March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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