May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Question regarding UAs
by Greg Shatan May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

It's been made clear several times that each SO/AC will have broad leeway to decide how to create a corresponding legal entity. It's up to the SO/AC who the members/officers of the UA or other legal entity might be. So, if the SO/AC "takes exception," they can choose another path; it's up to the group. (In any event, it is the UA, and not the chair/vice chair, that is the alter ego.) Also, this is not being driven by "the right to participate in the governance of IANA." I'm not sure where you got that idea. This is being driven by the desire to hold ICANN to a greater degree of accountability for all of its operations. IANA is only a small part of that, and not among the most controversial either. It's the right to participate in the governance of ICANN that is at stake -- and that is far from a simple technical and operational matter. This is quite a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim and purpose of the entire CCWG; which causes your exhortation to "get real" to seem rather ironic. Furthermore, there are not that many SO/ACs, and only a subset of them appoint directors to the Board. "Each and all" is both incorrect and Only those that appoint voting Directors need to create a legal entity to act as the ICANN Member. There are only *four* of these - GNSO, ccNSO, ASO and ALAC. The other ACs only appoint liaisons and thus do not need to be members. (The NomCom is a special case, and needs to be dealt with appropriately, but that is hardly a "deal-killer.") On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: > The mind boggles! So, one would require that each and all of the ICANN > supporting organisations and advisory committees would have to re-create > themselves as an UA or similar in order to have the right to participate in > the governance of IANA - that which we have often been told is a simple > technical and operational function. > > > > > such structures will be difficult for the overall community to understand >>>>> >>>>> > I can think of more than one SO/AC which might take exception to the > proposition that their chair and vice chair(s) would become their > 'alter-ego' in this context. > > As I think I have said before, please get real. > > CW > > > On 19 May 2015, at 22:53, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Kavouss, > > Each SO/AC would establish a UA, which would be an "alter ego" of that > SO/AC. Legally, the UA needs to have at least two members, and the members > need to be legal persons (which could be natural persons or legally > recognized entities). The UA members could be the chair and vice chair(s) > of a SO/AC, or the UA members could be all the members of the SO/AC, or > anything in between. There is no need to establish any UA other than the > one that is acting as the SO/ACs alter ego. > > This is the basic model. > > There could be variations. An SO/AC could decide to form another type of > legal entity (non-profit corporation (in California, called a "public > benefit corporation" or a "mutual benefit corporation"), limited liability > corporation, etc.), rather than forming a UA. The alter ego entity could > be located in a jurisdiction other than California. If the SO/AC does not > appoint any board members, it could even decide not to be a Member of > ICANN, in which case it does not need to form a UA or any type of legal > entity. > > That is my understanding. I hope this helps. > > Greg > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> People have different understanding of UA >> It is necessary to clarify the followings: >> >> 1. When we refer to UA ,are we talking about two or more( say three) >> natural persons , as chair and vice chair or their representatives within >> a SO or an AC establishing that UA ,? >> OR >> 2.When we refer to UA, we are talking about two or more so and AC >> establishing an UA ? >> In case of the first one, is it necessary that UA established within that >> SO or AC also establish another UA among themselves or it is no longer >> necessary? >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-05-19 8:05 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> Chris, >>> >>> Yes, I recognized this flaw myself in my follow-up email replying to Sam >>> a few minutes ago.... Please see that email for my revised thinking. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> This comment has confused me: >>>> >>>> and the contract between the SO/AC and the UA (if one is even needed) >>>> would be much simpler. >>>> >>>> >>>> How can there be a contract between the SO/AC if the SO/AC is not a >>>> legal entity? