worry about the possibility of "capture" since it's already captured. > >On other points -- I have been participating (to a more modest >extent) in the CCWG as well as in this group. I think the danger of >forum shopping or inconsistent results is way overstated in this >document. There is a very real interest in coordination in both WGs >and I think the radical step of foregoing all accountability >concerns in this CWG is a radical solution to a very modest issue >(and one that is well in hand). (I would also note that should such >a significant change in the remit of both groups be pursued, it >would require charter amendments for both groups, to be approved by >all of the chartering organizations.) > >I would also reject the suggestion that the MRT is excess baggage >and there is no need for truly multistakeholder oversight. > >We'll need to balance self-interest and public interest if we are to >get to the end of the road. > >Greg Shatan > >. > >On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Carter ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >hi all, Martin: > >On 22 March 2015 at 18:22, Martin Boyle ><<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk> wrote: >Hi Jordan, >Your comment > > > >In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with the >post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely >multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA >functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor >does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability >puzzle for sure." > >worries me. > >It seems to imply that we need multi-stakeholder at every level. > >I don't think that this is what the NTIA announcement says. Indeed >i'd say Customer in CSC has a specific meaning and the CSC should >work for customers to ensure good service. > > >I am sorry that it came across that way because I completely agree >with you. I specifically do not think the customer committee has to >be the multistakeholder body - my view is that it should be a >customer committee. > >What I meant was that between CCWG and CWG, we also have to >construct the multistakeholder oversight process, that is broader >than the customers. > >HTH > >Jordan > > >Best > >Martin > > >Sent from my iPhone > > > On 22 Mar 2015, at 15:03, Jordan Carter > <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > > > In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with > the post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely > multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA > functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor > does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability puzzle for sure. > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob) ><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >A better world through a better Internet > > >_______________________________________________ >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Greg, I can’t agree more; You are absolutely right. about the CSC. But when you say “We'll need to balance self-interest and public interest” I remind you that it is clearly said in the articles that ICANN should act in the public interest, and not in the interest of any stakeholder. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Public Comments
by Kavouss Arasteh March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear All, May somebody kindly mention how many public comments are foreseen and what are the period(s) deadline for comments It is important that atleast two public comments to be foreseen each with atleast 21 days response period KAVOUSS

7 9

Istanbul Mtg - Proposed Agenda
by Alice Jansen March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your meeting on 23-24 March, please find attached the proposed meeting agenda. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Reminder WP1 gathering 17:30 - Room 19 Level M2
by Jordan Carter March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Hi all Our informal WP1 gathering is at 4.30pm local time in Istanbul. It's in the same room as the WP2 meeting - Room 19 on level M2 of the conference centre in the Hilton. See you there if you're coming, 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 *

