April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

In reference to Robin's suggestion to include whistleblower issue in WS2
by Avri Doria April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Hi There are several mentions of a whistleblower function in both the ATRT1 and in the ATRT2 report. This includes discussion of transparency annual reports, audits of the function, a role for the ombudsman, and possible enhancement of the ICANN hotline, i.e the current implementation of ICANN's whistleblower policy. (all quotes from ATRT2 report <https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/final-recommendations-31dec1…>) Under > 9.3. Review Ombudsman Role (p13, 58) > c. A role in fair treatment of ICANN Anonymous Hotline users and other > whistleblowers, and the protection of employees who decide there is a > need to raise an issue that might be problematic for their continued > employment. and (p 14,59) > 9.5. The Board should arrange an audit to determine the viability of > the ICANN > Anonymous Hotline as a whistleblowing mechanism and implement any > necessary improvements. > The professional external audit should be based on the Section 7.1 and > Appendix 5 - Whistleblower Policy of the One World Trust Independent > Review of 20076 recommendations to establish a viable whistleblower > program, including protections for employees who use such a program, and > any recent developments in areas of support and protection for the > whistleblower. The professional audit should be done on a recurring basis, > with the period (annual or bi-annual, for example) determined upon > recommendation by the professional audit. > The processes for ICANN employee transparency and whistleblowing should > be made public. These had been derivative of ATRT1 > ATRT1 Recommendation 26 > ... > ATRT2, under the terms of its mandate, also determined that the > following issues78 > should be addressed in this analysis of accountability and > transparency in policy > development and implementation processes: > a. Publication of yearly statistical reports on transparency. > b. Enhancement of the employee Hotline that allows relevant information to > become transparent (Whistleblower Policy).Which had been derivative And > In 2007, One World Trust concluded94 that: > ICANN should consider implementing processes that act as deterrents > to abuses of power and misconduct which would protect staff who > might want to raise such instances. Specifically, ICANN should > consider developing a whistleblower policy that enables staff to raise > concerns in a confidential manner and without fear of retaliation; and > developing appropriate systems to foster compliance.95 -- > 94 See > http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/owt-report-final-2007-en.pdf > 95 In fact, One World Trust made many recommendations, including: > To ensure compliance with any organizational policy, it is important > that there is high level oversight > and leadership. Without this, implementation will only ever be > piecemeal. To ensure implementation of > the information disclosure within ICANN therefore, responsibility for > overseeing the policy should be > assigned to a senior manager. > Supporting this, a set of indicators should be developed to monitor > the implementation of the policy, > and an annual review should be undertaken which identifies how ICANN > is complying with the policy, > where there are problems, and the steps that are to going be taken to > address these (see > recommendation 5.1 in section 8). > While ICANN has three mechanisms for investigating complaints from > members of the ICANN > community, the organization does not have a policy or system in place > that provides staff with channels > through which they can raise complaints in confidentiality and without > fear of retaliation. Having such > a policy (often referred to as a whistleblower policy) is good > practice among global organizations. A > whistleblower policy that provides such protections serves as an > important means of ensuring > accountability to staff as well as preventing fraudulent behavior, > misconduct and corruption within an > organization. > While the Ombudsman, Reconsideration Committee and the Independent > Review Panel provide > complaints-based approaches to compliance, to generate greater trust > among stakeholders, ICANN > needs to take a more proactive approach. > To address this issue, ICANN should consider a regular independent > audit of their compliance with > accountability and transparency commitments. Alternatively, it could > develop a permanent compliance > function to emphasize prevention by identifying shortcomings as they > emerge and before they become > systemic problems. In either case, a regular report on compliance > should be produced and publicly > disseminated. There are longer discussions in the document that may be useful references when this work begins in WS2. I do not know the status of the ATRT2 recommended, and Board approved, audit. did a search, but have not found anything yet. I am sure there is some trace of something on it somewhere. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

updated draft report, agenda for CCWG call
by Adam Peake April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, On behalf of the co-chairs, please find attached the updated version of the draft report for public comment. We will tidy up the formatting after having discussed the need for further changes with you. Please note that we have put sections 1-5 into the Appendices, but we felt that we need to give a bit of context to the reader, which is why we have replaced them with very brief information on the various topics of these chapters. We have also included an executive summary. Apart from that, all changes are visible. CCWG-Accountability Meeting Thursday 30 April 2015 from 05:00 07:00 AM/UTC Agenda: 1. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call 2. Review of changes made to the draft after CCWG Call #30 3. XPLANE material presentation and discussion 4, Next Steps 5. A.O.B Thank you, Adam

