July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: Re: SSAC / CCWG
by Mathieu Weill July 12, 2015

July 12, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find below announcement from Patrik Fältström, chair of SSAC, that SSAC has decided to become a chartering organisation of our CCWG. And please join me in welcoming Lyman and Julie to our group as SSAC appointees. Best regards, Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Re: SSAC / CCWG Date : Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:03:58 +0200 De : Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> Pour : Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Copie à : ssac(a)icann.org, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Dear Mathieu, Thomas and León, I would like to report to you that SSAC first of all is taking a step forward to become a chartering org for the CCWG Accountability. Secondly, I would like to report "Lyman Chapin" <lyman(a)interisle.net> and "Julie Hammer" <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com> as SSAC appointees to the CCWG. Patrik Fältström SSAC Chair

2 1

Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence
by George Sadowsky July 12, 2015

July 12, 2015

The Hippocratic oath, "do no harm," is as relevant to communities and organizations as it is to medicine. If something is largely working but has flaws, it's reasonable to ask the question of what is the minimum change necessary to eliminate the flaw. In the case of accountability, it is clear that accountability is a necessary component of an adequate governance structure. The question in my mind is how much and in what form. I believe that the advisor to the CCWG, Jan Scholte, remarked in an earlier intervention, the issue is accountability for what, to whom, and with what enforcement mechanisms. It's possible that the this easy WG has already provided a concise statement answering these questions. If so, could someone please point me to it; if not wouldn't it be useful to have one? In that spirit, I'd like to ask members of this group the following question: What specific events and/or activities can you identify In the past on any part of ICANN or its constituent bodies that current accountability mechanisms do not protect from? how do the variety of current proposals address those shortcomings, and how in the past with these mechanisms have been used to address those specific events and/or activities? If there already exists such a list, please point me to it; if there isn't wouldn't it be useful for some reality testing? I am not suggesting that it would be sufficient to engineer new accountability mechanisms that dealt only with previous behavior that was considered inappropriate. Clearly it's very possible that new behavior by any part of the community considered inappropriate by any other part of the community will fit into new patterns and will not replicate earlier activities. However, there's a lot of merit in fact-based evidence, and I would like very much to have the opinion of people on this list of those instances where new accountability measures would have been useful and effective where existing accountability measures failed. George

8 15

Regarding available financial information
by Bruce Tonkin July 12, 2015

July 12, 2015

Hello Phil, >> Can I suggest to the CCWG that a subgroup be formed to look at the perceived lack of accountability mechanisms within ICANN’s current financial operations and reporting. It is absolutely critical that these are enhanced within a new membership model, especially with the huge increase in revenues from TLD Registries & Registrars. This is an area where ICANN is certainly working to improve and achieve international best practice. We are now following the practices of publicly listed companies in the USA. The annual tax filing is just one of the reports made public (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf) There is a quarterly financial report, and also a public quarterly call. You would be welcome to join such calls and ask any questions about the finances. There are annual audited accounts that are public (e.g https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en…) and there are also annual reports that include financials (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/annual-report-en ). See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/current-en for the financial reports. The budget also sets out in detail the budget allocated to each project in the plan. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01de… The status of all current projects is available at: https://features.icann.org/plan/projects The staff remuneration policy is set out at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/remuneration-practices-fy15-01n… The Board approves via public resolutions the salaries for officers of the company. See: https://features.icann.org/appointment-officer for an example. The status of all current projects is available at: https://features.icann.org/plan/projects Happy to hear from you on what additional levels of information and transparency that you are seeking. Perhaps you could provide links to organizations of a similar size to ICANN that have more detailed public reporting. Examples are always helpful. I know that the financial system is being evolved over time - its current implementation wasn't really set up for full project level reporting - ie where staff use timesheets, and assign all expenses down to the project level - but that is certainly an option going forward. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 4

Draft doc DIversity (was Re: Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3 (10 July)
by Sébastien Bachollet July 12, 2015

