July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

FW: ICANN News Alert -- EXTENDED: Proposed Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organization Reviews
by Jonathan Zuck July 3, 2015

July 3, 2015

Thought I would forward this along as we were considering a CCWG comment. Jonathan Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:29 PM [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en ________________________________ EXTENDED: Proposed Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organization Reviews 2 July 2015 The Public Comment period for the Proposed Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organizational Reviews has been extended. In view of the interest displayed by the community at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, and in view of the impact that this has on the workload of the community, the comment period has been extended to 8 July 2015. The purpose of this Public Comment posting is to request community feedback on a proposed schedule and process, including operational improvements, for Reviews mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC Reviews) and the ICANN Bylaws (Organizational Reviews). The request for the community is based on both appreciating the community's workload and the timing of several Reviews in FY2016. Based on the terms of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) and ICANN Bylaws, seven Reviews are scheduled to take place in FY20161, in addition to the finalization of the GNSO Review. Under the AoC, these Reviews would be: Security, Stability and Resiliency Review (SSR2); WHOIS Policy Review (WHOIS2); and Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT). Under bylaw mandated Organizational Reviews, these would be: At Large2, NomCom2, SSAC2, and RSSAC2. Specifically, three AoC Reviews and initial work on the At-Large Review are proposed for FY2016, and three Organizational Reviews would be deferred until FY2017. Timing for the Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust Review is not impacted by this proposal – this Review will commence as scheduled, with a call for volunteers in September 2015. In addition to suggesting an approach to adjusting the schedule to accommodate the workload for the community, several improvements are proposed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Reviews, per community suggestions. Of note for this consultation is recognizing that the CCWG Accountability process is considering recommendations to include the AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws, which may adjust the timing if needed. ICANN is committed to fulfilling its obligations under the AoC and Bylaws, and stands ready to implement the mandated Review schedule, unless a suitable alternative is agreed upon with the Community. This public consultation and the proposed alternative schedule presented for consideration arises in large part after stakeholder requests for relief from the unplanned confluence of Reviews, as the large number of simultaneous Reviews will have significant impact on ICANN stakeholders' capacity as well as ICANN resources. While it is important to meet ICANN's commitments to fulfill accountability obligations, it is also important to be responsive to community's workload concerns. The proposed timeline and process/operating improvements are more fully outlined in the Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015…> announcement and the public session in Buenos Aires<https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> including a summary of comments<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-15ma…> received during the session.

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP3 - Call for Volunteers
by Gigi Johnson July 2, 2015

July 2, 2015

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 #15 - 1 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 2, 2015