2 3

Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-2-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of theIANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe.‬‬ In brief * The protocol parameters and numbers proposals submitted to the ICG in January 2015 have moved into Step 2 of the Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf> [PDF, 92 KB]. * The work in the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability have intensified, and both have activated a number of specialized teams focusing on specific issues. * CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability will hold face-to-face meetings in Istanbul at the end of March. * U.S. Senate Committees have questioned witnesses about the IANA Stewardship Transition and its implications for a variety of domestic and international issues. ICG * The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is now using a website independent of ICANN: http://www.ianacg.org <http://www.ianacg.org/> . (Note that ICANN, as convener and facilitator of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, will continue to provide information on the transition, as well as the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, on its website, https://www.icann.org <https://www.icann.org/> .) * The ICG is planning to hold a face-to-face meeting 18-19 June in Buenos Aires before ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> . If necessary, the ICG may also meet on the morning of 20 June. Timeline of work: * Following discussions at ICANN 52 <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> in Singapore about the possibility of extending the ICG timeline for finalizing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal, the ICG has decided to proceed as much as possible with the protocol parameters and numbers proposals and revisit the timeline <https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0> in the future once there is clearer information on how much work the names proposal requires of the ICG and the wider community. * With regard to the protocol parameters and numbers proposals, the ICG has moved forward into Step 2 of its Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf> [PDF, 92 KB]. Step 2 examines the compatibility and interoperability, accountability, and workability of the submitted proposals. Additional output of the ICG: * At its 25 February teleconference <http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/> , in addition to the final consolidated proposal to be submitted to the ICANN Board for transmission to the NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> , ICG members decided to also produce a report of the information it collects during its work to ensure the three components of the stewardship proposal – protocol parameters, numbers and names – are not in conflict. CWG-Stewardship * The pace of work in the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANAStewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) is increasing as the CWG-Stewardship enters a new phase of work using "Design Teams." In addition, the CWG-Stewardship will hold a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees> , 26-27 March 2015. As of 9 March, 18 CWG-Stewardship members and 15 participants have confirmed onsite attendance for the meeting. Updated draft proposal: * On 26 February, CWG-Stewardship published version 2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.0%20updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=142536748 6000&api=v2> [PDF, 232 KB] of the draft transition proposal, on which it will base its future updates. In particular, the work of the Design Teams is designed to fill in the remaining gaps in the proposal. The CWG-Stewardship is also working to refine its document, Draft of Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Draft%20of%20Prin ciples_11%20December_clean.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1423050412000&api =v2> . The most recent version, sent to the CWG-Stewardship's mailing list for discussion, is dated 9 March 2015 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150309/fb787018 /DraftofPrinciples-updated9March-0001.docx> , and is still a work in progress. A new way of working: * CWG-Stewardship has introduced a new way of working on the names proposal: small groups of CWG-Stewardship members are to form "Design Teams" that each work on a very specific issue related to the names proposal. The aim is for each Design Team to deliver the results of its work back to the CWG-Stewardship for its consideration and action within two weeks of the Design Team's creation. Approved Design Teams will maintain publicly archived mailing lists of their communications. As of 5 March, there were 11 proposed Design Teams <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List> . Legal counsel: * CWG-Stewardship's "Client Committee" has selected Sidley Austin LLP <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002171.html> as legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship. Sidley Austin will provide legal advice and consultation to the CWG-Stewardship as they develop their proposal. CCWG-Accountability * The work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability (CCWG-Accountability) continues to gather speed with the formation of three new Work Parties (see "New Work Parties underway" below). The CCWG-Accountability will meet face-to-face in Istanbul, 23-24 March 2015 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees> , just prior to the CWG-Stewardship's face-to-face meeting at the same location. * The expected outcome of the Istanbul meeting is broad consensus on the work stream 1 mechanisms CCWG-Accountability will propose for public comment, launch date of 6 April 2015. New Work Parties underway: * WP1, Community Empowerment <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm ent> , has developed drafts of a number of accountability mechanisms <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> based on a standardized template. Mechanisms under investigation include how to mitigate against ICANN or NTIA choosing to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). The outcome of which would be ICANN no longer being held to its Affirmation Commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required implementation of review team recommendations. * WP2, Review and Redress <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress > , held its first teleconference on 27 February 2015. It has created four specialized sub teams: Community Compact regarding ICANN Mission <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Compact+Mission> ,Office of Ombudsman <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Office+of+Ombudsman> , Request for Reconsideration <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Request+for+Reconsiderati on> , and Independent Review <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Independent+Review> . WP2 plans to have all current drafting work completed by 19 March 2015, in time for the CCWG-Accountability's Istanbul face-to-face meeting. * The Stress Test Work Party (ST-WP) <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor k+Party> will hold its first teleconference on 11 March 2015 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891298> . Its work has led on from one of the four original sub-groups of the CCWG-Accountability, on Identifying Contingencies <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413864> , and is using that original sub-group'smailing list <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/> to conduct its work. The latest version of the document that is the focus of ST-WP's activities, Using Stress Tests to evaluate existing & proposed accountability measures (v7) <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150307/ec8 f82ea/ApplyingStressTestsDraftv7-0001.docx> , was posted to the mailing list on 7 March 2015. Legal counsel: * The CCWG-Accountability's Legal Sub Team has been working on a draft document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD AF3A/edit?usp=sharing> outlining the issues it wishes to ask of legal counsel (see also "Legal counsel" in the CWG-Stewardship section above). The CCWG-Accountability hopes to use the same firm as chosen by CWG-Stewardship, but remains open to the possibility of choosing a different legal counsel if the CWG-Stewardship's choice proves not to be the most appropriate one for CCWG-Accountability. Updates on other transition-related activities US Senate hearings: * Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation * On 25 February, a U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation hearing, Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35 -56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&Y earDisplay=2015> , focused on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the changes to ICANN's accountability needed to facilitate that transition. There were three witnesses before the hearing: Lawrence Strickling, NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> Administrator, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé and U.S. Ambassador David Gross on behalf of the Internet Governance Coalition. The witnesses were asked about the relationship of the IANA stewardship transition to a variety of issues, including intellectual property rights, net neutrality, human rights online, openness and innovation, international diplomacy and U.S. security. * * Senate Committee On Appropriations, Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice, Science, And Related Agencies * On 27 February, during the Subcommittee's hearing, Financial Year 2016 Department of Commerce Budget <http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings-and-testimony/cjs-subcommitte e-hearing-fy16-department-commerce-budget> , U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker was asked why there was a need to remove the U.S. Government from the IANAstewardship role. The webcast can be viewed here <http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcast/cjs-subcommittee-hearing-fy16- department-commerce-budget> . Upcoming key dates 19 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #30 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 23-24 Mar 2015CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees> , Istanbul 25 Mar 2015ICG Call #14 <https://www.ianacg.org/upcoming-icg-calls-13th-14th/> , 20:00-21:00 UTC 26-27 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Face-to-Face Meeting <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890325> (Meetings #31 & #32), Istanbul 18-19 Jun 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires Latest documents and drafts 10 Mar 2015CCWG Accountability - Draft Legal Scoping Document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD AF3A/edit?usp=sharing> 7 Mar 2015CCWG Accountability Stress Test Work Party - Draft 7: Using Stress Tests to evaluate existing & proposed accountability measures <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150307/ec8 f82ea/ApplyingStressTestsDraftv7-0001.docx> 9 Mar 2015CWG Stewardship - Draft of Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150309/fb787018 /DraftofPrinciples-updated9March-0001.docx> 26 Feb 2015CWG Stewardship - Draft Transition Plan version 2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.0%20updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=142536748 6000&api=v2> [PDF, 232 KB] ICG - Process Timeline version 8 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w9jg2bfv6gr7xm/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0> IANA Stewardship Transition in the news 27 Feb 2015Internet, Stati Uniti a marcia indietro: in pericolo la nuova governance <http://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it/tlc/32874_internet-stati-uniti-a-marcia -indietro-in-pericolo-la-nuova-governance.htm> , corrierecomunicazioni.it, [IT] 26 Feb 2015奥巴马不会把互联网控制权交给中国 <http://www.qstheory.cn/politics/2015-02/26/c_1114438882.htm> , Qiushi [CN] Internet-Verwaltung: Schlagabtausch im US-Senat zur IANA-Reform <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Internet-Verwaltung-Schlagabtausch-i m-US-Senat-zur-IANA-Reform-2559818.html> , Heise Online [DE] You can play a role … Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANNaccountability.For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contactgrace.abuhamad(a)icann.org. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contactaccountability-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 17 March 2015

4 3

CCWG chairs/advisors 5:30 Room 20
by Adam Peake March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Hi everyone, CCWG co-chairs and advisors will meet at 5:30 this afternoon in room 20, M2. Informal meeting, all welcome to observe. Best, Adam

