July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Section on Fulfilling NTIA Requirements: added references to additional Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

In our prior call we reviewed the draft section on Fulfilling NTIA Requirements. The table of requirements listed multiple stress tests that we used to conclude that proposed CCWG measures would meet NTIA requirements. I updated just to add references to additional stress tests that are also relevant to the 5 NTIA requirements. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

Updated 5B Community Powers paper following CCWG #46
by Jordan Carter July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Hi all Please see tracked changes and clean showing the updates I have made from the call 11-13UTC on section 5B - the community powers. I won't list the changes here, the marked up version shows it entirely clearly. Most text is as agreed on the call, with Alan's improvements re GNSO houses, the ban on a second petition to remove a director during the remainder of their term if a first petition leads to a vote which fails (or a vote which fails to be taken in time), and some other small tweaks. Some other tweaks are editing clarifications from Paul S's email on list a few hours ago. I hope that taking that liberty is not too awful. NOTE that at the end of this call, or on the next call, the question re only allowing one vote per term for a director's removal will be discussed again. May change as a result. Yours to review...! J -- Jordan Carter

2 1

Fwd: [WP2] updated documents from this morning
by Malcolm Hutty July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, As we are very soon going to start what may be the final CCWG call before the document is frozen, I must point out that the agreed text from WP2 for Section 4 (IRP) is still not showing on the website wiki. The document linked there is not the full WP2 submission, it is merely an internal working checklist. Becky forwarded the actual text we had agreed upon to our WP2 mailing list on Tuesday 28th July at 20:17 UTC. URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/2015-July/000350.html This is the document that must make it into the final report, not our partial working notes! We CANNOT complete and freeze the report without the full proposal on the IRP, which forms the cornerstone of our entire proposal. Thank you, Malcolm. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [WP2] updated documents from this morning Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:17:31 +0000 From: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> To: wp2(a)icann.org <wp2(a)icann.org> Will send PDFs shortly J. Beckwith Burr *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

1 0

Draft Visual Summary of 2nd Draft Proposal
by Hillary Jett July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Hello all, Per request from the co-Chairs, we are circulating a draft slide deck produced by XPLANE that will be used in upcoming Webinars and outreach on the 2nd Draft Proposal. Additionally, some graphics may be included in the proposal itself to help provide clarity on some of the more complex ideas being discussed in the draft. This slide deck is not final and will be undergoing updates and changes as the 2nd Draft Proposal is finalized. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

Minority Reports
by Chris LaHatte July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to extend this out a little further. Regards Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

