July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #10 - 22 July
by Brenda Brewer July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #10 held on 22 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/o4VCAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. - Purpose of the call is IRP KA - IRP as proposed could interfere with the GAC advice to the Board. BB - This is a difficult issue.. Getting this right is going to be complicated - they have to be right. Deliverables for WS1 for IRP would be the rules plus a plan for implementation. The implementation committee should be a subset of the CCWG and should be augmented by international constitutional law experts.. DM - Supports. Replace constitutional with governance. GS - Issue with the use of constitutional in this context. BB - Has no issue removing this term. GS - would support this. BB - This is IRP+ - where the plus relates to the member's rights. GS - why do we need international legal experts? DM - Standard should be uniformly stated. Stat rights of the sole member should mesh with the Bylaws. BB - good point - we will refer tot he rights of the sole member as described in the Bylaws AD - International is critical - Bylaws have to be interpreted with an international perspective. BB - Good point BB - section 2 Standing - Should this state that ICANN by contract should not use a contract to deprive anyone of its rights. KA - Issue vs the term take advantage of for GAC. BB - this is not derogatory DM - by contract not deprive a party to go to IRP Both parties going to IRP should sign a document saying they will abide by the results and not go to courts. EM - same, supports. BB - KA is the take advantage issue ok now. BB - RPG concern regarding standing, BB believes this should be ok. BB - Selection process - issue around Board participation, need to be distinct from standard inner nation arbitration. BB - In Paris discussed for selecting a firm for administrative support to find candidates. Specialized head hunting firm internationally that would work with the community to get applications. The community would select the candidates + and overflow pool. this could be an early part of WP2. The proposed candidates would go to the Board which could object for specific reasons. DM - Judicial headhunter - Some legal experience is good but non lawyers can make good arbitrators. Worries that the panel will only be lawyers. Would like wider consideration. BB - the first report mentioned panelists who have legal expt. + additional areas. There are people who have helped set up courts which we will need. to avoid making mistakes. Does not disagree that some panelists who could not be lawyers but it would seem logical for lawyers. Matthew Shears: I agree with David's point that the skill set should be broadened and having individuals with arbitration skills would be useful BB- should we change the defn for panelist that is in place since the beginning.. GS - include arbitration. BB - Selection process is ok, BB - Diversity is an issue - some have suggested in the PC that there should not be more than 2 pann. from one region. DM - Small group therefore easy to fill it from all regions and as such is sensible. GS - Hard limit is worrisome. Diversity has to be secondary to skill set., qualifications has to be first. EM - Support GS - Concerned about legal system diversity. BB - Hearing reasonable efforts + a soft Goal of not more than 2 from the same region. BB - 7 member standing panel. ICANN raised questions regarding capacity or limits. BB mentioned possibility of an overflow pool that would be prevetted panelists that would only be paid if called upon. All ok with this? No objections. BB - KA about the GAC concerns. BB reminds that IRP ruling will not determine how to fix a violation. This opens an opportunity for discussion between the parties.. BB - USG has noted that there should be a test period. GS - Decisions o IRP cannot indicate how to amend? does not seem appropriate to limit the panel in this way. BB - not just yes or no, the rationale to support this is part of the record. BB - KA notes the GAC has established a wg on this topic. Open to working with them. This being said the community is strongly in favour of Binding. Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: DK has said, that "The new mechanisms must ensure that the Board is bound to follow the ruling of the IRP" DM - US idea of testing is good just uncertain how that would work. Binding is good. GS - Binding issue has broad support - it can be appealed to the full panel and how that is done.. Recourse in the courts has to be clarified. BB - There is a possibility of appeal. BB notes that KA does not want to be a hostage of a California court.. Plaintiff winning IRP could go to court to get it BB - Terms, independence from ICANN pre and post. DM - 2 years pre and post. Term 3 years? Does it need a <http://review.to/> review to ensure it sticks to what it should be doing. BB - Good point and related to the USG requirement for a test period. BB prefers 4 years with staggered terms. DM 4 years is goo BB 4/2 is good. KA - IRP request on same topic of an ongoing IRP request. BB -consolidation is important. Doing both could lead to diverse decisions.. other 4 parties should be able to join ongoing process - this is for the implementation group. BB - Settlement can involve formal mediation. BB - Decision already covered. BB - binding David McAuley: Will a 1 member, non-binding panel be available if parties elect? Becky Burr: yes David arasteh: But one member panel shall not be binding EM - does not like CEP BB - some really like it EM - it is opaque to all including affected parties.needs to be more transparent. BB - Good idea for for WS2 GS - CEP has not been reviewed - we may want to do this. CEP as a real mediation service would be very good. Many comments that the experience of the CEP was not good. CEP review should be done in WS2. BB - Good suggestion BB - Subgroup for impl. details. WS1 just needs the Bylaws language. BB - Binding vs non-Binding and what to do about real BONEHEAD decisions? Reviews. DM - Narrow community power to say THIS DECISION MAKES no sense. Panels once in a while come out with CLUNKERS. BB - Revise and expand this as pe3r this discussion to create the report. I will do this anc circulate. BB - there are a lot of details that have to be completed. Implementation sub-group is going to be a big group. KA - support this approach KA - Repeats GAC issue vs Binding BB - Is the issue already addressed with IRP decision not specifying how ICANN hs to address or implement? and the GAC could provide advice to ICANN on how to implement or address the binding request. GS - IRP should be able to challenge GAC backed advice to a Board decision. BB - I hink its not about it being binding or not - if a decision comes down the GAC wants to be able to enter in the consultation.. BB - Scenario - GAC provides advice to Board, refused, there is consultation and an agreement is reached. Someone could claim that decision violates the Bylaws and goes to IRP. The panel could say the plaintiff is correct and the decision violates the bylaws. There is nothing that prevent the GAC from submitting further advice to the Board on this and then there could be further negotiations. KA - yes but the Board would need to continue consultation with the GAC. BB - this is very workable. Thew IRP judgement should not block further negotiations between the Board and the GAC. end of meeting