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> On 19 May 2015, at 15:19 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> An Unincorporated Association (UA) requires at least two legal persons >>>> (which can be people or legal entities) to be members. In other words, you >>>> need two legal persons to "associate" with each other. So, if we use UAs, >>>> we'll need to have at least those two members in the UA, though we could >>>> have many more. They could be the Chair and Vice Chair, or they could be >>>> two or more of the members of the SO/AC (or even all the members of the >>>> SO/AC). I believe we intend to give the SO/ACs fairly broad discretion to >>>> establish their UAs as they see fit (including using legal entities other >>>> than UAs, such as non-profit corporations or LLCs), while providing them >>>> with some high level standards and guidelines so that they work as intended. >>>> >>>> On a technical legal level, I don't believe there is a bar to having >>>> the Members of ICANN be natural persons (i.e., people) rather than UAs >>>> acting as alter egos for the SO/ACs. This creates some secondary issues. >>>> Legal entities have Bylaws or similar rules; people don't. So, the >>>> behavior of a natural person acting as an alter ego for a SO/AC would have >>>> to be regulated entirely by a contract between the SO/AC and the natural >>>> person. With the UA, most of the rules about how the UA acts can be >>>> embodied in its bylaws, and the contract between the SO/AC and the UA (if >>>> one is even needed) would be much simpler. If a natural person is a >>>> member, I think the membership would change every time the natural person >>>> changed; so you would have to go through a process of members resigning and >>>> joining fairly regularly. With the UAs, the membership would remain >>>> constant (subject to further changes in ICANN governance and the ICANN >>>> community's structures and organizations). Another complication arises in >>>> considering how to recall the board; most likely, this would require a >>>> contractual agreement among the members to act in concert and have each >>>> SO/AC remove the board member(s) that SO/AC appointed. This agreement >>>> could remain constant if we use legal entities; if we use natural persons, >>>> the agreement will need to be amended and re-executed (at least in part), >>>> whenever there is member turnover. Finally, there is just the "optic" of >>>> having, e.g., Alan Greenberg as a Member of ICANN, rather than having "ALAC >>>> Prime, an Unincorporated Association" as a Member of ICANN. >>>> >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Jordan Carter < >>>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi all, hi Alan >>>>> >>>>> I think these are exactly the sorts of questions we do need to unpick. >>>>> >>>>> My own preference is that the UAs are almost total shells - that the >>>>> only way they can make decisions is on the resolution of the relevant SO or >>>>> AC council. That way, there's no need for "Representatives" to be >>>>> appointed. The lawyers have confirmed that this approach works at a high >>>>> level. >>>>> >>>>> It avoids all the concerns about who needs to be chosen etc. >>>>> >>>>> I really hope we can all unpick these issues to find the best model, >>>>> one that is both enforceable, clear and simple. I'm confident we'll get >>>>> there. We just have to wear the fact that the set of changes we are >>>>> contemplating is going to be complicated to implement. It's once we get >>>>> there that it has to be simple and clean. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Jordan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 19 May 2015 at 16:03, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I believe I understand the issues regarding UAs as shadow >>>>>> organizations for the AC/SOs. Although I still have strong reservations and >>>>>> am not sure we need the legal enforceability that they provide, I am >>>>>> willing to accept that they will work. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I also feel that using such structures will be difficult for the >>>>>> overall community to understand (on an ongoing basis). >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a simple question. Instead of having a UA and the AC/SO naming >>>>>> people to be their formal representatives in the UA, why can we not simply >>>>>> have the AC/SO Chair or their Delegate(s) be the Members or Designators. >>>>>> These people have legal status, so why do we need the UAs? >>>>>> >>>>>> I will not be able to join the call in a few hours, but will listen >>>>>> to the recording later in the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> 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 > > >