July 12, 2015

Hello ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address diversity issue. Please find attached a first draft document about diversity. And the link to a Google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PN0uI8JWpfVwabxoiwF7QqtLP4aiPSK_2zaoQlJm 72I/edit The next call is on the 13th. I will be on my flight from Lima to Paris or just landing and needing to catch a train. Difficult to join. See you soon in Paris. All the best Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org> Date : vendredi 10 juillet 2015 07:49 À : "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc : "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3 (10 July) > Hello all, > > The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP3 Meeting #3 10 July will be > available here: > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783270 > > A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. > > Thank you. > > Best regards, > Kim > > > > ACTION Items > ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. > ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC > accountability. > ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. > ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to > create a google doc. > ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on > staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. > ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address > diversity issue. > > Notes > Review of Open Action Items > All action items are complete. More volunteers are needed for staff > accountability group. > ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. > > SO/AC Accountability Draft Proposal > It explains scope of our work. It closes by suggesting 4 actions that should > be taken into account when the CCWG builds its next proposal: > - Amend current draft and include commitment to have each SO/AC perform a > complete review of existing mechanisms as part of WS2 to be implemented after > transition; > - Include evaluation of proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" as part of > WS2; > 3 Establish a commitment to carry a detailed working plan on enhancing > SO/Accountability as part of WS2; > 4 Clarify that IRP should be applicable to SO/AC activities. > Feedback: > - Would there also be a review - in terms of documentation - of SO/AC rules > and procedures? Would that be part of the review that will be undertaken? > Mathieu circulated something that had provisions about SO/ACs - why was that > not included? > --> Intent is to have this draft refined. > ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC > accountability. > --> Staff included this set of documents in the reading list. > ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. > - There are nested regulations that will show rules are in place but it won't > necessarily show that rules are being followed or that we are accountable to > community. To what extent do we want to claim that SO/Acs embody a real subset > that maps to community outside? > ---> Most of references that we find in ATRT recommendations are nested rules > that should apply to staff. We need to be clearer as to which rules and how > they are applicable to each SO/AC. > - We all have a consistent set of rules. At the moment, because of > relationship of SO/ACs, there is not only broader accountability, there is > also a cycle of Board reviews. We have to include review cycle as part of it. > The effectiveness of review cycle depends on model we have. IRP is currently > not applicable: we need more than a clarification: we need retesting of IRP. > Is there an escalation procedure at the moment to get to IRP i.e. > reconsideration etc? Is it appropriate for workload etc? Ombudmsan has done a > lot of work in arbitrary issues: is that an ingredient as well? > ---> Avri's help on how to address questions and to build them into document > would be welcome. While ombudsman's role is to mediate between different > people, unsure how could interpret that his role as an accountability > mechanism. we would need to refine or enhance role with regards to this type > of mediation. > - Another resource that could be added would be organizational reviews as they > touch on accountability of organization. For instance Westlake review of GNSO. > Similar reviews that will be conducted will be an essential part of the > picture. > - Ombudsman is a large part of this. Although he does mediation, its formal > rule has to do with fairness and exercising rules fairly, evenly across > community. Ombudsman plays a large part of this. > ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to > create a google doc. > > Staff Accountability Draft Proposal > The staff Accountatbility paper reflects comments made in the discussions that > were started. Some views were incorporated, wording was tweaked, initial > assessment was proposed. This might be incomplete: still need to go through > documents to see how staff could be accountable to SO/ACs. With regards to > AoC, all the AoC reviews include key commitments for ICANN, the organization. > We have nested regulations that while applicable to SO/ACs should be also > applicable to staff and do not have written commitments. We only a paragraph > 9.e which refers directly to staff. No particular recommendation in ATRT work > refers to Board actions to be undertaken by staff. Articles were found within > Bylaws: while they established certain aspects of accountability, they don't > address concerns raised. Three proposed CCWG steps are: > 1. Review current document so we can extend mechanisms that we are proposing > to staff work; > 2. Include a work plan as part of WS2 that considers Code of conduct and > transparency criteria; > 3. Establishment of regular independent audit to track progress. > Feedback: > - Staff are very often the only one who know what's going on inside inside > operation of ICANN. They cannot report what's going on. ATRT has discussed > whistblowing and it is pending. It should be part of our accountability > package. > ---> We should think about adding this component to suggestions. > ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on > staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. > > Diversity > - Sebastien's comment covers diversity with regards to different criteria: > gender balance, age, region, stakeholders etc. An email from Jan was > circulated on this issue which recommended to make exclusive commitments with > regards to diversity that would address this issue. WS2 could include specific > list of issues on diversity of SO/ACs. > Feedback: > - A remark made in public forum with regards to diversity has to do with > accessibility to those with various disabilities. There is an accessibility > group in ALAC. Balancing diversity with other needs can sometimes create > unintended consequences. > ---> Comments from AFNIC were also submitted: proposal to expand ATRT to > diversity review. It also suggests protecting from one region's influence. > - Hard to discuss diversity requirements. Unsure whether talking about 29 > members. One could look at regional diversity. Is the group happy we would > limit diversity to a region - we will need to have an explicit decision of how > far we are addressing diversity at this stage. > ---> So far, we have looked a geographic only but constructive to consider > other factors (language, age, etc). Our document should establish a fixed set > of criteria. > - There could be an endless cycle of diversity concerns that do not > substantically increase overal expertise. It would be very case by case. > Sometimes gender diversity would provide a grater enhancement of expertise > than geographic diversity. > ---> We need balance. > - Specific to issue, diversity requirements created on fly. > - When we have various models and contracts, we push to meet all diversity in > that number. Hard coded requirements should be made different. We get > concerns about geographic balance at the cost of volunteers willing to do > work. We should look at balance in human kind - we should try mechanisms to > bring that. They should be seen as important. We need to take it through > staged implementation role. > - We invariably end up suffering from diversity requirements. Getting > volunteers to do the work is where we severely struggle at ICANN. The largest > disability is not speaking English - we are never going to have the money from > translation/interpretation that the UN has. > - There is a group which is trying to systematically evolve policy culture of > ICANN to use metrics. We are doing that by building language into templates > that are used for issues report and chartering. In each and every case, it > looks at feasibility so that it becomes explicit aspiration, as opposed to > implicit. It is the duty of the group to ensure there are enough voices to be > heard. Anything that looks like quota is to increase overall implementation in > ICANN. We are not opposed to getting more diversity which will have effect of > greater involvement. > - There may be struggles to get volunteers but it is probably not purely a > function of getting people involved. ICANN room is not close to current > distribution. > - Any discussion should talk about how to expand pool of outsiders for > outreach and engagement. > - We have cultures that do not work the way ICANN works. Culture is an > important aspect we cannot forget. Justifying accountability as impediments > might stop participation. We live in complex world. > ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address > diversity issue. > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 2

