April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Agenda and dcoument for today< meeting
by Kavouss Arasteh April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other . Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .

6 6

FW: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation
by Alice Jansen April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached a copy of the slide-deck the lawyers have prepared in anticipation of your call today. Thanks Best regards Alice From: <Hofheimer>, "Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:08 PM To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Subject: FW: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 5:04 AM To: 'Brenda Brewer'; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Subject: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation Here is the slide deck to share. It can be posted to the list after our call now. JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

CWG input to our group
by Mathieu Weill April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As you may know, the CWG has started today an intense work period of 2 days. You will find the notes of the 1st session below. Thomas and I were invited to provide an update on the CCWG. You will also note that the CWG puts emphasis on their expectations towards our work. We can expect a consolidation of these requirements to be sent to us shortly after their 2 days of work. For illustration purposes, the first session already addressed : - budget requirement > *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we > need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all > IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. - ccTLD delegation appeals > *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the > DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to > develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later > date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). - also mention of a periodic review of IANA performance > These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #35 - 13 April Date : Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:47:01 +0000 De : Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Pour : cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576 *Action Items* *Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language*** *Notes* *1. Opening Remarks * · ·Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days. ·6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. ·Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. ·Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well. ·There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: · ·ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) ·Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) ·Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) ·Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. *2. CCWG-Accountability Update***(Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the CWG requirements. If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. Wiki link:https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw *3. DT-O (budget)* ·DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez ·Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure. ·Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. ·No disagreement with DT-O recommendations ·CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? ·Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal ·If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto? ·The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. *4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)* ·Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism ·Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received) ·Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. ·So recommendation is to not pursue this now ·The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. ·For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). *5. DT-N (Periodic Review)* ·These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. ·First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that ·Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with ·The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment ·Does the review expand to address IANA policy? ·Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period. *Action*(staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language *6. AOB* *7. Closing Remarks*

4 7

Clarification on 'membership' - not individual
by Jordan Carter April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

dear all I just wanted to make a comment as rapporteur for the community empowerment working party. There is some discussion outside our ccwg and outside our working party that the discussion of membership as an option to empower the community could lead to an Individualised membership system, where interested members of the public would join ICANN. That is not right. That is not what is on the table. Membership might be a vehicle to give ICANN's multi stakeholder community more power within ICANN. It would do that through structures that relate to ICANN as it is today, a collection of constituencies organised through SOs and ACs. The organisation will remain a bottom up, multistakeholder one. The work through SOs and ACs will continue. Nobody has proposed sweeping this away and replacing it with individual membership, recruitment drives, and so on. Trust this helps. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

6 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
by Julia Katja Wolman April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning Dear Colleagues, This is to mention that, as co chairs, we are closely monitoring this discussion. As you know, we introduced this new work plan during the last CCWG call, meeting at the time no objection. We are however receptive to the concerns raised and welcome constructive inputs. Since I have just finished our CCWG-CWG co-chair coordination call, I can however confirm that the main reason for meeting the target date we set in Istanbul remains very much up to date : the CWG needs clarity on our proposals to confirm its own options. Delay on our side might jeopardize their timeline, which in turn affects the ICG, etc. We will get back to the group on Monday, once we also have greater clarity on the status of work party progress. Thanks to all of you for your commitment and inputs, which we encourage to focus on the working party inputs at this precise point. Mathieu Le 10/04/2015 07:34, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit : No, Cheryl, it is not, with all due respect to Ed. It is again fiddling with process and not dealing with substance. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6 On Apr 10, 2015, at 04:20, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed... Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Roelof, I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people. I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it. I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule. Thanks for considering, Ed On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Dear co-chairs, dear all, I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal. It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as "less relevant and/or out of scope"- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd. As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups' work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us. We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality. I for one, find this unacceptable. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el(a)lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>> wrote: >Thank you very much. > >so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which >I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))? > >The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)? > > >More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, >but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending >too much time on process and very little on substance? > > >This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said >numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because >of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in >reality. > > I object to this. > > >And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the >legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA >function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be >done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in >this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs. > > >I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the >GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I >reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they >have explicitly requested/suggested. > > >I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the >German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which >as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and >unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being >taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the >USG's stated intent. > >The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during >the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total >removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments >deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the >RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the >position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when >read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me. > >I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD >(after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD. > >But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, >I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing >rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers. > >This is NOT negotiable. > >And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of >Interpretation Principles. > > >Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused >senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. >As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to >agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the >current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good >idea how it SHOULD be operated. > >Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this >works. I can not find any feedback on this issue. > > >Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not >saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I >shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any >output of the CCWG-Accountability. > >I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well. > > >greetings, el > >On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote: >> Hi Eberhard, >> >> Please see attachment in pdf format. >> >> Best, >> Brenda >[...] > >-- >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >el(a)lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) >PO Box 8421 \ / >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ >_______________________________________________ >ccTLDcommunity mailing list >ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> >http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > >To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

