June 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: Designator-based Empowered SO/AC model
by Chris Disspain June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

All, FYI from John Curran. Cheers, Chris > Begin forwarded message: > > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org> > Subject: Designator-based Empowered SO/AC model > Date: 25 June 2015 19:40:43 AEST > To: Milton L Mueller <mueller.syr.edu(a)gmail.com>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.co>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> > > Milton, Becky, Seun, Chris, Athina - > > Please excuse the widespread nature of this email, but I am not a “participant” > of the CCWG and thus must seek an ally in order to facilitate discussion of an > an alternative model for formulation of the "empowered SO/AC model”. > > I provide the attached presentation not as a formal proposal, but an a comparative > model that might allow the CCWG to better understand the benefits and potential > issues with the member-based “Empowered SO/AC model”. > > I am no longer in Buenos Aires, but I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could > provide this information to the CCWG mailing list, and present it for discussion in a > working session. It is my hope that this will allow better understanding of the nature > of community powers versus legal rights of enforcement (two concepts that have > been somewhat co-mingled in the ongoing discussion.) Feel free to forward this > email publicly as necessary. > > Thank you in advance for your consideration! > /John > > John Curran > Internet staff > > Disclaimer: my views alone > > >

2 1

STATEMENT FROM THE NUMBERS COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PROPOSED MODELS
by Fiona Asonga June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Dear all, The numbers community has their own mechanisms to ensure accountability of ICANN to our community, so we do not have strong preferences for the details of any new accountability mechanisms internal to ICANN. However, the continued stability of ICANN is of utmost importance. We are concerned that some of the proposed changes may result in instability or other risks, and we are concerned that too much change in a short time is risky. Furthermore, the accountability considerations should not be a delaying factor in the current IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we would like to encourage a simple model with minimal changes from the status quo. The designator model seems to meet the simplicity requirement mentioned above. This model is based on the current model, which is well understood. The designator model can be implemented with minimum changes. It can also accommodate the proposed community powers in an adequately enforceable way. According to the received legal analysis the designator model allows the community to exercise all of these powers. It also allows enforceability of these powers if the Board does not follow the community’s wishes, both through internal appeal mechanisms within ICANN, and ultimately by allowing some or all parts of the community to remove and replace Board members. The designator model can be implemented in a timely manner by amending the bylaws. This ease of implementation is another advantage of the model. The CCWG work is affecting the IANA stewardship transition and any delays may put the entire process at risk. Moreover, we are very concerned that adding new accountability topics will delay the IANA stewardship transition process. We would like to emphasize the need to prioritize our resources towards finalizing our proposal. Given that we have already identified the core essential components of accountability requirements for WS1, we should focus on refining the details of how to make the designator model work. Thank you, Fiona, Izumi, Jorge, Athina ASO representatives to the CCWG

1 0

Agenda CCWG ACCT Working Session #3
by Kimberly Carlson June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Hello All, Please find below, the agenda for today's CCWG ACCT Working Session #3. 1. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call 2. Discussion of refined accountability mechanism 3. Responding to NTIA letter 4. Concluding remarks Thank you, Kim Carson

1 0

CCWG ACCT Working Session #3 - 25 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Hello All, Just a reminder, today's meeting is in the La Pampa Room. https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-l<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-lapampa>apampa<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-lapampa> Thank you. Best, Kim Carlson

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] revised deck
by Roelof Meijer June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Becky, all, I am aware that I risk beginning to sound like an old record. But the phrase: "the designator approach does not deliver full authority on budget and therefore jeopardize meeting CWG conditions.” needs clarification in my opinion. And possibly correction. Because with “full authority” I assume that you mean legal enforceability. Many might not understand that. Additionaly, I am unsure if the CWG conditions go as far as to specify that the community’s position on (or: veto of) the budget should (in itself) be legally enforceable. If however that is the case, I think it is a silly condition that needs revision. Like I said this morning: if the community has to have it’s veto of the budget legally enforced, the disconnect between the board and the community is so complete, that the board would have to (be forced to) resign. So there’s no need at all for a condition that the mechanism should deliver full authority on the budget. Best, Roelof Meijer From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: woensdag 24 juni 2015 14:44 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] revised deck I have modified the Empowered SO/SC Model deck to reflect some of the issues that have come up in our discussions since Friday. Please don’t be concerned if it does not reflect an issue of particular concern to you - this is still very much a discussion draft. 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 To amplify on Keith’s point – we must get it done right, and in a timely fashion. I see both as mandatory criteria. Neither objective should – or need be – sacrificed in the name of the other. We have a window of opportunity that may close, at least for some period of time, as 2016 progresses. 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 Thank you Kavouss and Jonathan and Jordan. We need to get our work done correctly AND in a timely manner to enable a successful transition. I believe we can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. That is precisely why we agreed to bifurcate our work into WS-1 and WS-2. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss 2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>>: Hi Colleagues, In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter) On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: > Dear Co-Chairs, > > he's wrong. As usual. > > We need to get it right. Not get it done. > > Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and > repeatedly. > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > >> On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote: >> >> I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of >> the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community >> and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a >> great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of >> the organization as a whole including operational improvements and >> metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and >> greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a >> culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!). >> >> But we can't do that in WS1 >> >> Jonathan Zuck >> President >> ACT: The App Association >> http://Www.ACTonline.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Www.ACTonline.org&d=AwM…> >> >> From: Jordan Carter >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM >> To: Accountability CCWG >> >> Hi all >> >> I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants >> which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive >> :-) >> >> One is something I wanted to test others' views on. >> >> Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various >> conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both >> staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations >> accountability as needing work. >> >> Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very >> poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people >> to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially >> complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace >> of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc >> etc. >> >> I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly >> focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and >> practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. >> >> >> But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links >> him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of >> ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. >> >> To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the >> above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we >> have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when >> it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. >> >> So: my interpretation has always been as follows: >> >> Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole >> organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our >> job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a >> new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that >> in WorkStream 2. >> >> To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the >> levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach >> that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the >> new ATRT reviews. >> >> Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus? >> >> Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a >> limb! >> >> >> thanks >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> [1]: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theregister.co.uk_2…> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> InternetNZ >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> A better world through a better Internet >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.otienobarrack.me.ke…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…>

