July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model" (CMSM)
by Seun Ojedeji July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Dear all, So far so good the "Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model" (CMSM) is looking to be an interesting personal preference for me and this is mainly because its been assured (by legal) that the SO/AC would have entire control on what the CMSM reps will be doing without any formality of the SO/AC themselves. As the meeting resume in a few minutes to further consider this model, i do hope some principles would be established for this model. A few points comes to mind: - Each SO/AC should be represented in CMSM by a maximum of *one* person to ensure balance in the likelihood of voting and avoid capture(to some extent). - Adequate time is provided to ensure CMSM does not act unilaterally. This could mean allowing specific period of time between when CMSM communicates its view and when the action will get executed so that respective SO/AC can object if the CMSM's view is inconsistent. - The representative of CMSM be tied to the chairs of the various SO/AC so there won't be signification increased cost of CMSM participation - CSMS does not/should not have reason to refuse to act on the view of the community - Respective SO/AC should have the ability to remove their rep individually That said, i like to thank staff for the remote support so far. However i like to say here that participation for some of us with low bandwidth is still quite challenging. Inview of this, i suggest that staff start looking at how to get the "chat only" version of the AC available. This will allow people like me rely on the audio dailout and follow/contribute directly to the discussions via chat. Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

Resolution from Board meeting yesterday to consider the Independent Review Panel declaration on .Africa
by Bruce Tonkin July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

For info: From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-16-en DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration Whereas, on 9 July 2015, an independent review panel ("Panel") issued a final Declaration ("Declaration") in the independent review proceedings (IRP) initiated by DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA), in which DCA sought relief relating to Board action or inaction on its application for .AFRICA. Whereas, in the Declaration, the Panel set forth the following: 148. Based on the foregoing, after having carefully reviewed the Parties' written submissions, listened to the testimony of the three witness [sic], listened to the oral submissions of the Parties in various telephone conference calls and at the in-person hearing of this IRP in Washington D.C. on 22 and 23 May 2015, and finally after much deliberation, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 11 (c) of ICANN's Bylaws, the Panel declares that both the actions and inactions of the Board with respect to the application of DCA Trust relating to the .AFRICA gTLD were inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of ICANN. 149. Furthermore, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 11 (d) of ICANN's Bylaws, the Panel recommends that ICANN continue to refrain from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD and permit DCA Trust's application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process. 150. The Panel declares DCA trust to be the prevailing party in this IRP and further declares that ICANN is to bear, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 18 of the Bylaws, Article 11 of the Supplementary Procedures and Article 31 of the ICDR Rules, the totality of the costs of this IRP and the totality of the costs of the IRP Provider as follows: a) the fees and expenses of the panelists; b) the fees and expenses of the administrator, the ICDR; c) the fees and expenses of the emergency panelist incurred in connection with the application for interim emergency relief sought pursuant to the Supplementary Procedures and the ICDR Rules; and d) the fees and expenses of the reporter associated with the hearing on 22 and 23 May 2015 in Washington D.C. e) As a result of the above, the administrative fees of the ICDR totalling US$4,600 and Panelists' compensation and expenses totalling US$403,467.08 shall be born entirely by ICANN, therefore, ICANN shall reimburse DCA Trust the sum of US$198,046.04. 151. As per the last sentence of Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 18 of the Bylaws, DCA Trust and ICANN shall each bear their own expenses. The parties shall also each bear their own legal representation fees. Whereas, the independent review process is an integral ICANN accountability mechanism that helps support ICANN's multistakeholder model, and the Board thanks the Panel for its efforts in this IRP, and would like to specifically honor the memory of former panelist Hon. Richard C. Neal, who passed away during the proceedings. Whereas, in addition to the Declaration, the Board must also take into account other relevant information, including but not limited to: (i) that ICANN received and accepted GAC consensus advice that DCA's application for .AFRICA should not proceed; and (ii) that ICANN has a signed Registry Agreement with ZA Central Registry ("ZACR") to operate the .AFRICA top-level domain. Whereas, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3.21 of the Board considered the Declaration at the Board's next meeting, which the Board specifically scheduled in order to take action on this matter as quickly as possible. Resolved (2015.07.15.01), the Board has considered the entire Declaration, and has determined to take the following actions based on that consideration: 1. ICANN shall continue to refrain from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD; 2. ICANN shall permit DCA's application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process as set out below; and 3. ICANN shall reimburse DCA for the costs of the IRP as set forth in paragraph 150 of the Declaration. Resolved (2015.07.16.02), since the Board is not making a final determination at this time as to whether DCA's application for .AFRICA should proceed to contracting or delegation, the Board does not consider that resuming evaluation of DCA's application is action that is inconsistent with GAC advice. Resolved (2015.07.16.03), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to resume the evaluation of DCA's application for .AFRICA and to ensure that such evaluation proceeds in accordance with the established process(es) as quickly as possible (see Applicant Guidebook at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb for established processes). Resolved (2015.07.16.04), with respect to the GAC's consensus advice in the Beijing Communiqué that DCA's application for .AFRICA should not proceed, which was confirmed in the London Communiqué, the Board will ask the GAC if it wishes to refine that advice and/or provide the Board with further information regarding that advice and/or otherwise address the concerns raised in the Declaration. Resolved (2015.07.16.05), in the event that DCA's application for .AFRICA successfully passes the remainder of the evaluation process, at that time or before, the Board will consider any further advice or information received from the GAC, and proceed as necessary, balancing all of the relevant material information and circumstances. Should the Board undertake any action that may be inconsistent with the GAC's advice, the Board will follow the established process set out in the Bylaws (see ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 2.1).