17 26

Notes, transcript and recordings WP1 | 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, transcript and recordings for the CCWG Accountability WP1 Meeting #9 on 13 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895949 Action Items Action: staff send calendar invites for Wednesday and Thursday calls Notes Legal advice. End of each template in blue. In the discussion of membership, it would be helpful to make clear that this is not full and individual and corporate membership organization. Point 6 page 4. The community is not seeking oversight over all OCANN business, only some specific areas. The veto powers are for specific issues not ICANN wide. The budget veto for example would be specific once/year. Recognizes that the ICANN board must be able to continue to govern. Budget veto. Blocking strategic plan or budget. Not to micro-manage. Up/down vote on the budget. Recognize need to bring this into the planning process. Comment: Page 3. Blue text. Advice on how the proposal might get in the way of budget process. Already part ICANN's process. There is no line item veto or adjustment being requested. Requests revision. Clarifications appreciated, esp re membership definition. External counsel finds it hard to know who is to be listened to and who less aware of the issues. 3. Consider content for the public comment document: -- the AOC incorporation Document content should be familiar, but the table presentation is new. Context: 6.6.1 Only some of the AoC would make there way in. Some are preamble, and some are commitments of the US govt. from articles 3, 4 and 7, taken elements specific to ICANN. Aricle 3:decisions made in public interest, consider security stability, etc. Some are well covered in mission and core values. added a new fire value, ICANN should ensure that decisions are made in the public interest and are bottom-up s underlined Article 5. discussing consumer trust in the DNS marketplace and should find there way into the work of WP2. Articles related to transparency. Article 7. add in the core values and new section 8. Article 8. Three issues. Focus on b and c. US commitment to remain HQ'd in the US. And also being addressed in WP2. Suggest that 8.c be added as a new core value, which calls out ICANN's role as a bottom-up multi-stakeholder not for profit corporation. Item 3, promotion consumer trust and competition. What has happened to the role of the ICANN CEO and Chair of the GAC? Assumed that the SO and AC would decide who populated the review teams, i.e. constant with community empowerment. Noted a lot of repetition in the possible bylaws revision of reviews, this might be moved to an overview/introduction. And an request for an annual independent report on progress made on ATRT recommendations. Changes in timeframe, 3-5 years. WHOIS, recommendation to reference the OECD privacy standards. In CWG there is discussion that the periodic review of the IANA function be conducted in a similar way to the SO/AC reviews, and a placeholder added for this. Review of final mechanisms. 2 further calls this week. Need to finish end of Friday. Call 15 April Wednesday 21:00 - 23:00. Addition of 19:00 21:00 UTC on 16 April Thursday. 24 hours to review before it it put to CCWG over the weekend. Action: staff send calendar invites for Wednesday and Thursday calls

1 0

Agenda CCWG call, Tuesday 14 April
by Adam Peake April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Agenda CCWG-Accountability Call #22 Tuesday 14 April 2015 from 12:00 14:00 UTC 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI 2. Legal advice presentation & discussion Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: presentation of legal advice, will include Q&A 3. CCWG Workplan and timeline 4. Stress Test review Stress tests 14, 17 and 18 Test 14 AoC change. Test 18 GAC consensus Test 17 Board inaction https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents 5. AOB

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice
by Julia Katja Wolman April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, In line with our earlier comments regarding Stress Test 18 (here and in the GAC), we support the proposed amendments to the Bylaws for the same reasons as stated below by Alice. Best regards, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: wp1-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alice Munyua Sendt: 10. april 2015 22:18 Til: wp1(a)icann.org Emne: Re: [WP1] Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice Dear Cheryl, Steve and all I would like to share our views on stress test 18 in anticipation of our discussions next week regarding the same. We consider stress Test 18 necessary and appropriate. We support proposed amendment to the bylaw and believe they do not interfere with the GAC's working methods. We agree that the proposed amendments would protect and strengthen GAC's consensus decision making, while improving accountability by mitigating against capture or influence by any one stakeholder group. The board currently responds to, and provides explanations to GAC advice. GAC operating principles provide for full range of views to be presented in cases where there is no consensus advice and should therefore not trigger the by laws provisions. Best regards Alice Munyua On 07/04/2015 23:19, Steve DelBianco wrote: Jordan - Someone noticed I had an incomplete sentence at top of page 2, which was left over from a previous draft. I removed it in this draft in order to avoid confusion. - Steve From: Jordan Carter Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:14 AM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: "wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>", "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>", ACCT-Staff, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice Dear all When we discussed this document at WP1 last week, there was a general view that this was worth doing and there were no objections raised. We did think it needed to be discussed in the whole CCWG as it overlaps the work of WP1 and 2. My apologies for being slow to communicate this to the whole CCWG. I await the co-chairs' advice about when we will schedule that in the agenda. best, Jordan On 1 April 2015 at 15:30, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: To: members of Work Party 1, Work Party 2, and the stress test WP While in Istanbul, the stress test WP had hoped to discuss appropriate responses to stress test 18, regarding GAC advice that might no longer be supported by consensus. We didn't get to this in Istanbul, so I drafted a summary of previous discussions of ST 18, and a proposed a way forward (page 5). It's now for WP1 and WP2 to discuss mechanisms/powers to respond to the stress test. I ran this draft by the CCWG co-chairs, who advised several key edits and agreed this was an issue we need to address, despite the political sensitivities. I cannot join the WP1 call on 1-April, but hope this document is sufficient for you to consider the proposed bylaws change. Best, Steve - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206<tel:%2B1.703.615.6206> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1(a)icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