2 1

21 March READING LIST - Istanbul Meeting
by Alice Jansen March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Dear Pedro, Thank you for flagging this! The document has been added to the reading list. Very best regards Alice On 3/20/15 10:18 PM, "Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva" <pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br> wrote: >Dear Alice, > >Many thanks. I remember in one of our previous calls that a draft report >structure was briefly shown to the CCWG members/participants. Do we have >that document as well? I couldn't find it in the list. > >Thanks. > >Kind regards, > >Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil >T: + 55 61 2030-6609 > >Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >Division of Information Society (DI) >Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >T: + 55 61 2030-6609 > > > >-----Mensagem original----- >De: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de >Alice Jansen >Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de março de 2015 16:40 >Para: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Assunto: [CCWG-ACCT] READING LIST - Istanbul Meeting > >Dear all, > >In preparation for your Istanbul meeting (23-24 March 2015), please find >attached a reading list map (.DOC & .PDF) to help you navigate through >documents and a compressed file which compiles documents on the reading >list. > >The reading list map can also be found on your dedicated IST wiki page >at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276 > >Thanks, > >Best regards > >Alice > >

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors meeting - ongoing
by Erika Mann March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

My plane came in late, just arrived. Erika

1 0

CCWG Advisors meeting - ongoing
by Adam Peake March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Hi everyone. The Advisors are meeting in room M2. Currently we are: Valerie D¹Costa, Jan Scholte, Lee Bygrave, Willie Currie dialing in. Markus Kummer, Arun Sukumar. Adam Peake and Alice Jansen. All welcome. Best, Adam

1 0

Draft version 8: Applying Stress Tests to proposed CCWG accountability mechanisms
by Steve DelBianco March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

With the conclusion of recent Stress Test Work Party (WP-ST) teleconference meetings, we have now completed at least an initial read through of all 25 Stress Tests <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor…> (ST's) established at the Frankfurt F2F Meeting. While we cannot apply stress tests definitively until we have a defined mechanism/structure to test, we’ve done our best with the proposed mechanisms at this point in the process. The edits and modifications made by WP-ST are now included in the attached v8 document <Draft v8, in both doc and PDF>. We have also attached a redline showing changes between version 7 and version 8. During the upcoming Istanbul Meeting it is our intention to discuss Stress Tests 12 & 18 during the formal Agenda with the CWG . Your review of the current text in advance would be appreciated. Further on Monday morning at 0730 the WP-ST will be having an informal breakfast meeting (in Global) where we plan to discuss (at least) ST 21 in great detail. Whilst all interested CCWG Members and Participants in Istanbul are welcome to join us, it would be appreciated if you could let Grace know if you intend to join so adequate table space can be booked. Regards, Cheryl and Steve, for the Stress Test Work Party

5 4

CCWG advisors, mtg Sunday 22 March, from 9am (Istanbul)
by Adam Peake March 21, 2015

March 21, 2015

Hi everyone, The CCWG advisors meeting will be held in room 19 on floor M2 (Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center). All welcome. I¹m sorry, due to technical constraints remote access for this informal meeting will not be available. The CCWG meetings on Monday and Tuesday will be held on the same M2 level of hotel. We will provide full meeting details (remote access etc) tomorrow. Best, Adam

1 0

CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
by Adam Peake March 21, 2015

March 21, 2015

Hi everyone, Three of the Advisors will attend the CCWG meeting on Monday and Tuesday next week: Valerie D'Costa, Jan Scholte and Lee Bygrave (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) They arrive on Saturday and will hold their own meeting on Sunday morning and early afternoon. At least one other member, Willie Currie, will join remote. This is the first time any of them will have had chance to meet face to face. Tentative agenda for their meeting: 09:00 - 15:00 local Istanbul (07:00 - 13:00 UTC) 1. Introduction & Opening Remarks 2. Topics of interest & Concerns 3. Understanding the context and recent developments 4. How can we help the CCWG? 5. Preparing for CCWG session 6. A.O.B They will receive the same documents as all members of the CCWG, and we suspect their discussions will be shaped by those (WP1, WP2, stress test work party outcomes) They will join the welcome cocktail. Best, Adam Adam Peake ICANN

19 32

Notes-Transcripts for CCWG ACCT LEGAL SubTeam Meetings
by Brenda Brewer March 21, 2015

March 21, 2015

Dear all, The notes and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting 19 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893426 The notes and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting 18 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892837 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892837%20> The notes and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting 13 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892243 Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Template for IRP in advance of Istanbul
by Burr, Becky March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Dear CCWG-ACCT - I’ve attached a draft accountability mechanism template for a revised/enhanced Independent Review. Many thanks to those on the Independent Review working group who put this together! You will notice that the template includes lots of questions and alternatives to be discussed in Istanbul. Best, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

2 2

READING LIST - Istanbul Meeting
by Alice Jansen March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your Istanbul meeting (23-24 March 2015), please find attached a reading list map (.DOC & .PDF) to help you navigate through documents and a compressed file which compiles documents on the reading list. The reading list map can also be found on your dedicated IST wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276 Thanks, Best regards Alice

5 4

Fwd: Rapporteur's report for Istanbul from WP1; Table of Mechanisms
by Jordan Carter March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Dear colleagues, FYI. En route to Istanbul. See you soon! best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 21 March 2015 at 01:00 Subject: Rapporteur's report for Istanbul from WP1; Table of Mechanisms To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all I attach two final papers: 1. A WP1 Rapporteur's Report for the CCWG that sets out what I see, from our debates, as the *key issues* for discussion in Istanbul. It is far from complete and might not be consensus, but I have flagged that in it. My intention is to give those CCWG members who have not been following our work in detail an overview and discussion starter. The paper also has a reading list and a brief about the process we followed. The reading list duplicates a better one the staff have been preparing which will come out soon, so that's fine. 2. I have also taken the table for comparing mechanisms and added some other indicators, and present this simply as information for the WP and the CCWG to digest as it likes. It is just my initial thinking - even I might not agree on further reflection and debate. I would be grateful if staff can include this in the material that is circulated. Many thanks 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 *