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for STRESS TESTS Meeting #5 - 29 April
by Brenda Brewer April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability Stress Tests Meeting # 5 on 29 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895716 Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to draft paragraph that takes up three or four points that Mathieu identified ACTION - Steve to provide DIY text Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1 Review red text Red text on p 11 and 16 - Proposed measure to except ICANN from exceeding mission Proposed mission statement could be standard of review It would take reconsideration or IRP to trigger it. AGREEMENT - New text to be added quoting standard of review 2 Address Mathieu's edits (blue text) - P3 Stress Test # 9 Spilling Board would be a potential accountability mechanism but never regarded as useful one i.e. last resort AGREEMENT - OK with proposed text - p4 Stress Test #11 Suggestions to remove "mitigation", to use risk mitigation measures", to remove "preventive" AGREEMENT - risk mitigation -p7 Stress Test #21 AGREEMENT Ok with following edit "develop appropriate mechanism - p12 Stress test #13 Standing is available to community. Is term "appeal" appropriate? Suggestion to use reconsideration and IRPs We have not identified different standards of review --> Discourage different standards --> Would not recommend putting standards of review in WS1 work - Suggestion to remove sentence: standards of review may need to be ajdusted sentene and to include Mathieu's text - WS1 - WS2 or future Review panels? AGREEMENT - Remove sentence: standards of review may need to be ajdusted sentene and to include Mathieu's text. Frivolous and vexatious: match with what is in the proposal --> frivolous and abusive Conclusion cell Suggested text: Proposed measures would reduce risk by supermajority requirements and by dismissla of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs Individual will have standing but expectation that people use it in way that is accountable to community - Proposal: Proposed measures would could increase risk of individuals paralyzing ICANN processes, which is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs - Suggestion to use "overload" --> Continued usage may paralyze business, not just overload it --> Improperly impede/interfere AGREEMENT - Remove overload and use impede - Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to impede ICANN processes, though this is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs 3. Consider adding management abstract paragraph ACTION ITEM - Steve to draft paragraph that takes up three or four points that Mathieu identified 4. To help manage public comment process, do it yourself guide to prevent additional stress-tests being added Do it yourself to guide current proposed and measures making it clear that community powers we are designing can not prevent external threat (hacker, earthquake etc). Suggestion to give example of specific concerns and show how that gets translated using buckets we have ACTION - Steve to provide DIY text

3 3

FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
by Paul Rosenzweig April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

These may be of interest to the community Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Joelle Tessler [mailto:JTessler@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:07 PM To: Joelle Tessler Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit Washington, D.C. April 28, 2015 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-str ickling-internet2-global-summit --As Prepared for Delivery-- I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2's Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2's partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning. However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, "the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community." Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago. The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today? The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to "identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secret ary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1> [1]" >From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making. Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving. The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved. Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the "United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion." Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control. However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, "multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges." What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation. Most recently, at the ITU's 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU's work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues. This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites. The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed. When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community. I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN's becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress. Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root. The transition plan is being developed by the Internet's stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening. Joelle Tessler Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce jtessler(a)ntia.doc.gov <mailto:jtessler@ntia.doc.gov>

