July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Slides CCWG Call #39
by Kimberly Carlson July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

From: Kimberly Carlson Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 6:03 AM To: 'accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org' Subject: Slides CCWG Call #39 Hello, Here are today's slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats. Thanks! Kim Carlson

1 0

Slides: AGENDA - Call #39
by Alice Jansen July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the slides prepared by lawyers for agenda item #4. The slides can also be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890082 Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 6, 2015 10:13 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: AGENDA - Call #39 Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #39<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782553> - Tuesday, 07 July - 12:00 - 14:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>): 1. Welcome Roll call SoI 2. WPs update on respective work plans towards Paris 3. Initial outline of Paris meeting agenda 4. Presentation by lawyers on the community models 5. AOB Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for W1 #16 - 6 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #16 - 6 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783015 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Notes CCWG ACCT WP1 #16 - 6July 2015. Version public comment version 2, and the update on bringing the AoC into the bylaws, and review of the next 3 calls. Any other business? Steve. Analyze public comment, update our proposal and the update the review tool to explain what has been done. How to compose the review teams the potentially controversial issue. The red text explains the context. The blue text, explains that if the AoC has reviews underway at the time of these changes coming into effect, then how to handle that is considered. Not to imply that we should delay the ATRT3 review due to begin 2016. Both to explain the changes made. Concern that we did not require the board to implement all recommendations. And we explain that there may be reasons for not implementing (implementability or cost,). And note that a reconsideration or IRP could be brought if such a decision taken by the board. Understanding that Board and staff we actually moving towards what we are already suggesting, and ATRT3 is due to start 2017. As to the question, the third is, are they implementing the intent of the recommendation? Comment: Understand some wish to start pushing the ATRT3 to 2017, but not in agreement with that. There are issues over the timing, if it is beginning to beginning timing then we are not yet in agreement. A proposal by staff to review the review processes, open public comment, and some discussion of CCWG submitting a comment. But the default if not clear direction from the comment period would be no change. Opportunity to clean up the process, and use the accountability process, perhaps thru a sub group or calls to do this. Action: interested members to discuss/resolve timing of start of reviews The blue text describes an implementation detail for later. Chapeau, applies to all four parts of the review. Shifts the task to staff to provide updates every year. Requires lawyers on both sides to work on this. How specific do we want to be in specifying how many in a review team, where drawn from, and whether they are voting. Come back to this. Not the Board and GAC chair deciding on members, but the SO/AC, including concerns about diversity etc. Access to ICANN internal documents. Board comments noted concern about the sharing of sensitive of confidential information, but who decides what is confidential? Some things that the whole review team might not be made privy to, but some sub-set of. If not ICANN's sole discretion, then may be asked to explain that process. Past ATRTs have reviewed confidential information, a form of verbal NDA used in those cased. May need another sentence. Review team should say how they reached consensus and the degree of consensus, and should respond to public comments. Response on individual comments may be too hard, but all comments should be reviewed. And the bylaws should include the degree of consensus. Text: the review team shall assess the extent to which prior review recommendations have been implemented. Past ATRT team had to check on all 4 review teams, comment this was too much work. So intent is to say each review team assesses extent to each its previous review team implemented. And this easier because of the transparency and accountability report ICANN will publish annually. Action: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) The ATRT has the special responsibility to terminate the other reviews and if necessary and to recommend new reviews in the future as needed (e.g. ending whois to be replaced by a review if directory services). There were several public comments that were concerned an ATRT could just terminate reviews with no observations for public comment on that. 3 observations: 1. The recommendation to end to start new review goes for public comment. 