April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #21 07 April
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #21 call on 07 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894988 Action Items Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. Notes 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 were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Links WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx> http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e> http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Notes/Action Items 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest Tijani Ben Jemaa on the call only. 2. Update on sprint by various groups Work Party 1 (WP1) WP1 team of drafters formed following a work plan adopted April 1. Content further reviewed at calls on April 10 and 13 with a view to completion to allow for a 2nd reading by CCWG reviewing community powers mechanism, stress test on GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, and recall of board members. Update and process. Questions arising from drafting. In terms of removing directors looked at removal of individual and the whole board. Focus from Singapore was the whole board. Advice from lawyers, suggests removing individual directors more consistent with other mechanisms being considered by the group. Should this be WS1? Agreement noted in the chat. Caveat that if more complicated than anticipated then it may be delayed. Some objection, that is may be a more difficult thing to do. And a question if this is necessary for the IANA transition. Removal of the board should be exceptional and stringent. Where an SO or AC appoints a director they should be able to remove them. And WP1 is discussing options for NomCom appointees. Following legal advice, likely that it should be the appointing organization that removes them. Comment that members have argued that Director removal was not needed for the transition. Keep WS1 light. Concern that removal of the whole board might introduce instability to ICANN. Recalled that L Strickling suggested that removal of the Board may be a useful mechanisms. And removal of the whole board was WS1. Legal advice suggested that removal of the board may be difficult and take time, which caused removal of individual directors was reintroduced as potential WS1. Removal of the whole board and the potential difficulties needs to be discussed with legal advisors. Q. sending back a strategic plan and budget to the board: to avoid a repetition of the process, documents can only be sent back once on the same issue. Or more restricted, perhaps once per budget or strategic plan cycle. And some suggestion that the Board have a requirement to take feedback into account. Points of view on this? If the board does not adequately pick up on these concerns on request to "re do". Will already have an idea of community's view, and if sent back by the community then the mechanism to remove the board my come into play if the community view is ignored. Are there teeth in remanding back to the board? Or it becomes a meaningless power. If a single opportunity per cycle to send it back, then it indicates the importance of the action. If sustained disagreement then ICANN could continue to operate under the previous year's budget spending. No introduction of new issues in later rounds of objections. Continued operation on the basis of previous budget To invoke the process so the community has sufficient power and the power has teeth Community should voice all concerns in one submission Community may consider to removing the board in parallel WP1 issues: Mechanisms ro reject changes to ICANN bylaws. To be an approval body for the fundamental bylaws. Board recall, all/individual. Work Party 2 (WP2) Independent review and on mission, commitments and core values. The ombudsman process, questions being drafted and enhancements to the process. And development of templates. Community standing, and potentially affected parties: parties who would be affected if a particular action taken, but not affected in advance of any party. Someone who would not be harmed until the action was taken, would those people have standing? What is the standard of independent review. Under ICANN current arbitration standard, have been cases where the panel has issued a stay preventing ICANN taking an action. Question will be sent to the group. Reconsideration process will be updated. Comments welcome. IRP, reconsideration, mission and core values, and update of ombudsman process ready for the next call. Review of the ombudsman process will be considered as WS2. Stress tests Test 18, GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, wording for potential bylaws wording for went to WP1. Looking at addressing topics the CWG are requesting. Test 18. "With respect to GAC advice that is supported by consensus" The condition is that the advice is consensus. A change to the bylaws that is proposed as WS1. Full debate on this topic during next weeks call. 3. Legal group update To inform the group's deliberations. How to interaction with the legal advisors. Sidley is the coordinating firm. They will work based on memos drafted by the legal sub-group. The legal advisors will work with the work parties. Are CCWG's proposals adequate and legally viable. Greg Shatan coordinating legal sub-group this week. Formally assigning questions to the legal advisors, how is this done? Only if through memorandum through the legal sub-team. Circulating on the legal sub-team list shows the issue will be on the agenda of the sb-team and consideration for forwarding to the advisors. 4. Timeline To the target of 21 April, our date for finalizing for public comment. Under our current call schedule this only allows 4 hours of CCWG call for discussion of proposals, suggest need more time, and we want to add additional calls,: Tuesday April 16, Friday 17, April 20 and April 21, to close the last round of discussion. Translation time needs to be factored in. Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements. New timelines documents. F2F before BA, June 19. To have informed conversation with SO/AC in BA. Second PC after BA, to address outstanding items from the first comment. How to get interim commitments. First public comment period is the main comment period. Second public comment is to address issues outstanding from the first comment period. Important the first round be treated as most important. New during the second PC might be any new powers or mechanisms that are suggested in the first public. The second public comment also an opportunity to comment on details. Some of the implementation work should start as quickly as possible, and need to engage with Board and Staff. June 19 meeting. ICG has been informed, they meet on 18-19 June. Coordinating to adjust our agendas. ICANN will support travel for members and liaisons 5. correspondence, ICG) 6. CWG input Correspondence from Sidley on internal accountability and hybrid models, and what the CWG --according to Sidley-- is requiring as accountability mechanisms from CCWG. This Sidley memo has not yet been discussed by CWG. AOB. Call with GAO, Mathieu and Thomas. Spoke as individuals as c-chairs trying to reflect the current state of the group's deliberations. Comments in line with public statements. The same questions have been asked to a range of community members. Their report will be shared before publishing to check reflects what was said. Once approved the report will be published.