1 0

IMPORTANT: Doodle Poll for Call -- please complete by 12:00 UTC on 22 July.
by Grace Abuhamad July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Dear all, As was noted on the call today, there is a one hour overlap with the GNSO council and CCWG meetings and on Thursday. In an attempt to move the call to a more suitable time, we have prepared a Doodle poll for you to fill out. We need to move calls with 24h notice per our service agreements with providers, so please complete this Doodle poll by 12:00 UTC on 22 July. If there is no agreement on a new time, the call will remain as scheduled. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/h38eyt6esyvzim3q We do our best to avoid overlapping meetings and will be more conscientious moving forward. Best, Grace

1 1

Regarding Ombudsman function
by Bruce Tonkin July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hello Nigel, >> 1. The Ombudsman, strengthened or otherwise is not truly independent. Although the Ombudsman function is reasonably independent of at least the ICANN staff. The Board directly approves the budget for the Ombudsman and deals with any personnel issues. The Ombudsman puts forward a budget for approval and runs a separate office (which is currently in New Zealand). There is no obligation to use any ICANN services. " The annual budget for the Office of Ombudsman shall be established by the Board as part of the annual ICANN budget process. The Ombudsman shall submit a proposed budget to the President, and the President shall include that budget submission in its entirety and without change in the general ICANN budget recommended by the ICANN President to the Board. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the President from offering separate views on the substance, size, or other features of the Ombudsman's proposed budget to the Board The Ombudsman also has full rights of inspection of documents and could publicly report any issues with being given access to documents. >From the bylaws: " have the right to have access to (but not to publish if otherwise confidential) all necessary information and records from ICANN staff and constituent bodies to enable an informed evaluation of the complaint and to assist in dispute resolution where feasible (subject only to such confidentiality obligations as are imposed by the complainant or any generally applicable confidentiality policies adopted by ICANN)" >> 2, The Ombudsman's role is that of mediator -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes that is correct. >From the bylaws: " The charter of the Ombudsman shall be to act as a neutral dispute resolution practitioner" Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #43 - 21 July 2015
by Kimberly Carlson July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hello All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #43 (21 July) will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qoJCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim ACTION Items * Action (Grace) Add to project plan: dates for Dublin: 16 October and 22 October. * Action (Grace): Convey careful translation of texts for the CCWG Proposal * Action (Hillary): work on slides with XPlane based on comments received. * Action (Chairs): share this section with CWG chairs for their review * Action (Chairs/Jordan): share this section with CWG chairs for their review * Action (staff) Reschedule the meeting to a more adequate time if possible Notes 1. Welcome Remarks * Jordan and Cheryl on audio only * SOI Update: Christopher Wilkinson: Since term as a member of the Board of EURid has ended, he will no longer have that official affiliation. * Lyman Chapin (SSAC) has just had a family emergency situation arise and offers his apologies 2. Recap of Paris Meeting * Communique link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en * Thank you to all participants * Breakthrough with the Sole Member Model * ASO had circulated legal advice they had received. The legal advice was inclined towards the Designator model, but was also noted as preliminary advice 3. Drafting Key Dates * Project Plan - updated on 21 July * Action (Grace) Add to project plan: dates for Dublin: 16 October and 22 October. * Action (Grace): Convey careful translation of texts for the CCWG Proposal 4. Sections to review a. XPlane Graphics * Slidedeck is being prepared. For today's call, the review focus is on the slide representing the model. * Make sure the documents are accessible to a broader audience (beyond ICANN) * Action (Hillary): work on slides with XPlane based on comments received. b. Fulfillment of Requirements * Note: Legal counsel provided comments on this document. Their comments are not included in the version displayed in AC room. * Checked the proposal against NTIA requirements and CWG-Stewardship dependencies. * Stress Test 18 is not a requirement, per se, but it is critical to meeting NTIA requirements. * Action (Chairs): share this section with CWG chairs for their review c. 3A. Mission, Commitments, & Core Values * Updated document from WP2 based on their call earlier today * Human rights was a focus on WP2 call. interim result on HR: * -- commitment to be made * -- work to be conducted soon * -- work can be completed beyond the transition * open question: how to make that commitment: bylaws or otherwise * "Private sector led" language appears in paragraph 5 of the Commitments section * Agreement from WP2 this morning: modify language in Core Value 7 (was #11). to include a new sentence as a remedy to issues raised in Paris. (see p.7 of the document for the edits referenced) d. 3B. Fundamental Bylaws * No discussion or changes offered since the document has been posted on the list. * Legal counsel suggests that PTI and Separation be considered as Fundamental Bylaws * Action (Chairs/Jordan): share this section with CWG chairs for their review e. 5A. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model * This section has been drafted but has not yet undergone review by WP1. Therefore, the document will be reviewed on WP1 call tomorrow and presented on CCWG call Thursday. 5. Instructions to legal counsel * Legal counsel provided a response to ARIN * Counsel to review final versions of documents -- per project plan this period is from 24-27 July. 6. AOB * Call with ICG Chairs earlier today. Confirmed the public comment periods are at the same time. * Support staff will work with ICG to ensure coordination of engagement efforts during the ICG/CCWG Public Comment periods * Action (staff) Reschedule the meeting to a more adequate time if possible 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