2. If the board accepts/rejects that decision the community can review and challenge. 3. to eliminate or add a review is an addition to the bylaws, so are subject to community challenge and review, Complete review within one year of initiation. Based on ambiguity in the AoC. Some reviews are on topics with potentially unlimited scope, this suggestion keeps the review bounded. Is the word "initiation" defined? From the final selection of the members. One year of convening (ok as revised text) 5 years from when the report is given raised concerns, stretched out too long, the reviews being too far apart. Might also be mentioned in the chapeau text. Measure the 5 years from beginning to beginning (convene to convened), rather than end to beginning. And this should apply to all four reviews. Competition, trust, consumer trust. Ensure WP2 picks up the malicious abuse, sovereignty concerns and rights protections, text and is carried over to the core values. Board concern that WHOIS locked in, response prepared for the PC review tool. OECD guidelines do not have the force of law. May need to ensure this is worded properly. Not stating that this is binding, but just a body of international expectations we should take into consideration, and could say that this may not be binding. Are were binding ICANN to the OECD privacy principles without any review? Answer may be to take out "legal constraints". And perhaps best discussed in a sub-group. Not existing policy and seems ti be suggesting it is such. Needs to be examined. IANA Functions Review. Need more help from the CWG members to ensure we have the right words as this becomes a fundamental bylaws, including the chapeaus. Fairly confident that meeting requirements, but Avri will check with CWG. Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Review membership. How to reflect diversity. How to represent the interests of GNSO constituencies, would it unbalance the whole review. The GNSO is very visible in their submissions. Talk to other and start to hear regionalization issues, multilingual aspects, start to ask for stakeholder rights. Get three votes, for example, but can subdivide them as you. How to keep diversity etc, but still have the SO and AC determine the participants. And new text, that the group must be as diverse as possible, this not from the AoC. Diversity before expertise and willing to work, is problematic. There was a triage for previous reviews. Agreement on expertise and willing to work. Membership not rigidly defined in the past. But is trying to be fully representative, then have to accept that a single seat for a the commercial stockholders will not achieve that. Need to focus on goals... The proposal doesn't have the Board and GAC chairs, but passes to the community. So the suggestion is for an open group like a CCWG, but one that cannot be swapped by a single group. Not reflected in public comment that some govt want a significant role for the GAC chair in selection. Need further discussion for resolution. Status of work. Seeing volunteers (thank you). Mix of volunteers looking at the balance of powers and weight. 1. Jonathan for budget and plans. Not for the others. No sub-lists. just individual work, with work coming back to the lists. Call one Wednesday was to address powers, if people have been able to do the work. Wednesday to address the voting balance and structure of the council Friday, community powers. Monday, bylaws again. Action item. Avri to check language with CWG Action item: Alan to provide language offline to clarify the red text (page 7) END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for W3 #1 - 6 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP3 Meeting #1 - 6 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782747 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM - Obtain from ccNSO support staff the most recent copy of document of geographic diversity review and track community group's progress ACTION ITEM - WP3 to read chat transcript - Suggestion to have Sebastien's comment added to the reading list. ACTION ITEM - Add Sebastien's comment to the discussion starter ACTION ITEM: Staff to send calendar invites ACTION ITEM: Volunteers needed to populate subgroup ACTION ITEM: Subgroups to look into the documents and identify existing mechanisms related to their scope Notes We have received comments from different contributors which raised issues. Some of the topics are SO/AC accountability, diversity, and staff management accountability. The course of this call is to divide work. We need to provide draft document by July 14. Suggestion is to divide work into subgroups. 