July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Dublin Meeting F2F?
by Dr Eberhard Lisse July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, can you please advise, at your most earliest convenience, whether you again intend to hold a Face to Face meeting prior to the main meeting and if so whether this will be on the preceding Friday (2015-10-16) or (better) Saturday (2015-10-17)? I am sure I am not alone in wishing to make travel arrangements as early as possible. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure/ rights of inspection
by Phil Buckingham July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Kieren, I could nt agree more with your comment. I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. 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. I find the following http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/ very revealing and unacceptable. Thanks, Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 09 July 2015 11:07 To: Roelof Meijer Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure Dear Roelof Thank you for your useful thoughts and thoughts of those other colleagues in exercising the inspection rights and other rights as mentioned I need some clarification on your message in saying Quote " But when it comes to recalling an individual board member or other powers to be exercised by a single member, the single member model raises substantial issues." Unquote What do you mean by other powers? Apart from recalling individual Board,s member what are those other powers from 7 powers that you categorized as raises substantial issues? Regards kavouss 2015-07-09 11:00 GMT+03:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net>: +99 On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Roelof: Derivative rights and the right of inspection are statutory rights of members under California law. Under a multiple member model, each member could choose to exercise these rights individually. Under a single member model, only the single statutory member would have these rights. Maybe this could be "fixed" so that individual SOACs could exercise these rights in the name of the single member, but I don't know if that works. If we don't care to have those rights (or any of the rights that members have individually), then a single member set-up might work. I would note that the right to inspect ICANN documents (currently only available in a DIDP) has been an issue of concern. I would also note that derivative rights are a powerful tool for enforcement against an entity. I agree that when it comes to spilling the whole board, or other powers intended to be exercised by the community as a whole,, the single member model has the least issues vis a vis the multiple member model. But when it comes to recalling an individual board member or other powers to be exercised by a single member, the single member model raises substantial issues. Greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Hi Ed, Although I have no clue about what it actually means, I am quite positive that “components of the community” .. “be[ing] able to avail itself of derivative rights or the right of inspection” is not a requirement that we formulated as a power, nor a criterium we formulated for the selection of a mechanism. So I am at a bit of a loss where that comes from. Additionally, I do not see why stakeholders represented “in a single tent” requiring a specified majority among those representatives to execute a specific power (let’s say spilling the board) would have less vitality and more blob, than stakeholders in separate legal entities equally requiring the same specified majority among those entities to execute a specific power. Best, Roelof From: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 16:24 To: Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Cc: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>>, "avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure I look forward to independent counsel's analysis of this proposal. Certainly my principle objection with this model is the nullification of many of the benefits membership would bring to components of the community. If the GNSO, for example, felt strongly about an issue it would not be able to avail itself of derivative rights or the right of inspection without the consent of the greater community. Diversity is the strength of the multistakeholder model and folding all rights into a single tent would dampen the vitality of the diverse bottom up process and instead submerge it into a giant blob like unit. I do remain open, though, to others thoughts on the matter and thank Roelof for bringing it up. Ed Sent from my iPad On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: If this would achieve the same result as the broader membership model and at the same time be simpler to implement shouldn't it be looked at again? Was there a specific reason it was discounted? Matthew On 4/22/2015 2:56 PM, Roelof Meijer wrote: Hi Avri, The sole membership construction, is a possibility described in the legal document in several places: the comments by the legal experts on the PCCWG mechanism template (page 64) and the Community Council mechanism template (page 69). I sent several emails about it to the WP1 list, suggesting to look in the possibility as indeed it would not necessitate every SO and AC to become a legal entity. And, as you do, suggesting: "make the „Community Council” the sole member of ICANN (and thus a formal legal entity), consisting of either the SO and AC chairs or SO/AC elected representatives” (from an email of 14 April). And I would think it would enable the SO’s and AC’s themselves to continue appointing directors, as they do now. But that’s just guessing, based on the fact that the SO’s and AC’s themselves would not change status Best, Roelof From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: "avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure Hi, On 22-Apr-15 08:26, Roelof Meijer wrote: 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. In some way that might lessen the complexity of making most SOAC an individual legal entity. How would it work? Would we continue to appoint Directors just as we do now? Or would there need to be some sort of Members Council that took actions, working simliarly to the the executive board or community council idea? thanks avri ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #7 (8 July)
by Kimberly Carlson July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #7 - 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783219 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action item: Para 76 discussion, need to get text to the list to continue discussing. Action item for Becky and Malcolm to deliver text. Notes Two main areas for the group to review, 1 the mission and core values and commitments statements, some significant comments to review, and, 2 significant issues on the IRP. Today focus on the mission and core values and commitments statements portions. Discussion of the issues we saw. Malcolm, review doc " WP2: Categorising Public Comment Replies" To index and access comments we received, don't miss comments. Organize thinking. Seeking common topics under discussion, even opposing points of view. Grouped together. Sub-topics on page two and groupings. Each had multiple comments. page 3 discusses what the topics were ICANN powers should be defined powers. Including that ICANN should not undertake activities outside the powers, and comments that ICANN should consider Human Rights. 17 spoke to the idea of enumerated powers. 