May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Clarification
by Burr, Becky May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Steve Del Bianco asked if I meant to imply that you would have to go to an IRP first if the Board decided to ignore a community budget veto. My response below: Depends a little on the details, e.g. Whether IRP exhaustion was required, etc., how easy it is to secure injunctive relief through IRP vs court. My real point is that in a membership structure the board would be legally bound to respect community veto, so unless you anticipate a lawless board, they would respect the veto. Without the membership structure the board has a legal obligation to exercise its fiduciary obligations and look behind the advisory veto. Assuming good faith all around, the membership structure actually reduces the likelihood of litigation Sent from my iPad

5 7

interplay between 'old' and 'new' IRPs
by Jacob Malthouse May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

I have a question about old and new IRPs. Old being the many currently active (notably taking up way more panelists than this group's proposal affords on the standing panel) and how they would relate to a new standing panel. If the .Africa appeal drags on for example into a second IRP (as it looks like booking.com will), eventually a new appeals system will be put in place. I'd expect you could then launch a fresh appeal (third IRP) to that new panel because it is basically a new court, presumably followed by a fourth appeal of the appeal. So that's a total of four IRPs for .Africa before going to the courts. Has any thought gone into how this would work (or not?). Best, J.

6 7

Booking.com groundhog day
by Jacob Malthouse May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Dear All, Booking.com has filed a reconsideration request on their IRP result <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-7-bo…> . Best, Jacob.

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] Chehadé Announces Intention to End His Tenure as ICANN President & CEO in March 2016
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, what does this mean for the transition? el On 2015-05-21 14:57 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Can someone please translate the newspeak? > > What does "to move into a new career in the private sector" mean? > Probably something worse than "to spend more time with family". > > And "will be available to work" usually means just that, being > available but not doing the work. > > What does "I am deeply committed to working with" mean? Probably > something like "I could not be bothered". > > He's probably going to join up with his predecessor in Colorado. > > el > > On 2015-05-21 14:12 , Gabriella Schittek wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Fadi Chehadé Announces Intention to End His Tenure as ICANN >> President & CEO in March 2016 : >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gabi > [...] >

1 0

translated CCWG documents, draft FAQ
by Adam Peake May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Hi everyone, The executive summary of the CCWG's proposal and the graphics that accompany the proposal are available in Spanish, French, Portuguese. Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Portuguese, plus the original English. The proposal documents are linked from the CCWG wiki main page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+ Accountability> Transcripts of the 2 webinars the group held on May 11 are being prepared in the usual six UN languages plus Portuguese. So far Spanish, French, Portuguese and English are available: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773485> Arabic, Chinese and Russian will be online soon. Hope these additional language resources will be useful to your communities. Transcript of the briefing session with the ICANN board held on May 15 available: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773481> A draft FAQ has been prepared: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53775915> Questions taken from the webinars and board briefing. Your comments on improvements and corrections to the FAQ very welcome, we are trying to reflect what is in the proposal. Please send any comments to me. Best, Adam

1 0

slides - before and after
by Adam Peake May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Hi everyone, Please see slides attached providing an overview of the changes CCWG is proposing, "before and after". Jorge, I hope they capture your suggestions. Best, Adam

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 06:00-09:00 UTC | 09 June 2015
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

Please accept my apologies, I am unwilling to attend such a long meeting during working hours. greetings, el On 2015-05-20 16:33 , Brenda Brewer wrote: > *Updated to 3 hour duration.* > *CCWG-Accountability **Meeting #3**6*– Tuesday, 09 June 2015 > from 06:00 – 09:00 UTC [...]

1 0

Submission to CWG public comment
by Mathieu Weill May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As discussed, the co-chairs have submitted a comment to the CWG, which you can find here : http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1… Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
by Alice Jansen May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

On behalf of CCWG Cochairs Dear all, Following up on the suggestion made on call #33 that the full Group should review public comments received on a call, we would like to suggest dedicating the CCWG call scheduled for Tuesday, 9 June to this task. This call will be an opportunity for us to identify sections of the draft proposal where the community 1) is in agreement; 2) needs clarification; 3) has diverging opinions. To provide us with sufficient time to review all comments, we have decided to extend the call duration to three hours. Staff will adjust the calendar invite accordingly. As a reminder, public comments received to date can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04… Thanks, Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Question regarding UAs
by Alan Greenberg May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