FW: slightly revised mission, commitments, core values for discussion later today
by Grace Abuhamad July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30 PM To: "wp2(a)icann.org" <wp2(a)icann.org> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Subject: slightly revised mission, commitments, core values for discussion later today 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

1 0

For Review: Fulfillment of Requirements Draft
by Grace Abuhamad July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Dear all, For section 4.b. of the agenda for meeting #43, please find attached a draft of section on the fulfillment of NTIA and CWG-Stewardship requirements. Comments are welcome. This has been posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/LYMHAw. Best, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 12:39 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda Meeting #43 on Tuesday 21 July at 19:00 UTC Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for CCWG-Accountability Meeting #43 on Tuesday 21 July at 19:00 UTC: 1. Welcome Remarks 2. Recap of Paris Meeting (Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en> ) 3. Drafting Key dates (Project Plan <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG_ProjectPlan_ 21July.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1437474785181&api=v2> 21 July) 4. Sections to review > a. XPlane Graphics > b. Fulfillment of Requirements > c. 3A. Mission, Commitments, & Core Values > d. 3B. Fundamental Bylaws > e. 5A. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model 5. Instructions to legal counsel 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks I¹ve included and hyperlinked key documents to review in advance of the call. There are some documents that may have updated versions in time for the call, so they have not been included for the moment. Best, Grace

3 3

Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #9 - 21 July
by Brenda Brewer July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hello all, The recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #9 held on 21 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/oYVCAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda No notes or action items recorded.

1 0

Empowered SO/AC designators model - ARIN legal analysis
by Athina Fragkouli July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Dear all, I would like to forward you a legal analysis conducted for ARIN for your consideration and review. According to this analysis an empowered SO/AC designators model allows for SO/ACs to enforce their rights before courts. Thank you for your attention. Athina

6 9

Agenda Meeting #43 on Tuesday 21 July at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for CCWG-Accountability Meeting #43 on Tuesday 21 July at 19:00 UTC: 1. Welcome Remarks 2. Recap of Paris Meeting (Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en> ) 3. Drafting Key dates (Project Plan <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG_ProjectPlan_ 21July.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1437474785181&api=v2> 21 July) 4. Sections to review > a. XPlane Graphics > b. Fulfillment of Requirements > c. 3A. Mission, Commitments, & Core Values > d. 3B. Fundamental Bylaws > e. 5A. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model 5. Instructions to legal counsel 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks I¹ve included and hyperlinked key documents to review in advance of the call. There are some documents that may have updated versions in time for the call, so they have not been included for the moment. Best, Grace

