April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Freeze document - section 8 - work stream 2
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Attached are clean and redline versions of the work stream 2 section of the report. I have incorporated all comments received to date, many thanks to contributors. This is the draft version for your consideration during the "freeze" period. Further comments are still possible and will be discussed during 23-24 Apr meetings. No further version of this document will be published in the meantime. Staff will include the clean versions on the draft report wiki page shortly (where you will be able to find all sections and subsections conveniently). Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 4

ICANN Accountability - Indian Perspectives (A report)
by Arun Sukumar April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hello, Last month (March 13), the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University New Delhi, held day-long roundtable sessions on ICANN Accountability concerns. The event was supported by the National Internet Exchange of India and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India. Attached to this mail is a report of the conference - a document we believe for the first time articulates in writing diverse Indian perspectives and comments on the IANA transition and ICANN accountability. The roundtable discussants were briefed by an ICG member Milton Mueller and CCWG co-chair Mathieu Weill. The Q&A with them, transcribed in this report (faithfully we hope!) highlights some of the concerns that Indian stakeholders have on Work Streams 1 and 2. Its a fairly exhaustive (25 pages) report, but we hope you will find it useful and informative. Special shout-out to Mathieu for his time and valuable input to the conference! Best, Arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

4 3

work plan and next steps
by Thomas Rickert April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list. We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by - installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far - compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents and - holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice. We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728>). We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days. Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right. Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible. We will provide you with further information shortly. Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas

5 4

Article
by Roelof Meijer April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Kieren, I came across your article in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/15/internet_kingmakers_cry_mercy_over_… It surprises me (or maybe it doesn't) that you quote me, without showing the courtesy of at least informing me beforehand. Additionally, I wonder if you have announced to us all that you are participating in the CCWG as a journalist. I am not aware of that, but might have missed something. Roelof Meijer

4 4

Fwd: FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the latest timetable from the CWG. Their public comment period is expected to start on Wednesday, 22 April. -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date : Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:40:08 +0100 De : Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Répondre à : jrobinson(a)afilias.info Organisation : Afilias Pour : Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr> Copie à : Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Please see below for latest timetable information from the CWG. Jonathan *From:*Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] *Sent:* 16 April 2015 19:57 *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Cc:* Brenda Brewer *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement *Importance:* High Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. */It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed./* The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now *cancelled*(we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. Timeline for the upcoming week: * *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. /Note/: /This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days)/. * *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace

1 0

Initial draft section 8 - work stream 2
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As part of our planned report structure for public comment, section 8 is planned to address work stream 2 : what items would be considered and how would we ensure commitment that they will indeed be addressed ? The task of assembling a draft was assigned to the co-chairs in Istanbul. With precious help from staff, we are circulating this initial draft, building on the idea of a transitional article in the Bylaws, which seemed to get traction in Istanbul. The list of items is very tentative. the status of the document is an Initial draft. Amendments sent before Friday 17 Apr 15.00 UTC will be incorporated into the “freeze period” document. And of course, full and detailed review will be on the agenda of our intense work days (so this is NOT an urgent last call). Thanks for your consideration, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

7 11

Further Objection to the Methodology
by Dr Eberhard Lisse April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making. I object to this. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