1 0

WP1 docs coming in ~5 hrs
by Jordan Carter March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Hi all I am going to write a wee cover note, on my responsibility as Rapporteur, and circulate it to the list in about five hours. It will set out: - the papers to read from the Wiki (generally it'll be the current version of each paper listed in WP1 docs in the second and third tables - "POWERS" and "MECHANISMS" - that is at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents) - the process we have followed to get to this point - key points that have attracted or that deserve focused attention at Istanbul As a latish paper from me, it has no standing other than a guide to my thinking about where to go. Other WP1 members are more than welcome to share corrections or additions to it when I get it out and about. If I get time on the flight I am about to take, I will also try and do a comparative table of the mechanisms we have listed to make consideration of these easier. thanks 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 *

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #5 18 March
by Brenda Brewer March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #5 - 18 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892452 Notes WP1 Meeting #5 18 March 2015 This call is being recorded Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards These high-level notes are prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Review of CCWG meeting and any actions arising If the various mechanisms go forward, what process is there to ensure the time to schedule implementation before the transition or before the submissions to NTIA at start of July. Substantive Content to Review: Matthew Shears: AoC incorporation: AoC incorporation: other articles on the AoC than those in the AoC reviews. Document include comments from members Asks for two new core values in the bylaws. a changed values and changes text in the bylaws AoC Para 23. Decisions made in the public interest and accountable and transparent. The intent behind the text is not explicit, Ask for a new explicit item in the bylaws to clarify this commitment. Further enhancement on consumer trust and choice. Enhanced transparency: performing impact assessments on the impact of ICANN's decisions, with a second paragraph addressing a range of transparency mechanisms. The bylaws do not commit to ICANN remaining a not for profit, the articles do but indirectly, whether there should be direct reference in the bylaws should be discussed Jurisdiction now being discussed at the CCWG level. Some of these issue will move into the amendments being proposed by WP2. Care taken not to allow the Board to use the global public interest as a way to avoid issues, or to give powers to smaller, self-interested groups. community council and powers. Proposed that it may exercise powers when petitioned by 2 or more SO/AC. 3 strawman if removing the board. Malcolm Hutty: 1. Original proposal. community my spill the board. High level of consensus needed to initiate and to execute. Spill the board as a power of last resort. 2. Same mechanism as the original proposal. Same high threshold to spill the board, but lower threshold to initiate process to consider whether to do so. To encourage the board to be more responsive to the community. 3. Different mechanism. Any SO could spill the Board by a vote of 'No Confidence' (if carried by consensus of SO). Would mean Board has to command confidence of each SO Steve DelBianco: Implementation of WS2 requirements. WS1 gave the powers to implement the mechanisms that may be more complex or longer term implementation. Full details of WS2 mechanisms will not be defined in detail ready for implementation. Some will be in a state that will allow ICANN board to commit to their implementation at the time of transition. Others will need continued community work. Keith Drazek: To prevent ICANN imposing obligations. WP1 looking at 4 factors: mission, powers, and restrictions. 5b is a restriction and a non-triggered, In this cased some contracted arrangement would seem to be a possibility, or a bylaws provision that accomplish the same thing. This is a new provision, both staff and board form imposing new obligations on contacted parties and these include obligations that flow down to registrants. These would be obligations outside of PDP or existing processes. Ed Morris: Statutory Delegates. Allows picking and choosing the powers we want. Membership scheme: standards under membership are derived from the statute, we would not be able to set thresholds for example to call for a super majority or very high standard, the standard would come from the statute. Topics for consideration by external legal advice. Jordan Carter Community council, revised adjusted the appointments section. accountability, added bullet to cover removal of a council member. What is the difference between the community council and a permanent CCWG? WP1-7b, creation of permanent CCWG. The difference is in the way in which the way in which such groups are constituted. CCWG: the powers would need to come from the bylaws, rather than an chartered organization which would not be permanent. For a CCWG, appointment would be by each chartering organizations, between 2 and 5 members. Voting arrangements would need to be considered. Concern regarding ICANN regional balance.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making
by Suzanne Radell March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear Thomas, Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as well as those of some GAC members, on the issue of the CCWG’s proposed stress test related to GAC advice in your email message of March 16, 2015 to the CCWG co-chairs. As you suggested in your message, we would like to take this opportunity to share the views of the United States government (USG) with colleagues in the GAC and the CCWG on the issue. As a threshold matter, the USG considers the stress test both appropriate and necessary to meet the requirement that the IANA transition should not yield a government-led or an intergovernmental replacement for NTIA’s current stewardship role. While the GAC may not be directly involved in the IANA functions, its role within ICANN as a source of public policy advice that is taken into account by the ICANN Board is relevant to the interrelated process of improving ICANN’s accountability. Improving ICANN’s accountability includes ensuring that ICANN is not susceptible to capture or undue influence by any one party or set of stakeholders, including governments. The USG believes that the stress test developed by the CCWG, which recommends an amendment to ICANN’s Bylaws to make clear that only consensus advice triggers a Bylaw consultation, is compatible and otherwise in line with the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team’s (ATRT 1) recommendations pertaining to the GAC. More specifically, the U.S. considers the provision of consensus-based advice to be the GAC’s primary source of strength and credibility. The GAC has on occasion provided the ICANN Board with “the full range of views expressed by Members”, consistent with Principle 47 of the GAC Operating Principles. In these cases, however, the ICANN Board does not and should not be expected to defer to such views as it does to consensus-based advice. The USG believes that anything less than a consensus approach to the development of GAC public policy advice would diminish the value of GAC deliberations on the development of policy within the ICANN model. Finally, we interpret the proposed stress test as capturing this important distinction in GAC advice, with an appropriate remedy in the form of a Bylaws amendment to reinforce the ICANN community’s expectation that anything less than consensus is not advice that triggers the Bylaw provisions. Nor do we understand the stress test as in any way interfering with the GAC’s internal working methods. Best regards, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov 202-482-3167 -----Original Message----- From: gac-bounces(a)gac.icann.org [mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:57 PM To: Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx Cc: gac(a)icann.org; adam.peake(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GAC] Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making 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 _______________________________________________ gac mailing list gac(a)gac.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac

1 0

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

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

Update of document on definition & scope
by Mathieu Weill March 14, 2015

March 14, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode. The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors. The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 5

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #4 11 March
by Brenda Brewer March 14, 2015

March 14, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #4 - 11 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891346 Action Items Action: Jordan to ask the co-chairs as to how to deal with the jurisdiction issues Action: staff to send announcement for next call, 21:00-23:00 UTC Wednesday 18 March Notes 1. Consideration of Agenda Items for the agenda? No 2. Report back from CCWG meeting How to approach the meeting in Istanbul. Sense from co-Chairs, that any controversial or difficult issues have been socialized on a CCWG call 3. Discussion of Work Items in progress WP1 work start charts. Work on the issues in red, except 6a 6b. Nor work on defining GAC consensus Bylaws matter and his AoC matters that had not been addressed by Steve: 3, 4, 7, 8 Document: Proposal for incorporating elements of the AoC into the ICANN bylaws. Recommendations for text that should be taken into the bylaws. Note about the AoC language on jurisdiction issue. Bylaws are silent on ICANN remaining an not for profit while the AoC commits and operating as multi-stakeholder organization for the benefit of the public.. Suggestion that jurisdiction may be one issue that may need to be shelved when moving AoC text into the bylaws There has been an expectation set about remaining a US corporation, with CCWG email discussion about letters from Senator Rubio (+ others) Action: Jordan to ask the co-chairs as to how to deal with the jurisdiction issues * AoC document access 5b 1 and 2. Text from the scope, powers and mechanisms document as starting point "prevent ICANN from imposing obligations on others unless needed to operate DNSCreate an Accountability Contract between ICANN and Registries, Registrars, and Registrants. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties and necessary to protect operation of the DNS. Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions.-or-Describe this limitation in a 'golden' Bylaw or Article that cannot be amended by any means." Golden rule not needed, a founding document or constitution more appropriate, and agreement with this thou off topic and more for WP2 and the compact Keith to continue on work on clarifying ICANN's technical mission, this has been transitioned to WP2 and continues WP1-7A: Removing ICANN Board Asked to considered ways to remove the whole board a new power, but a triggered mechanisms so belong is WP1 Need somebody to do it. Suggesting a community council to do this Proposal suggests that the community council should be somewhat separated, giving more accountability. Will be a issue for discussion. Members appointed by SO/AC for 1 year. Frequent election and barring of long terms to keep dynamism. Q: does the proposal work for other structures (supervisory board etc)? A: ecision thresholds, caretaker mechanism could be the same. Is a new body (cc) required? When the SO/AC structures exist? A. a number of powers giving the community, (bylaws approvals etc) and a new body may come together to consider those. The SO/AC structures not able to do this, too autonomous. May ask Advisors to consider this. CC as a type of senate. Of the community but slightly detached. Standing described is a very high bar. Should it have lower level of triggers? Is it a nuclear option, Or is it a means for some part of the community to raise very significant concerns with the rest of the community. Community veto. community veto. a process to challenge certain boar d"high end" decisions, a discrete set of pre-determined issues. Two SO to trigger a challenge, and then for the community to consider a veto under their own procedures. The Board then takes a subsequent vote to consider the community decisions or to reject the veto, but that set to a very high standard, 4/5 etc of voting. And if vetoed it would be sent back to the community for further work and adoption by the organization. An equivalent to the community council. discussion needed on which mechanisms are preferred. 1a and b. Looked at member structure, for update on legal issues with a final version next week 4. Next steps in our work 5. Next Meetings Agenda 4 & 5 Wed 18 At 21:00 UTC for 2 hours. Meeting Sunday in Istanbul, but remote participation not possible - not for formal work but more swapping of work. Action: staff to send announcement for next call, 21:00-23:00 UTC Wednesday 18 March

3 2

Impact of accountability measures
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch March 13, 2015

March 13, 2015

Dear all I would just like to share a general thought with you: I wonder whether the different accountability mechanism descriptions/proposals will be presented with an assessment of their impact on the "power structures" within ICANN and on the appropriate balance between parts of the community, most conductive to serve the global public interest. Perhaps I'm missing this part as I've joined this process rather recently, but I'm not seeing this aspect covered in the templates and proposals of accountability measures Best Jorge Cancio International Relations Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office of Communications OFCOM Zukunftstrasse 44, CH 2501 Biel Tel. +41 58 460 54 58 (direct) Tel. +41 32 327 55 11 (office) Fax +41 58 460 54 66 mailto: jorge.cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch www.bakom.admin.ch

3 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ST-WP] Additional Stress Test for consideration
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse March 13, 2015