IRP DCA v ICANN
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 11, 2015

July 11, 2015

As it relates to or work, we all might want to read this: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-09jul15-en.pdf greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

2 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting #17 (10 July)
by Kimberly Carlson July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #17 - 10 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ak0Aw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action: Jordan to approach co-chairs on getting legal advice about the caretaker board Notes Addition to the agenda: to review what we will talk about on next Monday's call. Community Powers on the budget and strategic plan - Jonathan Zuck and the changes made in this draft A strawman, making decision about issues that we have not reached consensus on. The lion's share off comments were supportive, on the right track. Only one detractor. Mainly concerns were about implementation Improve the creation process so the power not necessary. Improve interaction during the budget development process. And some of this could then be shifted to WS2. Second issue was about deadlock and how to break that. The most recent comment being from Cherine, with responses from Jordan and Mathieu Improve engagement in WS2. Limit the number of times a budget could be rejected. Some mentioned capping the process. Some mentioned the caretaker approach, better for Keith's draft and discussion later. Important to do before the budget or strategic plan process is agreed. Unwinding the process would be hard given financial commitments may have been made. Often budgets made without sufficient detail being shared. A specific example is the CWG proposal for clearer information about the IANA budget. A new third paragraph so there is more buy-in, earlier. The community further involved in the development of budget and strategic plan. To address the comment of fixing the problem before it occurs. The power does not enable the community to make changes to the budget, just halt it going further. Suggest 2 cycles of rejection. And this would be met by a requirement to escalate, not a requirement to back down. To not constantly bringing up new issues, to prevent deadlock. WS2 review of the engagement process should render the power redundant. New question: 11b) Do you believe there should be a cap on rejections of a particular plan by the community, requiring escalation to other accountability mechanism, to prevent paralysis? The business constituency raised the question of running the continued resolution which would mean operating without an authorized budget. Need to be clear, not just paralysis, also running the org under last year's budget. Working on last year's budget ok if they were trying to raise the budget, but if they were OK with the current level of expenditure when the community's wish was to reduce the budget then working to last year's budget is not a protection. The board might delay approving the budget until it is in effect. The period may not exist. We have the power to reject under a super majority. Stay with that, and not move to an approval process. Where it would have to go through a positive approval process each year. The text has us addressing the right concerns. Many comments saying need to improve the communications between the community, staff and board to make sure miscommunication does not happen, and the need for the power greatly relieved Jordan: in my member org the council creates a budget that three months later the community votes on and can reject. This backstop power shifts the incentives and the board will know that if it doesn't listen it will face problems later. We might limit the number of returns for the budget, but not the strategic and operations plan. And do not ask the same questions in proposal 2 as in the first, need more specificity. The requirement for more engagement and process between the community and board should included in the bylaws, rather than WS2. And also consider pre-approval and needs of the requirements of the empowered designator model. Different ways to get to the same place. Back and forth between community and the budget. Came from BC, and were not clear what it means when the limit is hit. Does the board get what it wants? Or does it run on last year's budget? Not just the BC mentioned. The other option is escalation, to other accountability mechanisms. While running on last year's budget while that occurs. Last year's budget would be the rule while other accountability mechanisms are considered. Going back and forth on the budget does risk introducing instability, and need to avoid introducing any new measures that do the same. Para 3 talks about WS2, without saying what WS2 would achieve, some text needed make sure the powers stay in place until processes improved in WS2 come into effect. Minimal change that answers the comments we received, for example the BC comment. 10% cut in budget may not be enough. And the cuts may be from services the community wants. Answer, if after 2 rounds to move if necessary to escalation. Community Powers - recall of whole ICANN Board. Keith Drazak Power 5.6 Intended as a discussion document. Summary text from the public comment review. And introduced the CWG dependencies. Strong agreement to the proposal, almost 90%. Some concerns, these were about threshold, as 75% or 80%. Majority supported 75%. And a broad concern about unintended consequences of risk and instability. Should be a last resort. Need to clarify the circumstances that may trigger the spilling should be better defined. Clarify the continuity measures: a caretaker board, how are they apportioned etc. Comment identified a clear need for us to be more specific. CWG: does the CCWG meet the CWG dependencies. Our response was that it appears to. Some comments that there could be a quick process to appoint a new board. But current processes suggest up to a year. So how can we keep the organization going, and this a major continuity measure. "There may be situations..." Comments suggest the need specifics. Suggestion that one reason for silence was that in the member model the members and designators can use any unspecified reason to initiate a recall. But there are specific reasons we can add. 1st proposal deliberately didn't try to predict reasons, could be any future issue. Those who support are supporting an unconstrained proposal. Believes the selective removal is adequate. But do not need to specify criteria. If we have the power, should be unrestricted by criteria. Concern, what if we have a very few SO/AC participating, how to deal with non participation and abstention. And the need to ensure that the section is in sync with the model Whether people participate or not. Saying 5 of the 7 to petition is high, but appropriate. Very high threshold was agreed in comments. What is meant by a set period of time? Is there any point at which there should be a deliberative period with the board? There should be some discussion and the opportunity for the board to defend their position. And doing this does protect the stability issues. A point for discussion in Paris Need to be able to address non participation of SO/AC Removed the alternative 80% option. Concerns about the caretaker board concept. Carefully plan and prepare for the succession process and minimize instability and risk. Need to further define the caretaker board. The process for implementing the caretaker board would require an expedited process. But there can be advice on limits on its actions. Advice had been that this is a commonly understood issues, and can be dealt with. Can requisition advice on this from the lawyers. Action: Jordan to approach co-chairs on getting legal advice about the caretaker board Consider the concern raised on the potential limitation of the pool of candidates. Role of the non-voting board members? "need to elect alternate Board Directors in each Board selection process" If wrong in picking the original then picking the alternate equally likely to be poor. They were intended in the proposal to show potential options. Opposed to the liaisons being "promoted" to voting, note GAC in this regard. Spilling the board not a simple thing, should not be easy. And may never be possible to use. Need professional advice, and not reinvent the wheel. The board has the right to remove all liaisons, the new board could do that, except for the GAC liaison. Some suggestions that the SO/AC chairs/vice chairs are possible director replacements, but they are the ones likely to be leading the removal so a conflict. Ensure awareness of key CWG dependencies. The CWG language was written based on the pre BA member model. Can we check with the CWG chairs, on the substitution of text describing the empowered SO/AC. Yes, discuss with CWG about enforceability. At least in Paris. Read the CWG as giving a great deal flexibility, though can check. Is the CWG happy with the new models is the key question. Not pre-judgeing a member model per-se, just saying the powers should exist. Monday call. 2 hours available. Agenda: Community powers on the bylaws, the ability to block standard bylaws, Izumi will lead on. Approval of fundamental bylaws, which is Jordan. Alan to address individual director removal. And some additional text on the 8 July discussion on the community mechanism. And review of the papers today. Any other outstanding items for Monday or today? Istanbul, spreadsheet on the super majority thresholds, adjust to consider the different proportions of the different votes available, and what happens should one SO/AC drop out on a particular issue. Need to be ready for this in Paris. Paper on community mechanisms, one issue was the critical mass to take action, and need to come to closure on the weighting scheme. GAC roll in the community empowerment mechanism being considered. At least something for the GAC to say what it needs. Waiting for memos from the lawyers. Action: Jordan to approach co-chairs on getting legal advice about the caretaker board Issues for Paris: * About budget, strategic and ops plan, need for some deliberative period with the board before action taken. * Discuss with CWG about enforceability. * Adjusted spreadsheet on the super majority thresholds (Istanbul), should be made ready for Paris. END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3 (10 July)
