April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under consideration
by Jordan Carter April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear all, this is of interest esp. the second point. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Boucher, Rick <rboucher(a)sidley.com> Date: 7 April 2015 at 03:45 Subject: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under consideration To: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "cwg-client(a)icann.org" < cwg-client(a)icann.org> Sharon and colleagues, With a view toward enhancing the prospect for congressional acceptance of the transition proposal, I offered these suggestions with respect to the models under consideration: 1. It's far better for the PTI to be a separate nonprofit public benefit corporation. While this approach may add to structural complexity, it underscores the extent to which there is a clear separation between ICANN's DNS policymaking function and the performance of the IANA functions. 2. A careful review should be undertaken of the commitments imposed on ICANN in the Affirmation of Commitments ICANN entered into with NTIA. The obligations ICANN has undertaken in the Affirmation should be incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN, and these bylaws should not be amendable by the ICANN board without a supermajority of all board members (not just those present and voting). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Thune's letter to ICANN says that the ICANN board should not be in a position to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments unless more than 4/5 of the entire board votes to do so. An appropriate way to acknowledge this recommendation would be to require a 4/5 majority of the entire board for amendments to the portions of the bylaws containing the ICANN responsibilities under the Commitments. This could also be the kind of board decision which would be subject to approval by the group of members. Please note that one of the commitments is that ICANN will remain headquartered in the United States. 3. The PTI board should be truly independent from the ICANN board, not ICANN board designated or controlled. It should be member group appointed, and there should be very limited if any overlap in membership between the ICANN Board and the PTI board. 4. The Periodic Review Team (PRT) should be chosen by an answerable to the member group. It is the main way members have of being certain the IANA functions are being satisfactorily performed. Rick *RICK* *BOUCHER* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.202.736.8290 rboucher(a)sidley.com *From:* Flanagan, Sharon *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 10:51 AM *To:* 'cwg-client(a)icann.org' *Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Clark, Michael A.; McNicholas, Edward R.; Boucher, Rick; Kerry, Cameron; Mohan, Vivek; Hilton, Tyler; Tam, Tennie H.; Fuller, Miles *Subject:* Transition Models for Further Consideration 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 *

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Canceled: CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting (Wednesdays 15:00 UTC)
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

Dear Co-chairs, can you please advise the gentleman from Thailand that most E-Mail programs have a Delete button (usually in the form of a trash can) and that he may be able to mark messages with the mouse pointer and then delete them by clicking said button. This would be a much more efficient use of his precious time (where apparently every second counts) than harassing the hard-working staff. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Apr 3, 2015, at 04:17, Drew Noyes <drewnoyes(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Brenda Brewer, > > This is the second email I have sent to you in the last six months requesting that you do not send multiple copies of the same email to my account. This time I received more than a dozen copies of your email. Whatever email system you're using needs to be changed. As a volunteer I am satisfied for committing time to help these projects in groups, but I don't want to spend time like this. > > Thank you for your immediate attention to this. > > Best regards, > > > Drew Noyes (Thailand Law Firm) > One Stop Service Center Co Ltd > Pattaya Thailand > >> On Friday, April 3, 2015, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: >> This Meeting has changed. Please see new calendar invite. Thank you! ~~Brenda [...]

1 0

Fwd: FYI: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap
by Jordan Carter April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

The subject matter here is relevant to us. Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jaap Akkerhuis* <jaap(a)nlnetlabs.nl> Date: Friday, 3 April 2015 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FYI: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap To: CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Of some interest < https://ourinternet.org/#publications/icann-bridging-the-trust-gap>. jaap -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #6 01 April
by Brenda Brewer April 2, 2015