1 0

Calendar of calls
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached the calendar of calls discussed on the call today. Brenda will circulate calendar invites. Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice
by Jordan Carter April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

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> 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 > +1.703.615.6206 > > > > -- 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 1

Legal Subteam and Legal Coordination
by Greg Shatan April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

All, Please note that Leon Sanchez is out this week and I am coordinating communication with the Legal Subteam and counsel (Sidley and Adler & Colvin) this week, as well as chairing this week's Legal Subteam call. I will forward to the Legal email list any requests for the Legal Subteam (and potentially counsel) sent to this main email list. Please clearly label such requests in the Subject line of the email. Thanks! Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

1 0

Apologies
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Unfortunately I will not make tonight's CCWG call as I am delayed by an emergency case. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6

1 0

Accountability questions to law firms
by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear CCWG-colleagues, Please find below a group of questions to be posed to the law firms assisting the CCWG-Accountability. · Are there any restrictions in California law or in applicable federal US-law with respect to government officials (US or foreign) becoming statutory members (or designators) of a non-profit organization? Would all liabilities applied to US or foreign citizens in a membership (or designator) structure equally apply to a government official which has legal immunity and privileges in the United States? · What are the specific legal requirements for a third-party which may have approval or veto rights over board decisions and what are its liabilities? · A community veto (be it exercised in a membership or a designator structure) over a bylaw change could be potentially reverted through a court decision in California? Same question applies to a decision made by an Independent Appeals Panel mechanism. · The fact that the "board bears ultimate responsibility for corporate decisions and must provide oversight of the exercise of those powers it has delegated" (Sidley Austin LLP, Initial Discussion Draft 1, p. 3) implies that the board may eventually revert a community veto (member or designator structure) over its own decision or over the budget it has originally approved? · Is the Californian Attorney General able to intervene in ICANN's operations upon the complaint of a government (US or other)? How does this situation relate to norms of international private law internalized by the United States? Thanks in advance, 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

4 4

Fwd: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration
by Jordan Carter April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all This will also have much of relevance to us. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: 5 April 2015 at 02:51 Subject: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration To: "cwg-client(a)icann.org" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear All, Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG requested Sidley's input on: the internal accountability/hybrid model with two closely related variants: accountability mechanism with legal separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation. We look forward to discussing. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client -- 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 1

FINAL AGENDA - Call #21
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear All, In preparation for your call today - Tuesday, 7 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>)- please disregard the agenda previously circulated and refer to the final agenda pasted below. Thanks, Best regards Alice 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 2. Update on sprint by various groups * WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> 3. Legal group update 4. Timeline 5. Correspondence 6. CWG input 7. AOB

1 0

AGENDA - Call #21
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #21<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894988> - Tuesday, 7 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>): 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 2. Update on sprint by various groups * WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> 3. Legal advice: questions & answers 4. Timeline 5. Correspondence 6. CWG input 7. AOB Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

CCWG meeting, 19 June, Buenos Aires
by Adam Peake April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

(on behalf of the CCWG co-chairs) Dear Colleagues, We would like to hold a meeting of the CCWG on Friday 19 June, in Buenos Aires. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare our proposals for presentation to the ICANN community and particularly to our chartering organizations during the week of ICANN#53. As this meeting will be held before the start of the ICANN meeting, following accepted travel procedure, ICANN will provide travel support: 1. ICANN will support CCWG members participation in the meeting, arrival 18 June for participation in the CCWG meeting on 19 June. 2. For CCWG members already supported by community travel, the CCWG project will cover the additional days and any change costs (airfare and accommodation/expenses for the rest of the ICANN meeting will be covered by the original community travel arrangement.) ICANN community travel will contact members about their travel needs. 3. For any CCWG member not supported by community travel, the CCWG project will offer to cover costs. Arrival 18 June, departure Friday 26 June. CCWG members will be contacted by ICANN Community travel staff who will ask what arrangements you would like to make. 4. ICANN will support the ICG and ATRT liaisons in the same way as described above (consistent with the CCWG meetings held in Frankfurt and Istanbul). Liaisons will be contacted by ICANN Community travel staff who will ask what arrangements you would like to make. The meeting on 19 June will have remote access facilities. Thank you, Thomas, Mathieu and Leon

2 1