by Kimberly Carlson July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP3 Meeting #3 - 10 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783270 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC accountability. ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to create a google doc. ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address diversity issue. Notes Review of Open Action Items All action items are complete. More volunteers are needed for staff accountability group. ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. SO/AC Accountability Draft Proposal It explains scope of our work. It closes by suggesting 4 actions that should be taken into account when the CCWG builds its next proposal: - Amend current draft and include commitment to have each SO/AC perform a complete review of existing mechanisms as part of WS2 to be implemented after transition; - Include evaluation of proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" as part of WS2; 3 Establish a commitment to carry a detailed working plan on enhancing SO/Accountability as part of WS2; 4 Clarify that IRP should be applicable to SO/AC activities. Feedback: - Would there also be a review - in terms of documentation - of SO/AC rules and procedures? Would that be part of the review that will be undertaken? Mathieu circulated something that had provisions about SO/ACs - why was that not included? --> Intent is to have this draft refined. ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC accountability. --> Staff included this set of documents in the reading list. ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. - There are nested regulations that will show rules are in place but it won't necessarily show that rules are being followed or that we are accountable to community. To what extent do we want to claim that SO/Acs embody a real subset that maps to community outside? ---> Most of references that we find in ATRT recommendations are nested rules that should apply to staff. We need to be clearer as to which rules and how they are applicable to each SO/AC. - We all have a consistent set of rules. At the moment, because of relationship of SO/ACs, there is not only broader accountability, there is also a cycle of Board reviews. We have to include review cycle as part of it. The effectiveness of review cycle depends on model we have. IRP is currently not applicable: we need more than a clarification: we need retesting of IRP. Is there an escalation procedure at the moment to get to IRP i.e. reconsideration etc? Is it appropriate for workload etc? Ombudmsan has done a lot of work in arbitrary issues: is that an ingredient as well? ---> Avri's help on how to address questions and to build them into document would be welcome. While ombudsman's role is to mediate between different people, unsure how could interpret that his role as an accountability mechanism. we would need to refine or enhance role with regards to this type of mediation. - Another resource that could be added would be organizational reviews as they touch on accountability of organization. For instance Westlake review of GNSO. Similar reviews that will be conducted will be an essential part of the picture. - Ombudsman is a large part of this. Although he does mediation, its formal rule has to do with fairness and exercising rules fairly, evenly across community. Ombudsman plays a large part of this. ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to create a google doc. Staff Accountability Draft Proposal The staff Accountatbility paper reflects comments made in the discussions that were started. Some views were incorporated, wording was tweaked, initial assessment was proposed. This might be incomplete: still need to go through documents to see how staff could be accountable to SO/ACs. With regards to AoC, all the AoC reviews include key commitments for ICANN, the organization. We have nested regulations that while applicable to SO/ACs should be also applicable to staff and do not have written commitments. We only a paragraph 9.e which refers directly to staff. No particular recommendation in ATRT work refers to Board actions to be undertaken by staff. Articles were found within Bylaws: while they established certain aspects of accountability, they don't address concerns raised. Three proposed CCWG steps are: 1. Review current document so we can extend mechanisms that we are proposing to staff work; 2. Include a work plan as part of WS2 that considers Code of conduct and transparency criteria; 3. Establishment of regular independent audit to track progress. Feedback: - Staff are very often the only one who know what's going on inside inside operation of ICANN. They cannot report what's going on. ATRT has discussed whistblowing and it is pending. It should be part of our accountability package. ---> We should think about adding this component to suggestions. ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. Diversity - Sebastien's comment covers diversity with regards to different criteria: gender balance, age, region, stakeholders etc. An email from Jan was circulated on this issue which recommended to make exclusive commitments with regards to diversity that would address this issue. WS2 could include specific list of issues on diversity of SO/ACs. Feedback: - A remark made in public forum with regards to diversity has to do with accessibility to those with various disabilities. There is an accessibility group in ALAC. Balancing diversity with other needs can sometimes create unintended consequences. ---> Comments from AFNIC were also submitted: proposal to expand ATRT to diversity review. It also suggests protecting from one region's influence. - Hard to discuss diversity requirements. Unsure whether talking about 29 members. One could look at regional diversity. Is the group happy we would limit diversity to a region - we will need to have an explicit decision of how far we are addressing diversity at this stage. ---> So far, we have looked a geographic only but constructive to consider other factors (language, age, etc). Our document should establish a fixed set of criteria. - There could be an endless cycle of diversity concerns that do not substantically increase overal expertise. It would be very case by case. Sometimes gender diversity would provide a grater enhancement of expertise than geographic diversity. ---> We need balance. - Specific to issue, diversity requirements created on fly. - When we have various models and contracts, we push to meet all diversity in that number. Hard coded requirements should be made different. We get concerns about geographic balance at the cost of volunteers willing to do work. We should look at balance in human kind - we should try mechanisms to bring that. They should be seen as important. We need to take it through staged implementation role. - We invariably end up suffering from diversity requirements. Getting volunteers to do the work is where we severely struggle at ICANN. The largest disability is not speaking English - we are never going to have the money from translation/interpretation that the UN has. - There is a group which is trying to systematically evolve policy culture of ICANN to use metrics. We are doing that by building language into templates that are used for issues report and chartering. In each and every case, it looks at feasibility so that it becomes explicit aspiration, as opposed to implicit. It is the duty of the group to ensure there are enough voices to be heard. Anything that looks like quota is to increase overall implementation in ICANN. We are not opposed to getting more diversity which will have effect of greater involvement. - There may be struggles to get volunteers but it is probably not purely a function of getting people involved. ICANN room is not close to current distribution. - Any discussion should talk about how to expand pool of outsiders for outreach and engagement. - We have cultures that do not work the way ICANN works. Culture is an important aspect we cannot forget. Justifying accountability as impediments might stop participation. We live in complex world. ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address diversity issue.