3 subgroups: 1) staff/management accountability; 2) SO/AC accountability; 3) diversity. Feedback: - We need to understand what these 4 items need. - It is important not to broaden scope. Suggest that the objective of improving diversity and outreach of ICANN can be considered WS2 and should not be allowed on critical path. The item that needs to be on critical path is issues arising from Stress Tests. - We need to understand terms before we can make decision. Common understanding is needed to decide whether can defer or not. SO/AC accountability cannot be deferred. - In general, deferring diversity to WS2 is fine but there are several diversity related components to WS1 issues. Diversity issues are relevant when it comes to empowerment mechanisms and independent review panel for instance. - Suggest that staff accountability is a WS1 issue - at least to extent that there should be a community mechansm when staff negotiates contracts that arguably intrude into realm of Consensus Policy. - Need for SO/ACs diversity. - Staff accountability is WS1. - Diversity is important but does it qualify as WS1? - It is premature to move diversity until we have figured what portions of diveristy pertain to work stream 1. Unsure we can resolve staff accountability in WS1. - How are we defining WS1 matters? Common definition needed - Discussion about what will go into WS1 and WS2 is important. We need to first define what topics we are talking about and after that we will decide whether WS1 or WS2. We need to find a way to have real diversity included into what we want to do. Diversity should be built into WP1 and IANA transition. - First step might be to see which mechanisms we have in place, whether those mechanisms do meet expectations, which need to be created and then itemize WS1 and WS2. Once we have that, draft solution for consideration in Paris. - Staff/management accountability: would like to see as WS1 is the definition of ICANN staff's role and details around that pushed into WS2 - Key to Work Stream 1 would be to have powers necessary to implement. Staff accoutability in Work Stream 1 would way to solve for resistance. If Work Stream 1 gives us powers, by that definition, no need to cover staff accountability --> Which mechanisms would be expanded to cover action or inaction? --> 5 community powers, Board take action on Bylaws (IRP, reconsideration). Until we come up with structure for members e.g. there is no mechanism yet where community can draft Bylaws change and have Board take action on it. ---> Looking more in terms of accountability e.g. security breach - no reasonnable steps taken. Small items do not rise to level of independent review. Have a definition on ICANN staff's role would be extremely beneficial. If we can't have definition, having mechanisms to address failures that may or may not be role does not sound useful. Read through of Staff accountability discussion paper. - How is staff accountability a WS1 issue? What needs to be done on this count for the purpose of IANA transition? I see clear places where diversity and SO/AC accountability are Workstream 1, but not clear how specific measures for increased staff accountability is workstream 1? Work Stream 1 were measures that are needed to justify the IANA transition. Issues around staff accountability sound like long standing general concerns that are not related to mechanisms. --> Work Stream 1 has to contain powers necessary to overcome resistance. - Proposal to slice work into two streams. - Discussion of how recognize diversity needs to be looked at. - The CCWG on geographic diveristy of ICANN was conducted over 3-4 years under auspices of ccNSO. Geographic diversity review will be ICANN wide document. ACTION ITEM - Obtain from ccNSO support staff the most recent copy of document of geographic diversity review and track community group's progress ACTION ITEM - WP3 to read chat transcript - Suggestion to have Sebastien's comment added to the reading list. ACTION ITEM - Add Sebastien's comment to the discussion starter Timeline We have a very short timeframe to be ready for Paris. Proposed set of calls which may be cancelled depending on progress. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send calendar invites - Apologies from Sebastien for missing part of these calls Proposal: Subgroups to review: AoC, ATRT 1 and ATRT2, review mechanisms, One World Trust report --> ATRT1 and ATRT2 should not be split. AoC reviews could be managed by Alan or Avri. --> Subgroups are overlapping topics. Where are we going with that? - Expedite work and have: 1) subgroup AOC; 2) subgroup on ATRT1 and ATRT 2 mechanisms already in place. - Doesn't it make more sense to have subgroups on three issues? - Subgroups need to look at all the following basis: 1) SO/AC accountability 2) ICANN staff/management accountability 3) Diversity There will be diversity aspects in topic 1 and stand alone matter on diversity. - Community accountability - has it been looked at in detail? There is no reference work where to start. - Volunteers needed for all three groups. 1) SO/AC accountability - Alan Greenberg 2) ICANN staff/management accountability 3) Diversity CONCLUSION: Three subgroups for each emerging issue: ) SO/AC accountability - Alan Greenberg 2) ICANN staff/management accountability 3) Diversity ACTION ITEM: Volunteers needed to populate subgroup ACTION ITEM: Subgroups to look into the documents and identify existing mechanisms related to