April 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #6 call on 01 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894983 Action Items * Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call * Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls Notes CCWG-ACCT WP1 CALL #6 Wednesday 1 April 2015, 21:00- 22:30 UTC 1. Agenda review. None 2. Work Plan for the next sprint. Workplan for the "short sprint". Attempt to finish work as a complete proposal by 20 April. This will allow the CCWG to carryout a double reading of the proposal. Can expect additional calls to be added to WP1's agenda of meetings. Propose calls on the 8th and 10th April First set of work on powers, earlier work and new text to be drawn together over the weekend. Sections 6.5 and 6.6, too early for mechanisms, need legal advice. Activity on the AoC also moved off the schedule, for the time being leave the mechanisms to later. Some uncertainty of the overall workplan, and need adapt as work changes from discussions on the CCWG calls Finalize a draft close of play Monday 6th and discussion on 8th Keith Drazek and Robin Gross volunteered for review of text Difficult to know how legal advice will take some of WP1 proposals 3. Community powers mechanism Legal call -- 2nd call today was primarily procedural. No discussion of the arrangements, lawyers are likely say all are possible, but suggest working together with the lawyers to decide which is closest to ICANN's way of working and culture. Lawyers may join some working party calls. Sidley to coordinate between the counsels. Both will voice their expertise. The work parties are the clients in this arrangement. WP1 will invite the lawyer(s) on the calls to thrash out issues. Three classes of mechanisms: * group of people organized within the bylaws * a group organized with CA laws as member or delegate * a group of processes and flows Jordan: preference for a mechanism like the community council? Two points of view expressed: the group needs legal advice before drafting text, and, that the group should move forward in parallel and decide what we want rather than wait for the lawyers. Also noted that it's chicken and egg. Would be good to have something to put in front of the lawyers, but not going to fine detail. A balance needed. Powers set out in the 1st draft. Then invite the lawyers to the 8 April call for them to advise. Continue drafting based on that outcome. 1st draft, will not address mechanics don't have enough time to come to consensus, to have a lawyer on the 8 April call and the first item to be addressed will be mechanisms Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call 4. Stress test 18 paper: GAC operating procedures and consensus advice. "GAC advice that is supported by consensus" co-chairs have asked for feedback from the GAC, and individual responses from Thomas Schnieder, Denmark, Spain, USG. Jordan: suggests that this is a useful clarification to put in place, No other SO/AC can change their internal procedures and affect their influence on ICANN policy. Comfortable with the proposal. Greg: classic stress test. Doesn't affect the GAC's processes or ability to contribute collectively or as individual governments. As the bylaws are currently drafted it presupposes that GAC advice will be made on consensus. Not about the GAC per se. Comfortable that when the Board has to do reconciliation advice it is based on actual GAC consensus. 5. Individual Board Member Recall Individual board member recall. First draft was on recalling both the whole board and individual directors. If the only way to deal with a problem director is to remove the whole board then that isn't an effective accountability mechanism. And WP1 considers this issue in WS1. For SO/AC need to develop a mechanism for the appointing bodies. More complicated is how to deal with NomCom appointees. Problems with using the NomCom to perform the recall, not what it was created and designed for. Could ask the lawyers As NomCom appointees are there for the community as whole, then some recall might be based on some super-majority rule of the community mechanism. Not removed en masse, but likely singly (they don't act collectively, so why remove collectively?) * individual removal important * individual removal of any type of director (except CEO) * no consensus on removal of nomcom appointees, we don't know how to * approaching consensus on recommending that appointing organizations removing their director(s) (noting complexity of GNSO and house arrangement) 6. AOC reviews update Section 8b on jurisdiction and whether it would be brought into the bylaws has been discussed. Some sections might be left in the AoC. Suggest CCWG consensus needed on how to deal with this issue. 7. Next Calls Meetings April 8, 10, 13. Wed 8 April 21:00 UTC, 2 hours (with lawyers) April, Fri 10 (early UTC) and 13 (late UTC) - doodle poll on the best time. April 10 and 13, 90 minutes duration Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls 8. AoB Other groups contemplating bylaws changes the same issues. May need to reconcile. Future topic whether recommending removal of the AoC and inclusion on the bylaws or keeping it as a separate mechanism in some form Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Legal Subteam - 01 April 20:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam #9 call on 01 April at 20:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895323 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision. ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. Notes These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript 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 CCWG-ACCT LEGAL SUBTEAM CALL #9 Working with counsel Channeling questions raised in a memorandum has been successful so far but need to provide additional detail and context to lawyers. Suggestion to assign Sidley & Austin as lead - their involvement in CWG work would allow for holistic view. If we ask for one voice, we will minimize input but will make coordination easier. Hybrid: Sidley & Austin to lead - and ask Adler & Colvin's views on specific matters. Suggestion to give law firms flexibility to present to legal subteam. Suggestion to have S&A (Holly) coordinate legal advice but would be helpful to know where there is a dissenting view. Second law firm could confirm or raise other point of view. CONCLUSION: Have S&A lead "the coordinating firm" - unify voice of lawyers - state when dissenting views and elaborate on rationale for legal subteam consideration. ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision. Dealing with Questions - Gather questions and compile them into a single document (legal scoping document). - Lawyers should not be answering questions outside of memorandum but should be aware of these questions. -#1 priority is to work with WPs to ensure we are putting a legally viable proposal together (having measures pros & cons)/ - Concrete suggestions, mechanisms and associated structures need to be submitted to legal advisors: if adjustments are needed, how long it would take etc/ ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. - Lawyers to join WP, CCWG calls as deemed appropriate. - Rapporteurs to flag issues for lawyers. Timeline Legal input - mid Feb->mid-Sept. CONCLUSIONS - Inform Sidley & Austin of coordinating firm role. - We will compile, prioritize and classify questions, building a contextual document. - We will be focusing on WP's work - templates will be circulated to lawyers. - Coordinate with WPs to ensure on right track.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Legal Subteam - 01 April
by Brenda Brewer April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam call on 01 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894270 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Call duration to be adjusted -> 120 min - 1 hour (15:00-16:00 UTC) subteam members - 1h (16:00-17:00 UTC) lawyers ACTION ITEM Circulate templates of mechanisms to lawyers ACTION ITEM - Circulate jurisdiction paper for information ACTION ITEM: Schedule a legal subteam call for 1 April - 20:00-21:00 UTC Notes These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript Methodology S&A suggestions: context important for ability to do research. Mechanism for community to agree on questions and consolidate them would be useful. Helpful to have process where law firms coordinate for overlapping questions for efficiency purposes. --> Memorandums will be filed on the wiki --> Legal executive subteam to ensure there is no duplication --> Coordination between law firms is desirable --> Suggestion to add section in legal scoping document to record questions --> Legal executive team to set order in questions --> Q&A exercise or holistic structure? --> Timeline to be considered --> Context to be provided --> Consider triage to ensure efficiency CONCLUSION: methods have been established (see wiki). All questions will be assigned to lawyers through memorandums. No need to address questions outside memorandum. Legal subteam should consider 120-minute calls. Scoping document will be the main document of reference - all questions assigned to lawyers will be inserted into legal scoping document for records. Questions will be posted on wiki page. Clarify questions prior to responding. ACTION ITEM: Call duration to be adjusted -> 120 min - 1 hour (15:00-16:00 UTC) subteam members - 1h (16:00-17:00 UTC) lawyers --- Review of Community Empowerment We are looking for advice on our proposals (legally viable or not), not for a redesign. Need to know what structural changes are needed - if any - to implement powers and mechanisms we want in place. Outline next steps to meet goals: 1) Subteam to review documents from A&C - S&A 2) Ask how we may operationalize ACTION ITEM Circulate templates of mechanisms to lawyers Request to prioritize and narrow down areas to explore. Board removal Budget approval Bylaws approval Golden Bylaws Independent Review Panel Reconsideration Process Jurisdiction - Would help to focus on California law and avoid looking across globe. - Jurisdiction refers to HQs. - No political discussion - focusing on legal advice instead. --> Jurisdiction will be addressed in WS2, as needed ACTION ITEM - Circulate jurisdiction paper for information Liability Supervisory Board: what would it entail in terms of liability? Input would be welcome. Lawyers to look at templates we are discussing so as to identify any issues we would be facing. Legal subteam to sort out point of orders on list. How do we may independent review panel binding? Framework around fundamental bylaws ACTION ITEM: Schedule a legal subteam call for 1 April - 20:00-21:00 UTC

1 0

Legal sub-team last minute call today
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, On the legal sub-team call today we identified the need for a second call today to help us move forward in how we will continue to work with the law firms and the way in which we will be assigning priorities for them to address. This call is scheduled for today at 20:00 UTC. As always, everyone is welcome to join. The proposed agenda is: 1. Working with counsel: 2. Dealing with questions; and 3. Considering holistic approach. 4. Timeline Best regards, León

1 0