2 2

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms
by Greg Shatan April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

All: Here is a slightly revised version of the document from counsel forwarded buy Leon earlier today. This version includes page numbers. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hilton, Tyler <thilton(a)sidley.com> Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" < ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, "Gregory S. Shatan (gsshatan(a)lawabel.com)" <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com> Cc: "Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin(a)sidley.com>, ACCT-Staff < acct-staff(a)icann.org>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." < jboelter(a)sidley.com> Dear Legal Sub-team and CCWG, Attached please find a copy of the memo circulated last night per the below email, updated with page numbers to the templates corresponding to the Table of Contents. Best, *TYLER* *HILTON* Associate *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.213.896.6130 thilton(a)sidley.com *From:* Gregory, Holly *Sent:* Friday, April 10, 2015 9:24 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Gregory S. Shatan (gsshatan(a)lawabel.com) *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; rfei(a)adlercolvin.com; Steven Chiodini; Stephanie Petit; Boelter, Jessica C.K.; Boucher, Rick; Clark, Michael A.; Flanagan, Sharon; Fuller, Miles; Gregory, Holly; Hilton, Tyler; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Kerry, Cameron; McNicholas, Edward R.; Mohan, Vivek; Tam, Tennie H.; Zagorin, Janet S. *Subject:* Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms Dear Legal Sub-team and CCWG, Attached please find a joint preliminary analysis from Sidley Austin and the Adler & Colvin firm of the viability of various accountability mechanisms and powers currently under consideration by CCWG, as reflected in the draft templates that you provided us. In addition to the cover memo, we have provided analysis at the end of each of the templates in sections entitled “Legal Analysis and Viability.” We look forward to presenting to CCWG an overview of the key legal issues that should frame your consideration. Kind regards, Holly *HOLLY J. * *GREGORY* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

4 3

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms
by Greg Shatan April 12, 2015

April 12, 2015

All: Attached is a slight update to the omnibus memo from counsel, which updates template WP1-F regarding the community “veto” process to address comments from Robin. Otherwise it is unchanged from the previous version (which Thomas just commented on). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hilton, Tyler <thilton(a)sidley.com> Date: Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" < ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, "Gregory S. Shatan (gsshatan(a)lawabel.com)" <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com> Cc: "Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin(a)sidley.com>, ACCT-Staff < acct-staff(a)icann.org>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." < jboelter(a)sidley.com> Dear Legal Sub-team and CCWG, Please find attached a further update to the memo circulated below. This version updates template WP1-F regarding the community “veto” process to address comments from Robin. Best, *TYLER* *HILTON* Associate *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.213.896.6130 thilton(a)sidley.com *From:* Hilton, Tyler *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:45 AM *To:* Gregory, Holly; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Gregory S. Shatan (gsshatan(a)lawabel.com) *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; rfei(a)adlercolvin.com; Steven Chiodini; Stephanie Petit; Boelter, Jessica C.K.; Boucher, Rick; Clark, Michael A.; Flanagan, Sharon; Fuller, Miles; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Kerry, Cameron; McNicholas, Edward R.; Mohan, Vivek; Tam, Tennie H.; Zagorin, Janet S. *Subject:* RE: Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms Dear Legal Sub-team and CCWG, Attached please find a copy of the memo circulated last night per the below email, updated with page numbers to the templates corresponding to the Table of Contents. Best, *TYLER* *HILTON* Associate *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.213.896.6130 thilton(a)sidley.com *From:* Gregory, Holly *Sent:* Friday, April 10, 2015 9:24 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Gregory S. Shatan (gsshatan(a)lawabel.com) *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; rfei(a)adlercolvin.com; Steven Chiodini; Stephanie Petit; Boelter, Jessica C.K.; Boucher, Rick; Clark, Michael A.; Flanagan, Sharon; Fuller, Miles; Gregory, Holly; Hilton, Tyler; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Kerry, Cameron; McNicholas, Edward R.; Mohan, Vivek; Tam, Tennie H.; Zagorin, Janet S. *Subject:* Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms Dear Legal Sub-team and CCWG, Attached please find a joint preliminary analysis from Sidley Austin and the Adler & Colvin firm of the viability of various accountability mechanisms and powers currently under consideration by CCWG, as reflected in the draft templates that you provided us. In addition to the cover memo, we have provided analysis at the end of each of the templates in sections entitled “Legal Analysis and Viability.” We look forward to presenting to CCWG an overview of the key legal issues that should frame your consideration. Kind regards, Holly *HOLLY J. * *GREGORY* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

1 0