1 0

Call with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Dear all, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce requested a call with the Co-Chairs in order to provide them with a brief explanation on the document posted for public comment. I held that call today over the phone. The call was hosted by the USCC and there was no AC room in use or recording that I know of. In my intervention, I highlighted that the document posted for comment was not a consensus document and that we were looking for feedback to review the first draft in light of such feedback. There were a couple of questions related to the proposal on establishing a membership model. One of the questions was whether all SOACs would need to form UAs in order to participate in the different mechanisms proposed. The other question was whether forming the proposed UAs under the membership model would increase the likelihood of being sued in the future. There was also one question related to the proposed new IRP. The question was whether this new IRP would be some process open only to that entity or person that initiated the process or if it could also be open for others to join after initial filing. I provided brief answers along what we’ve discussed in our calls and with counsel and since the call was only 30 minutes including Q&As there wasn’t really much time to dive into details so all answers were at a very high level. The timeline on future work was also mentioned and I provided information on the latest timeline of the CCWG. I hope you find this information useful. Best regards, León

1 0

FW: WSJ/Crovitz/Obama's bungled internet surrender
by Paul Rosenzweig May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Colleagues This is an opinion piece that published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it might be of interest. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> Paul.rosenzweig(a)gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Our travel blog: <http://www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com/> www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key Obama’s Bungled Internet Surrender The group the White House favors for online oversight is turning into an abusive monopolist. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-bungled-internet-surrender-1431898743> By L. GORDON CROVITZ May 17, 2015 5:39 p.m. ET <http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-bungled-internet-surrender-1431898743#li…> 68 COMMENTS President Obama’s plan to give up protection of the open Internet is wreaking havoc even though it will probably never be carried out. In anticipation of the end of U.S. stewardship, the organization the White House wants to give more power has become an abusive monopolist, refusing to be held accountable by the Internet’s stakeholders. The administration last year announced its intention to abandon the contract the Commerce Department has held since the beginning of the Web with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. Congress used its power of the purse to block the move, which had been set for September this year. But the prospect of escaping U.S. oversight led Icann to deny accountability even for its core duty of keeping its monopoly over Web addresses working smoothly. The House Judiciary Committee last week held a hearing titled “Stakeholder Perspectives on Icann: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation.” The .sucks domain was one of hundreds of new top-level domains Icann added beyond the original .com, .org and .gov. Icann, organized as a nonprofit, collects a fee each time it approves a new top-level domain and gets a cut of the registration charge for individual domain names. The corporation’s total take so far from the new domains is more than $300 million. The Intellectual Property Constituency, an Icann stakeholder group, calls the .sucks domain “predatory, exploitative and coercive.” Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte says trademark holders are “being shaken down”—compelled to buy new addresses defensively to prevent their use. Apple bought applestore.sucks. Gmail, Sam’s Club, Uber and <http://quotes.wsj.com/YHOO> Yahooregistered .sucks addresses, as did celebrities including Taylor Swiftand Kevin Spacey. The standard price: $2,499, versus $10 for unclaimed .com addresses. Mr. Goodlatte says the approval of .sucks “demonstrates the absurdity and futility of Icann’s own enforcement processes.” Instead of policing itself, Icann asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether the .sucks domain is abusive. Philip Corwin, a lawyer for the Internet Commerce Association, wrote on the CircleID website: “This is the equivalent of sending a message stating: ‘Dear Regulator: We have lit a fuse. Can you please tell us whether it is connected to a bomb?’ ” Mr. Corwin told lawmakers the U.S. has been a “useful and corrective restraint on Icann” and a “first line of defense against any attempt at multilateral takeover and conversion to a government-dominated organization,” so “should exercise strong oversight in support of Icann’s stakeholders” in any transition of the contract. The Internet ain’t broke, and Mr. Obama shouldn’t have tried to fix it. Icann and its stakeholders have spent the past year exhausting themselves on the impossible mission the White House set for them. They were tasked with finding some way to keep Icann operating with accountability but without U.S. oversight. Unsurprisingly, no one found a viable alternative. Mr. Obama may be uncomfortable with American exceptionalism, but the Internet since its launch has reflected U.S. values of free speech and open innovation. That is why China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes lust for the power to control it. Some stakeholders proposed a new institution to oversee Icann, while others wanted to build more accountability within Icann. Last week Icann chief Fadi Chehade told the French news agency AFP that China and Brazil agreed with Icann’s proposals to end U.S. oversight and let Icann oversee itself: “It is now up to the community to wrap them up, put them in a nice little box with a bow and ship them to Washington.” Even the Obama administration knows Mr. Chehade’s nonaccountability approach is a nonstarter. The .sucks saga shows that Icann won’t protect the Internet from unscrupulous business practices, never mind authoritarian regimes. The Commerce Department recently asked several stakeholder groups how far past the original September date it would take to propose and implement alternatives to U.S. protection. The Obama administration still acts as if it can give up the contract overseeing Icann, but it can’t. Congress banned any steps by Commerce to give up the contract before the date in September, when the agreement must be renewed for two more years. This means Mr. Obama’s successor will decide. The administration should tell Icann and the stakeholders to use the next two years to focus on creating accountability for Icann. If the White House persists in its wrongheaded idea to give up U.S. protection for the Internet, it should take the precaution of buying up ObamaInternetPlan.sucks.

