June 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up
by Seun Ojedeji June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Dear all, First i like to thank the Co-Chairs for responding to all the questions during the townhall meeting. Milton mentioned 2 things and i like to use that to provide my feedback/suggestions: - Purpose of the CCWG: IMO, i think the purpose of the CCWG is to recommend ways to improve ICANN accountability but enforceability could just be one of such features and not the ultimate goal. - Enforceability solutions other than membership: Considering the complications relating to the various membership models that has been suggested, there is obvious need to consider what is achievable within the current structure and i think everything is achievable except enforceability. Puting that in mind, i think the CCWG report in summary has provided the following (amongst others): - They have looked into the current bylaw and proposed edits that would ensure community engagement in the board decision making process which is not existing at the moment - They have proposed ways by which the suggested edits to the bylaw once implemented can be updated (fundamental bylaw) I think these 2 items are critical accountability enhancement and once implemented would have provided ICANN board with some specific guideline on how to approach issues as accordingly. So it seem to me that we will already have some enforceability without actually requiring membership since an organisation board is required to obey/comply with its bylaw. So if the bylaw says; before you can do xyz, it needs to go through abc process, why would the board not follow/obey those direction as defined in the bylaw? As a follow-up to my question about ICANN board complying with its bylaw. I will like to ask the following questions: - Has there been any known scenario where ICANN board at the moment did not obey its current bylaw? - If ICANN board does not obey its bylaw, what its legal implication to the board members with regards to their mandate? - Is it possible for board members to sign a mandate upon induction indicating that they would resign if the community (through a defined process) determined that they did not follow the organisation's bylaw? Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

18 36

A question about WS1 v WS2
by Jordan Carter June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

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… -- 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 *

8 9

update - CCWG working session 2
by Adam Peake June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

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

2 1

Presentation from Joint Townhall at ICANN53
by Hillary Jett June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Hi all, Attached is the presentation from today¹s Joint Townhall Meeting at ICANN53. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

8 8

Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
by Jordan Carter June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Hi all Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. *Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*. cheers Jordan *Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.* The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated. The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…) and can report the following: Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process. Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms. Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN. While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals. The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report. While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period. With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity. In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs. The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met. The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July. *Note*: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available: - English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA - French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU - Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk) -- 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 *

18 39

Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday
by Burr, Becky June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Dear All - Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus. The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline. This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members. Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list. Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date. * The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality * If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2. * A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers. * Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms. * The Empowered SO/AC model: * does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc. * Permits each SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want. * reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted. * would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable. Best, Becky 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

12 19

Comments/concerns on the SO/AC membership model
by Arun Sukumar June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

These are broad concerns addressed to all group members. If co-chairs or others have addressed these Qs in the townhall I unfortunately missed today, happy to look up the transcript 1. How does an opt-in membership model sit with the idea that accountability is asked of the Board as a matter of principle? In other words, members shouldn't have to labour through the debate of whether they want to join in or not, without worrying about the Board's actions. Conversely, if it makes no difference to a community's rights or responsibilities, is opt-in membership being discussed solely as a legal method to circumvent opposition to UA? 2. How does the model address the evolution of the community into new constituencies, or diversity within the existing ones? Keep aside the concern that bylaws would have to be amended for this exercise -to me, the notion that some communities can "opt" to join a certain legal universe strongly discourages others from being part of it or creating new ones. A certain regime is already in place by the time a member of the internet community wants to engage with ICANN, but finds it difficult to navigate the new set of rights and responsibilities that would accrue if the model is in place. Ordinarily you would have to defer to individuals or institutions who "know" the rules of the game, which is how elite capture happens within communities. arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

1 0

FW: House to vote on DOTCOM Act next week
by Paul Rosenzweig June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Colleagues For those interested, the "suspension calendar" mentioned in the text is for those bills that are considered non-controversial and expected to pass with more than 2/3rds of the House voting in support. Passage in the House at this level would be politically significant in the US system and suggest that adoption in the Senate is also relatively likely. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Begin forwarded message: From: POLITICO Pro Technology Whiteboard <politicoemail(a)politicopro.com<mailto:politicoemail@politicopro.com>> Date: June 19, 2015 at 6:10:15 PM EDT To: <Gerren.McHam(a)heritage.org<mailto:Gerren.McHam@heritage.org>> Subject: House to vote on DOTCOM Act next week Reply-To: <proservices(a)politicopro.com<mailto:proservices@politicopro.com>> 6/19/15 6:08 PM EDT The House will vote on the DOTCOM Act under suspension of the rules on Tuesday, according to a weekly schedule from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The bipartisan bill - which would give Congress 30 legislative days to review the administration's plan to relinquish oversight of the Internet's domain name system - passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month. - Kate Tummarello To view online: https://www.politicopro.com/go/?wbid=55932 You've received this POLITICO Pro content because your customized settings include: Technology Whiteboards. To change your alert settings, please go to http://www.politicopro.com/member/?webaction=viewAlerts. ________________________________ This email alert has been sent for the exclusive use of POLITICO Pro subscriber Gerren McHam. Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of POLITICO Pro is a violation of federal law and the POLITICO Pro subscription agreement. Copyright C 2015 by POLITICO LLC. To subscribe to Pro, please go to www.politicopro.com<http://www.politicopro.com>. ________________________________