1 0

member organization and single membership structure
by Roelof Meijer July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 14:16 To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: member organization and single membership structure Dear co-chairs, all, Two points: 1) I stopped my participation in yesterday night’s (my time) CCWG call somewhere halfway agenda item “5. Legal advice”. Mainly because I think we’re wasting so much precious time with the discussion on and comparison of two models, of which one should have been written off sometime back. My earlier emails copied below should provide more information on my rationale, but should also serve as formal input into the process. 2) What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the point of the possibility (or not) of a single membership structure – an option mentioned by Sidley and Adler & Colving in their legal advice – several times by now without getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any serious effort to investigate this has led to a formal write-off. So, co-chairs: what is happening here or what have I missed? Best, Roelof On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Dear Jordan, all, I couldn’t attend the call, so I probably missed something. But how did we end up with the two law firms we hire stating: „On balance, “member” organization provides the clearest path for the ICANN community to exercise the mechanisms and powers under consideration. „ and our rapporteur concluding: "Following the CCWG meeting on 10 April, the rapporteur had assumed there would be clarity regarding the proposed mechanism. This has not occurred„ Best, Roelof On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Greg, Jordan, What I fail to understand is that -because we do not have the expertise „in house”- we hire two firms that are experts in this field, they give us their shared opinion and we do not follow that. It seems to me that this is one of those things that makes this whole process sometimes so slow and incredibly time consuming. Do not misunderstand me, I respect the legal experts we have in the CCWG. But we pay (ICANN pays, so the internet community pays) dearly for this advice, they are both renown firms that we took quite some time to select. Why not accept the outcome and move forward, spending our precious time on all the work that still has to be done? Best, Roelof On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Greg, Thanks for that. Still, if I look at the difference in "amount of boxes ticked" in the part „summary of desired powers” of the slide deck of 14 April prepared by counsel, I see no point in continuing to evaluate counsel’s advice re designators. Maybe you can help me out on another point though. In their memorandum/legal assessment of April 10, Sidley and Adler & Colvin mentioned the possibility of a „sole membership” structure. Meaning –as far as I understood it- that not every AC and every SO would become a member (and thus would have to become a legal entity), but the group of representatives of the SO’s and AC’s would form a single legal entity and would become ICANN’s sole member. I have sent several emails to this list suggesting we follow this up as one of the serious possibilities, without –as far as I am aware- any effect. Do you have any idea what happened to this particular part of counsel’s advice? Best, Roelof Groet, Roelof