July 2, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting#15 - 1 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782593 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim Notes Process call not substance. What do we need to do in the next 4 weeks as we lead to the 2nd public comment report Might need to look at the tracker document, and the work Steve Del Bianco produced By end July: new content for the report. We will work through the WP1 sections of the scorecard. Steve will discuss work done on taking AoC into the bylaws. taking this work and the output of the paris meeting. Looking at new drafts of the report in Paris. Beginning with the controversial areas. Considering the public comment and the dialogue from BA Public comment tool has already replied to comments received. A freeze on July 14 for Paris, And then a rush to complete the proposal for the end of the month Kavouss: Suggestion to follow the CWG process and group connected issues and then address in design teams. And this mirrors how we developed work for the 1st comment proposal, with individuals and small groups working. We do not need all replies to the pubic comment by Paris, but the key and contentious issues. To develop specs and update the bylaws. With he AoC reviews and the first pilot, to see how the two legal teams can work together. Developing these species in parallel to the other drafting work. AoC alone, as pilot, or more? The answer is all of it should be as bylaws specs by the end of July. Will need to identify leaders for the chunks of work. From the scorecard, volunteers for the work identified. Some parts are not candidates for the bylaws as they are functional and operational. The AoC has been reviewed, and the 1st PC document presented that work. Coming to the 1st three elements of community empowerment, how does this fit with the larger issue of deciding which model we will adopt. Understand that this will come from a comparison developed by the lawyers and will be the core of discussion in Paris. There will not be a model group. First 3 items there seems to be overlap with the new WP3. Community empowerment where WP1 begins. The mechanisms etc, that is being done by the model group, and the other work, not WP2. The powers area, do need to be updated inline with all feedback received. And can be divided out, not as a single block. Individuals or smaller subgroups could take the drafting. Be aware of consistent language. Not spent as much team as needed on the community council. Need to revise composition given comments in BA, esp SSAC and RSAC and their role as advisory communities. Need to explore the composition, and if it is a discursive council or a voting counting body. And don't feel GNSO constituencies are not adequately represented. Weight of voting and nature of the council. And reminds to the accountability forum that was suggested in public comment. Alan: What Kavouss is suggesting with the CWG drafting teams is actual what we are doing as methodology. Greg's reference to the 2nd two A's at the bottom of the table. The first is a refinement of the model, if we are not going to do it who is? Is the representation concept viable without the SSAC and RSAC and possibly the GAC, with such a small number of representatives? If something needs 2 SO and 1AC, may not have more than 1 AC. Steve: my impression we had broad support for the community powers, and should incorporate public comment so we can update our document, and begin bylaws drafting. And those powers should be available to all SO/AC, regardless and if they become a designator or member. Means of enforcement not relevant to participation and example voting to block bylaws, still want to write up a voting scheme for all AC and SO. Participation in that voting doesn't rely on the model. Defer the enforcement question to a later section that will be drafted with the help of counsel in Paris. Community council is like a permanent CCWG of all SO/AC regardless of whether they decide to active designator or member. Jordan: SSAC and RSAC seem to want to have their influence in ICANN based on the quality and power of their advice. And not participation in the community power, irrespective of designator or member question. Suggest some confirmation with those two groups, SSAC and RSAC, do they want to participate, and how. When exercising the list over powers, there's a group who come together to discuss and cast votes, or where there's simply a relative weighting of influence between the SOs and ACs. And this doesn't replace the whole CCWG discussion about the empowered SO/AC model is the right way to go. Need to clarify roles with the co-chairs. Kavouss: not convinced GAC will favor membership. And not clear the community council is different from the model. Need to review all comments, public comment and from BA. There is disagreement on the member model. On the community council - concern about creating additional representative bodies, and not to create new structures. Examine the role of the GAC under each stricture, And add to that the role of the nominating committee, are the to be considered designators? If end with a member model, then their decision cannot be over ridden. If someone opts in to be a member or designator. If SSAC/RSAC do not participate in the council then the dynamics significantly changed. Room for a council for those who do not wish to be members, and groups then exercising powers in different ways. Are they exercising their own view or the view of some collective council. Look past labels, and see how the council supports the multistakeholder community End is the AoC reviews and transcription into the bylaws. Steve's work, to talk through and is this a working method for other parts of the report. 3 steps. 1. Analyze public comment, 2 update the document, 3. back to the public comment tool to explain what has been done Some questions and suggestions, some areas where we were not clear on the comments. Cut and past the proposal text. Provide context for each chapter. 6.2 assumes that reader has seen 6.1 The red text pulls context forward to explain why the AoC reviews were being moved to the bylaws. If only one comment, then continue with the consensus view. Removed the confusing word "member" and used SO/AC, nothing to do with the member/designator structure. Some were confused as to how the Affirmation could still be out there. Now saying the bi-lateral agreement should be terminated. Relatively easy, and work between 2 documents. And in the end will need to go back to the PC tool to explain to the commenter what has been done. Process discussion. If only one made a comment - then do need to make sure it is on an issue already discussed. Only reflect what we have said in our comments to the public comment tool. Do we incorporate the whole AoC and AoC, there may be some aspects that are left outside. Need to make clear the incorporation of the AoC need to be brought in, but some commitments, like those of the USG, will not be brought in. And may need to keep some aspects of the affirmation live. Just to keep in mind. The three steps: analysis public comments, and follow up if not clear (inc BA discussion). Update the proposal document. The update the public comment tool, to explain what was done. Will be separate section for each of the powers. And same process for each. And for the voting elements of the model. Jordan to set out the areas of work and call for volunteers. WP1 calls will need to be scheduled and there will be a number of them. Debating substance. Around the clock. And nothing decided in a single call. Prioritize difficult issue for early discussion. And people volunteer for those. If any of the powers rely on member/Designator, then those would be prioritized. Don't believe they do. Want them independent of the model so the drafting stands whatever model. Keep to the same WP1 list. Please review and comment on Jordan's email. Come up with a schedule of calls before the July 14 freeze. END