1 0

AGENDA - Call #39
by Alice Jansen July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #39<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782553> - Tuesday, 07 July - 12:00 - 14:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>): 1. Welcome Roll call SoI 2. WPs update on respective work plans towards Paris 3. Initial outline of Paris meeting agenda 4. Presentation by lawyers on the community models 5. AOB Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Posting in my individual capacity only ....
by George Sadowsky July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

I am posting to the list in my individual capacity, without any connection to my membership in the ICANN board. First, I'd like to express my regrets for what may have been an intervention that was improper use of time at the Wednesday afternoon CCWG meeting in Buenos Aires. Someone then suggested that it would be appropriate to post my remarks on a CCWG list. If this is not the correct list, please let me know. Otherwise I'll begin to post a series of interventions following this note. However, I would like to explain why I believe the intervention at the time, as well as this intervention, to be necessary. You'll recall that when the accountability activity started, there was quite a bit of tension between the organization and members of the community regarding how it should be performed. As an individual board member, I reacted to this by not wanting to interfere at all with the process, even though I consider myself a member of the community first and a board member second. Subsequently, while watching the outputs of the CC WG working group, I felt that it was important to express my opinion also. I realize that my interventions are well behind the apparent progress that has been made by the group since it started, and so my thoughts might seem out of synchronization with what is occurring now. Nevertheless I'm going to offer them in the hope that they can add value, and perhaps even new ideas, to the discussion. This accountability exercises is important, and I want -- just as much as the rest of you -- to make sure that we do it right and we get a result that we can not only live with but that will allow ICANN to be an effective institution in fulfilling its mandate, achieving its goals, and truly operating in the global public interest. George

3 2

Fwd: WP1 Call #16 - 6 Jul 2015 @ 13h - Agenda and Paper
by Jordan Carter July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

Dear CCWG colleagues Please find below for your information the agenda for our meeting to be held in about 13hrs. The paper for discussion is also attached. As ever, we welcome any CCWG participants or members who aren't already part of WP1 to participate in the meeting. cheers Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 6 July 2015 at 12:22 Subject: WP1 Call #16 - 6 Jul 2015 @ 13h - Agenda and Paper To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Dear all The next call of CCWG-Accountability Work Party 1 is at 13h UTC on Monday 6 July, scheduled for up to 90 minutes. The Draft *Agenda* for the call is as follows: *1. Review of Agenda.* *2. Discussion of Report Draft Content - AOC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws - v1 to discuss* *Steve, Avri and others have prepared the attached draft for CCWG discussion. The intention should be to tease out the content, get common understanding of it, and make a decision which would be either:* *a) we can agree as WP1 that the content is ready for forwarding to the CCWG for discussion at a meeting - either on 7 July or on 14 July or in Paris.* *or* *b) we need to do more work on this, and discuss at a subsequent WP1 meeting.* *3. Volunteer Update & Next Calls* *We will discuss the update on who is doing what, see if anyone else wants to join any of the strands of work. We will then confirm the agenda for our next three calls.* *4. Any Other Business* Please find attached the paper prepared, which will form the core of our discussion today. Thanks, everyone, Jordan -- 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 * -- 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 *