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model
by Greg Shatan April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Holly, It appears that Izumi has withdrawn that text in favor of the text proposed by Robin, which appears in the proposed agenda and in the email from Robin that I forwarded to this list. I would suggest you review and respond to Robin's text instead (and I note that Robin's email has some other related proposed changes as well, which I think you should at least look over). However, I think it would also be important to clarify two points underlying Izumi's text: Whether the current system for selecting Board members is a designator system as defined by the California code. Whether a designator system will work with the SO/ACs in their current state. Thanks! Greg On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > Greg, we agree with your concerns regarding the language highlighted. > Please let us know if you would like us to mark up the suggested text. > Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org');> > on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:14:09 AM > *To:* Izumi Okutani; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org');> > *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model > > I am forwarding this email into the Legal Subteam for discussion and > possible referral to counsel. > > In the "suggested text," which I've pasted in below, I believe the text > that I have highlighted and bolded is contrary to the advice we have > received from Sidley/Adler and in some cases may inadvertently misstate > that advice. Rather than pick it apart here, I think it makes more sense > to discuss this with Sidley/Adler and then bring it back to the full list > or the next full meeting if need be. > > Greg > > SUGGESTED TEXT > > f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of > the powers proposed below - *As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent > with this model,* "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval > or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to > define the role of SOs/ACs as designators,* without the need to organise > unincorporated association. *But they cannot reliably deliver other > aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, *such > as statutory power for full board dismissal* and ability to have legal > standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN > to account. > Crucially, in the view of our counsel, *to have dismissal of the entire > board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, **would require some > additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would > also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated > associations,* so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the > membership model isn't actually achievable. > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','izumi(a)nic.ad.jp');>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for >> 6.6.1.1 f). >> >> >> 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference >> Mechanism >> >> CURRENT TEXT >> Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of >> the powers proposed below ‐ >> mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the >> approval or blocking of >> changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the >> set of powers the CCWG >> believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. >> Crucially, in the view of our >> counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves >> into unincorporated >> associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the >> membership model isn’t actually >> possible. >> >> SUGGESTED TEXT >> >> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of >> the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with >> this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the >> approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing >> the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need >> to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver >> other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, >> such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal >> standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN >> to account. >> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire >> board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some >> additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would >> also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated >> associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the >> membership model isn't actually achievable. >> >> >> Izumi >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #30 - 28 April
by Brenda Brewer April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #30 - 228 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619%20> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: Action: staff to add glossary to the report Action: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to appendix and re-format for public comment Action: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable identifying text by line/paragraph Action: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors Action: number questions throughout the document Action: two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to explain group's reasoning Action: staff to add this comparison chart to the report Action: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?) come up with language about the "same basis as the existing NomCom" These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI Alice Munyua , Jim Baskin and Becky Burr, on the phone. We will review the changes made the draft report, to be submitted for public comment soon Reviewed the comments gathered during our past sessions. Today we will review feedback and the comments incorporated. First sections of the document: definition and scoping document, the inventory gathered from community. Circulated only a few hours ago. See URL for the draft report at the top of this notes page 2. Discussion of changes to the draft report following the intense work days Robin's edit "remains accountable" -> is accountable, Izumi's request to have the requests from the CWG highlighted. To make the document more readable will move sections 1-5 to the appendix and being with and executive summary then current chapter 6 This change will be reflected in the next version of the document. Introduction of glossary. Action: staff to add glossary to the report Sense of support for the issue of moving the chapters to the appendix Action: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to appendix and re-format for public comment Concern that new text has been added to section 4, and this has not been discussed with the group. Noted that the text we there for the frozen document used during the intense workdays last week. Suggestion to have the sections numbered - this will be done as well as as explanatory sections and working with XPLANE of graphical representation, Consider line numbers and ways to easily refer to text being commented on. Action: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable identifying text by line/paragraph If people find a term is too legalistic or subjective, please flag in the draft. External legal advisors request to be able to review the document. Action: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors Review of Section 6. Page 22. Change to explain the graphic on the overall acc architecture. New, so comment. Section 6.2 page 24. Reviewed by Becky. Introduced the notion of guarantees. With consistency across all documents. There was disagreement about the use