April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

GAO meeting request
by Mathieu Weill April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Dear Colleagues, For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). Your inputs are welcome. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000 De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ(a)GAO.GOV> Pour : 'rickert(a)anwaelte.de' <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill: You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work. We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses. Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks? * Wednesday, April 1^st : 10:00 – 11:00 EST * Thursday, April 2^nd : 11:00 – 12:00 EST * Friday, April 3^rd : 10:00 – 11:00 EST We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too. Thank you, John John Healey, Senior Analyst Physical Infrastructure Team U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548 (202) 512-5006 | HealeyJ(a)gao.gov

29 61

Civil Discourse
by Chris LaHatte April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

During the last month a number of people have commented to me about the recent tone has some posts. It is important when we debate these issues to concentrate on issues and not personalities. It is easy to get distracted if there are personal comments about another contributor, which can sometimes lead to a trail of discussion on the problems between the individuals rather than the more important work. I have noticed such comments, and would ask contributors to think carefully before they criticise another person, or even use humour about that person. In my experience cross-cultural humour can be a risky course and not always understood by the recipient. I am always ready to discuss matters with individuals who feel concerned, and try to resolve these by mediation techniques. Such contact will always be confidential." I am happy to discuss this with anyone. Regards Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog <https://omblog.icann.org/> https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage <http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman> http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi Chehade Written Responses to Senate Questions
by Edward Morris April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Hi Matt, Ed > > Any sense as to when those hearings might be held? > > Nothing seems to be listed. Interestingly, Rep. Duffy sent letters containing the same questions to both the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committee Chairs. Both letters were sent on the same day. I sense we're going to have the pleasure of a number of Congressional inquiries into our work. We should probably take note of their areas of concern but I hope we continue to develop our solutions based upon what we believe is the proper course of action and not what we believe the American Congresspeople would like to hear. With the group we have here I'm sure we will. Best, Ed

1 0

Fadi Chehade Written Responses to Senate Questions
by Greg Shatan April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

I thought the attached would be of interest. These can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/1188647-2015-04-13-en. I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue. Greg Shatan

4 4

Fwd: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 19, 2015

April 19, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding this summary from the CWG list as it encompasses information worth taking into consideration for our work. Also attaching a PDF file for your convenience. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > Para: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 18 de abril de 2015 12:49:58 GMT-5 > De: Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal > Responder a: cwg-client(a)icann.org > > > Dear All, > > Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG. This also includes the CCWG dependencies. > > Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss. > > Best regards, > Sharon > > SHARON FLANAGAN > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@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

1 0

Board workshop - Friday 24 April to Sunday 26 April in Los Angeles
by Bruce Tonkin April 18, 2015

April 18, 2015

Hello All Just a note that I will be attending a Board training day and two day workshop in Los Angeles from Friday 24 April to Sunday 26 April 2015. I believe I will be on a flight for most of one of the CCWG Intensive Work Days. I will try to follow the finalization of the initial report from the CCWG and will also be discussing the output of the group with the Board on Saturday morning. If there are any specific questions or feedback that the CCWG would like from the Board please let me know. Regards Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Work Party 1 content for the First Public Comment Report
by Jordan Carter April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear CCWG colleagues Attached in .docx and .pdf forms is the output of Work Party 1 for the comment report, on community powers mechanisms. As far as WP1 is concerned this is now "frozen" for our work as a full CCWG next week. There are no further WP1 meetings scheduled. This will be, as I understand it, incorporated in the consolidated document by the co-chairs and staff for circulation over the weekend - co-chairs, please correct me if I have got that wrong. In contrast with what I wrote a few hours ago, the aspects on incorporating *AoC commitments *in the bylaws are still in the text - the reconciliation task with WP2 is still ongoing and so I haven't moved it. I will circulate a tracked-changes version of this paper on the WP1 email list so that WP1 members and anyone else can see what the changes were between this version and the fourth draft. bests, 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

Note re AoC commitments between WP1 and WP2
by Jordan Carter April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi all Becky and I have just spoken as WP2 and 1 rapporteurs about the location in the comment document of updates to the Core Values of ICANN that would take into account the commitments ICANN made in the Affirmation of Commitments. Both Working Parties have been doing some of this work. Becky's group in WP2 has done a more thorough re-write of the principles and values; WP1 colleagues tabulated the AoC commitments and proposed wording. Since Becky's editing work and rethinking is more advanced, this is how we'll deal with it for the purposes of the document freeze: - Becky will review our WP1 v4 content and incorporate any insights into the final proposal she makes for the "Freeze" - this is in the "Fundamental Commitments and Core Values" Section of WP2 work - I will move our table about these commitments out of the body of our WP1 content, and lodge it as an appendix. This is so the text is all there, and when we do our meetings next week, everyone can cross-check Becky's incorporation job against what WP1 had done. When we discuss it in the full CCWG, it will be likely that Becky will lead that discussion, but I anticipate that Matthew, Avri, Steve, Fiona et al who did that translation work in WP1 will be key contributors to that discussion. Thanks everyone. Good luck with the sprints. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

2 1

CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Proposal - Draft Report
by Adam Peake April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi everyone, On behalf of the CCWG co-chairs, attached is a first draft of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Proposal. Please find the related documents in the attachment to this e-mail. They can also be found on the CCWG wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report We have aggregated all the documents we have for the sake of completeness, but you will find that there are huge parts you are already familiar with. The scope and definitions part has not been touched in the last weeks. The same goes for the inventory of existing accountability mechanisms and input from the community. Hence, the number of pages should be manageable. We will work on overviews and other means to make it easier to understand shortly. The draft only includes introductory chapters, summarizing past CCWG work: 1. Introduction and Background 2. Methodology 3. Definitions & Scoping 4. Inventory of existing ICANN Accountability Mechanisms 5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers In preparation for release of the full document and to get ahead on the timeline as much as possible we would like to send these chapters for translation. The chapters remain open for comment after the freeze and we will take amendments as agreed by the group. The document is considered draft, if you have any comments or suggested edits, please send to the list. Best, Adam

1 0

ISTACC call 2015-04-15
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability. For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context): This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum. I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational. But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this. And I find that starting at the beginning helps. Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them. The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate. It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently. I will liaise with CWG staff to find it. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 12