March 13, 2015

Yes, this is visible during revocation and transfer of ccTLDs and we must address it from this general level. Greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6 > On Mar 13, 2015, at 01:51, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > During a call today regarding ICANN’s transition and accountability, David Post called for development of a stress test we don’t currently have. I’d like to present it to the sub-group for consideration with the recommendation we act positively on his recommendation. > > > > This would belong in Stress Test Category Four: Failure of Accountability. > > > > The problem is one some of us believe we’ve encountered with increasing frequency at ICANN: staff substituting their policy preferences for the policy developed through proper processes. Staff could do this intentionally or unintentionally. The result is the same. > > > > In this scenario a policy is properly developed (most often through a PDP) but when implementing the policy staff creates processes that effectively change or negate the policy developed. > > > > This is a major accountability problem and we don’t seem to be testing to ensure we have proper accountability processes in place to deal with it. I’d suggest we do so. I’m happy to help with this as needed. > > > > Thanks for considering. > > > > > > > > Edward Morris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4

2 1

A thought on the legal team selection
by Avri Doria March 12, 2015

March 12, 2015

Hi, I am not asking to be an observer of that team. A thought I had on the advantage of a different team than the one CWG has selected. Using an analogy: When getting major surgery, it is good to have separate opinions. When they agree, you are probably ok, when they don't there is more discussion to be had before going under the knife. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

3 3

Can we use the CCWG calendar to post when meetings are to take place?
by Robin Gross March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

May I please request that all of the various CCWG sub-team and working party meetings that get scheduled are listed on the CCWG calendar?: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A… It has become to difficult to keep track of when each of the various subgroup and working party meetings are happening using email alone. This is especially true for those of us who are in several of the sub groups. The amount of email is overwhelming and so using only email to inform when mtgs are happening will result in accidentally missed meetings. So I'd like to request that when the mtg gets scheduled and the announcement goes out, could the mtg also be posted to the CCWG's calendar, please? Thank you, Robin