1 0

Communiqu? from Paris Meeting
by Hillary Jett July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

Hi team, Thank you to all who provided feedback on the draft Communiqué yesterday. Please see find below the final Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en> from this past weekend¹s CCWG-Accountability face-to-face meeting. If you have any questions please let me know! Hillary Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Paris Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en#> Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Paris, France, from 17-18 July 2015. The event served as an opportunity to further advance the discussion on key outstanding issues and to reach agreement on next steps towards finalizing its Work Stream 1 recommendations. This gathering comes on the heels of ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, as well as a series of prior discussions and feedback in response to the public comment period of the group's draft report. The meeting had strong community participation, with 76 group members and participants attending in person and an additional 30 joining remotely. Further, several members of the ICANN Board of Directors, Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) representatives, external Advisors and local stakeholders were also present (list of all participants <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778867> ). Key issues discussed and agreed-upon next steps are outlined below: Community Empowerment Models Following close examination and a series of dialogues and exchanges on the merits and drawbacks of the three (3) community empowerment models presented, the group agreed to advance the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model (CMSM) as part of Work Stream 1, noting the momentum that emerged among the members of the CCWG-Accountability in support of this model. Under this framework, the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) would collectively participate together as the sole member of ICANN. This coordination of SOs and ACs would be empowered to take certain special actions within ICANN. Further, an exchange of views will occur with the community before decisions are made. Additional details will become available over the next few weeks as the community continues to develop the framework for this model. The 'Empowered SO/AC Designator' and 'Empowered SO/AC Membership' models were also discussed and considered. Brief descriptions of each of these models can be found here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/Revised_%20%20Emp owered%20SO_AC%20Membership%20%26%20Designator%20Models%20with%20CM%20as%20S ole....pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436914285624&api=v2> [PDF, 564 KB]. Review of Government Inputs/Concerns Received 31 GAC members submitted individual contributions to the CCWG-Accountability ahead of the Paris meeting. The contributions addressed a series of questions aimed at further clarifying the positions ofGAC members with regard to their vision of the role of governments in a post-transition environment. While in Paris, discussions focused on identifying requirements such as the role of governments with regards to public policy and assuring that the ICANN Board of Directors does not act outside of ICANN's mission. The group also acknowledged the challenges for governments to make certain decisions regarding their participation into the new community model in time for ICANN54 in Dublin. Dependencies between the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability CWG-Stewardship co-Chair, Lise Fuhr, articulated the conditionalities and dependencies between the naming community proposal and the work of the CCWG-Accountability. These dependencies fall under 6 areas: 1. ICANN Budget: Community rights regarding development and consideration 2. ICANN Board: Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall the entire Board 3. IANA Function Review: Incorporated into the bylaws 4. Customer Standing Committee: Incorporated into the bylaws 5. Appeals Mechanism: Independent Review Panel should be made applicable to IANA Functions and accessible by TLD managers 6. Fundamental bylaws: All foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the bylaws as "Fundamental bylaws" The group agreed to continue coordinating their activities with the CWG-Stewardship in an effort to ensure that the recommendations put forth by the CCWG-Accountability fully meet the requirements <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53779816/FinalTransitionPr oposal_11June.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1434047705000&api=v2> [PDF, 1.4 MB] (p. 20-21) of the naming community. Refinements of Independent Review Process (IRP) The group reached broad agreement on elements of the enhanced IRP, including diversity as a guideline for conformation and community-driven panel selection processes. Additionally, a subgroup will be formed to further develop IRP rules and procedures as well as fine tune the subject matter for IRP. Next Steps Over the coming days, the group faces the challenge of addressing all outstanding issues andcompiling a complete 2nd Draft Proposal for a 40-day public comment from 31 July until 23:59 UTC on 8 September 2015. It is important to note that this public comment period will directly parallel the public comment on the Interim Final Transition Proposal being assembled by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The first public comment included over 60 submissions that the CCWG-Accountability is carefully considering. Comments were helpful in preparing for the Paris meeting and are being considered in developing the 2nd Draft Proposal. Responses to these comments will be published along with references to the 2nd Draft Proposal to acknowledge substantive changes where applicable. The CCWG-Accountability aims to have a Work Stream 1 proposal finalized and distributed to its chartering organizations prior to ICANN54 in Dublin. Based on the current work plan, the group confirms its plans aiming at delivering the Work Stream 1 proposal to the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), by late October or early November. For more information, visit: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Ac countability Kind regards, Thomas Rickert Mathieu Weill León Felipe Sánchez Ambía CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs -- 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

2 1