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs w/ Lawyers call - 3 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs meeting with Lawyers - 3 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Action Items ACTION ITEM - Send the comparative model description to legal counsel. ACTION ITEM: Holly to reach out to Becky to discuss support for Paris IRP discussion. Notes Objective of call: Synchronization call between independent counsel and Co-Chairs in order to ensure we are clear about the next steps after discussions that took place in Buenos Aires and on the way to the Paris meeting. Questions, comments and updates since Buenos Aires. Counsel is well advanced on a slide deck that compares the two models proposed in Buenos Aires: some of the legal issues raised, what similar and what's different about the models and how the two models might be implemented. This means some adjustment. Next steps, ready for presentation by phone next week for the CCWG if wish to do pre-Paris. Need a walk through, not read independent. Two issues. Idea for a third model, might be simpler still. Aware you haven't asked us for this. Direction needed. Ed McNicholas. Will, working on IRP, will be in Paris, can attend with not travel/hotel cost. Question about two of the powers fundamental Bylaw vs. standard Bylaw. Based on understanding difference is about threshold, but in Buenos Aires there seemed to be distinction between Board and community's role, not just threshold, but done by community not Board. What is the community's desire when it describes fundamental Bylaws. And the difference between fundamental and standard and how changed. Fundamental Bylaws sets right to approve Bylaws. Under California law third parties can be given the right to veto bylaws but not initiate and approve bylaws. So comes up while thinking of the powers under designator model. Higher threshold to initiation. The initial draft, does speak of the community imitating. Doesn't mean that we can't give you the power, on the threat of veto, to do it. May be an issue to raise with the CCWG for clarification? Not for this call perhaps. We've seen standard bylaws as a veto right with a certain threshold and fundamental bylaws as an approval right with a certain threshold. Counsel: We don't see the difference between the power to veto and the power to approve. Seem the flipside of the same decision. No, because the veto needs to be triggered by a petition. This is not the case with fundamental bylaw. The vote to veto by the community would have to be the flip of the approval vote. To reflect what you want the model to do. In some cases giving rights indirectly. These issues fall on a continuum between trust and enforceability. While the reference model is clean from enforceability standpoint, we heard the concerns of the group and the community, and may not be where you want to be on that continuum. So we put the models on this continuum, of voluntary compliance and enforceability. We explain the risk to you. But we will not say how much risk you are willing to accept. Concern as we move to Paris, presentations might be perceived as trying to influence one way or the other. The goal is to give the group information so it can make informed decisions. Lawyers do not have a view about how much risk you should take on. The questions raised are only questions with no bias behind them. Provide an outside reader to give feedback. The table of pros and cons. ACTION ITEM - Send the comparative model description to legal counsel. 40 min are needed to present the slide deck, straight through, and 40 mins of Q&A. The discussion will need to take place this week. 1h15 min can be dedicated to that item. Presentation of two models on Tuesday, Q&A, and you explain why a new model is worthwhile exploring. That will enable us to certify request to investigate a new model so that in Paris we have three models to discuss. Slides to be shared with Co-Chairs today. In advance of meeting check with Becky Burr, Fiona Asonga/Athina Fragkouli that descriptions of their models are accurate. Make sure counsel got it right. ACTION ITEM: Holly to reach out to Becky to discuss support for Paris IRP discussion. Alice is compiling info on lawyers management. We will also send a note to the list. END

1 0

Who is managing the lawyers and what have they been asked to do?
by Robin Gross July 4, 2015

July 4, 2015

After the legal sub-team was disbanded, I haven't been able to follow what communications are happening with CCWG and the independent lawyers we retained. I understand the lawyers are currently "working on the various models" and will present something to us regarding that work soon. However, *what exactly* have the lawyers been asked to do and *who* asked them? If there are written instructions, may the group please see them? Who is now taking on the role of managing the outside attorneys for this group, including providing instructions and certifying legal work? Sorry, but I'm really trying to understand what is happening, and there doesn't seem to be much information in the public on this (or if there is, I can't find it). Thanks for any information anyone can provide. Best, Robin

9 9

Fwd: CCWG reply to your letter received on May 6, 2015
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía July 3, 2015

July 3, 2015

Dear all, As discussed in Buenos Aires, we have replied to the NTIA’s letter with regards to our expected timeline. I am forwarding our reply to the list so everyone is up to date on this issue. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Asunto: CCWG reply to your letter received on May 6, 2015 > Fecha: 3 de julio de 2015 8:15:57 GMT-5 > Para: LStrickling(a)ntia.doc.gov > Cc: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander(a)ntia.doc.gov>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> > > Lawrence E. Strickling > Assistant Secretary for > Communications and Information > U.S. Department of Commerce > > Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling, > > Attached you will find our reply to your letter received via email on May 6, 2015 with regards to the expected timeline of the CCWG work. > > We remain open to answer any questions you may have on this issue. > > Best regards, > > > > Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill and León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > CCWG Co-Chairs >

1 0