of "guarantees" in this way, agreed further consideration needed use of guarantees and commitment. Section 6.3. Memo about fundamental bylaws. Section 6.4 Significant changes. Outcome of the discussion of the intense workday, including possible outcomes of the IRP. And IRP cancels or changes an opinion of the board and its decisions would be final. Some comment from legal advice that this was viable. Section 6.5. Reconsideration: more agreement so fewer changes. Section 6.4. Pointing to questions and open issues. Should these be item by item, more readable if the questions are grouped at the end of the section or presented and numbered as reading thorough the section. Action: number questions throughout the document. What's meant by standard of review? Standard of Review means the principles against which the instant case is measured to determine whether a complaint should be upheld. A term in law. 1) we have always assumed the Community (Members) would have standing to file RR or IRP. It is not entirely clear in our document how we would establish standing for the Community. stress test 13. redress mechanisms. concern about blocking. As yet not scoring well. The proposed measure may need to distinguish between community power and those of individual. We as the community may need to have standing to challenge a decisions. And have we done enough to restrain people from using them to block policy making. Operate for now under the assumption that the community does have standing. Section 6.6. community mechanisms. Discussion of the membership model, and the other options available such as the designator model. With rational as to why this is necessary. The member model as the reference model that we feel will work given the legal advice received. Language intend to support this reference model, but not to close off other models. Q. Is there place for an additional section to lay out the risks and benefits of the different models? Are we currently giving the community to understand the pros and cons of models as they make their preference known? A choice: what is taken into the body of the report and what to the appendix. The legal advice will be linked from the main body of the report. Do members want to identify more of the legal advice in the document. There will be a second run-through of tress tests, to ensure that none of our proposal create additional contingencies. ST-WP meets tomorrow. Additional explanation for the risks and benefits would be helpful, but not to the extent that we were have to do the same through every section of the document 6.1.1.1 (i) suggest this should be fleshed out, to say why we reached the decisions we have reached (e.g. legal advice has come back to say this is stronger, etc) Action: Two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to explain group's reasoning. New text to be added to note (1) that the all the groups requirements can be implemented under the reference model, and (2) it has advantages in terms of enforceability The stress tests and mechanisms do not stop an event happening, but the issue is does the community have the means to respond, or the means to challenge how the Board responds. Are our new accountability mechanisms creating new risks, for example capture, do the stress tests mitigate against these? Regarding fleshing out pros and cons, the short table on the powers would be helpful to have in the main document. A comparison chart that was offered as one of the legal memos. Action: staff to add this comparison chart to the report. Have we made sure that we have updated the stress tests to evaluate the model especially around capture. Member model to empower the community, but concern over individual member rights and collective rights. A question many will ask, people will ask what if the community gets captured. Link between this and the question from Jan Scholte and the group should work on the accountability of the community. 6.6.1.1. f. about designators. Not fully explaining the designators model, something more explicit needed. Section 6.1.1.2 Influence in the community mechanism. Co-chairs have contacted the RSAC and SSAC about the proposals. Given a rationale about the reference option, and the pros and cons. Any adjustments needed? Para F. add, and in keeping with keeping with keep ICANN rooted in the private sector. (add to the text) 6.6.2. reconsider/eject budget or strategy operating plans Only change was on the grounds. 6.6.3. page 56 Community power to reject/reconsider ICANN's standard bylaws. Language better reflects what is meant by standard vs. fundamental. Examples changed, added the question. 6.6.4. Powers to change fundamental bylaws. No substantive edits, a question add. And the fundamental bylaws now have a section in the report. 6.6.5 page 57 Updated to reflect language around the nominating committee. Keep the petition model, that the NomCom would be the option, but not to close down any other models. 6.6.6 Recall the Board NomCom. Section g. Both options legally viable. Re-format "On the same basis as the existing NomCom" are we talking about a standing group, or on an ad hoc basis Suggestion to take offline to come up with suggested language. Action: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?) come up with language about the "same basis as the existing NomCom". 6.7 Affirmation of Commitments into the bylaws Changes made. Section 8b. Section 6.7.2, incorporation of commitment reviews. (Current method of consensus in GAC Due deference refers to process of finding mutual consensus It was not meant to be fundamental ) ICANN HQ in Los Angeles Commit or will to call, Financial/non-financial rater than non-commercial. Review team must be as diverse as possible. How were prior review teams recommendations implements (Connection lost.) Normally one year after. Action: co-chairs/rapporteurs, recent discussion from list to be reflected in the report 6.7.2. A. require the ICANN board to approve and implement. Not requiring he board to review and implement/ 6.8.2. GAC advice. The GAC chooses how it chooses consensus. ICANN bylaws would only allow due deference to consensus advice. Refers to the current arrangement. That kind of deference would only be due to consensus advice. Article 11 Section 2 bylaws change is being suggested. Question: is this section of the bylaw suggested as fundamental. (Ref 3rd column, page 73) Stress test review on next call, and have been updating both for the CCWG and the requests the CWG put put last week. Page 94. Items for consideration in WS2: Diversity and language for consideration about transparency. Whistleblower policy missing, should be added. AGREED: Enhancements to ICANN's whistle-blower policy. And also suggest adding ICANN's conflict of interest policy. Committed to the "relevant" recommendations. This language can be clarified. More than investigate enhancements. Should be stronger than that. Action: Robin please send language. Conflict of Interest. The policy is quite recent and seems quite robust, what is the rationale for the change, suggestion to discuss conflict of interest on the list. Support for improving the conflict of interest policy. Implementation plan and timeline. Section 9.1. Updating the timeline for next steps 9.2, which includes input from the lawyers on their changes and from staff on the possible implication time for bylaws changes. New, next CCWG call Thursday Arp 30. 05:00 UTC, the call will: Hold a final review of text. A new document version circulated as early as possible, with red-line as mentioned on this call Output from the Stress Test WP meeting. Engagement material - easy to read tools and materials. Glossary of terms Before or after diagram END