5 6

Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG Acct Meeting #46 - 30 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Hello all, The recordings and transcript for the CCWG Acct Meeting #46 held on 30 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/I4tCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Kim Action Items * Action (staff): fix title for powers (5 not 6) * Action (staff): change "culture of accountability" to "culture of transparency" * Action (staff): add steve's paragraph * Action (staff) Clarify that community powers are a recourse/ escalation path/ backstop * Action (staff) Fix IFR reference (if not in powers, in review) * Action (Steve/Cheryl): note in section the concerns from GAC and ongoing discussions Notes 1. Opening remarks (roll call, SOI) 2. Minority statements * Minority statement is attached to the report in an appendix * Dissenting opinion is your diverging view on a section/part of the report * Statements are need in advance of the report publication. *You are welcome to submit statements/dissenting opinions at any time, but if you miss the deadline, we cannot include them in the published report for 2nd public comment * Extension until 12:00 UTC on Saturday (24h extension) * Include pointer on Wiki for minority statements 3. Review of remaining sections/documents Section 5B: Community Powers (intro) * Three key phases (petition, discussion, decision) * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 5B.1: Budget * Lot of changes from legal review. * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 5B.2: Standard Bylaws * No major changes. * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 5B.3: Removal of Board Members (individuals) * Any objections or comments on this section? Yes, Sebastien Bachollet *Question: Do you think there should be the possibility of invoking the process only once per term? Ticks (Yes): Tijani + 14; Crosses (No): 6. * ---> So, the group will proceed with once per term. Alan Greenberg: Revised Section 30 of Director Removal: For the seven directors appointed by one of the three SOs or by the At-Large Community, a process led by that organization or subdivision would decide on the director's removal. Only the SO or AC that appointed the director could decide on that director's removal. For the purposes of the following paragraph and sub-sections, SO means the SO or for the case of the GNSO, the GNSO House that has the Bylaw right to appointa Director. Section 5B.4: Recalling Board Members (entire Board) *Fine tune in implementation phase the process for recall when close to Board director's end of term (with 6 months or less) * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 5C: Diversity, Staff Accountability, and SO/AC Accountability * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 6: Incorporation of AoC * Any objections or comments on this section? No Executive Summary * Action (staff): fix title for powers (5 not 6) * Action (staff): change "culture of accountability" to "culture of transparency" * Do you think this structure of the executive summary is acceptable? *Suggestion from Steve Del Bianco: suggest that we add one paragraph explaining our WS1/WS2 rationale. This was on page 11 of our first draft proposal: Work Stream 1 mechanisms were defined as those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. * Action (staff): add steve's paragraph * Action (staff) Clarify that community powers are a recourse/ escalation path/ backstop * Action (staff) Fix IFR reference (if not in powers, in review) Fulfillment of Requirements *Any objections or comments on this section? yes, Avri Doria: do not accept the idea that we meet the considtion of require 4 for opennes. Section 1: Background * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 2: Accountability Mechanisms * Any objections or comments on this section? Yes, Eberhard Lisse's wildcard Section 7/8: Stress Tests * Any objections or comments on this section? Concerns from Argentina and Brazil on changing Bylaws * GAC is still looking into issue of Stress Test 18 * Pages 28-27 are where we indicate new stress tests that were added based on PC#1 * Action (Steve/Cheryl): note in section the concerns from GAC and ongoing discussions Section 9: WS2 * Any objections or comments on this section? No Section 10: Implementation * Any objections or comments on this section? Yes, Eberhard Lisse's wildcard 4. Update on human rights discussion per legal advice * Agreement that there should be work/text on HR * The disagreement is about where to include/discuss: WS1 or WS2? *Proposal text from Keith Drazek: Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information. * Green ticks (yes, add Keith's text): 16 * Red crosses (no): Tijani + 3 (so, 4) Eberhard Lisse has a general wildcard objection for this call Agenda for next call at 17:00 UTC 1. Opening Remarks 2. Update on voting weights discussion per legal advice 3. Review of previous call (11:00 UTC) 4. Review of XPlane graphics 5. Procedural approach for calls today and for Public Comment A. Freeze starts on Friday 31 July at 18:00 UTC B. Publication on Monday 3 August 6. AOB A. Webinars on 4 & 7 August B. Call on 4 August cancelled (replaced by webinar) 7. Closing remarks

1 0

Agenda for Thursday Call(s)
by Grace Abuhamad July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Dear all, We are building a Wiki page with the latest documents for all sections of the document: <https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw We will also upload documents for the call tomorrow to a file list once we have the final set. We are awaiting the latest legal reviews and subsequent updates to documents, in particular 5A and 5B, and XPLANE graphics. Running Agenda for Thursday July call(s) at 11:00 UTC and 17:00 UTC: 1. Opening remarks (roll call, SOI) 2. Minority statements 3. Review of remaining sections/documents * Section 5B: Community Powers (intro) * Section 5B.1: Budget * Section 5B.2: Standard Bylaws * Section 5B.3: Removal of Board Members (individuals) * Section 5B.4: Recalling Board Members (entire Board) * Section 5C: Diversity, Staff Accountability, and SO/AC Accountability * Section 6: Incorporation of AoC * Executive Summary * Fulfillment of Requirements * Section 1: Background * Section 2: Accountability Mechanisms * Section 7/8: Stress Tests * Section 9: WS2 * Section 10: Implementation 4. Update on human rights discussion per legal advice 5. Update on voting weights discussion per legal advice 6. Review of XPlane graphics 7. Procedural approach for calls today and for Public Comment A. Freeze starts on Friday 31 July at 18:00 UTC B. Publication on Monday 3 August 8. AOB A. Webinars on 4 & 7 August B. Call on 4 August cancelled (replaced by webinar) 9. Closing remarks Thank you, Grace