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT #41 Session 2 - 17 July
by Brenda Brewer July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #41, Session 2 - 17 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CYFCAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Proposed Agenda 11:00-12:00 - Stress Test Work Party updates Relevant documents : <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/Section%208%20Str… d%2014-Jul.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1436918844015&api=v2> Updates stress tests reflecting public comments (please note some late inclusions could be added after the July 15 ST-WP call) 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. Stress Tests Work Party Update * 26 stress tests were published in the original draft * 9 new stress tests added based on Public Comment * 11 comments received directly on the Stress Tests section in Public Comment, + NTIA letter/ Larry Strickling blog, + Board memo with 2 new stress tests (20 June) Analyzed CCWG discussions, public comments, NTIA letter, Board memo: * Added 2 stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California courts. pp 25-26 * Edited ST 20 per comment from RySG * Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl. pp.27-28 * Added a stress test on "rogue voting". p.29 * Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests. See pages 30 - 33 * NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if individual ICANN AC/SOs opt out of having votes in community empowerment mechanisms. * NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of internal capture. ST 12 and 13 partly address capture by external parties, but not for capture by internal parties in an AC/SO. * NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants. * NTIA-4: Unintended consequences of "operationalizing" groups that to date have been advisory in nature (e.g. GAC) * Added two questions from the Board-Legal memo of Jun 20 * Reliance on IRP so need to verify ICANN must agree to binding Stress tests that are relevant to IANA are outlined on Page 3

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG-ACCT #41 Session 1 - 17 July
by Brenda Brewer July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #41, Session 1 - 17 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BYFCAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Proposed Agenda 08:30-08:45 - Welcome: Opening remarks Define meeting goals, outcomes and rules (if any) Relevant documents : - <https://community.icann.org/x/gYNCAw> Agenda of Paris F2F meetings (Day 1 meeting ; Day 2 Meeting) - Slides (to be provided) 08:45-09:15 - CWG dependencies - introduction and reminder Relevant documents : <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> CWG final proposals 09:15-10:15 - Community empowerment model - Q&A with lawyers Relevant documents : <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/Revised_%20%20Emp… hip%20%26%20Designator%20Models%20with%20CM%20as%20Sole....pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436914285 624&api=v2> Sidley & Adler community model document: 10:15-10:45 - Review of emerging items - WP3 Relevant documents : - <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/StaffAccountabili… rsion=1&modificationDate=1436916091198&api=v2> Staff accountability WP3 input - <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/SOACAccountabilit… sion=1&modificationDate=1436916136487&api=v2> SO/AC accountability WP3 input - <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/DiversityDraftPro… dificationDate=1436916162639&api=v2> Diversity WP3 input 10:45-11:00 - Coffee break 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. Goal to reach our Second Public Comment at the end of July. Recalling the arrangement of work stream 1 and work stream 2. Concise interventions, to allow everyone to be heard. Best practise, of one intervention per topic. The 2 minute clock if necessary. Day 1 and Day 2, as different meetings, and allowing for the two-meeting rule as part of our working methods. Eberhard Lisse objection to the two-meeting proposal noted. New agenda circulated yesterday (July 16). Change: additional session on IRP, two IRP sessions on day 2. * Concerns identified from the public comment * How have they been resolved * What are the open issues 23 members in the room. And all liaisons, and 3 Advisors, 7 ICANN Board members CWG Dependencies, Lise Fuhr CWG Co-Chair The CWG proposal has been sent to the ICG. There are conditionalities in the proposal based on the outcome of the CCWG. Timing is important: need CCWG input by Dublin, or the CWG proposal cannot stand' Dependencies in 6 areas: 1. ICANN Budget: to reconsider or veto the budget regarding the IANA portion of the budget. 2, IANA Functions review: incorporated in the ICANN bylaws 3. Customer Standing Committee: incorporated in the ICANN bylaws 4. To be able to recall the Board, particularly regarding the reports and recommendations of the IANA Functions review 5. An independent appeals mechanism 6. Fundamental bylaws, that these dependencies are protected as fundamental bylaws Asking that the CCWG meets these CWG requirements ICG will issues a proposal for public comment on July 31 and wishes to know that the CWG dependencies will be met. The cross-check session on Saturday July 19 will address this. The CWG is still to decide if the Post Transition IANA arrangement should be included in the ICANN bylaws, and how those bylaws should be drafted. Is there a preference or requirement for the levels of enforceability from the CWG? There are distinction between some of the technical issues and the procedural or management issues. Will take the question of level enforceability back to the CWG. The CWG is concerned with the IANA budget rather than ICANN budget as a whole. And the CWG proposal notes would be helpful if the IANA budget were made faster than the overall ICANN budget * Presentation based on the presentation on July 7 #39 Review of the members models Likelihood of capture and the consequences: Low under the designator model Under the member model the consequences are higher as they have access to other powers The sole member model, the likelihood and consequences are considered low. The sole member would need to have some legal personhood, what is a decisions to be made. Unincorporated Associations being the simplest Question for the CWG to consider: of the three models, are they all sufficient? CWG will take this on. From a legal perspective all meet the dependencies. Is the goal to have a single reference model in the public comment, or three options? The CWG/ICG proposal relies on the model. Goal is to have consensus forming by the end of the meeting tomorrow. With our goal not to reinvent but to refine. The models must be able to deliver everything in the proposal. Consideration of the independent objector, asked that information about this proposal is sent to the list for the group to consider and see if the proposal gains traction. The information about relevant statutory rights is contained in a legal memo, information will be sent to the CCWG list. Risk of statutory rights and derivative suits. Designator model do not have those risks. Member model, would have to be reduced by truncating rights in the bylaws The sole member model the issues reduced by the structure, and through truncating rights in the bylaws * WP3 Emerging issues Three topics highlighted from the first public comment SO/AC Accountability: who watches the watchers, with the enhanced power they wield ICANN Staff Accountability: Diversity Three short papers developed by the sub-group distributed in the document package contain recommendations. Assess whether the IRP should ask apply to SO/AC activities and should this be considered as WS1. Other issues suggested as WS2. A clear definition of staff role as part of WS1. As an addition to the problem definition and scoping document. Apply some recommended recommendations to staff, and consider as WS1? Other issues suggested as WS2. Note: not intending to micro-manage staff. Diversity should be included as a consideration in an new structure in WS1. Other issues suggested as WS2. WP3 as emerging issues, three suggestions: 1. Larry Stricklng's suggestion: the standard for board action, that a consensus has been reached in the communiyt 2. Kieren, some community power to hold hearings on a congressional inquiry style 3. Some sort of independent objector, with the power to initiate an IRP. The community roundtable would be inline with point 2. The proposes transitional bylaws article requires a commitment to implement. Was favourable received in the first public comment. "Ensure" regional diversity in each of the new structures created. Ensure may be too strong a direction. But there should be some criteria to be taken into account when new structures are created. Concern with increasing number of WS1 issues and short period of time to address them all. Note: The standard for the IRP is did ICANN violate the bylaws by some action or inaction.