6 5

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #33 - 19 May
by Kimberly Carlson May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #33 - 19 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53775089 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum. Action: WP leaders to plan their meetings. Action: Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received. Notes CCWG ACCT - Call # 33 - 19 May 2015. This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards LINKS Public Comment Announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20… Draft Report https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG-Draft-Propos… AGENDA: 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI 2. Summary of feedback * Potential additional Webinars * Board * Other sessions report? 3. CWG submission 4. Planning for analysis of public comments * Detailed planning & organization * Work before BA 5. CCWG organization towards BA and beyond * Legal sub team - legal work * Level of detail expected * Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC) * WP structure NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: 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 None. Please complete statements of interest 2. Summary of feedback Comments from the community. 2 webinars on 11 May and session with the board on 15 May. Compiling answers to the questions. FAQ will be published in the next day or so. Questions during the webinars noted concerns about the creation and use of unincorporated associations and their internal governance. Questions about US, about board recall, about the IRP and its binding nature. Questions about reconsideration and the ombudsman. And questions about the stress tests and timeline. Some areas where the community has more questions. Overall, felt the number of questions was quite low. Questions for clarification rather than about alternatives. Suggests the webinars were for the community to better understand the proposal, with questions to come later. Noting a question raised during the board call about the removal of individual directors. And whether this should be WS1 or WS2. The question was also about the criteria for removal, which was not defined in the proposal. Rights to remove a director for cause rather than without cause. Our focus has been to remove without cause. Under statute of CA law, the appointing entity can remove the director without cause. A for cause removal is usually reserved to the Board. Typically for a breach of fiduciary duties. Should explicitly mention this for cause and without cause in the proposal. Also noted that when a Director joins the board they serve the community not the interests of the appointing community. So removal by that community is not appropriate, the entire community should remove. Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal Example: ALAC appointed director has a fiduciary duty to ICANN, but the statutory right of the appointing organization is that they can remove their director. A member can remove their director at any time. That the community can impose their will on the process only in the for cause case. Note that the document is not agreed by everyone. The intent of what was intended internally needs to be made clear externally and WP1 will review. * potential additional Webinars Views on whether more are needed? Suggest not: that the first were well attended. FAQ will be available, more questions and responses will be added as received. Working on more video to explain various parts of the proposal. 3. CWG submission Draft a co-chairs submission to the CWG public comment period, which ends 20 May. Addressing the dependencies we have identified and explaining how we in CCWG are proposing to address their concerns. Budget and transparency. Review process for the IANA budget. See no obstacle to coordinating proposals of the two groups. CSC reference. Noting that it needs to be created under the bylaws, but it is responded to in section 1.4, p 12. About the IANA function review. The separation review and process, this is not reflected in the CCWG proposal. That process is being worked on in the CWG. Might acknowledge that this is in process and will advise appropriately. Suggestion to introduce a general paragraph, that any review regarding naming would be a subset of the accountability proposal. Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum. 4. Planning for analysis of public comments Public comment tool populated with comments on a section by section basis by June 7. Working party to review by June 16: where there is consenus, where are diverging views, and where are the concerns. And then how we move forward. For logistics the WP leaders will plan ahead. With the suggestion of an intense work weekend June 13/14 Action: WP leaders to plan their meetings. Action: Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received. Suggestion: the full group should have at least one pass of the comments. And plan a call on 6 or 7 June to have a pass-through of all comments for the whole groups. 