Incorporating the GNSO (or perhaps the GNSO Council?) may well make it legally liable for the decisions it takes. Are you really sure you want that? Alan At 20/05/2015 01:09 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >Hi Avri, > >Rather than being confused I think you understand the concepts >perfectly and are pointing out some of the conceptual difficulties >with the shell UA's. > >My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that each SOAC >will be able to decide the form of legal personality it assumes. I >hope that is correct. While shell vehicles may be appropriate for >some groups I'd be interested at the GNSO level, for example, of >exploring direct incorporation of the GNSO itself. I'm not >committing myself to the idea but I do think it might be worth exploring. > >My strong preference is that the only centralized requirement coming >out of our group is that each SOAC must assume a legal personality. >I hope there is a possibility of leaving the exact form chosen up to >the individual SOAC. I think that would be very much in keeping with >the bottom up governance model most of us subscribe to. > >Ed > > > >On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >Hi, > >I think I understand the argument about members becoming that to which >ICANN, and its Board, are responsible and accountable. From that >perspective it sounds really good. > >What I have having trouble understanding is an accountability structure >were there is a discontinuity between the SOAC and the UA. If each of >the Board designating SOAC were the UA, it think I would understand. >But I just do not see how the UA are accountable to the people and >organizations that participate in each of the SOAC. Yes, the SOAC >designates it UA representative, but how is (s)electing one of these any >more accountable than (s)electing the Board as we do now. Don't we just >move the perceived/possible unaccountability down a layer in the hierarchy? > >I think I am as comfortable with complexity as the next person. And I >understand how in computer science any problem can solved by adding >another layer of indirection, but in this case the extra layer we are >creating does not seem to really be accountable to anyone but itself, >except by (s)election procedures. > >I am sure I am missing some critical bit of understanding and hope >someone can explain the chain of accountability in the membership >model. I feel that we are still hand-waving a bit in the explanations. >In a sense it seems as if we are creating a 'council' that is omnipotent >in the powers it is given, except that they can somehow be replaced. > >Thanks and apologies for my persistent confusion. > >avri > > > >On 20-May-15 01:14, Jordan Carter wrote: > > Hi all > > > > This thread is useful to tease out some of the questions and concerns > > and confusions with the UA model, and as rapporteur for the WP > > responsible for refining this part of the proposal I am reading it avidly. > > > > I just want to take the opportunity to remind us all why membership > > (or something analogous) is an important aspect of the reforms we are > > proposing - no matter the precise details. > > > > At the moment without members, ICANN is fundamentally controlled by > > the Board. The only external constraint is the IANA functions contract > > with NTIA. The long list of community concerns and examples detailed > > by our earlier work in this CCWG shows that even with that constraint, > > accountability isn't up to scratch. > > > > We are working on a settlement without that NTIA contract. > > Accountability has to get better even *with* the contract. > > Fundamentally better, without it. > > > > Either we have a membership structure or some other durable approach > > that firmly embeds the stewardship of ICANN and the DNS in the ICANN > > community, or... we remain with Board control. > > > > Given ICANN's history, anyone who is advocating a continuation of > > Board control is arguing for a model that can't be suitably > > accountable, and that seems highly likely to fail over time, with real > > risks to the security and stability of the DNS. > > > > A real, fundamental source of power over the company absent the > > contract *has* to be established. The membership model is the most > > suitable one to achieve that that we have considered so far. > > > > So: we need to be creative and thoughtful in how we make that model > > work in a fashion that disrupts ICANN's general operation as little as > > possible. But the key there is "as possible." Real change is needed > > and much refinement and comment is needed. > > > > If there are proposals to achieve the same shift in control from ICANN > > the corporation to ICANN the community, I hope they come through in > > the comment period. So far, none have - but there are still two weeks > > of comments to go. > > > > cheers > > Jordan > > > > > > On 20 May 2015 at 10:45, Malcolm Hutty > <<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>malcolm(a)linx.net > > <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote: > > > > This whole thread seems to have massively overcomplicated the > > question. > > > > > > Unless I have missed something, the only reason we need "members" > > is to > > stand as plaintiff-of-record in a lawsuit against the ICANN Board > > complaining that the Board has failed to adhere to the corporations > > bylaws. Such a lawsuit would in reality be conducted by an SO or > > AC, but > > a person with legal personality needs to act as plaintiff-of-record. > > > > Why not simply proceed, as Samantha suggested, with the SOACs' > > Chairs as > > the members of the corporation? Could the Articles (or Bylaws, as > > appropriate) not simply identify the SOACs' Chairs as the members, ex > > officio and pro tempore? > > > > An SOAC Chair that refused to act as plaintiff-of-record when required > > to do so by his SOAC could simply be replaced. Likewise a Chair that > > went rogue and initiated a lawsuit without their consent. > > > > You can't make the SOAC a member without turning them into UAs, > > with all > > the attendent complexity. But I don't see that there should be any > > such > > problem with designating the chair of a SOAC, who will be a natural > > person, as a member of the corporation; the fact that the SOAC is > > not a > > UA is then irrelevant. > > > > In the event that there were any dispute as to whether a particular > > person is in truth an SOAC Chair, this would surely be a simple > > preliminary matter of fact for the court. It is surely beyond dispute > > that if the Articles designated "Alan Greenberg" as the member, it > > would > > be a matter of fact as to whether or not the person before the > > court was > > indeed Alan Greenberg; surely it is the same as to whether the person > > before the court is "the current Chair of ALAC", if that should be > > what > > is specified in the Articles? > > > > Malcolm. > > > > -- > > Malcolm Hutty | tel: > <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>+44 20 7645 3523 > > <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> > > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog > > London Internet Exchange | > <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > > 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY > > > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > > > Chief Executive > > *InternetNZ* > > > > 04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob) > > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > > Skype: jordancarter > > > > /A better world through a better Internet / > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. ><http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1