19 spoke about ICANN to have a general regulatory power. Or spoke to HR and freedom of expression as outside the powers. Contract compliance issues, mainly from those in the intellectual property community Need to reconcile views, for example over those of the human right community and IPR community. Core values and balance against commitments ICANN and govt and the law. Concept of private sector lead, vs public policy lead etc. Deference that should or should not be given to the GAC and GAC advice. The requirement to comply with local law or international law. Some concerns or divergence or new ideas about what the core values should be. Multistakeholderism, and adherence to that. Use of the phrase public good or public interest. A technical section about consumer choice, and ref to para 60 and para 337. Issue of enforceability. Mutability and ability to change the core values, should they be fundamental bylaws etc. The non DNS elements of ICANN's role: numbers, protocols, relationship with ccTLDs. Mainly comments about preserving their independence from ICANN. No specifics, mainly to the proposal as a whole. Some issues about what the process should be, methodology etc. Comment, in WP1 working by piecemeal comment analysis, and much harder to update. Very easy in this consolidated form. And we all need to update the PC tool and explain to commenters what we have done Comments on the categories being proposed? Big groups of comments: concern that the balancing test needs to be refined and thought about more carefully, and this goes to the issues of public good and public interest. Needs discussion. Difficult when we do not know the reference model. And we are in some state of flux. For the group today, they are model neutral. The underpinning will be the mission and core values The threshold question, we didn't explain why we are suggesting change. Is it in the document? See para 68 of the proposal. When we discussed this, the discretion given with respect to balancing is very broad, and in an IRP etc, there will be deference given to the decision maker with respect to the balance. Are we comfortable with that? Are there some matters that they are so fundamental that they balancing should take note of that. Responses: looks like you are sacrificing these values to the public interest. Some responded positively, that we were saying those core values must be met. And others who said that this was importing a very US jurisprudence approach. Suggests that the language too specific. The test is commonly used, but in Canadian and European law there's an approach abut commonality. But the criticism was to not model too closely on a legal approach from some specific jurisdiction. Remove the specific language and make higher level, that ensures fundamental commitments are adhered to in all cases. Para 71-76 Keep 71 or something like. Replace 72-76 with a more general statement. In carrying out its work ICANN should strive to fully adhere to these commitments and core values. What examples can we think of to test this? Commitments, not core values. No read off in the fundamental commitments. Para 76 needed or a general para 76. In relation to core values need to retain para 76. In terms of commitments they shouldn't need a trade off, though not sure its always possible, so we might need kind of para 76. Sense an appeal to the approach, but need to see text to feel comfortable with it. About para 76 discussion, need to get text to the list to continue discussing about this. Action item for Becky and Malcolm to deliver this. Public interest, concern about how to identify this, and then that it wasn't getting enough attention. The public interest would be identified through the bottom up process. para 105. Competing concerns. that the public interest wasn't getting enough focus, and that it was too vague a phrase. Views on this? Para 105: No comma before identify, which means we believe the bottom-up process inherently leads to the public interest. Looking for ways to constrain the ICANN mission. Not sure how either of the 2 sides could be made stronger. The public interest takes on what is perceived by the eye of the beholder. A platonic ideal. Don't know how it will be applied. A number of comments to say that the inclusion of public interest should not be an excuse to expand the work of ICANN Suggestion of bottom-up process and within ICANN's remit. Strengthen, by including reference to ICANN's remit. Agreement? If that's the way then several commenters have suggested language to do that. Private sector led language, with the explanation of what it means. And some govt want to remove that. Some noted link to the NTIA requirements. Some governments felt it would reduce the leverage of non commercial interest. Clarifying text? Para 110. Adding new language. Comments supported the red text. Important to the Board and IRP panel to give support to say no to GAC advice. Govt notion of sovereignty and public policy knows no bounds. So a different way of saying it, that there are limits to this. Concerns were about deference to the govt. Concerns about capture. Square bracket language about avoiding capture, Text we should write or the outcome of a process. Avri: get the right wording and include it Steve: not explicit, but many places in the proposal that seek to avoid capture. Para 111. Leave as is? Many comments starting Para 60 and 337 consumer choice. From the AoC. OK in some of this in terms of competition, security and stability, but didn't address other issues in the same way. We brought in the reviews, and that the first para commitments of the reviews should be brought into the bylaws. Starting with malicious abuse and rights protections seem to be issues people were concerned about being missing. But what are the issues being referred to when saying what sovereignty concerns, malicious abuse and rights protections actually mean. They were omitted for these lack of clarity issues and no easy place to put it. Perhaps context is needed, and it is in the AoC. As it expands is unclear, ways to make this clearer. Then commitment would be in expanding the top level space, its expansion this things will be addressed. Rewordsmithing the AoC language is a concern. Not ambiguous. Says what we need it to say. Care not to renegotiate the AoC, when we are importing. Suggestion: ICANN will ensure that its expansion of the top level domain space will adequately address issues of, etc. Greg against change to text. And the suggestion actually changes the proposal's intent. OK with Becky's language? Get back on the list? Mission statement and avoidance of doubt. Monday's call - focus on the IRP. Comments not organized quite the same way. And hope to circulate another version of the core values, mission etc before the next call. Also the stress test party test #23 related to the IRP. And will be on the agenda. Has question and will send by email. END

1 0

Outline of Paris F2F meeting
by Mathieu Weill July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of our call tomorrow, here are a few points outlining the current thinking about the face to face in Paris. Goal of the meeting : 2 weeks before the publication of our second (and hopefully last) WS1 public comment the overarching goal will be to find the common views that will be detailed in our 2nd draft proposals. The expected outcome of the meeting is that we find common ground on most of, if not all the open discussions. Agenda of the meeting : Our plans are to work 8.30-18.00 local time (CEST, UTC+2), with lunch break from 12.00 to 13.00. Our plan is to define a topic based agenda, including : - WP3 proposals (emerging issues) - Community mechanism model (including thorough Q&A with lawyers) - modalities of of community mechanisms - Removal / recall Board members refinements - Government input related discussions (the BA GAC communiqué announced upcoming contributions before Paris) - IRP refinements We might have to plan sessions on the most difficult topics on day 1 and on day 2 to enable consensus building. Please let us know either on list or during the call tomorrow if you have specific suggestions or feedbacks regarding this plan for the meeting. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

10 13

CCWG documentation