17 43

Volume 7: IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions Volume 7: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions# > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#> ICANN is compiling updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe. CWG-Stewardship The final proposal by the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) was forwarded to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) following its approval by the CWG-Stewardship's five chartering organizations. Communication of formal approval by the chartering organizations, including any accompanying remarks, has now been published on the CWG-Stewardship's website: * GAC approval <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/GAC+Approval> * SSAC approval <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/SSAC+Approval> * GNSO approval <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/GNSO+Approval> * ccNSO approval <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/ccNSO+Approval> * ALAC approval <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/ALAC+Approval> Chartering organizations approved the proposal on the understanding that the necessary accountability mechanisms will be included in the final proposal for Work Stream 1 of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ). While the names proposal has now been forwarded to the ICG, the CWG-Stewardship will not disband yet. Outstanding work still to be conducted includes: * Coordinating the issue of the IANA trademark with the protocol parameters and names communities1 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#f oot1> . * Finalizing the work on Service Level Expectations (SLEs) * Responding to any queries arising from the ICG's efforts to integrate all three community proposals into a combined IANA stewardship proposal * Monitoring the CCWG-Accountability's final Work Stream 1 proposal to confirm it contains all that is required for the transition of stewardship of the names function to take place * Participating as appropriate in the implementation process of the names component of the proposal The CWG-Stewardship will continue to retain external legal counsel to assist in responding to any questions or input from the other operational communities the ICG on issues, such as the IANAtrademark issue, and in developing an implementation plan for the proposal. CCWG-Accountability During the public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> on the initial draft report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> of Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements, there were a number of community concerns about the proposal to move ICANN to a mandatory member or “designator” model. In response to these concerns, onsite at ICANN 53, the CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs encouraged all of its members to pitch any alternative model that might better suit the needs of the different communities that together create the ICANN community. A potential compromise model called the “Empowered SO/AC” model emerged, in which eachSupporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) has the choice of if, and when, to become a member (or designator) of ICANN. Under this model, all SOs and ACs would, by default, have all the benefits of the enhanced ICANN accountability framework, excluding the ability to use the courts as a method of enforcement. However, the power of enforceability could be claimed at any time, should anSO or AC choose to do so, by changing the SO/AC's status to become a formal member (or designator) of ICANN. Initial indications are that both the Designator and Member models could be applied under the Empowered SO/AC model, and the CCWG-Accountability is seeking legal advice on the most appropriate way forward. As the CCWG-Accountability is concentrating its efforts on determining an agreeable model before the target start date for its next public comment period at the end of July, the Co-chairs have announced <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+Public+Comment+Revie w+delay> that the summary of comments on the first comment period, originally due 29 June, will now be completed by early August. The CCWG-Accountability has created a third Work Party, WP3 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+-+Emerging+Issues> , to examine issues that have been identified following the publication of the initial draft report, including staff and management accountability, SO/AC accountability and enhancement of diversity. The CCWG-Accountability is also developing a process <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Bylaw%20drafting% 20process.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1435910021000&api=v2> for working with ICANN on drafting Bylaws associated with Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements to ensure the Bylaws can be adopted in a timely manner. ICG The ICG completed its assessment of the names proposal submitted by the CWG-Stewardship on its call #19 on 8 July. Drafts of the assessments are available in the ICG's Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names > . It has also received a formal objection to the names proposal <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> from a member of the community who had chosen not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html> in the CWG-Stewardship's work. The objection is on the basis that the final version of the names proposal was not presented for public comment before its presentation to the CWG-Stewardship chartering organizations for approval. As the ICG has a policy of non-interference with the consensus development processes of the three operational communities, the ICG is discussing passing the message back to the CWG-Stewardship for their comment. The ICG's Communications Sub-Group has developed a communications strategy <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojeo7le2ey8ag9a/ICG-Comm-strategy-v5.doc?dl=0> to engage the multistakeholder community as broadly as possible when the combined proposal is released for public comment. The communications strategy includes holding webinars to brief the community, producing graphics and slides to provide high-level overviews of the proposal, and translations of key materials. Timeline for stewardship transition On 6 July, the ICG replied <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/2015-07-06-Letter-from-ICG-t o-to-NTIA.pdf> to the NTIA's letter of 6 May <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> , which asked for information about the timeline for completing the transition. The ICG noted there are three remaining phases of the transition process: * Transition proposal finalization – the ICG hopes to