May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals
by Bruce Tonkin May 7, 2015

May 7, 2015

Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: >> "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability

2 2

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition
by Greg Shatan May 7, 2015

May 7, 2015

All: Here is the letter sent to the ICG by NTIA, similar to the letter sent to the CCWG. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:56 PM Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org All, Please see attached for a letter from the NTIA, sent today to the ICG and copied to Lise & myself. Jonathan & Lise *From:* Ashley Heineman [mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov] *Sent:* 06 May 2015 19:17 *To:* 'jrobinson(a)afilias.info'; 'lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk' *Cc:* Fiona Alexander *Subject:* Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear Lise and Jonathan, Please find attached a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter was sent to the CCWG on Accountability. Ashley Heineman 202 482 0298 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

CCWG Accountability Calendar MAY-JUNE 2015
by Brenda Brewer May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

May CCWG Calendar (subject to updates) <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings 2015 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Public Comment #1 Starts CCWG ACCT Meeting #32 12:00-14:00 UTC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CCWG Webinar 11:00 UTC CCWG Webinar 19:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CCWG ACCT Meeting #33 06:00-08:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC LEGAL SubTeam 15:00- 17:00 UTC 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CCWG ACCT Meeting #34 12:00-14:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC LEGAL SubTeam 15:00- 17:00 UTC 31 June CCWG Calendar (subject to updates) <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings 2015 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 CCWG ACCT Meeting #35 19:00-21:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC LEGAL SubTeam 15:00- 17:00 UTC Public Comment #1 Ends 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CCWG ACCT Meeting #36 06:00-08:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC LEGAL SubTeam 15:00- 17:00 UTC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CCWG ACCT Meeting #37 12:00-14:00 UTC STRESS TESTS 11:00 - 12:30 UTC LEGAL SubTeam 15:00- 17:00 UTC Intensive Work Session - Buenos Aires 21 ICANN 53 22 ICANN 53 23 ICANN 53 24 ICANN 53 25 ICANN 53 26 27 Buenos Aires Buenos Aires CCWG Working Session Buenos Aires Buenos Aires CCWG Engagement Session Buenos Aires CCWG Working Session 28 29 30 1 2 3 4

1 0

Fwd: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition
by Mathieu Weill May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : > Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander(a)ntia.doc.gov> > Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 > Destinataire: "Rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <Rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr" <Mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > Cc: Larry Strickling <LStrickling(a)ntia.doc.gov>, "fadi.chehade(a)icann.org" <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> > Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. > > Fiona > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov >

4 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron, as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair". Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists. These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views. They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard. This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively. As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job. The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document. Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not. The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs. According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course. This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved. I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish. Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it. For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs. el On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote: > Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement. > > In addition to the public comment announcement > (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…) > the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current > proposals (PDF, > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illustra…) > , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces > reading the actual report. > > While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs > : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana > stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for > the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's > appeal mechanisms. > > For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical > webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time > zones. The webinars will take place on: > > 11 May from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC > 11 May from 19:00 – 20:30 UTC > > Details can be found here : > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en > > I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to > this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of > ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great > pleasure and an honour to work with such a team. > > We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your > questions and feedbacks. > > Best regards, > Mathieu [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

13 15

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
by Roelof Meijer May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

I am wondering: when Adam writes ³we² our group seems to think he means ³ICANN staff². I do not think ICANN staff has set our time table. I read Adam¹s "You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April.² as us, the CCWG, deciding on it. Completely off-topic, but so ridiculous that I cannot help myself: if ICANN senior staff are now described as ³ICANN GlobalLeaders², what would that make its CEO? ICANN Leader of the Universe? OMG... Cheers, Roelof On 06-05-15 00:04, "J. William Semich" <bill(a)nunames.nu> wrote: > >I agree with Dr. Lisse 100%. > >ICANN staff must not set the timetables for any consensus process. Nor >should any committee (co-)chairs. > >Regards, > >Bill Semich >.NU Domain > >On May 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: > >> >> So, >> >> now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable. >> >> Outrageously unacceptable and objected to. >> >> I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with >>the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG. >> >> el >> >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >>> On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> >>> Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal >>>30-day >>> public comment period. >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will >>> remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in >>> Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 >>>April. >>> The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 >>>days, >>> which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN >>>meeting >>> in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to >>> respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship. >>> >>> Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject >>>of >>> such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact >>>that >>> we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 >>> when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details >>>and >>> explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first >>> public comment and during ICANN53. >>> >>> The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this >>>(first) >>> Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has >>> been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders >>>is a >>> reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was >>> created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN >>>department >>> would not depart from the standard default time period without broader >>> senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are >>> available on the public wiki >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695 >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Thomas, Leon and Mathieu >>> CCWG co-chairs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >

9 9

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

0. What powers/role has does the USG have (to make the transition and act otherwise) More to come. el On 2015-05-06 10:45, Nigel Roberts wrote: > >> As a diligent participant in the CCWG for all of this year, I >> have to say that there is no clarity on what your "fundamental >> issues" are. > > Jordan: > > It's clear to me what some, at least of those fundamental issues > are. > > 1. What powers/roles will ICANN be vested with by the USG at > transition. > > 2. By what legal mechanism will that vesting take place > > 3. What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that ICANN > exercises those powers responsibly, legally and effectively once > the transfer of governmental power takes place. -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Mathieu Weill May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Hi Nigel, Sorry you did not find these informations useful. I am of course totally unable to answer the questions you raise, since they should be answered by Icann representatives. So if you want to proceed, I suggest you raise these questions with Icann officials, maybe through our ccNSO representatives in the Board ? best Mathieu Le 06/05/2015 10:47, Nigel Roberts a écrit : > Dear Mathieu > > If those statements you rely on -- and particularly, the two from > ICANN -- are made in response to the assertion that > > "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed > agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime > contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." > > then I think they are unhelpful, and to me appear quite evasive. > > If they were /not/ made in response to that quote, they appear > rambling and irrelevant. > > > It's a simple question. > > Did, or did not ICANN (or their lawyers) ever make this representation > to the people who say they did. (Yes or No?) > > > If they did say this, does this actuallly represent the position of > the ICANN Staff and ICANN Board in the negotiation? (Yes or No?) > > > If they did not say this, will ICANN agree that their position on this > extremely important was (accidentally or otherwise) substantially and > fundamentally misrepresented by the author of that quote, how did that > come about, and should we therefore be expecting a retraction from the > people who made the above quote? (Yes or No?) > > Finally, if the answer to both those questions is 'yes', would you > agree that we are wasting our time? (Yes or No?) > > > > > > > On 06/05/15 06:49, Mathieu Weill wrote:> Hi Nigel, > > > > Here are a few additional references for statements about this > > discussion, which I hope will help everyone make their own opinion. > > > > IETF statement regarding their negotiations with Icann : > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html > > > > Clarification email from Bruce Tonkin, in his capacity as CCWG Board > > liaison on May 1st (attached) > > > > Clarification email from Theresa Swineheart (Icann staff) on May 1st > > (attached) > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > Best > > Mathieu > > > > Le 05/05/2015 18:45, Nigel Roberts a écrit : > >> On 05/05/15 17:23, Mathieu Weill wrote: > >>> Dear Nigel, > >>> > >>> I too respect this source. However ICANN staff as well as others have > >>> since then provided some clarifications. The statement below does > >>> not, apparently, capture ICANN's position. We may not be wasting our > >>> time, after all. > >>> > >> > >> Thank for for this update. > >> > >> I understand from you above reply that the statement I quoted earlier > >> (which, apparently, you also know whence it came) is untrue. > >> > >> It is unfortunate that such a definitive statement came to be stated > >> as fact -- when it was not -- in the forum that it was so stated, > >> don't you agree? > >> > >> Do you think we might be able to have sight of the actual > >> clarifications by the staff concerned, debunking this ,yth, as well as > >> knowing who the 'others' to whom you refer as also providing > >> clarifications. > >> > >> It is, of course perfectly possible for staff in one part of an > >> organisation to make one statement, while the Board and c-suite staff > >> pursue another strategy ... ... so the position and identity of those > >> clarifying this are important! > >> > >> And the lack of detail or attribution for the clarifications you, > >> yourself, have had the benefit of, but we have not, is a defect that I > >> hope may soon be remedied. > >> > >> Thanks again for your assistance. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cctldworld mailing list > > Cctldworld(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld > > -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Mathieu Weill May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Hi Nigel, Here are a few additional references for statements about this discussion, which I hope will help everyone make their own opinion. IETF statement regarding their negotiations with Icann : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html Clarification email from Bruce Tonkin, in his capacity as CCWG Board liaison on May 1st (attached) Clarification email from Theresa Swineheart (Icann staff) on May 1st (attached) I hope this helps. Best Mathieu Le 05/05/2015 18:45, Nigel Roberts a écrit : > On 05/05/15 17:23, Mathieu Weill wrote: >> Dear Nigel, >> >> I too respect this source. However ICANN staff as well as others have >> since then provided some clarifications. The statement below does >> not, apparently, capture ICANN's position. We may not be wasting our >> time, after all. >> > > Thank for for this update. > > I understand from you above reply that the statement I quoted earlier > (which, apparently, you also know whence it came) is untrue. > > It is unfortunate that such a definitive statement came to be stated > as fact -- when it was not -- in the forum that it was so stated, > don't you agree? > > Do you think we might be able to have sight of the actual > clarifications by the staff concerned, debunking this ,yth, as well as > knowing who the 'others' to whom you refer as also providing > clarifications. > > It is, of course perfectly possible for staff in one part of an > organisation to make one statement, while the Board and c-suite staff > pursue another strategy ... ... so the position and identity of those > clarifying this are important! > > And the lack of detail or attribution for the clarifications you, > yourself, have had the benefit of, but we have not, is a defect that I > hope may soon be remedied. > > Thanks again for your assistance. > > -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

about the CCWG 30-day comment period
by Adam Peake May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period. Hi everyone, We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship. Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53. The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695 Warm regards, Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs

5 4