5. CCWG organization towards BA and beyond * Legal sub team - legal work Legal sub team will be reorganized. Had 3 tasks: identify legal firms, provide a scooping document for interaction with legal advisors, and to gather questions and assign to lawyers to receive answers on these questions for the group. Seeking a more agile way to work with the lawyers. Asking the lawyers to interact more directly with the WP. Task for the legal sub-team to continue to gather questions and assign to the lawyers. Less need for the sub-team weekly calls. Thanks to the sub-team for the work done supporting preparation the proposal and all the work done. Question. UA. is it possible for one single SO. If we go to a natural person, a char and vice chair, without the participation of any other SO/AC does it have any powers. Or, if a legal entity, does that also have the power if no other membership. What is the minimum number of members to make it valid? What is the advantage and disadvantage of natural person and legal entity. Suggest to defer answers to the lawyers. And will assign to the lawyers. * Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC) We have had 2 reading on important questions, but we have not done any consensus calling. After BA and full community input, we will need to decide how to transform our proposals into consensus recommendations. Recommendations we hope will be agreed by the chartering organizations. And we agreed to work from higher level principles to detail. Various tasks ahead. Suggest that we try to take stock for the separate bits of our work and to confirm consensus as we work forward. And try to reach consensus in the higher level principles first, and move to detail . Moving from the suggestions of our current proposal, to recommendations. Need consistency to ensure that implementation is done in the sprit of the CCWG recommendations The community agrees with the proposal. Asked the community to comment on alternative proposals. They may community disagrees. All three areas will trigger different ways forward. Where the community agrees, we make as consensus recommendations Where there are alternatives, or the community came up with a new proposal, then we work to resolve these. Where the community substantially disagrees with our suggestions. Need to review from the beginning. Post BA, take all the recommendations in our report to consensus. And then to refine them, so they are ready for implementation oversight. Agree with the need for a session to digest what's heard in BA. Keeping the WP organizations, with perhaps smaller teams to work on specific issues. What's provided should be sufficient to allow implementation. What are the objectives, the frameworks, the timing? Proposal was prepared with the help do WP leaders. And it is to facilitate, not make things more complex. The proposal is about our internal work. Examples: Community power to veto/reject a strategic plan/budget. Group might feel there is enough detail for implementation. If we feel the community agrees with the proposal. The we ask the CCWG if they agree it is consensus. If yes, then it is parked until we have more time to complete the proposal thru bylaw implementation or whatever required. e.g. For NomCom appointees we gave options, and asked the community for feed back on alternatives. We will analyze responses, and if it is on one option then we bring it to our group and seek consensus. We favored members and designators, but if someone came up with a wholly new proposal that had support of the community then we would need to review from the beginning. One outcome of the PC will be questions. And our answer may take us in a new direction, to something we'd not worked out before. And that on slide 5, we may be answering questions. 6 AoB Congressional hearings. two hearings last week. Both committee last held hearings in April 2014. Progress since then. Constructive hearings, 1st about IPR and consumer issues. Commerce committee, jurisdiction over DoC and NTIA. GAO asked by the committee to analyze the risks of the transition. One proposal was for the GAO to look at the CCWG and CWG work over the next year. Encourage them instead to comment in the next month or so. Congress let its views be known now. Steve's suggestion that congress require NTIA to ensure that all the community recommendations are implemented. Written testimony is available. Transcripts will be a few weeks. Request for answers to some question put to the lawyers Will legal counsel be available for the GAC with the CCWG. Offer made to GAC for a Q&A session with the CCWG Closing comments. Need to keep listening and engaging, please report on your engagement efforts on the list. It must be a dialogue. Goal should be that there is no surprise in the comments we receive, and as few misinformed inputs as possible. Preparing the next steps in this call. This is an investment that will be pay back 10x, please contribute to these discussions. END