1 0

Redactions in ICANN documents
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

I am wondering if we can perhaps convince ICANN to in the interim when they redact documents, to write something like "Redacted on request of ........" so that if we were to take ICANN staff by their word that they only redact because of transparency (!) we know at least which side they are on :-)-O greetings, el

5 5

Report to Council in terms of CCWG Charter
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Byron, please bring the below to the attention of Council members, as I can not post to the Council List In terms of the Charter I wish request an opportunity to discuss with the Chair of the chartering organization or your designated representatives that the Co-Chairs of the CCWG Accountability have decided to declare the Face to Face Meeting here in Paris TWO meetings, in order to be able to read issues on which there is consensus in the room, twice. I have raised in the room (and had on the mailing list while in transit) because 1) it was sprung on us by the Co-Chairs late, while most attending where in fact in transit instead of being decided by the members in two readings (well) in advance; and 2) it is an unheard of attempt at circumventing the two reading rule; and 3) the call for this F2F was short notice when many members already had made other arrangements, such as vacation; some of them now being represented by individuals not having previously participated in the CCWG, I for one do not even know the ccNSO alternate Maarten Simon. There are however at least 23 members and/or alternates present in the room as I write this. I objected against it for the record, as the sole objector. greetings, el

3 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
by Malcolm Hutty July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

> On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:20, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What documents relate to the IRP? I've correlated the other docs with > every other part of the agenda. > http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr

1 0

Agenda + Presentation for Paris F2F
by Hillary Jett July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Hi all, Please find attached the agenda and presentation for the Paris F2F meeting. Both are also located on the meeting wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778863 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

Agenda for Paris
by Malcolm Hutty July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Dear Chairs, I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements. I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements. I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability. I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!). I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning. [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr Kind Regards, Malcolm Hutty. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

14 20

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Sending again *SIGH* On 16/07/2015 6:36 pm, wrote: Malcolm talk more at the welcome cocktail if your there, but basically we have added an additional session on IRP on Sat (you will all get an update soon) and in the first session we would like to have 5 mins focus on ST 23 analysis 3mins say on the diagram you highlighted and about 2 for QandA On 15/07/2015 11:22 am, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm(a)linx.net> wrote: Dear Chairs, I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements. I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements. I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability. I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!). I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning. [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr Kind Regards, Malcolm Hutty. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0