July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Improvements to review team processes
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

Hello All, (Disclaimer: - my comments below are my personal view, and don't relate to the views of the Board or other Board members) Just following up on my comments about the structure of review teams. I am in favour of making review teams more open - (ie option 2) which consists of a fixed number of members and an open number of participants. It avoids the situation where it is the usual suspects that are on every review team. My concern though is that a review team basically comes up with a list of requirements for improvements. The larger and more inclusive the group - the larger the list of requirements. Unless a requirement conflicts with another requirement it is likely to be added to the list. I think we should explicitly note that review teams should be required to provide a prioritised set of requirements. This is always harder to do, but is the real work that needs to be done. The organisation can then focus on implementing the high priority requirements within a short time frame to get the most benefit. My comment comes from a long experience managing software projects where there are always more requirements than resources to implement those requirements in a reasonable time frame. We are doing new releases of critical parts of the organisation on a cyclical basis - and need to ensure we focus on the key requirements for each release. In terms of whether this is a new idea - I am trying to create a balance between allowing review teams to be larger and more inclusive, and ensuring we don't get an unrealistically long list of requirements that can't be implemented in a timely or cost effective fashion. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values
by william currie July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the standard. In terms of criteria, the `Protect, Respect and Remedy' framwork has useful suggestions such as: - The responsibility to respect human rights would require ICANN to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities and address such impacts when they occur. - To meet this responsibility, ICANN would put in place policies and processes appropriate to ICANN's mission that could include: a) policy commitment to meet its responsibility regarding human rights b) a human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address its impact on human rights c) processes to enable remediation of any adverse human rights impacts it causes. These policies and processes could serve to enhance ICANN's accountability to a universal standard and if handled well, contribute to ICANN's legitimacy in a multi-stakeholder global space. Part of the importance of the IANA transition is that it makes ICANN a fully multi-stakeholder body, no longer anchored by the USG. Adherence to the primary human rights standard would help allay some of the anxiety regarding ICANN's global accountability post-transition. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson(a)21cf.com> wrote: > “Human rights” as defined by who/what? And what criteria, if any, would > ICANN use to ensure it is not running afoul of human rights? > > > > > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *william > currie > *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 10:36 AM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] > Mission, Commitments and Core Values > > > > Hi all > > I support Avri's text and think it would be important to have it included > in ICANN's Bylaws because the Human Rights framework is one of the most > important forms of accountability globally. As ICANN embarks further into > global multi-stakeholder space, having a clear commitment to human rights > would be an important signal of the change that is being undertaken. As the > USG relinquishes its stewardship , role, it is important to show that ICANN > endorses human rights in its policy and practices as a form of global > accountability. I agree that the text should not make specific references > to the UN `Respect, Protect and Remedy' framework - that would be something > for the Community and Board to endorse, if so decided. Including human > rights in its Bylaws does not imply any increase in scope or any role as an > enforcer of human rights - it simply requires that within its limited > technical and commercial mission, ICANN commits to adhere to human rights > in its policy and practices. It does not mean that ICANN would get involved > in content regulation or any other matter beyond its scope. Including human > rights is a simple way of indicating that ICANN will behave in a way that > respects human rights. > > So perhaps the text could read: > > Work to ensure that ICANN respects human rights within its mission and > accounts for the impact on human rights in its policy creation, policy > implementation, review and assessment. > > Willie > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > This speaks of Human Rights impact within ICANN mission. > > It does not expand the scope one time little bit. It just saws that > within our scope we need to be aware of the impact of our policies and > actions on human rights. And that when we see that we are injuring > those rights, we do something to fix it. > > avri > > > > On 17-Jul-15 14:04, James M. Bladel wrote: > > I am not in favor of introducing ³human rights² in to the ICANN bylaws, > > which IMO would dramatically increase its scope as a technical/commercial > > organization. ICANN is not in a position to either establish or > reinforce > > anyone¹s ³rights². > > > > Thanks‹ > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > On 7/17/15, 11:32 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on > > behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > on > > behalf of avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As far as I can tell this fell through the cracks among the various WPs > >> > >> I am hoping to bring this up during our discussion in Paris. I do not > >> want to let it fall > >> through the cracks especially since it respond to two of the comments on > >> various human rights like freedoms of expression and association. Not > >> quite sure what session it will fit into. > >> > >> I suggest a final core value that reads: > >> Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its > >> mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and > >> adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the > >> UN. > >> > >> thanks > >> > >> avri > >> > >>> On 14-Jul-15 00:27, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> In his comment 100 Willie Currie raised the issue of enshrining > freedom > >>>> of expression in the in the core values. > >>>> > >>>> In comment 123 NCSG worte: "We support the addition of respect for > >>>> Human > >>>> rights to the core values and support the addition of an obligation > for > >>>> human rights impact analyses for ICANN decisions to the mission. NCSG > >>>> has consistently recommended that ICANN adopt the ³Respect, Protect, > >>>> and > >>>> Remedy² framework which was developed for private corporations" this > >>>> is > >>>> the framework documented by the UN called *in Guiding Principles on > >>>> Business and Human Rights *< > >>>> > >>>> * > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR > >>>> _EN.pdf>* > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> These Guiding Principles are grounded in recognition of: > >>>> > >>>> (a) States¹ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human > >>>> rights and fundamental freedoms; > >>>> > >>>> (b) The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society > >>>> performing specialized functions, required to comply with all > >>>> applicable laws and to respect human rights; > >>>> > >>>> (c) The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate > >>>> aeffective remedies when breached > >>> I argue that we need to add something to our next version to take these > >>> comment into account. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or > confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If > you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for > delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this > message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete > this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply > e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not > relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its > subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of > them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are > without defect. >