1 0

Memo on Fundamental Bylaws & Legal Liability of Members
by Arun Sukumar June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Hello all, Please find attached a memo/primer from the National Law University, New Delhi explaining the idea of Fundamental Bylaws and examining its basis in California law. The document also has some research on what's known in some jurisdictions as courts "lifting the corporate veil", an action that potentially exposes members to legal liability. Hope this is useful to those who are following the CCWG's work. This is simply to supplement the legal advice CCWG is getting from both law firms. Best, Arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

6 10

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for ICANN 53 CCWG-ACCT w/ ICANN Board 21 June
by Kimberly Carlson June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting with ICANN Board / ICANN 53 - 21 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53781357 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Notes Introduction Objective is to improve accountability. There is inaccurate perception that tension. ICANN Board is fully committed to enhancing ICANN accountability. There is more cooperation in this process than might be perceived. We are trying to understand how mechanisms will work, what consequences will be. Whatever perceived weaknesses, we are a much stronger organization now. We are impressed by effort that goes into this (phones, calls, physical meetings). CCWG Update Thank you for opportunity to discuss where we are. We had a session in Singapore. We note a lot of Board participation in this process. Level of specifity from questions show. Happy the Board can follow up with questions. Other parts of community does not know what concerns were. Many comments were supportive of our approach. Enhancements to review and redress are considered to be right way to go. We have spent a lot of time analyzing comments to determine action needed. All comments have been discussed individually and in-detail. Support observed for four building blocks, review redress, and powers. Major themes were identified by community: diversity (operationalize diversity), openesss (proposal easy to understand - no barriers for understanding). Level of complexity was challenged. Question of community mechanism is a question we entirely visited. No determination has yet been made on legal tool that would be used to enact powers. Reference Model: 5 votes for all groups except for SSAC RSSAC (2 votes). This has caused a lot of confusion: why this layer of additional entities? Who controls these entities? Who watches the watchers? There were multiple opportunities of options on how we could forward and we discussed this as a group through "salespitches". Common grounds were observed. We revisited list of requirements for accountability architecture to see whether this still stands after comment period. We determined there were options we could rule out. This reference model is now off table. We have entered discussion into new phase and are merging options. We are currently looking at leaving SO/ACs as they are - they would not register additional entities but they would express views when it comes to give opinion. Should they wish more formalized format, they can pass resolution to exercise community powers. That would be sufficient legal personality to have powers and authority. We would have staggered approach to firm up community powers. We are moving closer to consensus. It is important to understand how flexible we are in our thinking. Feedback - Appreciate openness and intention to keep it simple. We would like to make sure proposals remain as simple as possible while achieving what you are looking for. Detailed set of questions was given to identify questions that might arise in political processes once proposal gets submitted. Intent is to ensure there are clear answers to these questions. We recognize that questions will take time to consider. There is no expectation that all of them should be answered in a great deal of specificity. We would like to work in a collaborative manner with you. Objective is to focus on substance. There are parts that can be enhanced as we go forward. - Impressed with willingness to look at different models. Concerned about external review. Is external judiciary review a necessary part ? Is it a "show-stopper" if not in proposal? --> We have had assistance from Counsel on this subject to correction. Do we need mechanism of ultimate enforceability? The community is split on this. If you come up with options that gives enforceability what are your options. There are adaptive means of challenging disputes through that. Government don't have ability to enter into arbitration. That is not a done deal. But the scary process of spending in California Court should be taken off table. - What would the impact of this new structure be on ICANN? What about if structure of ICANN change? --> How could we do that without going into Bylaws? - It is based on current constituency - you need to think about future. --> This is an important aspect. It is something we need to consider. Key question will be how to safeguard when strong reform happens: should it be something the Board can do on its own? Or is it something the community can have a veto on. It is a discussion we will have in our group. --> Every single proposal on table involves revising current Bylaws. There