8 7

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Legal Subteam - 10 March
by Brenda Brewer March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam call on 10 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Provide more clarity on timeline as soon as possible. ACTION ITEM: Verify CWG would have no objection if CCWG deduces to engage with same firm Notes Aim of call: Determine if Sidley has expertise and skills the CCWG is looking for to provide independent legal advice the CCWG needs to build proper proposal for ICANN's transition. 1. Introductions Call participants introduced themselves. 2. Brief Discussion CCWG stems from need to enhance ICANN accountability mechanisms. CCWG is looking at existing accountability mechanisms and trying to determine which mechanisms need to be integrated for a smooth transition. Work has been divided into Work Streams: * * WS1 - mechanisms fairly committed or put in place by transition; * WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but needs to take place post transition. Main focus of the CCWG is to determine: how to appropriately enhance ICANNs accountability to its community in the absence of the historical back stop of the U.S. Government after the conclusion of their historical relation when the IANA managing functions contract ends. A lot of external advice is needed. CCWG has reached out to ICANN legal first to obtain initial feedback but is also looking for independent advice. A draft scoping document is available at. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD… Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1. * * Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors. * Community empowerment over ICANNs management. * Limiting the scope of ICANNs activity. Timeline is a real challenge. The CCWG is focused on making ICANN the best organization it can be for the purpose it is serves. 3. Discussion - Transparency is essential . Do you have any issues with your advice being made public available? --> Sidley is very comfortable with advice being public: it had this conversation with CWG and crosschecked process with internal general counsel in process of retention with CWG. Working procedures are designed to ensure that process is transparent. The firm has spent a lot of time working with the CWG thinking about structure of relationship. It understands that the intent is to provide independent legal advice. One of difficulties: neither CCWG nor CWG are incorporated, legal entities - ICANN will pay for the bill. The choice was 1) have every member of the CWG/CCWG become client which would imply going through onerous conflict check for each individual and get them to sign a contract; 2) Have a direction signed by ICANN (technical/nominal client) which stipulates that all directions are taken by CWG or CCWG and advice is directly provided to WGs only. It is very clear that intent is that we ought to be thinking of concerns that are being brought by the CWG or CCWG as we provide advice and not think about project from an ICANN perspective. Firm is comfortable that is the direction given and that retention letter is clear on that. They have worked through with internal general counsel to make sure it complies with ethical obligations. - Important to know our task is not only because the NTIA contract has a window of opportunity for opening - it is also because ICANN's accountability mechanisms are generally regarded as inadequate (irrespective of NTIA contract). - Timeline will most likely need to be adjusted since the community will not have reached sufficient consensus or exploration of issues on the timeline suggested now. - What is the firm's understanding of its duty of loyalty to ICANN, the corporation (as opposed to CWG)? --> Understand that duty of loyalty to ICANN is to fulfill direction it was given: provide independent advice to CWG and take directions from CWG only. ICANN has waived all privileges and made all directions direct. Will fulfill obligations to ICANN by carrying out what is in retention letter. - Do you see any other mechanism to achieve goal of transparency towards our own community? --> Make retention letter public. Response to legal scoping document should also be made public as well, subject to concerns. It may be that we ask some information to remain confidential if providing information about client. There are a lot of mechanisms for transparency through discussions, posting emails etc. We are open to suggestions. - As in CWG, we should have public archived mailing list for substantive engagement to make sure it is a transparent process to ICANN and global multistakeholder community. - How would you see us interacting with you? Are there any concerns with respect to requirements to track interactions with stakeholders? E.g. interaction from members of group that might approach you. Ideally the relationship would be between Legal Subteam and firm but some may approach you directly. Having a record may be desirable. --> Important for clarity, efficiency and transparency that it be clear who we are taking direction from. Comfortable with protocol that don't interact with individuals on one-on-one basis without being logged in. We can move faster if understand who is authorized to pose questions. Cannot be efficient if large number of people. - We could also log that into mailing list so that all can see interaction. We would have to limit to subject matter of CCWG. --> Communicate progress and guidance to larger group so that people understand how decisions are arrived at (iterative process) - this will help bolster confidence of larger stakeholder group in recommendations. - Would you be able to attend March meeting: how would you participate in working sessions with larger group? --> Will do best to work on conflits. Committed to working in whatever way CCWG considers useful. What is the timeframe? - León Sanchez walked Sidley through timeline - <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CWG-CCWG_timeline… modificationDate=1425369129000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CWG-CCWG_timeline… odificationDate=1425369129000&api=v2. Working towards having a draft out of Istanbul for public comment. Ultimate goal for WS1 would be to submit to Board by mid June for approval. --> This is an aggressive timeframe in terms of legal advice. Priority is to get it right while getting it done. Need to understand how you have identified three issues in the scoping document and what else you considered and took off the table and why. Your insight on potential pathways you considered would be useful to make sure we are giving a full view of what could be considering. Diligence would need to be done soon through a call with Legal Subteam. A lot of it is contingent on items that not in lawyer's control. - May need to adjust timeline when time comes. --> What sort of presentation is the CCWG contemplating during F2F meeting: is the need for discussion of pros/cons of various specific proposals that have already been floated? Might be doable if already in legal scoping vs. full out legal analysis submitted particularly if want to suggest one system is more effective than the the other. This would be a more robust undertaking that could not accomplished before Istanbul. - First need to decide whether engage with law firm and then advise. Supposing we are engaging with Sidley, should begin by answering legal scoping questions and combine how different answers to questions may fit into work done by WPs. Need to have a broader look at different mechanisms so far designed by WPs and see how they are legally feasible and play along with answers to scoping document. This would be the expectation for Istanbul. --> Experience with California Law not-for-profits: large not for profit practice, we have expertise of that group behind us should need it. --> Work for not for profits on general matters but also have been advising on governance, directors, bylaws issues - recent research has been done on these. Large practice behind us. Substantial knowledge of trust structures. --> Experience with California not for profits on governance issues. Worked with large, federated, international organizations many of which have complex relationships that need to be considered where accountability system needs to be built that show interest are heard and have effect in organization. Project helping on external communities finding consensus including governance reforms. Commonalities in issues. - Is it advisable to get same firm for CWG and CCWG? Would there be any cons to representing both groups? --> Both groups are working towards common end and have very similar interests. There is a fair degree of crossover on some of the issues. No conflicts seen. We have deep bench on not for profit side, on corporate side, on governance side and would be committed to putting any resources may have. - Some of our proposals concern restructuring ICANN into a membership or delegate based organization. Do you have any experience in this type of restructuring? --> Worked with membership organizations and helping restructure governance into membership organizations with complex structure that helped to restructure but no experience with making a non-member organization into a membership organization. Not for profit folks we can come up with examples. Comfortable with advising around it. Don't think this would pose any difficulties. - We have had experience converting cooperative organizations into more traditional full profit entities. Governance and membership organization could be a possibility we could deploy here. Further discussion needed on utility of this. There may be conflicting priorities that arise of membership organization we would need to think about. - Very significant advantages and minor disadvantages we can control for. Advantage are learning curve, natural coordination and convergence of work going on between 2 groups. Accountability has a longer lifespan part of accountability work will dovetail with stewardship group but bigger field of play. Disadvantages are conflicting timeline, overlapping responsibilities and against trend. - How is workload balanced in the firm between partners and associates doing the work in this matter? --> Unusual project. It will take start up time to determine right balance. Commitment to be as efficient as possible. Many of issues are not simple or straightforward and it will require partner time. Process in place whereby on call to be informed on non-billing basis. - How would you describe knowledge of ICANN and how would you get better understanding? --> Quick-learner have people with real expertise in area. --> Worked on internet law issues. ICANN has featured prominently. Dealt with domain name dispute, country level, complicated jurisdictional issues over root zone services. Practice involves dealing with world's largest technology, software companies. Former General Counsel for Department of Commerce has just joined us and has clear knowledge of NTIA perspective on contract with ICANN, political state of play, legal side of operations and importance of IANA functions. Realistic founded knowledge of ICANN and Internet. We have associate who lectured on cyber at Harvard. --> Knowledge going back to inception and prior to that. Chaired subcommittee that has oversight and jurisdiction for NTIA. In 2009, IANA contract was awarded to ICANN and subcommittee conducted a whole set of hearings. At the time, a lot of developing countries were urging ITU to get a role. Passed a resolution that received rare unanimous consensus that internet remain under governance of multistakeholder process and ITU not be involved. Long acquaintance of ICANN understand functions very well as well a counter forces at play. Can help advising on that to optimize opportunity for Congress to accept. --> Worked in communications law migrated from broadcasting to telecommunications to representations of ISPs. As general counsel, established the internet policy task force which combined NTIA with other agency that dealt with digital economy and multistakeholder model policy-making. As general counsel, had legal team provide services to NTIA. Knowledge also includes renewal of IANA functions contract to issues surrounding top level domain names, broader issues of internet governance etc. Wrote paper about defending transition aware of post policy issues of importance to an effective transition. --> More clarity is needed on timeframe for making decision. Ability to work effectively depends on time between decision and Istanbul. - Debrief call will be organized with legal sub team. Will get more clarity on timeline by the end of this week. ACTION ITEM: Provide more clarity on timeline as soon as possible. - If there is a decision, staff could complete engagement letter fairly quickly using similar language to CWG letter. --> Simple if same approach. --> Agreement needed between CWG and CCWG that comfortable with process. --> We would need CWG consent. - Doubt CWG would refuse but will verify. ACTION ITEM: Verify CWG would have no objection if CCWG deduces to engage with same firm. Next call: Friday, 13 March 00:00 UTC