6 8

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT #42 Session 4 - 18 July
by Brenda Brewer July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #42, Session 4 - 18 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFCAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items: * Action: Correct the last bullet on slide to make clear that there is no review of the SO/ACs in WS2. * Action: The text on Staff Accountability needs to be fine-tuned to refer to the Staff actions. * Action: all to review the draft by 12:00 UTC on Monday. 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. LAST SPRINT for the day WP3 * Issues for WS1 will be included in next draft. These include SO/AC accountability * Action: Correct the last bullet on slide to make clear that there is no review of the SO/ACs in WS2. * Rationale for the wording to be included in WS1 draft: Need to balance the two powers. WS1 empowers the community and the Public Comments sought to balance the increased power with reviews. * Two other issues (Diversity and Staff Accountability) in WS2 * Action: The text on Staff Accountability needs to be fine-tuned to refer to the Staff actions. * WP3 to continue work and prepare text for draft. CWG Requirements * All items were discussed in CCWG meeting these past two days. * Jordan to share updated budget text with WP1. Next Steps: * Will circulate draft communique for review * Communique to be published on Monday. * Notes edits for GAC on ICANN53 input and remove sentence on * Edits for community forum (not use word "council" or "forum") * Action: all to review the draft by 12:00 UTC on Monday.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT #42 Session 3 - 18 July
by Brenda Brewer July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #42, Session 3 - 18 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FoFCAw A copy of the notes may be found below. 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. Board recall: entire broad individual directors * Hold over model, Directors stay seated until the replacement is found * Alternates, selected when the original Director appointed; * Ex Officio Model, people involved in certain positions would become these positions * Interim at the time of recall, only long enough until a "real" board in place my usual processes * Each has he same fiduciary duties as the typical board. * Strict bylaws provisions around the time-frame, act as fiduciaries, but a community expectation of caretaker mode * Shadow board, sitting in the back of the actual board a bad idea. * Ex Officio: already a burden on the chairs and community leadership * Everyone who casts the vote, should bring names to the table as replacements, i.e. preference to option 4 * It is possible to go for a smaller board, ignoring concerns of representation. * A board as small as 1 is possible * Diversity requirements in the bylaws could be put on hold in the interim * Staggered terms, the replacement would step into the term associated with the seat they take. * Backstop under California law, if only one Director, must inform the California Attorney General that they are to resign, who may appoint an interim board. * Are there any restrictions on who can be appointed? * Suggestion of a preference with option 4, with implementation details to come. * Note. NomCom is developing practices for a casual vacancy, which are becoming more regular * A consultation process must be in place before a Board recall: petition and consultation * Preference for option 4. * Not requiring the NomCom to immediately seat interim Directors * NomCom will not be required to bring names to the table * Time span in which the new Board should be seated. * WS2 a set of standards for Board members * Discussion at the next CCWG mtg July 21st Mission, commitments and core values * Comments on the balancing test. In the proposal too complicated and too U.S. law centric * Consistent with human rights standards * Suggested commitment to adhering to human rights. Intent: what ICANN does not negatively impact on human rights * Is there a standard or framework on human rights being suggested? A group to examine this, and its policy implications and practical affects, but now not the time to implement * Further discussions about the human rights aspects. * Core value 5. From the AoC and movement of the commitments into the bylaws. The nature of the language in the AoC suggested this different place in the bylaws. . Words left out from them AoC text, the parenthesis 'issues including...' may be useful to discuss (taken to email).