3 4

AC Room for today's Working Session
by Kimberly Carlson June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear All, Just a reminder - today's working session 2 is in Libertador AB. Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-libertadorab Thank you. Best, Kim

1 0

revised deck
by Burr, Becky June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

I have modified the Empowered SO/SC Model deck to reflect some of the issues that have come up in our discussions since Friday. Please don’t be concerned if it does not reflect an issue of particular concern to you - this is still very much a discussion draft. 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 To amplify on Keith’s point – we must get it done right, and in a timely fashion. I see both as mandatory criteria. Neither objective should – or need be – sacrificed in the name of the other. We have a window of opportunity that may close, at least for some period of time, as 2016 progresses. 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors(a)omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 Thank you Kavouss and Jonathan and Jordan. We need to get our work done correctly AND in a timely manner to enable a successful transition. I believe we can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. That is precisely why we agreed to bifurcate our work into WS-1 and WS-2. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss 2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>>: Hi Colleagues, In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter) On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: > Dear Co-Chairs, > > he's wrong. As usual. > > We need to get it right. Not get it done. > > Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and > repeatedly. > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > >> On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote: >> >> I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of >> the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community >> and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a >> great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of >> the organization as a whole including operational improvements and >> metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and >> greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a >> culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!). >> >> But we can't do that in WS1 >> >> Jonathan Zuck >> President >> ACT: The App Association >> http://Www.ACTonline.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Www.ACTonline.org&d=AwM…> >> >> From: Jordan Carter >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM >> To: Accountability CCWG >> >> Hi all >> >> I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants >> which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive >> :-) >> >> One is something I wanted to test others' views on. >> >> Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various >> conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both >> staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations >> accountability as needing work. >> >> Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very >> poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people >> to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially >> complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace >> of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc >> etc. >> >> I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly >> focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and >> practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. >> >> >> But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links >> him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of >> ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. >> >> To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the >> above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we >> have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when >> it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. >> >> So: my interpretation has always been as follows: >> >> Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole >> organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our >> job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a >> new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that >> in WorkStream 2. >> >> To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the >> levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach >> that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the >> new ATRT reviews. >> >> Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus? >> >> Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a >> limb! >> >> >> thanks >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> [1]: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theregister.co.uk_2…> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> InternetNZ >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> A better world through a better Internet >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.otienobarrack.me.ke…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…>

3 2

CCWG-GAC - SLIDES
by Alice Jansen June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached a copy of the slides prepared for the CCWG-GAC meeting. They can also be found on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53776811/CCWG-ICANN53-Pres… Best regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] update - CCWG working session 2
by Roelof Meijer June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

I will not be able to attend, as I have committed to present at the pre-working group session on new GTLD auction proceeds and cannot back-out of that at such a short notice. Which leaves me quite uncomfortable, because I feel that we are at a crucial point with our CCWG work (quote: ³seeking understanding and agreement of the SO/AC empowered model..²) I want to participate and contribute in full. So I am against extending our meeting of today beyond 17.00hrs. Best, Roelof On 23-06-15 11:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Adam Peake" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of adam.peake(a)icann.org> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >The co-chairs have suggested we extend Wednesday afternoon's working >session. The session is currently scheduled to end at 17:00, but we can >continue to 18:30 in the same room (Libertador AB). > >The chair's feel we have a lot of work to do, particularly seeking >understanding and agreement of the SO/AC empowered model. > >Wednesday, 24 June 2015 - 15:30 to 17:00 >http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ccwg-accountability > >We hope this will be possible for you all. > >We will send an agenda later today. > >Thanks, > >Adam >

1 0

AGENDA - 24 June working session
by Alice Jansen June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your working session scheduled for tomorrow - Wednesday, 24 June - 15:30-18:30 ART - 18:30-21:30 UTC, please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Debriefing feedback received 3. Next steps and technical assistance 4. Empowered SO/AC model 5. Concluding remarks Your meeting will take place in Libertador AB. The link to the Virtual meeting Room is as follows: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-libertadorab Kindly refer to the calendar invite for dial-in details. Thank you Best regards Alice

1 0