1 1

Voting weights in community mechanism
by Mathieu Weill July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Dear Colleagues, You will remember that our Initial Report Reference Model on voting weights was 5 votes for ccNSO, gNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC, 2 for SSAC and RSSAC. During the public comment period, we have received some comments (largely debated since on the list) with regards to the respective number of votes of gNSO and ALAC, and these are well noted. During our call on Tuesday we discussed the voting weight section of the community mechanism proposal and asked for WP1 to refine its proposal accordingly. The topic was then discussed again during the WP1 call that followed a few hours later. WP1 agreed to submit to our group a proposal with 5 votes for each SO or AC, pending intentions from GAC, SSAC and RSSAC to joint the mechanism as voting members. (see latest doc here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/5A2-Community-Mec…) A concern has come to our attention with this latest, new, proposal. If SSAC and RSSAC have 10 votes out of 35, they could jointly block a Board recall (75% votes required, 27 votes). Since they are both composed of individuals appointed by the Board, some may question their independence in case such a power is triggered. This could raise concerns of conflicts of interest. We discussed this between co-chairs and with Jordan as WP1 rapporteurs, and as a consequence would like to suggest we go back to the initial Reference model (5x5 and 2x2 votes) as a basis for our public comment document. This proposal will be on our agenda for Thursday's calls but we wanted to provide this heads-up in advance in order to facilitate an informed discussion. Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs

12 18

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Minority Reports
by Dr Eberhard Lisse July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Thank you, Thunderbird is getting the better of me :-)-O Now we are saying we only do what we are not afraid of rather than what is right? el On 2015-07-30 11:38, Jordan Carter wrote: > Hi Eberhard, > > It appears you are posting to a list that isn't the CCWG list - I'm > posting to the same, I don't know who is on it. > > You do seem to have a radically different idea as to what the purpose of > the group was. If we had started intervening in the things that Keith > listed as us not doing, all hell would surely have broken loose? > > best > Jordan > > > On 30 July 2015 at 20:03, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el(a)lisse.na > <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > I am going to quote the first paragraph in my minority viewpoint because > it explains the failure of the CCWG Accountability in two sentences. > > The second paragraph, which I have separated from the first for ease of > reference is painfully absurd. > > greetings, el > > On 2015-07-30 07:09, Drazek, Keith wrote: > [...] > > I think it's also important to note the proposal currently under > > discussion changes nothing about ICANN's day-to-day, > > month-to-month, or even year-to-year operations and community > > engagement structures. Only in very rare cases would the proposed > > Sole Member community empowerment model come into play. > > > > In my opinion, its existence would be a powerful deterrent to bad > > behavior and would therefore become an available but largely > > unneeded tool. > [...] > > -- [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Section 5B - community powers - consolidated draft
by Jordan Carter July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