is no proposal that doesn't involve that. Cannot imagine circumstance where Bylaws would not be amended to implement recommentation. --> CCWG participant expresses appreciation to CoChairs, staff. Congratulates Chair on reflection something does not work. For two areas of empowered community, independent review mechanisms, with 2/3 models we have - how can these powers be exercised? Without UAs, what are the modalities to make it possible? Mechanisms of independent review (selection, diversity) - it should be clarified whether ICANN selects or pre-selects. There should be changes to transfer Board power to community. If some or few of SO/ACs decided not to be part of mechanism, what is the status of SO/AC with respect to collective decision? --> Questions were initially perceived as hostility. They will help us move forward. Appreciate helpful nature of comments. - Restructuring is an issue for the future. Recommendation is to move foward step by step. Simplicity question was already raised. Have a good contribution for WS1 to enable transition. At end of WS2 could move to WS3 which could include restructuring. This will be a task for tomorrow - ICANN 2020. If you want to do everything at once, you will fail. --> There is no intention to restructure SO/ACs. It is not what we were tasked to do. -->The problems are not that challenging if we end up giving SO/ACs equal say in governance. If we invent a brand new construct, we will need to think carefully of where they fit. ---> We are looking at community input into Bylaws, strategic decisions, Board recall - three categories that are simple. If we have big picture right, we get everything right. Bylaws are natural home for organization - its changes is not a huge undertaking. - Thanks for hard work. Specific comment regarding proposal to reject budget - Concerns. I have not seen mechanisms on how this would work. There are three unintended consequences: 1) budget paralysis whereby members of community vote against each other to facilitate personal interest; 2) Threat to financial stability of ICANN - proposal gives rights without responsibilities; 3) Unfairness - final budget decisions will be made by community who do not act in interest of all global stakeholders. Food for thought. --> Budget operating plan are critical parts. We have to juggle requirements of CWG. All concerns that are being raised are important ones and we have already tackled part of them: thresholds, new issues to delay budget. More work needed. There will need to be adjustments. ---> Board is from community. It should be spelled out more often. The Board is still last resort. The community needs the Board since it will change the Bylaws. We need to work together as closely as possible. This organization needs to be as flexible as possible. - Triumph of multistakeholder model. If transition does not happen, we can always talk about this effort as example that it works. What we have built at ICANN is very delicate. As you enter transition, last thing we need is to destabilize delicate balance. It is designed to be a model that includes Bylaws but also people. What you do is critical: you are strenghtening what we have but please do it with care. Will the model be perfect at conclusion? No - this is a continous improvement. We should avoid creating special interest powers and some are trying. Let's not reanchor ICANN in a US jurisdictional by mistake. We are trying to globalize ICANN. Your work is important and we will support you for it. We will need to be responsible for what we are buidling. This is a model for generations. This model should survive scrutiny of time. - How do we want to reply to public comments? --> We are using same PCRT as is used for PDPs. We have populated answers and summaries have been produced. Next Steps & resources Urgent task to start amending Bylaws to bring them in alignment with CCWG-Acct work. --> Welcomes suggestion to have more regular calls and dialogues. Encourages Board members to participate directly. Outstanding contributions from Bruce, Erika, Chris, Wolfgang bringing value in flagging concerns and experience. We need to fully understand what underlying concerns are. We need dialogue as much as possible with as many of you. --> Drafting of Bylaws needs to be tackled as soon as possible. Some of proposals are very mature. Let's put them in next phase as early as possible in cooperation with ICG. We need to assess consequences of overall Bylaws when we change one single article. Our groups cannot have perfect expertise in all Bylaws. We will welcome technical assistance on Bylaws drafting. Useful to community to know that this is being kicked off. Conclusions --> We appreciate comments received and will incorporate them in next iteration of document. We look forward to working with staff - Technical assistance will be made available as soon as possible. Details will be announced. - We want to facilitate process. Our intention has already been in direction of what it takes to implement. There is concern that have procedure. We don't want to shortcircuit. We are equally focused on this at Board level. Nature of substance: we are willing to have extreme failure instances. There is interesting interplay. We have time pressure. Useful to move this forward as rapidly as possible. We anticipate this is not the last and final iteration process. There will a requirement to continue process - it is evolving. Impact is enormous.

1 0