1 0

Fwd: WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read
by Jordan Carter July 2, 2015

July 2, 2015

Dear CCWG - for your info, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 2 July 2015 at 15:29 Subject: WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Dear all Thanks for the contributions on our work planning call for Work Party 1 today. *Please read this email carefully and add your thoughts. * A separate note later today or early tomorrow will outline the WP1 meetings we need to have between now and 14 July. We have three pieces of work to do by the end of the month. They are listed below, and then some detail fleshed out in the rest of this email, along with the *call for volunteers...* Three things need to be done: *1. Prepare draft content for our Second Public Comment report, for discussion at Paris & finalising by end month* *2. Start the bylaws-preparation process, using the AOC reviews as a test case* *3. Prepare responses to all the public comments from PC1* *On 1:* the chunks of work we need to do are to prepare updated content that takes account of: - the feedback received in PC1 - the discussions with the community and in our group at Buenos Aires - further analysis and refinement we make as WP1 This draft material should be done in time for the Paris meeting, and so has to respect the document freeze on 14 July. We need to do this for the following areas, and we need a Lead Volunteer for each area: Community Mechanism - balance of power / votes / influence Community Mechanism - whether there is a Council, or just a vote counting mechanism Community Power - Budget/Strat Plan / Operating Plan Community Power - Blocking ordinary bylaws changes Community Power - Approving Fundamental Bylaws changes Community Power - Removal of individual Directors Community Power - Recall of the whole ICANN Board Affirmation of Commitments - inclusion of AOC reviews in bylaws Affirmation of Commitments - other matters (what happens to AOC, etc) Not on this list is the Model itself (empowered designators, empowered SO/AC) - my understanding is that the lawyers are being asked to develop material on this, and that it will be central to our meeting in Paris. *If there are areas of work omitted above, please raise them ASAP*. *:: Call for Volunteers ::* If you would like to *volunteer* to lead any particular piece of work for the above, *please do so ASAP* - by email to me, or to this email list. Ideally, there will be one volunteer for each of the lines above. I have some people who have agreed to be "voluntold" - Avri and Matt Shears are in this category. But for the start, free choice! The task will be to be lead writer on a tracked changes version of the PC1 content, showing what you propose to change for the Second report. The approach asked is to: a) analyse the public comments and the discussions in BA b) propose draft text changes that take this into account The example Steve delBianco circulated earlier today is a way to do it. Your drafting will lead to discussion of your proposed content in WP1. We will do as much as we can to improve the drafts and get consensus, but we will debate all the material through in Paris is my current knowledge. On *item 2 - bylaws drafting - *Steve has started this process with the AOC and we will discuss this content on our next WP1 call. On *item 3 - public comments replies -* I propose that people take some account of this as they do the drafting work, and be prepared to spend some time on completing this task (responses to the comments we got in PC1) *after* the Paris meeting. I look forward to your thoughts as to any gaps in the proposed work, and to your volunteering excellence. cheers 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 *

1 0

Fwd: Reminder: WP1 meeting 21h-22h UTC on Wed 1 July
by Jordan Carter July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