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Individual ICANN Board Members removal requirements
by Alan Greenberg July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. Alan At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the >concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply >indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by >CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we >populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal > >- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers >without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I >don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in >individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any >board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it >were board removing its member)

4 11

Removal of an individual Board director by an SO or ALAC
by Bruce Tonkin July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hello All, (Disclaimer: my note below is my personal view and not that of the Board or other Board members) I noted that the CCWG has suggested a 75% threshold of the SO/AC structure to spill the whole Board. It seems there is less certainty about the process for an SO or ALAC to remove the director that it has appointed. There was some discussion about defining the reasons in advance for when an individual director can be removed, as well as some discussions for the thresholds. I think it is OK not to have to define all the reasons in advance provided that there is a sufficiently high threshold to remove a director. I believe Jordan noted that the voting threshold to remove a director should be higher than the threshold used to appoint the director - which seems like a reasonable principle. I would like to see some general principle agreed that could apply across the SOs and ALAC. Perhaps something along the lines of at least a super-majority or at least 75% voting threshold for removal. The details will then depend on the processes for each SO and ALAC. Using the GNSO as an example. Currently the GNSO has two houses, and each house votes to appoint one director. I would like to see at least a super-majority threshold across the GNSO Council to remove one of these directors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 5

Director / Board Recall - points from discussion, next steps
by Jordan Carter July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hi all This is my write-up of the discussion we just had on adjustments to the Director removal / Board Recall points. *Please read and identify any errors or omissions.* *1. Consultation requirement added* Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote. *2. Caretaker Board option to develop: #4* WP1 is to develop the Board Recall power's caretaker board proposals along the lines set out in Option 4 of the lawyers' slides. This is where the recalling bodies come with names to appoint to the interim Board. *3. NomCom appointments to Interim Board* There was some concern about making NomCom appointments to the interim board voluntary. I think we need to talk about this more in WP1 and with current/previous NomCom people. *4. Time limit for Interim Board* The bylaws should provide a realistic timeframe to limit the duration of the Interim Board - that is, within a defined period, SOs/ACs and NomCom would be expected to make replacements through their usual (or through expedited) processes. *5. Replacement directors fit into existing pattern of director terms* Once replacement directors are appointed to replace the short-term Interim Board, they will serve for the remaining duration of the terms of the directors they replace. *6. WS2 to develop standards for director removal / Board recall * WorkStream 2 will have as a project the development of community standards that would guide the use of the removal/recall power. Just at the end, making sure we have protections against the risk of capture was mentioned. This needs more work. Thomas' suggestion of "limiting the board's competence fiduciary" got lots of hands up apparently against, but I thought that might more be confusion. For discussion? *Next steps* WP1 will try to work on an update to the draft content on both of these areas in time for discussion at Tuesday's CCWG call. If we can't make that, it will be at Thursday's CCWG call. Look forward to your thoughts. best 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 *

2 1

Project plan proposal for discussion in following session
by Grace Abuhamad July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Dear all, Please see attached, in Word and PDF, a project plan proposal for the CCWG. We may discuss this later today as part of next steps. Best, Grace

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Removal of an individual Board director by an SO or ALAC
by Steve DelBianco July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Your concept makes sense, Bruce. Is the threshhold of ‘supermajority’ 75% ? From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin Date: Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Removal of an individual Board director by an SO or ALAC Hello All, (Disclaimer: my note below is my personal view and not that of the Board or other Board members) I noted that the CCWG has suggested a 75% threshold of the SO/AC structure to spill the whole Board. It seems there is less certainty about the process for an SO or ALAC to remove the director that it has appointed. There was some discussion about defining the reasons in advance for when an individual director can be removed, as well as some discussions for the thresholds. I think it is OK not to have to define all the reasons in advance provided that there is a sufficiently high threshold to remove a director. I believe Jordan noted that the voting threshold to remove a director should be higher than the threshold used to appoint the director – which seems like a reasonable principle. I would like to see some general principle agreed that could apply across the SOs and ALAC. Perhaps something along the lines of at least a super-majority or at least 75% voting threshold for removal. The details will then depend on the processes for each SO and ALAC. Using the GNSO as an example. Currently the GNSO has two houses, and each house votes to appoint one director. I would like to see at least a super-majority threshold across the GNSO Council to remove one of these directors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Draft update of jurisdiction section of PC2 report
by Mathieu Weill July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Part of the comments we received call for more clarity and substance on the way we will address jurisdiction issues in WS2. The attached paper is a reviewed version of the paper we had drafted in Istanbul on the matter. It includes a bit more substance on gap analysis and next steps while sticking to the requirement approach. This document will be included in the package for the Paris F2F. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 8