have the final proposal delivered to the NTIAvia the ICANN Board around the time of ICANN 54, 18-22 October 2015, or shortly thereafter. TheICG considers this an optimistic timeline. * U.S. Government evaluation – Based on the ICG's understanding of comments made by the NTIAduring ICANN 53, this phase would take 4-5 months, and would be completed around March 2016. * Implementation of prerequisites Based on these three phases, the ICG has suggested to the NTIA that the earliest date at which the transition of stewardship is likely to be completed is July 2016. The Co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability have also replied to the NTIA <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+ACCT+reply+to+letter +received+on+6+May+2015> , noting that the July 2016 completion date for their work is a best-case scenario, and that it may be necessary to extend the implementation of Work Stream 1 accountability mechanisms through to September 2016. <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-update-605x443-09jul 15-en.png> Updates on other transition-related activities IANA-related discussions * On 8 July, the Africa Domain Name System Forum 2015 <http://www.aftld.org/events/?_sfwCOM=Event:Show;233050> held a discussion on the IANAStewardship Transition. * On 3 July, the APrIGF 2015 <http://2015.rigf.asia/> held a discussion on the transition <http://apps.rigf.asia/submission/proposaldetail?id=44> as part of its Asia Pacific Leadership Program track. U.S. Government processes related to the IANA stewardship transition * The Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015, also known as the Dotcom Act of 2015, (H.R. 805 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/all-info> ) was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June. It has now been sent to the Senate for its consideration. * The Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives held a hearing, Internet Governance Progress After ICANN 53 <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/internet-governance-progress-after- icann-53?utm_content=buffer1b28a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&ut m_campaign=buffer> , on July 8. Witnesses were ICANN President and CEO, Fadi Chehadé and NTIA's Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator, Lawrence E. Strickling. The focus of the hearing was a reporting on the status of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Latest documents and drafts 4 Jul 2015ICG – Combined IANA Stewardship proposal <https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbvb8s9o2mrn2qd/combined-proposal-v2-MI.doc?dl=0> , Draft version 2 2 Jul 2015 CCWG-Accountability – Bylaw drafting process <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Bylaw%20drafting% 20process.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1435910021000&api=v2> 1 Jul 2015 CCWG-Accountability – Discussion Starters on Staff Accountability <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Staff%20accountab ility%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=143631013100 0&api=v2> , SO/ACAccountability <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/SOAC%20Accountabi lity%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310225000 &api=v2> , Board Duties <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Board%20duties%20 -%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310237000&api=v2 > , and Diversity <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Diversity%20-%20d iscussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310251000&api=v2> 11 Jun 2015 CWG-Stewardship – Final Proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> (approved by Chartering Organizations) IANA stewardship in the news 9 Jul 2015 Icann Says End of US Oversight Role 'Strengthens' the Internet, AFP [EN] 30 Jun 2015Managing the Internet takes patience and nuance: Two things short in supply <http://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/managing-the-internet-takes-patience-and- nuance-two-things-short-in-supply/375688> , IT World Canada [EN] 22 Jun 2015USA verlängern Aufsicht über IANA noch einmal <http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/USA-verlaengern-Aufsicht-ueber-IANA-noch- einmal-2719142.html> , Heise [DE] 19 Jun 2015В МИД РФ выступили за регулирование интернета со стороны ООН и Международного союза электросвязи <http://www.interfax.ru/russia/448359> , Interfax [RU] Upcoming key dates 9 Jul 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #61 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782830> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 14 Jul 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #40 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782553> , 12:00 - 14:00 UTC 15 Jul 2015ICG Teleconference #20 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 19:00-21:00 UTC 17-18 Jul 2015 CCWG-Accountability face-to-face meeting, Paris 29 Jul 2015ICG Teleconference #21 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 5:00-7:00 UTC 31 Jul 2015 Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) due to begin Week of 3 Aug 2015 Public Comment Period on Interim Final IANA Stewardship Proposal, consisting of names, numbers and protocol parameter components, begins 3-7 Aug 2015 3 webinars: briefings on ICG combined proposal released for public comment (times to be confirmed) 18-19 Sep 2015ICG face-to-face meeting <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-face-to-face-meeting-for-18-19-septemb er/> , Los Angeles 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015 CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented to ALAC, ASO,ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval 18-22 Oct 2015ICANN 54 including ICG face-to-face meeting and presentation of proposals for IANAstewardship and ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) to the ICANNBoard for subsequent transmission to the NTIA Week 1, Nov 2015ICANN Board transmits IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability (Work Stream 1) Proposals to NTIA You can play a role in IANA's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability.For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org> . Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 9 July 2015 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#n ote1> The final proposal by the CWG-Stewardship contains placeholder text about the IANA trademark and domain name registration, and contains no concrete proposal on how these issues should be handled. The group provided clarification <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783129> to the ICG on its Final Proposal text on 2 July. PDF <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-09j ul15-en.pdf> 516 KB