10 15

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #11 16 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #11 - 16 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897025 Notes WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April Please note that 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 Links: WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Starting from 6.5.6 Recalling the entire ICANN Board comment: regarding petitioning power, on the basis of 2 or more SO/AC. Suggest a much higher bar. Create an extreme measure because everything else hasn't worked to that point. What higher threshold: 2/3 of all SO/AC in ICANN (of 7 total, 3 SO and 4 AC, 2/3 cannot be reached by the AC alone). In a group that broadly works on consensus, 75% to remove the Board seems low. Some earlier comment that did not want 1 SO or AC to be able to block this power. Is there any voice for the NomCom in removing their directors? As a whole board removal the question is about removal not appointment. WP1 does not need to address the mechanism for doing this now. Using options to describe these thresholds would allow the community to see why certain % have been offered, including an explanation of thinking behind the options. Suggest creating a table to represent thresholds. 3rd paragraph. Internal mandate and discussion. Can it be unbolded? Yes, Agreed 6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws Stress test 14. After the contract with NTIA's gone there is nothing holding ICANN to stay within the AoC. To answer the test, to retain the commitment and reviews, add the AoC to the bylaws, as a WS1 item. 1st preserve 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the commitments cited in the section 9 reviews. Para 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not reference commitments made by ICANN, not of concern to the CCWG Noted that "Other parts of the AoC are either preamble text or commitments of the US Government, so these have not been proposed as additions to the ICANN bylaws." Left column is the commitment to the community, the right column is how to approve on this commitments in the core values. suggestion to add "and approval" to para 3 to "Ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the global public interest and are accountable, transparent and bottom-up in their formulation" [and in their approval] Need care when adding to the bylaws, to be sure we know what we mean. further caution: the word "global": has been added so needs to be underlined. bottom-up in their formulation is loose language for bylaws. And not all ICANN processes are bottom-up. Note: the text will get further scrutiny. Add to the chapeau: that text being added to the bylaw is understandable and implementable. suggested change: "and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of ICANN". Accepted. Chapeau, remove "the following..." (and in other sections) Financial and non-commercial are not two sides of the same coin. The text was intended to refer to broad financial impact. Non-financial impact might be considered. Para 7. Using reasonable has been defined over years of law, adequate doesn't the same legal clarity. Suggest that what trying to do is propose the sense of the change we desire, and too much close text editing gets away from that goal. Para 8b, should, be considered by the CCWG. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material. AoC reviews. Suggestion to add more explanatory header material, 4 recommendations. The first text box is from the ATRT2 report. Avri to draft standalone paragraph about the CWG review mechanisms. SSR review. Suggestion to hold more frequently than five years, "This periodic review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years" New gTLD expansion "Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" AoC is proscriptive, new text tried to simplify. WHOIS/directory services Addition of reference to the OECD guidelines (remove, note text) Periodic review of the IANA Function Information now in CWG. First after 2 years and subsequently every 5. Packaged as an AoC review. Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests Force the board to respond to SO/AC advice. So that the board has taken a stand on advice, which then would be subject to review. Next Steps: New version 3.2 will be sent to the list immediately. Later, a tidied version, with comments and table for the voting threshold as clean document and track changes will be distributed, this version will be open for any changes. Final version responding to last comments will be sent to the CCWG (as directed by co-chairs) END

1 0

Calendar view of CCWG and SubTeam Meetings 20 - 30 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Hello all! As a visual tool, here is a calendar for next two weeks of CCWG ACCT and SubTeam Meetings. April (subject to change) 2015 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 12 April 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCWG ACCT 19:00-21:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00-12:30 UTC LEGAL 15:00-17:00 UTC CCWG ACCT: 04:00 - 06:00 UTC 11:00 - 12:00 UTC 19:00 - 22:00 UTC LEGAL 22:00-23:59 UTC CCWG ACCT: 08:00 - 10:00 UTC 13:00 - 14:00 UTC 16:00 - 19:00 UTC 26 27 28 29 30 CCWG ACCT 19:00-21:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00-12:30 UTC LEGAL 15:00-17:00 UTC

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Stress Tests Meeting #4 on 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability Stress Tests Meeting #4 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895714 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895714%20> Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1 ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note ACTION ITEM - remove strike through ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed. ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language Notes Accountability Stress Tests WP Meeting #4 on 15 April Link: ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. P1 last paragraph will be edited. ST of interest to CWG will be added. ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1 Edward Morris' additional ST will be #26 STs # 3, 4, 29, 11, 27, 17 - Board Inaction: ability to spur the Board to make a decision in order to trigger a reconsideration or IRP is not firmly established in any of the design powers and mechanisms yet. Outreach to legal on Board inaction has not led to formal feedback. Suggestion that threaten Board of removal to solve for Board inaction is not a formal mechanism. Expanding on ATRT recommendation #9 language in the bylaws might be sufficient to trigger the IRP and other review mechanisms that are being worked on in Work Party 2. Conversation with WP1 to ensure inducing Board action is a community power. WP2 discussion about whether or not existing redress mechanisms could somehow be triggered by a failure to act. ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note Steve del Bianco flagged that Preserving AoC commitments in ICANN bylaws will be discussed in WP1 Suggestion that better to have Bylaw provision that forces Board an accountability to the community to respond to Advisory Committee formal advice. - Advisory Committees would benefit from this. Outreach to ACs might be needed. Community Veto STs #3, 4, 19, 10, 20, 15 ACTION ITEM - remove strike through ST #18 GAC Discussion is pending. Some GAC support for ST recommendation. Should more urgent issues come forward from WP1 - WP2, stress test 18 still needs discussion - would cut back on 14 - 17 GAO Steve provided GAO with overview of STs ST #21 Suggestion to amend ST 21 in light af CWG remarks concerning appeal mechanism and respect national legislation on redelegation ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed. Consider including reference to GAC principles ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language

1 0