May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

I don't think Mr Semich can post to CCWG, so here it is. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On May 5, 2015, at 23:04, 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 >>

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Mathieu Weill May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Hi Nigel, I'll research and share the statements I referred to. Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > Le 5 mai 2015 à 18:45, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> 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. > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] RE: [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Just to make sure this goes to the CCWG list too. But, my experience of the the years is, that if Bill Woodcock says it is so than it is so. el On 2015-05-05 17:52, Stephen Deerhake wrote: > > The transcript of the discussion which took place when the slide > deck containing this quote is well worth the time to read it: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/ppm1_transcript.h… > >>From that transcript: > > "... what we understand from discussion with ICANN legal team is > that they are reticent about the termination clauses." > > So is this apparent pushback coming from ICANN Staff, ICANN Board, > or Jones Day? > > /Stephen > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccnso-members(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Burr, Becky > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:24 PM > To: Nigel Roberts; ccnso-members(a)icann.org; > cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; cctldworld(a)icann.org > Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Subject: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition > > > Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since > ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is > that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all. > [...] > On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: > >> "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." >> >> >> If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is >> literally true, aren't we all wasting our time?? >> >> Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the >> accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be >> moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch? >> >> What does the CCWG think? >> >> >> Nigel Roberts [...]> -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Fwd: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Forwarded, as Mr Roberts indicated earlier he can't post to the list. el -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 17:45:09 +0100 From: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> Organization: CI Domain Registry To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> CC: cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, ccnso-members(a)icann.org <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, cctldworld(a)icann.org <cctldworld(a)icann.org> 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. _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Burr, Becky May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: >"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." > > >If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is >literally true, aren't we all wasting our time?? > >Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the >accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be >moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch? > >What does the CCWG think? > > >Nigel Roberts >_______________________________________________ >ccTLDcommunity mailing list >ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana >gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw >&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4VZqWjmswnfEoPxKQ9x6B2Yq_ >v2U69H_zpJiiqcrCpk&s=UPu4q5iiJtlrv34Y13NGjaUT9GAKtgwWqQKVh4rDqGE&e= > >To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Mathieu Weill May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

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. Regarding the ability to move IANA out of ICANN, I will point you to the CWG report, which expressly addresses this issue, which it refers to as Separation. Others on this list could provide further details I'm sure. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > Le 5 mai 2015 à 16:34, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> a écrit : > > "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." > > > If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is literally true, aren't we all wasting our time?? > > Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch? > > What does the CCWG think? > > > Nigel Roberts > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