2 1

Suggested text for designaor model
by Izumi Okutani April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f). 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference Mechanism CURRENT TEXT Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below ‐ mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually possible. SUGGESTED TEXT f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable. Izumi

2 3

the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
by Avri Doria April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi, In the draft recommendations (6.7.2): > Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team > recommendations, including > recommendations from previous reviews. > The final output of all reviews will be published for public comment. > The Board shall consider approval and begin implementation within > six months of receipt of the recommendations. We discussed this as a putting a greater obligation onf the Board than it currently has. But I do not understand how that is the case. At this point, it is still up to the Board to agree or not. In responding to a CWG-IANA based question from an NCSG member on how the IANA Function Review recommendation for a RFP, if such were to ever happen, would be respected by the ICANN Board? Couldn't they just ignore it. I did not have a response and am wondering what part of the community powers I am forgetting. This points to the more general question about any recommendation of an AOC type review. Other than the no-confidence removal of the Board (6.6.6. got to love the numer!), is there anything that gives the AOC-Like review recommendations the sort of Community powers that we have discussed having for budgets, strategy & operational plans (6.6.2) ? Is it possible to include Board rejection of AOC type review recommendations under the category of decision that can be overruled by members? Or is that class of decsion restricted by statute? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

8 16

Redline version of report - from 1.1 to 28 April version
by Jordan Carter April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi all I used Word to do a compare from the frozen 1.1 document - and turned off "formatting" tagged changes so it's easy to see the content. Attached in .docx and .pdf. 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 *

1 0

DRAFT REPORT & AGENDA (Call # 30)
by Alice Jansen April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your call #30<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619> - Tuesday, 28 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>), please find attached your revised draft report which reflects most recent edits. DOC and .PDF are both available on your dedicated wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. The proposed agenda for today's call is as follows: 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 2. Discussion of changes to the draft report following the intense work days 3. Next Steps 4. A.O.B Closing Remarks Please note that a CCWG-Accountability call will tentatively take place on Thursday, 30 April at 05:00-07:00 UTC to finalize, as needed, any outstanding items before publication of the report. We would also like to re-express our most sincere apologies for the unfortunate delays in delivering the draft report and to thank you for your patience and understanding. Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1