1 0

Internet culture and its applicability to the work of the CCWG
by George Sadowsky July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

I thank the CCWG lawyers for describing more clearly the spectrum of model choices at the Wednesday working session i Buenos Aires (slide 4, The Trust-Enforceability Continuum, attached below to this message). The point I was making in that meeting before I was cut off is the following: In deciding what balance to select between trust and enforcement, recognize fully the culture of the development of the Internet and the very substantial value in respecting and employing it to the maximum extent possible. The early history of the Internet is characterized by massive multi-stakeholder cooperation on primarily a voluntary basis. Academic institutions, governments, and industry worked together voluntarily and cooperatively to create first the ARPANET and then the general purpose Internet. Although commercialization occurred in the Internet space from 1990 onwards, it was clear that the motivating force for the spread of the Internet, both in the United States and internationally, was an enthusiasm among people to spread this new tool and to maximize its use for all kinds of human endeavors. Without this culture of cooperation and sharing, the Internet could not possibly have some have developed as quickly or as pervasively as occurred. This spirit of cooperation and sharing and volunteerism still exists to a large extent today. One obvious example is the volunteer community that surrounds ICANN. To the extent that ICANN can successfully continue as an organization in the Internet ecosystem using a voluntary model of trust and enforceability, it's my opinion that this culture will continue to provide substantial dividends for the evolution of ICANN as well as of the Internet. To the extent that the CCWG pushes the balance point on the continuum to require judicial contracts and judicial enforcement, this we lose the benefits of this culture and of these desirable characteristics. This is an important decision and the results of the choice of balance point will affect the Internet for years to come. I strongly urge you to converge in favor of a balance point that is as close to the voluntary cooperation model as you can. I recognize that total reliance on the voluntary cooperation model is probably not feasible, nevertheless I urge you to use that as a starting point, and then, on the basis of real evidence of possible misuse or misapplication of that model by the staff, the board, or any of the constituent parts of ICANN, add accountability mechanisms that would prevent such future misuse. Starting from the judicial enforcement end of the spectrum, is likely to result in a litigiously-based web of relationships that will serve more to to assume and strengthen mistrust among our constituent parts rather than to engender trust. This would be going in exactly the wrong direction. Finally, if trust is the real issue underlying much of these discussions, let's solve the trust issue in parallel with addressing the accountability issue. Let's not use one as a disguised proxy for the other. George

1 0