hi Paul, hi all On 30 July 2015 at 18:33, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > Hi Jordan, > > > > Thanks for the time and effort that you have contributed to refining this > document. > > I have a handful of comments / questions that we may wish to address > before we reach the public comment phase. > > Many of these are about improving clarity and minimising the risk of > ambiguity. > > > The drafting quality reflects the time available, unfortunately. Worth saying that up front. > · Getting language right about “petitioning” is important because > it is the first step toward community “action”. So this (page 2) is > confusing: *“To trigger community consideration for the use of a > community power, an SO or AC has to agree by a resolution of its governing > body that the power should be used. A simple majority is sufficient to > support a petition for any power so it can proceed to the discussion > stage”. *What “simple majority” are we referring to? Of the ccNSO > Council? ccNSO membership? Of SOs and ACs? I assume you are referring to a > “simple majority” of the governing body…..but we should be extremely > precise. Also, are we intending to mandate how each SO/AC will execute its > own processes for reaching agreement / consensus, or can each develop their > own methodologies? Once again, clarity is vital. > I thought "by a resolution of its governing body" and then specifying the threshold was fairly precise...? If the petitioning threshold was right beside those words would it be clearer? My view of where the CCWG is at is that there is no desire to manage the affairs of SOs or ACs so long as they are complying with the rules that do get set out. So a simple majority does not preclude consensus approaches, or engagement with membership, but it does not require anything other than a vote. Do you think we should regulate things further? Do others? · Under 5B.1 (Reconsider budget or strategy/operating plans) is > there a need for overtly negative language regarding ICANN putting budgets > and plans to the community “without sufficient detail to facilitate > thoughtful consideration”? I would propose highlighting the subsequent > paragraph (04) about greater transparency and community involvement as a > preferred introductory statement. Similarly, Para 18 on changes to ICANN > Standard Bylaws is, once again, negative in tone. Can we craft these in a > more diplomatic tone? Further, the examples in Para 18 of the ccNSO’s PDP > and GNSO Stakeholder Groups are problematic for reasons that I believe > Chris has discussed with you recently. > > > On tone - I'd have no problem doing this, but I frankly don't know if I will be allowed to (or when it would be possible to fit it in). We are entirely out of time. The examples in the Standard Bylaws paper are deliberately chosen, since they are ones that are pertinent to the power & to significant constituents of the organisation. Do you have ones you would have preferred to see used? There are, of course, a very large set of possibilities to choose from. :-) · Para 15 on budget / plan veto: *“A 2/3 level of support in the > mechanism would be required in the mechanism to reject the ICANN or IANA > budget or an operating/strategic plan the first time: a 3/4 level of > support is required for a second rejection.” *Aside from drafting errors, > we need to be clearer as to who “2/3” or “3/4” refers to. > > Thanks for picking this up. "In the mechanism" is too shorthand. In English, it means: Votes of the CMSM, with the participating SOs and ACs. The drafting error in terms of repetition needs to be fixed - the para should read (taking into account better language from elsewhere): "To succeed, a veto would require a *2/3* level of support in the Community Mechanism. A *3/4* level of support is required for a second veto on the same budget or plan." > > > · Para 29 on removing Directors: *“It is expected that this power > would only be exercised is cases of serious difficulty with a particular > director”. *I don’t wish to head further down the rabbit hole of detail, > but in drafting this document, we are talking about nuclear options for the > community. Would you expect that terms such as “serious difficulty” will be > more fully defined? > > No, I would not. Since the power is unlimited as a matter of law, we have carefully only given the vaguest of examples. It was a difficult conversation to agree to a work item for WS2 in developing a statement of reasonable community expectations that would be useful in guiding board members (and the community for that matter). Objective standards are off the table in the bylaws framework for this power. As, indeed, they are for the current power for the Board to remove directors. Hope this helps. cheers Jordan > > Catch you on the upcoming calls, > > > > Paul > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan > Carter > *Sent:* Thursday, 30 July 2015 9:51 AM > *To:* wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Section 5B - community powers - consolidated draft > > > > Hi all > > > > Attached are the community powers papers combined into one document, and > benefiting from the latest legal review and updates following our last > call. This is for discussion in our next CCWG call/s. > > > > *I draw your attention in particular to two points:* > > > > ** in the *"removing individual ICANN directors"* paper (section 5B.3) > there was no limit on the number of times people could seek the removal of > a director: if a vote failed, a new petition could happen immediately. *I > have suggested there should be a standdown period of six months - if a vote > to remove an individual director fails, a new petition could not be lodged.* It > doesn't seem fair to allow the community to simply wear down an elected > director by attrition like this. > > > > ** in *"recall of the ICANN Board" *paper (section 5B.4), there was a > weirdness in the *petitioning*. We agreed that two SOs or ACs must > petition to trigger this, at least one of which needed to be an SO, but the > paper had a legacy oddness that 2/3 of the SOs and ACs would have to sign > on to the petition. This was the same threshold as the actual decision. *So > I have deleted it.* > > > > > > The changes to the Budget paper also clarify the separateness of decisions > re IANA budget and ICANN budget. > > > > Redline and clean versions attached. Please treat the clean version as the > authoritative one. The redline includes all changes other than formatting > and minor word changes that don't change substance, as far as I know. > > > > > > cheers > > Jordan > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > > *A better world through a better Internet * > > > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0