1 0

Meeting Today
by Greg Shatan May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Please accept my apologies for this meeting as I will be useless "tomorrow" (i.e., in a 5 or 6 hours) if I stay up until 4 am.... Greg

1 0

Comments before May 18 - Draft CCWG co-chair submission to CWG public comment
by Mathieu Weill May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Dear colleagues, As you know, the CWG-Stewardship 2nd public comment is open until May 20th (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…) Since this report lays out some dependencies between the proposals of the CWG and our group's, we decided during our CCWG call on May 5th to prepare a CCWG submission to this public comment period. Below is a draft CCWG submission, which would be sent on behalf of the co-chairs. Substance is based on our initial draft proposal. Please share your feedbacks before Monday 18 May to enable finalization of the submission in a timeframe consistent with the CWG public comment period. Best, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu --------- Dear CWG-Stewardship co-chairs, This submission is in response to your group's 2nd draft proposal, open for public comment on 22 April 2015. We submit these comments as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), based on the proposed accountability enhancements recently published by our group (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…) and open to public comment. First, we would like to underline the quality of the ongoing coordination between co-chairs of our respective groups. We have enjoyed regular and effective discussions since the launch of our group in December 2014. Our groups have been updated regularly about progress made as well as issues faced, and the interdependency and interrelation between our work has led to key correspondence being exchanges on a regular basis. As CCWG-Accountability co-chairs, we have been provided with the opportunity to speak with the CWG-Stewardship on two occasions, and you also introduced the key elements of your 2nd draft proposal to the CCWG-Accountability. As outlined in your public comment announcement "the CWG-Stewardship's proposal has dependencies on and is expressly conditioned upon the CCWG-Accountability process." Overall, it is our understanding that the CCWG-Accountability's initial proposals meet the CWG-Stewardship expectations. We would like to stress that, within our group's deliberations, the willingness to meet these requirements have been uncontroversial. Our comments will focus on the specific requirements that you outline : • Ability for the community to have more rights regarding the development and consideration of the ICANN budget; The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals address this requirement directly in Section 5.2, which introduces a new power for the community to "consider strategic & operating plans and budgets after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community." • Empowering the multistakeholder community to have certain rights with respect to the ICANN Board, including the ICANN Board's oversight of the IANA operations, specifically, the ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board, and to recall the entire Board; The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals introduce new powers for the community, which include the ability to remove individual Directors (section 5.5) or recall the entire Board (section 5.6). These proposals would address the CWG-Stewardship requirement. • The IANA Function Review, created to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA Functions, should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws; The CCWG-Accountability proposes to incorporate the review system defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws, including the ability to start new reviews (section 6.2, page 60). Based on your group's proposal, the CCWG introduced a recommendation to create a new review, based on the requirements you set forth. • The CSC, created to monitor the performance of the IANA Functions and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO, should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws. While this specific requirement was not addressed by the CCWG-Accountability, it would not contradict any of our proposals. It might be more appropriate if this recommendation was drafted and specified directly as one of the CWG-Stewardship recommendations. • As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG-Accountability should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes.” When addressing enhancements to review and appeal mechanisms (both in sections 4.1 - IRP and 4.2 Reconsideration process), the CCWG-Accountability initial proposals state that "as requested by the CWG-Stewardship, decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other interested parties." • All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the ICANN bylaws as "fundamental bylaws" requiring community ascent in order for amendment. The CCWG Accountability initial proposals describe the scope of the "fundamental bylaws" in section 3.2.4. It is proposed that the "Reviews that are part of the CWG-Stewardship’s work – the IANA Function Review and any others they may require, as well as the creation of a Customer Standing Committee" would be considered Fundamental Bylaws. As such, any change of such Bylaws would require prior approval by the community. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our deep appreciation of the outstanding work the CWG-Stewardship has conducted and our confidence that our respective groups' interdependence will be resolved to the satisfaction of stakeholder needs and expectations. We remain committed to closely coordinating on any further evolution of your requirements based on this 2nd round of public comment. Best regards, Mathieu -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

8 10

AGENDA - Call #33 - 19 May
by Alice Jansen May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #33<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53775089> - Tuesday, 19 May - 06:00 - 08:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>): 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI 2. Summary of feedback * Potential additional Webinars * Board * Other sessions report? 3. CWG submission <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00293…> 4. Planning for analysis of public comments * Detailed planning & organization * Work before BA 5. CCWG organization towards BA and beyond * Legal sub team - legal work * Level of detail expected * Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC) * WP structure Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