Dear all - please feel welcome to join the WP1 call in about sixteen hours, if you wish to help plan WP1's work between now and the end of July. No content matters will be discussed on this call, which will probably be around half an hour long (but may take up to 1hr). best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 1 July 2015 at 17:00 Subject: Reminder: WP1 meeting 21h-22h UTC on Wed 1 July To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Dear all A brief reminder, we will go ahead with a call at 21h UTC. The agenda item is simply to work out what we need to do between now and 31 July, and I'll have had the benefit of a debrief call with the co-chairs before then. There are no papers for the meeting, though it may be helpful to refer to the CCWG score-card as referenced in the most recent CCWG call: < https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcUUDn5DHSVo7lLo-FWU_QMa8PGgfZWTP_k… > very 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 * -- 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

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP3 - Call for Volunteers
by James M. Bladel July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

Joining this effort as well. No strings attached. J. From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 5:31 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: [CCWG-ACCT] WP3 - Call for Volunteers Dear all, A Work Party 3 (WP3) was created on 30 June to address emerging issues i.e. staff and management accountability, SO/AC accountability, enhancement of diversity and Board duties. The detailed mission and scope document can be found in the attached for more information. You are invited to volunteer for this effort. If interested, please send an email to ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>. The current list of volunteers includes: * León Sánchez (coordinator) * Avri Doria * Giovanni Seppia * Malcolm Hutty * Keith Drazek * Alan Greenberg * Greg Shatan * Izumi Okutani * Athina Fragkouli A call will be scheduled in the upcoming days to kick off activities. Activities of this group can be followed on the dedicated wiki page https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+-+Emerging+Issues. Email exchanges can be read at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp3/ Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP3 - Call for Volunteers
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, you might want to pint out to Tijani that he may be mistaken on the one hand, the chairmanship is the worst I have encountered in many, many years. I have never, ever in any ICANN related meeting heard a chair interrupt a speaker because of the content of the contribution and in the last two meetings it happened at least 4 times. IT. CAN. NOT. BE. DONE! That in a "working meeting" the co-chairs unilaterally decide to have a (two minute) limit for the members' contributions and even without informing anyone of these rule in advance is also unprecedented. That a number of individuals besides me feel it is necessary to mention this is beyond shocking. I of course have expressed this in BA and before but then you obviously ignore anything that doesn't fit into your view of things. I have said long ago that we, the plenum (of the appointed members) should agree on some form of rules of order BEFORE deliberating, by which then everybody will abide. On the other hand he may be right in saying that you are smart and too committed, in other words maybe it is intentional after all. greetings, el On 2015-07-01 19:38 , Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > I feel that you are not happy with the chairmanship of our > co-chairs. > > > > Let me confess that I am too happy with and proud of them. They > give the floor to all those who ask for it and let them speak even > if they repeat the same thing and/or speak for long time. > > Besides, after each session, when we go to do our own things, they > work hard and come to the next session with new > ideas/approaches/proposals. They are very smart and too > committed. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...]

1 0

Reconsideration Request
by Harris, Andrew July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

All, In light of our ongoing discussions about the Request for Reconsideration process and our expected discussions about the Ombudsman, we thought that the Ombudsman's May 28 "Report on Dot Amazon<http://omblog.icann.org/index.html%3Fp=1143.html>" may be of interest to the CCWG. As you will see, the Ombudsman concludes "As a result of this investigation, I consider that the existing structure has some issues, but that this is a matter for perhaps the current examination of accountability structures and the review of the New GTLD programme in the future." I have also attached our two letters to the Ombudsman. We had requested that the Ombudsman publish the letters in connection with his report. We understood that he had agreed to do so, but the letters have not yet been published. Regards, Andrew Harris | Manager, Public Policy | Amazon andharr(a)amazon.com<mailto:andharr@amazon.com> | O 202.442.2932 | M 202.821.2999 |

1 0