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability ST-WP 11 March
by Brenda Brewer March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability Stress Tests WP call on 11 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891846 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Identify CWG liaison for ST-WP ACTION ITEM: Sam to send text on DNSSEC and IANA function audit. ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to suggest text to ensure that the FoI work is reflected ACTION ITEM: put out another Doodle Poll for this time next week (with the option for more times later in the day) Notes - Stress tests cannot be finally completed until we have final draft proposals from WPs. We want to run through 25 stress tests in advance of Istanbul and have critical eye. Focus on those we have not gone through. - Cannot be detailed in third column. Let's identify potential gaps. Stress Category I: Financial Crisis of Insolvency - 5.6.7.8 in same block because same set of consequences - agreement to have same stress test? Agreement Any objections to Sam's added text? -> Review of reserve fund is not mandatory -> It's an independent review - not clear what review cycle is = Reviewed periodically and independently Stress Test 9 - Reviewed Sam's added text on existing measures Role of Ombudsman in terms of acting as a confidential place to lodge issues in terms of consequences of corruption and whistleblowing. Chris Lahatte's suggested addition of this stress test. This would be a subset of 9. -> No objections to Sam's edits Stress Category II. Failure to meet operational expectations - Conclusions in right column are all draft. Suggestion to send it out to CWG. -> Opposed to sending something to other third parties before we have sent it to CCWG due to need for consensus -> We could write to all CCWG to check. -> No objections to a formal transmittal once it is approved by the CCWG -> Some of these stress tests apply to CWG work. Undue formalism but need to be cautious about how approach these things. -> Could ask rapporteurs engaged in CWG to look at STs. -> Opposed to subgroup of a subgroup making decisions on this. Document should be out in the open. -> Will ensure they are aware of doing. - Stress tests 1 and 2 are being addressed by CWG in services agreements and operational discussions. Congress has insisted on looking at CWG and CCWG together and on need to see stress tests. We are not making formal conclusions but useful to show it to them to inform work. -> Publish docs, communicate, don't send report formally, and see if wish to share input -> No formal CWG liaison in ST-WP. ACTION ITEM: Identify CWG liaison for ST-WP Stress test 11 Designed to be a serious stress test. -> Need to have a way to hold staff accountable. IT declined making presentation when asked them. Security issues are improved if people talk about this. -> Suggestion to add a measure on community briefing regarding security breaches -> Gap in third column - no current action in CCWG to add the above. -> There needs to be a way to break up two separate issues: 1) internal measures; 2) security issues as relates to SSR = Heading to be added - after action report -> For ICANN's work on DNSSEC, ICANN receives certification for how it maintains work on DNSSEC - that is an existing accountability measure. There is also a requirement of audit for IANA function. ACTION ITEM: Sam to send text on DNSSEC and IANA function audit. Stress test 17 If ICANN is not responding to policy development or to a concern raised by SSAC, the community should be able to force it to be addressed Stress test 21 Related to the CWG appeals process request Need to include FoI work/outcome Suggest to rewrite the entire premise on which this Stress Test was written This is a very sensitive issue for the GAC (suggestion to defer to Singapore GAC communiqué that deals with the FOIWG outcome). ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to suggest text to ensure that the FoI work is reflected ACTION ITEM: put out another Doodle Poll for this time next week (with the option for more times later in the day) Next meeting TBA

1 0

Agenda for CCWG-ACCT WP1 meeting #4 - Wed 11 March @ 21h-22.30h UTC
by Jordan Carter March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

Dear all Please find below the proposed agenda for our call later (about 11h from now). Thanks, Jordan *1. Consideration of Agenda* *2. Report back from CCWG meeting* *3. Discussion of Work Items in progress* I suggest we discuss all outstanding items, so that means: - Matthew and Fiona - WP1 2D on requiring AOC implementation (think we did discuss this?) & on other AOC into bylaws matters & crossovers with WP2 - Steve Matthew and Fiona - WP1 2E on AOC document access - Steve - WP1 2E on ability to ensure WS2 stuff is implemented - Keith Drazek on 5B1&2 - on ICANN obligations - Jordan - 7A on removal of ICANN directors In terms of mechanisms I hope we can also discuss: B - Jordan - permanent CCWG F - Robin - community veto I would also like us to test whether any other work is required on any other work items before we can do a consensus call on our next call. *4. Next steps in our work* a) what we need to do for Istanbul b) consensus calls in terms of documents being finished for consideration by CCWG at Istanbul c) how to wrap up outputs *5. Next Meetings* a) We need one meeting next week to consensus call on documents. I propose same day/time - 21h UTC on Wed 18th. b) *if we need another working meeting, we will need to schedule it before this last chance for consensus.* *6. Any Other Business* -- 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 *

1 0

Fwd: Template 7A - removing the ICANN Board of Directors - v2
by Jordan Carter March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

For your information, colleagues. We will be discussing this in about eleven hours in WP1. bests Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 11 March 2015 at 23:05 Subject: Template 7A - removing the ICANN Board of Directors - v2 To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Dear all Please find attached in .docx and .pdf an updated Template regarding the removal of the ICANN Board. This is Work Item WP1-7A in Working Party 1. This update focuses on the power to spill the whole Board, following discussion at the CCWG that individual director removal could form part of post-transition Work Stream 2 work. It actually also functions, more or less, as the Template for Work Items regarding the mechanisms, as it defines a "Community Council" as a vehicle by which the power to Remove the ICANN Board of Directors would be exercised. It strikes me that this Council, if we like the shape of it, could (with various voting thresholds) serve as the vehicle for quite a few powers. There are some caveats or points to note: - there are some options in this, esp for size/composition. - I am not a lawyer but I have written organisational constitutions before. This is an OK first draft but it is *not complete and leaves questions unanswered beyond those highlighted in the template.* - I have not developed legal questions that the lawyers might helpfully address in testing this template mechanisms, but plan to do so over the weekend. - I had some help from our friendly co-Chairs in some of this drafting - thanks to Mathieu, Thomas, Leon for that. This is for first discussion on our call at 21h UTC today (Wed 11 March 2015). I look forward to your thoughts and feedback. Many thanks, 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 * -- 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 *

1 0