NTIA 2nd quarterly report to Congress
by Bruce Tonkin May 16, 2015

May 16, 2015

Hello All, Attached is a report from NTIA to Congress, it includes the following text related to the CCWG's work on accountability: B. Enhancing ICANN Accountability In addition to the IANA Stewardship Transition efforts, ICANN also launched a parallel process to enhance its accountability to the global Internet community and to strengthen its accountability mechanisms in the absence of a contractual relationship with NTIA. The CCWG on Accountability, composed of appointed representatives from ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) and open to all interested parties as participants, is examining accountability mechanisms regarding the entirety of ICANN operations. The CCWG charter identifies two work streams. The first is to identify accountability measures that need to be in place before the IANA transition, and the second is to address accountability measures that should be adopted and implemented by ICANN in the longer term. The CCWG identified four distinct work areas: (1) overview of existing accountability mechanisms; (2) review of public comments filed in response to ICANN's proposed accountability process to categorize them as either Work Stream 1 or Work Stream 2 items; (3) review of accountability issues identified by the CWG; and (4) identification of contingencies or threat scenarios On March 23 and 24, the CCWG on Accountability also conducted a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul. The CCWG focused primarily on the mechanisms for community empowerment and amendments to ICANN's Bylaws that will be required to implement those mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms could include barring the ICANN Board from unilaterally expanding ICANN's limited mission, opening ICANN-proposed budgets to amendment or disapproval from the ICANN community, and implementing a way to replace individual ICANN board members or the entire Board as a whole. The CCWG agreed that further work is necessary to more clearly define the ICANN "community," as well as "community consensus" and how that can be reached. Agreement was reached that core elements of the current Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) between ICANN and NTIA should be incorporated into ICANN's Bylaws, as an appropriate means of ensuring that ICANN will be held to the commitments agreed to in the original AOC. The CCWG also advanced its work on improving ICANN's review, redress, and reconsideration mechanisms, focusing primarily on changes needed in the current Independent Review Process (IRP). Finally, the CCWG reviewed work to date on the specific "stress tests" that need to be agreed and implemented in conjunction with the IANA transition. The CCWG is working towards publishing a draft recommendation for public comment sometime in late April 2015. These two multi-stakeholder processes - the IANA stewardship transition and enhancing ICANN accountability - are directly linked, and NTIA has repeatedly said that both sets of issues must be addressed before any transition takes place. ICANN has indicated that it expects to receive both the ICG transition and CCWG accountability proposals at roughly the same time and that it will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA.

1 0

Definition of Hell for each Myers Briggs Personality Type
by Jonathan Zuck May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

I saw this today and just couldn't help sharing it with the group. I submit the following definitions of Hell without further comment... ESTJ - An incredibly impractical person is put in charge of all of your major life decisions. You have to do whatever they say and are powerless to argue or reason with them. INFP - Your deepest thoughts and feelings are exposed to a large audience and everyone thinks that you're pathetic and unoriginal. INTJ - Every time you open your mouth to say something intelligent, something entirely idiotic comes out instead. ESFJ - Someone you love is in dire need of practical help and you can't give it to them. Worse yet, they think you're refusing to help them out of pettiness and they're mad at you. ESFP - You are stuck in a room by yourself for the rest of eternity. ISTP - The Zombie apocalypse happens but you're suddenly the world's weakest fighter and must depend solely on your loved ones to keep you alive. ENFP - Every minute of the rest of your life has been scheduled for you - and it's a long series of arbitrary, solitary tasks. ISFP - You have to listen to rude people criticizing your personal choices, your appearance and your art form all day long. Nobody cares that they're hurting your feelings. ENFJ - Your loved ones are in dire need of guidance but every piece of advice you gives them inadvertently makes things worse for them. ISFJ - Everyone you love is yelling at each other and it's all your fault. ISTJ - You are expected to complete a highly esteemed project with absolutely no guidance as to what's expected of you. INFJ - You are eternally damned to working for a morally corrupt company that aims to exploit the weak and generally degrade conditions for all of society. ESTP - You are completely paralyzed, lacking even the ability to speak. ENTP - Freedom of speech is revoked from the constitution. Voicing your opinion in any way is now illegal. INTP - You are eternally condemned to researching an extremely vapid topic using wildly inaccurate methods, mostly involving interviewing people who have no idea what they're talking about. ENTJ - Somebody is wrong, and they're directing a large group of people! You can't do anything about it and will have to obey whatever inefficient policies they decide to implement.

6 7

CCWG and ICANN Board, Buenos Aires Sunday 21 June
by Adam Peake May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Hi everyone. Note on behalf of the co-chairs. Best, Adam We have arranged a meeting with the Board in Buenos Aires, Sunday 21 June, 3pm to 4pm. With regular SO and AC meetings scheduled, Sunday is a busy day for many of us, but we felt it important to meet with the Board before our week of meetings with the community and our own working sessions. The meeting will be open to all, but of course all CCWG members and participants are specifically invited. Remote access facilities will be available for those of you not able to attend the BA meeting in person. A calendar invite will be sent once meeting details are finalized. Warm regards, Leon, Mathieu, Thomas Session description: 21 June, 3-4pm ICANN Board and CCWG-Accountability An open session between the ICANN Board and CCWG-Accountability to discuss proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability to the global multistakeholder community. The meeting will focus on the outcome of public comment on the CCWG's initial draft proposals, and any revised recommendations that will be presented to the ICANN Community in Buenos Aires. Timeline for the next public comment and expected delivery of the final proposal will also be discussed. END

1 0