It was CCed to the CCWG-Accountability, as is this reply. I share your doubts about receiving great assistance. el On 2015-05-05 15:50, Nigel Roberts wrote: > Whether that is an accurate representation of reality or not (and it may > be), this really does not assist me greatly . . . > > So, would you mind, please, highlight my concerns, as expressed in my > last mail to the whole of CCWG (since I cannot post there directly) and > get an answer for me? > > > On 05/05/15 15:38, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: >> The Co-Chairs could not give a toss. >> >> el >> > _______________________________________________ > Cctldworld mailing list > Cctldworld(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #32 - 5 May
by Brenda Brewer May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for call #32 - 05 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772708 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772708%20> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Brenda _____ Action Items Action: staff to make a proposal for the analysis for public comment planning. Action: All CCWG members: after any information sessions or other discussions please report on any feedback, help prepare for review of public comment and to create an FAQ. Action: staff will discuss possible ways to have the key parts of the report translated as quickly as possible: i.e. Exec summary and XPLANE to be translated as a priority . Main sections of the document ahead of the appendix Action: Staff to respond on interpretation of webinars. Action: CCWG will submit comments on the CWG public comment. Will inform the CWG co-chairs of this contribution. (staff and CCWG co-chairs) Action: Staff to confirm the outline of the work process after June 3 in detailed fashion. Action: Staff to populate the public comment review tool as comments are submitted. Action: Staff to republish the updated calendar of CCWG meetings and webinars 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. Links WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx> http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e> http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal SubTeam Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Public Comment Announcement: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20… Webinar Announcement: <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SoI apologies, Eberhard Lisse 2. Update on report publication Congratulations on the publication of the report. Published for public comment yesterday, May 4. Update: the report structure was reviewed, splitting a large section to make the document more readable. Note the change in page numbers. Monitored use of the words "private sector" in ICANN documents (bylaws, articles etc) and discussion within the group. Introduced a note to say discussion was ongoing. Asking for community for feedback on the topic. The initial announcement of the public comment does not include the XPLANE graphic, last minute edit. These will be included today. Comment: para 65, for example. Not mention "private sector" in the report rather reference the bylaws Action: staff to make a proposal for the analysis for public comment planning. Need for the working parties to analyze comments relevant to their respective sections Legal call on Friday 1 May UTC 20:00 to discussion of unincorporated associations, a meeting organized at short notice to discuss member models and unincorporated associations tom provide clarification for the report. The meeting resulted in the new memo on unincorporated associations (see legal sub-team documents on the wiki) Notes and chat of the meeting sent to the legal sub team list. 3. engagement plan (Hillary Jett ICANN staff) Public comment promotion and outreach. Utilize social media presence. Distribution of information to regional stakeholders teams, twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. The home page banner is updated. Ensure the community is informed. Will be added to all the ICANN newsletters. The regional engagement teams have all been informed. Ask that all participants push the information out to the various list. If you plan webinars and meetings, then the chairs have offered to support meetings, and Hillary will help coordinate. Co-chairs and Rapporteurs will make themselves available for community outreach efforts, for SO/AC, constituencies or outside ICANN. Sharing comments back with the group would be very helpful. Action: All CCWG members, after any information sessions or other discussions please report on any feedback, help prepare for review of public comment and to create an FAQ. Contact for speakers bureau Hillary Jett < <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> hillary.jett(a)icann.org> information from the numbers community: regular updates from the CCWG members to their community. Share on lists and lead discussions, with information relevant to the numbers community. Will be discussed at the RIPE meeting next week. Will report back to the CCWG twitter hashtag? Hilary's April 29 email. Email about the communications support available and some of the background information about support that was made available for CWG. Now forwarded to the CCWG list. Action: staff will discuss possible ways to have the key parts of the report translated as quickly as possible: i.e. Exec summary and XPLANE to be translated as a priority . Main sections of the document ahead of the appendix Action: Staff to respond on interpretation of webinars. Further legal advice received: Sam Eisner's and Pedro da Silva's questions answered. CCWG engagement with the CWG public comment, how to respond? Suggest CCWG response to the CWG public comment to highlight the parts of our report that responds to issues raised in the CWG proposal. Avri producing comment on this matter already. Action: CCWG will submit comments on the CWG public comment. Will inform the CWG co-chairs of this contribution. (staff and CCWG co-chairs) Process after the close of public comment, any other face to face meetings? Other than the 19 June meeting, no. But need to plan how to prepare between June 3 (close of PC) and June19. So we have responses ready for ICANN#53 Action: Staff to confirm the outline of the work process after June 3 in detailed fashion. Action: Staff to populate the public comment review tool as comments are submitted. Proposal to cancel the meeting of 12 May. And legal sub-team calls for this week and next week. Comments? Action: Republish the updated calendar of CCWG meetings and webinars Please use the time to reach-out to communities, and provide feedback. Meeting closed

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

The Co-Chairs could not give a toss. el On 2015-05-05 15:34, Nigel Roberts wrote: > "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." > > > If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is > literally true, aren't we all wasting our time?? > > Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the > accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be > moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch? > > What does the CCWG think? > > > Nigel Roberts [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Draft v.11 for posting
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear all, Here attached is V.11, the final document that will be posted for public comment. This version incorporates all the edits received, including from: Roelof Meijer; Legal Counsel (Sidley & Adler); Samantha Eisner; Kavouss Arasteh; Sebastien Bachollet; Robin Gross ; Steve Del Bianco; Izumi Okutani; Matt Shears; Jordan Carter; Jan Scholte; Becky Burr; and Bruce Tonkin. In additions to these edits, staff worked with the Chairs and the Rapporteurs to clarify each section of the draft. You can download V.11 from the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report The document will be posted in two forms: there will be one version with annexes (³long²) and another version without annexes (³short²). Please know this difference for your communities and clarify that comments will be accepted on either version of the draft proposal. Accompanying the document will be a set up slides/graphics designed by Xplane (and discussed on the 30 April call). Your role: Once the draft is out, it¹ll be part of your role as a CCWG-Accountability member/participants to be 'ambassadors¹ and help reach out to your communities. Hillary Jett from the ICANN communications team will speak more to outreach and engagement on Tuesday¹s call. Webinars: Finally, the Chairs will host two webinars next Monday (11 May) to brief the community on the content of the proposal, and answer any questions the community may have. The announcement will be circulated shortly. Translation: The full proposal has just been sent for translation into all ICANN-supported languages. Congratulations all The draft is roughly 50,000 words, 147 pages, so there¹s a lot to show for your efforts (as if there wasn¹t already!). Best, Grace

4 3