by Avri Doria July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Hi In the last few hours there has been a vast improvement. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Plenary+Drafts+for+CCWG-A… I actually went and found what I was looking for, instantly. thank you thank you avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

3 3

An important reminder from the past
by Kieren McCarthy July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

I was reminded of a piece of ICANN history the other day and felt it might be useful to share. When ICANN did its last big self-review in 2000-2002 after an enormous amount of discussion and back-and-forth and high-level review, the community decided there needed to be a dedicated person to make sure that it was easy for people to get involved in ICANN and to be the point person for input from the community. This was deemed so important that it was written into the bylaws: a similar idea to the 'fundamental bylaws' we are looking at now. In order to make sure the role was given the proper weight, the role would report direct to the president. The role of "manager of public participation" was clearly and deliberately described and it had the full backing of the community following a long consultation process. This was December 2002. It is still in the bylaws - see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#III, section 3. However, once the pressure was off, ICANN the corporation simply ignored the role. Someone was hired to do corporate communications because of the United Nations' WSIS process - in February 2004 - and the "participation" element was added to the job title. Kieran Baker became "General manager, communications and public participation". The "communications" part was 95 per cent of the job. When Baker left, ICANN hired a VP of corporate affairs and only then hired someone specifically for its bylaws role of "manager of public participation". That was me and it was December 2006 - four years after the community added the role. On taking that role, it was made plain to me by both senior management and Board members that despite the job description being in the bylaws, things had evolved and the job provided no authority over communication, or participation, or the website. My point in highlighting this piece of history is that despite: * Community agreement after a long review * The result of that review being added to the bylaws * A very clear description having been produced ICANN corporate was able to simply ignore and then repurpose the role. The "general manager" of public participation became "senior director" and then "senior director of participation and engagement". There hasn't been anyone in the role since Filiz Yilmaz left in December 2012. So, when considering what accountability changes need to be made to ICANN in 2015, please don't be fooled into believing that just because: * You describe things clearly * You reach agreement * You add it to the bylaws That it will actually happen. If anything, reaching agreement on what needs to be done is literally half the job. The other half is making sure that it is actually implemented and implemented in the right way while the pressure is still on ICANN. Otherwise the first time something that you agree on now may end up being addd to ICANN could be 2020. And only then in a way that ICANN corporate wants it to be. I hope this serves as a useful reminder. Kieren

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
by Burr, Becky July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

I agree Christopher, but everything we have heard says the court issue is manageable. But we keep fixating on it Sent from my iPad > On Jul 8, 2015, at 5:23 PM, CW Lists <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: > > Becky: > > It matters a great deal. A system, albeit in US jurisdiction, that depends on US courts could not be entertained. > > CW > > > > >> On 08 Jul 2015, at 22:42, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: >> >> Avri - >> >> Does it matter to you if the jaws are the jaws of a court or the jaws of >> the IRP? >> >> B >> 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 / www.neustar.biz >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7/7/15, 8:49 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do want to point out that I have moved away from the voluntary >>> community model, though it remains dear to my heart to accepting a form >>> of designator model. >>> >>> I also see that the empowered membership models, is in some ways, >>> similar to the empowered designator model. Unfortunately it also has >>> the ability to slide down the slope to a full membership model. and as >>> I have argued, I think that leaves ICANN not only without proper checks >>> and balnces, but into the jaws of the courts. >>> >>> avri >>> >>>> On 07-Jul-15 08:29, Jordan Carter wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Firstly I think facts speak for themselves, but it is our >>>> understanding of them - including how they change through the >>>> accumulation of further facts - that changes over time. And am not a >>>> scientist. Nor a lawyer :-) >>>> >>>> On Avri's broad point, it does summn up a nub of the debate. I >>>> reiterate for the record that my concern with ICANN's post-transition >>>> reality is that power is concentrated from the status quo (NTIA - >>>> Board, with community advie) into a newly powerful and concentrated >>>> single entity - the ICANN Board. >>>> >>>> The purpose of a membership or designator model is to distribute power >>>> into the global multistakeholder community, as organised through the >>>> SO/AC structure, which is how ICANN organises the various stakeholders >>>> with interests in the DNS. >>>> >>>> There's no claim of perfection in such a model. Quite the opposite. >>>> The whole point of a distribution of power is to share accountability >>>> and responsibility more broadly. >>>> >>>> The "voluntary" model concentrates power in one place to an unhealthy >>>> degree. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could accept a >>>> clear worsening of accountability and concentration of power that it >>>> represents, compared with the status quo. >>>> >>>> Seems to me the sole difference between members and designators comes >>>> down to how strong you want the auhority of the community to be. >>>> Neither represents "total" power: there is no abrogation in either of >>>> the Board's responsibility to govern ICANN consistent with its limited >>>> mission and consistent with the global public interest. >>>> >>>> All that either offers is an acknowledgement that authority in the DNS >>>> community should lie with stakeholders. Organised through the SOs and >>>> ACs. >>>> >>>> That's the same as where authority in the RIR community lies. >>>> >>>> As I understand it, it is also pretty similar towhere authority in >>>> the protocols community lies. >>>> >>>> It isn't clear to me why the names community would settle for a less >>>> reliable and reputable model. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyhow, much fodder for thought as we come to Paris. I think we have >>>> to acknowledge that the differences here are of degree, except in >>>> regards to the voluntary model. That oe stands on its own as a unique >>>> reallocation of authority into a single place in a manner that would >>>> ceate serious risks for all of us in assuring the stability and >>>> security of the DNS. >>>> >>>> best >>>> Jordan >>>> >>>> On 7 July 2015 at 23:52, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org >>>> <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> To start, I believe that facts are just things that people believe >>>> to >>>> be the case. I try not to speak of anthing stronger that a belief. >>>> Both my personal history and world histoy, even history of science >>>> - >>>> that bastion of fact, shows me that yesterda's Fact is often just a >>>> matter of prejudice, superstition and point of view. >>>> >>>> In terms of the accountability problem with the membership model, >>>> it has >>>> been discussed before. Fairly extensively. Some of the gaps such as >>>> those exposed by the UA have been eliminated, but others have >>>> not. Some >>>> involve the degree to which the various SOAC are really the solid >>>> organizations we portray. As Iwrote in an earlier message where i >>>> spoke of the SOAC themselves: >>>>> Having been a member or observer of many of these entities I >>>> have fond >>>>> that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong >>>> personalities in >>>>> a se of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when >>>> needed. >>>>> They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed >>>> to in the >>>>> charters, hough some do, not all of them. And for the most >>>> part, though >>>>> they are supposed to transparent, most aren't. >>>> >>>> Are these structures really fit of unchecked rule? How can we >>>> show that? >>>> >>>> For me the primary deficit is the loss of checks and balances. >>>> >>>> The current system relies on a set of checks and balances between >>>> the >>>> Board andthe rest of the community. The current problem is that >>>> the >>>> power of the rest of the community seem too weak to many, allowing >>>> the >>>> Board to seemingly work without any checks on its activities. >>>> >>>> By strengthening the community in the designator model, we >>>> strengthen >>>> the set of checks and balance between the Board and the rest of the >>>> community. By doing so, we increase accountability. >>>> >>>> There is a reciprocity in this notion of accountability, one that >>>> does >>>> not require external oversight. We vote them in, can appeal the >>>> board >>>> in a serious manner and will even be able to vote them out by >>>> some yet >>>> to be determined procedure. And the Board, can review the degree to >>>> which the stakeholder groups are fulfilling their mandate to >>>> represent >>>> the larger community within the ICANN mission. In a sense there is >>>> mutual reciprocal oversight. The Board and the rest of the community >>>> check each other and establish a functional balance. Most of the >>>> this >>>> CCWG's activities are working on the details of these check and >>>> balances. >>>> >>>> That is other than the grand reorganization of ICANN into a >>>> membership >>>> organization. Something that leaves the current check and balances >>>> behind and attempts to create a major new structure. >>>> >>>> In the designator model the Board can make decisions and we can >>>> appeal >>>> them. And we make recommendations and give advise the Board needs to >>>> give it serious consideration on penalty of appeal. In extreme >>>> case they >>>> can be removed from their duties and we can be subjected to >>>> disussions >>>> of reorganization. >>>> >>>> Going to the membership model eliminaes this balance by giving the >>>> putative community representatives supreme power. How can that >>> power be >>>> appealed? Can membership decisions be appealed, by whom and to >>>> whom? >>>> Who determines whether the ACSO are adequately representing the >>>> global >>>> community and living up to their obligations under the bylaws? >>>> Membership turns the Board into an administrative unit without >>>> sufficient power to act as a check or balance to the ACSOs. >>>> >>>> Eliminating any checks and balances on the ACSO from the >>>> accountability >>>> equation seems to be a critical failure to me in the creation of a >>>> new >>>> accountability regime. Perhaps if we were going with the individual >>>> membership option a degree of accountability to global members >>>> could be >>>> argued, not sure. But I believe that is not what we are working >>>> on as >>>> that would involve even greater difficulty to get right. We are >>>> not even >>>> working on a model where organizations that exist on their own come >>>> together to form a group. Our ACSO are artificial organizations >>>> created >>>> by and within ICANN. Our multistakeholder model depends on the >>>> interaction and interplay of these organization with the Board and >>>> on >>>> the checks and balances between them. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you have 'fact based' responses to all the possible >>>> accountability questions that NTIA might ask us about this new power >>>> structure you favor. I do not believe tht you can show how the >>>> ACSO >>>> will be responsible to the global Internet community. I a rogue set of ACSO can be stopped from doing >>>> things >>>> that harm the organizations or the Internet without allowing the >>>> Board >>>> some degree of decision making based on the confluence of >>>> recommendations and advice received from the various ACSO and the >>>> greater community. >>>> >>>> As was stated in the call by NTIA, it was up to us to show how >>>> anything >>>> new we created could be held accountable. As far as I can tell in >>>> membership there is no way to hold the members accountable. In the >>>> designator model we show how we are adding accountability >>>> measures. In >>>> the membership model we require the ACSO to verify their own >>>> representativity, but I have seen no expression of how they can do >>>> that >>>> or show that it is the case. When I speak of having a "much higher >>>> threshold" in proving ACSO accountabilty to the global public >>>> interest, >>>> this is what I mean. How are you going to prove, as you say - with >>>> the >>>> facts that you believe in, that the membership model is more >>>> accountable >>>> given its unassailable postion in a membership organization. >>>> >>>> I have seen no evidence of membership creating greater >>>> accountability to >>>> the global public interest. I cannot state that I believe it is >>>> impossible for it to do so, just that I have seen no evidence of it. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 06-Jul-15 21:01, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> Hello Avri, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to >>>> the full >>>>> diversity of stakeholders to a much higher threshold, >>>> including the >>>>> issue of the degree to which ICANN is accountable to >>>> stakeholders not >>>>> included among our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among >>>> parrticpating CCs >>>>> and govts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than >>>>> belief. Maybe there is something I have missed. There is >>>> absolutely no >>>>> difference in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the >>>>> empowered membership and empowered designator models.At least I >>>> don't >>>>> see any. Both are based upon the current SOAC's. If there is a >>>>> ifference in this area I need to and want to be educated. Please >>>>> respond with specific and detailed instances or examples of why >>>> what >>>>> you claim is true is. Vague general > Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded but with substantive >>>>> fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs. >>>>> >>>>> No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for >>>>> individual membership. That, again, is a membership modip model and if not why not? Would you >>>>> prefer other models to be looked at that are not based upon the >>>>> SOAC's? I think that would be a very reasonable position and one I >>>>> certainly am open to supporting if a workable model would be >>>> proposed. >>>>> As yet I have not seen o > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think enough of the comments bring out questions of >>>>> accountability in >>>>> p option less >>>> than >>>>> optimal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public >>>> comments >>>>> which were basically supportive of membership. Are these >>>> comments you >>>>> refer to based upon vague generalities or specific proboblems what specifically are they? Should we not >>>>> determine whether there are solution to those problems rather >>> ht? If not, what are your views >>>> as to >>>>> the ultimate apparent unenforceability of the designator model in >>>>> certain areas? Do you disagree with Paul Rosenzweig when he states >>>>> that "a direct community veto of budget and strategic plan remains >>>>> essential to accountability"? If not, what do you propose to do in >>>>> tese areas without membership. Should we simply forget them? >>>>> >>>>> I do think there may be another option or two out there and >>>> hopefully >>>>> working with our counsel we'll find them. >>>>> >>>>> In the interim, I really am looking to be educated. No one has >>>> taught >>>>> me more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri. >>>> I'm >>>>> just not easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based >>>> sort >>>>> of guy. As this process has moved forward I've seen your views and >>>>> positions change. To me, that is an admirable sign of someone >>>> truly >>>>> looking for an optimal answer rather than one who is clinging to a >>>>> defined position. I'm just having some trouble understanding, >>>>> factually, the specific objections you are now raising about >>>>> membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better >>>> test and >>>>> evaluate my own views.. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>>> +1. Well said. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck >>>>> <JZuck(a)actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org> >>>> <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> >>>>>> <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org> >>>> <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm. I think it¹s important to bear in mind that there >>>> was >>>>>> overwhelming consensus among the public comments to >>>> support the >>>>>> membership model. The detractors from the model, while >>>> important >>>>>> and perhaps critical, are not in the majority. I¹m not >>>> sure this >>>>>> process speaks to how we better use counsel as much as >>>> how we >>>>>> achieve consensus on principles. >>>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> >>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>>] *On >>>>>> Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM >>>>>> *To:* Becky Burr >>>>>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers >>>> and what >>>>>> have they beenasked to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Becky, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to >>>> the fact >>>>>> that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I >>>>> understood >>>>>> it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen >>>> not >>>>> that I >>>>>> was entirely suggesting that those powers be off the >>>> table. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seem however that folks are only looking at the >>>> powers >>>>> and not >>>>>> at what it will take to have them. >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, I also did put in a reservation that we >>>> may not >>>>>> necessarily agree with those views but my concern is >>>> mainly that >>>>>> the ccwg does not spend so much time developing >>>> proposals >>>>> that we >>>>>> know has certain implementation requirements that are >>>> not >>>>>> compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think >>>> we should >>>>>> learn from the the past (based on comments from the >>>> last PC) and >>>>>> utilize legal council and volunteer hours more >>>> effectively. >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW speaking as participant. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky" >>>> <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz <mailto: > <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> >>>>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> >>>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Seun, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure why we would take direct >>>> budget/strat plan >>>>> veto >>>>>> off the table. Could you explain? Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Becky >>>>>> >>>>>> J. Beckwith Burr >>>>>> >>>>>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief >>>>> Privacy Officer >>>>>> >>>>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 >>>> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> >>>>> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: >>>>>> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> >>>>>> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> >>>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> >>>>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> >>>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz >>>> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>> / >>>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> >>>>> <http://www.neustar.biz> >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.bi-20&d=AwI… > > >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com >>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> >>>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>>> >>>>>> *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM >>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org >>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >>>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> >>>>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org >>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org >>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>>> >>>>>> *Cc: *Accountability Community >>>>>> <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>>> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the >>>> lawyers and >>>>>> what have they beenasked to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no problem with having a new proposal >>>> presented. >>>>>> However it is important that there some adherence >>>> to basic >>>>>> principles on proposals that the ccwg would not >>>> want to >>>>>> explore. Three areas comes to mind: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Its my understanding that anything that will >>>> turn some/all >>>>>> of the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them >>>> to legal >>>>>> challenge is not acceptable >>>>>> >>>>>> - Its my understanding that anything that alloof >>>>>> individual board member without the approval of the >>>>> entire(or >>>>>> larger part) of the community is not acceptable >>>>>> >>>>>> - Its my understanding that a solution that allows >>>> direct >>>>>> community veto on certain elements like budget, >>>>> strategic plan >>>>>> et all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement >>>>> could be >>>>>> considered (i.e using a power to get another power >>>> executed >>>>>> indirectly) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, >>>> but my point >>>>>> is that there should be some focus going forward, >>>> especially >>>>>> if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross >>>>>> <robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> >>>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >>>> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also like to hear what they propose at >>>> this >>>>>> stage. I really don't see how it could hurt >>>> to have >>>>>> another proposal to consider. Larry >>>> Strickling did >>>>> say he >>>>>> wanted us to be sure we examined all the options >>>>> carefully. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 6, 2015, t 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. We should have the benefit of >>>> their >>>>> thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan >>>> Carter >>>>>> <jordant.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> >>>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I would really really like to >>>> see what the >>>>>> creative thinking they have done has >>>>> suggested. I >>>>>> trust our ability as a group to make >>>> decisions, >>>>>> and do not believe we should cut off >>>> input from >>>>>> any direction... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jordan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon >>>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net >>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >>>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net >>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> >>>>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net >>>> <mailtberinvasion.net> >>>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net >>>> <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes the 3rd model was brought up, >>>> and the >>>>>> lawyers feel that it might be a >>>> cleaner way >>>> for us to get the powers that we >>>> need. >>>>>> >>>>>> But without a call from the CCWG to >>>>> present it >>>>>> they feel that its not their >>>> position to >>>>>> propose a model on their own >>>> initiative. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally i would like to see >>>> what they >>>>> have >>>>>> come up with but the CCWG would >>>> need to >>>>> ask as >>>>>> an overall group for the chairs to >>>>> direct them >>>>>> to give some more information on the >>>>> model if >>>>>> we wanted it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think if after we hear from them >>>> on >>>>> Tuesdays >>>>>> call we still feel we might have >>>> some >>>>>> shortcomings that it might be the >>>> time >>>>> to ask >>>>>> them about the 3rd option. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also +1 I think they are really >>>> enjoying the >>>>>> and are finding themselves >>>> getting more >>>>>> and more involved as we go on, >>>> which is >>>>> great >>>>>> for the CCWG as the more >>>> background and >>>>>> details they know the better that >>>> are >>>>> able to >>>>>> give us solid well reasoned advice >>>> in my >>>>> opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, Avri >>>> Doria >>>>>> <avri(a)acm.org >>>> <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> >>>>> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >>>> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not had a chance to get >>>> back >>>>> to the >>>>>> recording of the call. Not >>>>>> sure I wilt time was the >>>> time >>>>> I had >>>>>> for that call and that is why >>>>>> i was listening then. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, th lawyers were >>>> talking >>>>>> about a new model they had come >>>> up >>>>>> with, but not knowing what to do >>>>> about it >>>>>> since they had not been asked >>>>>> for a new model. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was told to leave before I >>>> got to hear >>>>>> the end of that story. Or about >>>>>> the model itself. Anyone who >>>> has had a >>>>>> chance to listen, whatever >>>> happened? >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> ps. sometimes i think the >>>> lawyers are >>>>>> getting interested in what we >>>> are >>>>>> doing, almost like >>>> stakeholders. not >>>>> that >>>>>> i expect them to give up their >>>>>> hourly rates because they are >>>>> stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James >>>> Gannon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I listened to the last >>>> co-chairs >>>>>> lawyers¹ call at; >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_ >>>> pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lUL >>>> rw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG >>>> rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=zSmXcLCXRxT8cvoxbhuDA2mgEJqygwNhe2KdqzxJaeo&e= >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org >>>> _pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU >>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HA >>>> BE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=> >>>>>> (I¹m a glutton for >>>> punishment) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was a short call and >>>> I¹ll make a >>>>>> particular note that Leon >>>> and >>>>>> Mathieu made a point of not >>>>> making any >>>>>> decisions on behalf of the >>>>>> whole group and made it >>>> clear >>>>> anything >>>>>> requiring a decision must be >>>>>> made by the overall CCWG, >>>> so I was >>>>>> happy with that side of >>>> things >>>>>> myself, ost of my own fears >>>>> about not >>>>>> having a sub-group are >>>> somewhat >>>>>> assuaged. >>>>>> >>>>>> So my paraphrasing and >>>> overview is: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> · Lawyers working >>>> hard >>>>> on the >>>>>> models for us >>>> collaboratively >>>>>> between the two firms since >>>> BA >>>>>> >>>>>> · Lawyers are >>>> prepping a >>>>>> presentation to give to us >>>> ASAP >>>>>> before Paris if possible, >>>> that >>>>>> presentation will take the >>>>> majority of >>>>>> a call, it can¹t be done >>>>> quickly, they >>>>>> need about 45mins >>>> uninterrupted >>>>>> to go through the >>>> presentation and >>>>>> then would likely need Q&A >>>> time >>>>>> after they present. >>>>>> >>>>>> · Some small >>>>>> wording/clarifications to >>>> come >>>>> back to >>>>>> the CCWG >>>>>> to make sure everyone¹s on >>>> the >>>>> same page >>>>>> >>>>>> · Everyone feels >>>> Paris >>>>> will be >>>>>> an important time for the >>>>>> models, lawyers will be >>>> ready for a >>>>>> grilling on the details of >>>> the >>>>>> models from us to flesh >>>> out any >>>>> of our >>>>>> concerns/questions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that the above is all >>>> my very >>>>>> condensed overview of the >>>>>> conversations. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seemed like a >>>> productive call >>>>> to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -James >>>>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> >>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>>] >>>>>> *On Behalf >>>>>> Of *Greg Shatan >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, >>>> 2015 >>>>> 5:33 AM >>>>>> *To:* Carlos Raul >>>>>> *Cc:* >>>>> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] >>>> Who is >>>>>> managing the lawyers and >>>> what have >>>>>> they beenasked to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As the legal sub-team was >>>> disbanded, >>>>>> your guess is as good as >>>> mine..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at >>>> 12:27 AM, >>>>>> Carlos Raul >>>>> <carlosraulg(a)gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>> >>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>>> >>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Greg! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes a lot of sense >>>> and I >>>>> guess >>>>>> those are all good reasons >>>> as >>>>>> we hired them in the >>>> first place. >>>>>> What are the next steps now? >>>>>> What happened in the >>>> recent call? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >>>>>> >>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> >>>>> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> >>>>>> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> >>>>>> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skype carlos.raulg >>>>>> >>>>>> _________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Apartado 1571-1000 >>>>>> >>>>>> *COSTA RICA* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at >>>> 12:02 AM, >>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That was tried to >>>> some >>>>> extent, >>>>>> at least in the CWG. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are several >>>> substantial >>>>>> problems with that approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First, lawyers are >>>> not >>>>>> fungible. The particular >>>> legal >>>>> skills, >>>>>> background and >>>> experience >>>>>> required for the issues >>>> before both >>>>>> WGs are fairly >>>> specific, >>>>> and in >>>>>> some cases, very specific. >>>>>> The primary core >>>> competency >>>>>> needed here is corporate >>>>>> governance. While a >>>>> number of >>>>>> lawyers in the community >>>> have a >>>>>> reasonable working >>>>> knowledge of >>>>>> the area, at least in their >>>>>> home jurisdictions, >>>> I don't >>>>>> believe there are any who >>>> would >>>>>> say that this is >>>> their >>>>> primary >>>>>> focus and expertise -- at >>>> least >>>>>> none who identified >>>>> themselves >>>>>> to either WG. The second >>>> core >>>>>> competency required, >>>>> especially >>>>>> in the CCWG, is non-profit >>>>>> law. Again there >>>> are a number >>>>>> of lawyers with a decent >>>> working >>>>>> knowledge of this >>>> fairly >>>>> broad >>>>>> field, but not as a primary >>>>>> focus. There may >>>> be a couple >>>>>> of lawyers in the >>>> community who >>>>>> would claim this >>>> fairly broad >>>>>> field as a primary focus and >>>>>> expertise -- but >>>> none who >>>>>> became involved with >>>> either WG. >>>>>> This then becomes >>>> further >>>>>> narrowed by jurisdiction. >>>> Since >>>>>> ICANN is a California >>>>>> non-profit corporation, US >>>> corporate >>>>>> governance and >>>> non-profit >>>>>> experience is more >>>> relevant than >>>>>> experience from other >>>>>> jurisdictions, and >>>> California law >>>>>> corporate >>>> governance and >>>>>> non-profit experience is >>>> more >>>>>> relevant than that >>>> from other >>>>>> US jurisdictions. In my >>>>>> experience, the >>>> more a US >>>>>> lawyer focuses on a >>>> particular >>>>>> substantive area, >>>> the greater >>>>>> their knowledge of and >>>> comfort >>>>>> with state law >>>> issues in US >>>>>> state jurisdictions other >>>> than >>>>>> their own (e.g., >>>> someone who >>>>>> spend a majority of their >>>> time >>>>>> working in corporate >>>>> governance >>>>>> will have a greater >>>> knowledge >>>>>> of the law, issues, >>>>> approaches >>>>>> and trends outside their >>>>>> primary state of >>>> practice, >>>>>> while someone who spends a >>>>>> relatively small >>>> amount >>>>> of time >>>>>> in the area will tend to >>>> feel >>>>>> less comfortable >>>> outside >>>>> their >>>>>> home jurisdiction). (An >>>>>> exception is that >>>> many US >>>>>> lawyers have specific >>>> knowledge of >>>>>> certain Delaware >>>>> corporate law >>>>>> issues, because Delaware >>>> often >>>>>> serves as the state >>>> of >>>>>> incorporation for entities >>>> operating >>>>>> elsewhere.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, lawyers in >>>> the >>>>>> community will seldom be >>>> seen as >>>>>> neutral advisors, no >>>>> matter how >>>>>> hard they try. They will >>>> tend >>>>>> to be seen as >>>> working from >>>>>> their point of view or >>>> stakeholder >>>>>> group or "special >>>>> interest" or >>>>>> desired outcome, even if >>>> they >>>>>> are trying to be >>>> even-handed. >>>>>> Over the course of time, >>>> this >>>>>> balancing act would >>>> tend to >>>>>> become more untenable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Third, the amount >>>> of time it >>>>>> would take to provide truly >>>>>> definitive legal >>>> advice >>>>>> (research, careful drafting, >>>>>> discussions with >>>> relevant >>>>>> "clients", etc.) would be >>>>>> prohibitive, even >>>> compared to >>>>>> the substantial amount of >>>> time >>>>>> it takes to provide >>>>> reasonably >>>>>> well-informed and competent >>>>>> legal-based >>>> viewpoints in the >>>>>> course of either WG's work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fourth, in order to >>>> formally >>>>>> counsel the community, the >>>> lawyer >>>>>> or lawyers in >>>> question would >>>>>> have to enter into a formal >>>>>> attorney-client >>>> relationship. >>>>>> Under US law, an >>>>>> attorney-client >>>> relationship >>>>>> may inadvertently be >>>> created by >>>>>> the attorney's >>>> actions, so >>>>>> attorneys try to be >>>> careful about >>>>>> not providing >>>> formal legal >>>>>> advice without a formal >>>> engagement >>>>>> (sometimes providing >>>> an >>>>>> explicit "caveat" if they >>>> feel they >>>>>> might be getting >>>> too close to >>>>>> providing legal advice). >>>> If the >>>>>> attorney is >>>> employed by a >>>>>> corporation, they would >>>> likely be >>>>>> unable to take on >>>> such a >>>>>> representation due to the >>>> terms of >>>>>> their employment, >>>> and that is >>>>>> before getting to an >>>> exploration >>>>>> of conflict of >>>> interest >>>>>> issues. If the attorney >>>> is employed >>>>>> by a firm, the firm >>>> would >>>>> have >>>>>> to sign off on the >>>>>> representation, >>>> again dealing >>>>>> with potential conflict >>>> issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fifth, even if the >>>> above >>>>> issues >>>>>> were all somehow resolved, >>>> it >>>>>> would be highly >>>> unlikely that >>>>>> any such attorney would >>>> provide >>>>>> substantial amounts >>>> of >>>>> advice, >>>>>> written memos, counseling, >>>> etc. >>>>>> on a pro bono >>>> (unpaid) basis, >>>>>> especially given the >>>>>> time-consuming >>>> nature of the >>>>>> work. Pro bono advice and >>>>>> representation is >>>> generally >>>>>> accorded to individuals and >>>>>> entities that could >>>> not >>>>>> otherwise be able to pay for >>>>> it. That >>>>>> is clearly not the >>>> case here, >>>>>> at least with ICANN taking >>>>>> financial >>>> responsibility. It >>>>>> would likely be very >>>> difficult >>>>>> to justify this to, >>>> e.g., a >>>>>> firm's pro bono committee, >>>> as a >>>>>> valid pro bono >>>>> representation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sixth, if ICANN >>>> were not >>>>> taking >>>>>> the role they are taking, it >>>>>> would be extremely >>>>> difficult to >>>>>> identify the "client" in >>>> this >>>>>> situation. The >>>>> "community" is >>>>>> a collection of sectors, >>>>>> mostly represented >>>> by various >>>>>> ICANN-created structures, >>>> which >>>>>> in turn have members >>>> of >>>>> widely >>>>>> varying types (individuals, >>>>>> corporations, >>>> sovereigns, >>>>>> non-profits, IGOs, >>>> partnerships, >>>>>> etc.). This would >>>> also >>>>> make it >>>>>> extremely difficult to enter >>>>>> into a formal >>>> counseling >>>>>> relationship with the >>>> "community." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Seventh, this is a >>>> sensitive, >>>>>> high-profile, >>>> transformative set >>>>>> of actions we are >>>>> involved in, >>>>>> which is subject to an >>>>>> extraordinary amount >>>> of >>>>>> scrutiny, not least that >>>> of the NTIA >>>>>> and the US >>>> Congress. That >>>>>> eliminates any possibility >>>> of >>>>>> providing informal, >>>>>> off-the-cuff, reasonably >>>>> well-informed but >>>>>> not quite expert, >>>>> "non-advice" >>>>>> advice -- which might >>>> happen in >>>>>> a more obscure >>>> exercise. >>>>>> There's simply too much at >>>> stake. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, I would >>>> say that a >>>>>> number of attorneys >>>> involved in >>>>>> one or both of the >>>> WGs are in >>>>>> fact providing a significant >>>>>> amount of legal >>>> knowledge and >>>>>> experience to the WGs, >>>> helping >>>>>> to frame issues, >>>> whether in >>>>>> terms of general >>>> leadership (e.g., >>>>>> Thomas, Leon, >>>> Becky) or more >>>>>> specifically in a >>>>>> "lawyer-as-client" >>>>> capacity -- >>>>>> working with outside >>>> counsel, >>>>>> tackling the more >>>> legalistic >>>>>> issues, providing as much >>>> legal >>>>>> background and >>>> knowledge as >>>>>> possible without providing >>>> the >>>>>> type of formal >>>> legal advice >>>>>> that would tend to create an >>>>>> attorney-client >>>> relationship, >>>>>> etc. So I do think that >>>> many >>>>>> lawyers in the >>>> community are >>>>>> giving greatly of >>>> themselves in >>>>>> this process, even >>>> though >>>>> they >>>>>> cannot and would not be >>>> able to >>>>>> formally be engaged >>>> by the >>>>>> community as its "counsel of >>>>> record." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In sum, it might be >>>> a nice >>>>>> thought in theory, but it >>>> is no way >>>>>> a practical >>>> possibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 >>>> at >>>>> 3:08 AM, >>>>>> CW Lists >>>>> <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >>>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >>>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>> >>>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >>>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu >>>> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good morning: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I had decided >>>> not to >>>>> enter >>>>>> this debate. But I am bound >>>> to >>>>>> say that the >>>> thought had >>>>>> occurred to me at the >>>> time, that >>>>>> there were more >>>> than >>>>> enough >>>>>> qualified lawyers in this >>>>>> community that >>>> they could >>>>>> perfectly well have >>>> counselled S >>>>>> themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CW >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04 Jul 2015, >>>> at 08:41, >>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To your >>>> first point, >>>>>> the billing rates were >>>> clearly >>>>>> stated in >>>> the law >>>>>> firms' engagement letters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To your >>>> second point, >>>>>> I'm sure we could all think >>>> of >>>>>> other >>>> projects and >>>>>> goals where the money >>>> could have >>>>>> been >>>> "better spent." >>>>>> You've stated yours. But >>>> that >>>>>> is not the >>>> proper >>>>>> test. This was and >>>> continues to be >>>>>> money we >>>> need to >>>>> spend >>>>>> to achieve the goals we have >>>>>> set. Under >>>> different >>>>>> circumstances, perhaps it >>>> would >>>>>> be a >>>> different amount >>>>>> (or maybe none at all). >>>> But it >>>>>> was >>>> strongly felt at >>>>>> the outset that the group >>>> needed >>>>>> to have >>>> independent >>>>>> counsel. Clearly that >>>> counsel >>>>>> needed to >>>> have >>>>>> recognized expertise in the >>>>> appropriate >>>>>> legal >>>> areas. As >>>>> such, >>>>>> I believe we made excellent >>>>>> choices and >>>> have been >>>>>> very well represented. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As to your >>>> "better >>>>>> spent" test, I just had to >>>> have >>>>>> $4000.00 >>>> worth of >>>>>> emergency dental work >>>> done. This >>>>>> money >>>> definitely >>>>> could >>>>>> have been "better spent" on >>>> a >>>>>> nice >>>> vacation, >>>>>> redecorating our living >>>> room or on >>>>>> donations to >>>> my >>>>> favored >>>>>> charitable causes. But I >>>> had >>>>>> no choice, >>>> other than >>>>>> to choose which dentist and >>>>>> endodontist I >>>>> went to, >>>>>> and I wasn't going to cut >>>>>> corners -- >>>> the dental >>>>>> work was a necessity. >>>>>> Similarly, >>>> the legal >>>>>> work we are getting is a >>>>>> necessity >>>> and whether >>>>>> we would have preferred to >>>> spend >>>>>> the money >>>>> elsewhere is >>>>>> not merely irrelevant, it >>>> is an >>>>>> incorrect and >>>>>> inappropriate >>>> proposition. Many >>>>> of us >>>>>> are >>>> investing vast >>>>>> quantities of time that >>>> could be >>>>>> "better >>>> spent" >>>>>> elsewhere as well, but we >>>> are >>>>> willing >>>>>> (grudgingly >>>>> sometimes) >>>>>> to spend the time it takes >>>> to >>>>>> get it >>>> right, because >>>>>> we believe it needs to be >>>> done. >>>>>> This is the >>>>> appropriate >>>>>> measure, whether it comes to >>>>>> our time or >>>> counsels' >>>>>> time. If we believe in this >>>>>> project, we >>>> have to >>>>>> invest in it, and do what >>>> it takes >>>>>> to succeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, >>>> this >>>>>> investment has to be >>>> managed wisely >>>>>> and >>>> cost-effectively, >>>>>> and by and large, I >>>> believe the >>>>>> CCWG has >>>> done that >>>>>> reasonably well -- not >>>> perfectly, >>>>>> but >>>> reasonably >>>>> well and >>>>>> with "course corrections" >>>>>> along the way >>>>> intended >>>>>> to improve that management. >>>>>> It's >>>> certainly >>>>> fair to >>>>>> ask, as Robin has done, for >>>> a >>>>>> better >>>>> understanding of >>>>>> that management as we go >>>>>> along. But >>>> asserting >>>>>> that the money could have >>>> been >>>>>> "better >>>> spent" >>>>>> elsewhere sets up a false >>>> test >>>>> that we >>>>>> should not >>>> use to >>>>>> evaluate this important >>>> aspect of >>>>>> our work. >>>>> Instead, we >>>>>> need to focus on whether the >>>>>> money was >>>> "well >>>>> spent" >>>>>> on these critical legal >>>>>> services. >>>> If you have >>>>>> reason to believe it was >>>> not, >>>>>> that could be >>>>> useful to >>>>>> know. That would at least >>>> be >>>>>> the right >>>>> discussion to >>>>>> have. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul >>>> 4, >>>>> 2015 at >>>>>> 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, >>>>>> Wolfgang" >>>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> HI, >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>> please if you >>>>>> ask outside lawyers, ask >>>> for the >>>>>> price >>>> tag in >>>>>> advance. Some of the money >>>> spend fo >>>>>> lawyers >>>> could >>>>> have >>>>>> been spend better to >>>> suppport >>>>>> and >>>> enable >>>>> Internet >>>>>> user and non-commercial >>>> groups >>>>>> in >>>> developing >>>>>> countries. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche >>>>>> Nachricht----- >>>>>> Von: >>>>>> >>>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> >>>>>> im >>>> Auftrag von >>>>>> Robin Gross >>>>>> >>>> Gesendet: Fr >>>>>> 03.07.2015 14:57 >>>>>> An: >>>>> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> Community >>>>>> Betreff: >>>>>> [CCWG-ACCT] Who is >>>> managing the >>>>> lawyers >>>>>> and >>>> what have >>>>> they >>>>>> beenasked to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> After >>>> the legal >>>>>> sub-team was disbanded, I >>>> haven't >>>>>> been >>>> able to >>>>> follow >>>>>> what communications are >>>>>> happening >>>>> with CCWG >>>>>> and the independent lawyers >>>> we >>>>>> retained. >>>>>> >>>>>> I >>>> understand the >>>>>> lawyers are currently >>>> "working on >>>>>> the >>>> various >>>>> models" >>>>>> and will present something >>>> to >>>>>> us >>>> regarding that >>>>>> work soon. However, *what >>>>>> >>>> exactly* have the >>>>>> lawyers been asked to do and >>>>>> *who* >>>> asked them? >>>>>> If there are written >>>>>> >>>> instructions, may >>>>>> the group please see >>>> them? Who >>>>>> is now >>>> taking on >>>>>> the role of managing the >>>> outside >>>>>> >>>> attorneys for >>>>> this >>>>>> group, including providing >>>>>> >>>> instructions and >>>>>> certifying legal work? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, >>>> but I'm >>>>>> really trying to >>>> understand what is >>>>>> >>>> happening, and >>>>>> there doesn't seem to be >>>> much >>>>>> >>>> information >>>>> in the >>>>>> public on this (or if >>>> there is, >>>>>> I can't >>>> find it). >>>>>> Thanks for any information >>>>>> anyone >>>> can >>>>> provide. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>>>> mailing list >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>>>> mailing list >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>>>> mailing list >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>>> mailing >>>>>> list >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email has been checked for >>>>> viruses by >>>>>> Avast antivirus software. >>>>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi >>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO >>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx >>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e= >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv >>>> irus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah >>>> OP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAf >>>> E_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&e=> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>>> mailing list >>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community >>>> mailing list >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Jordan Carter >>>>>> >>>>>> Chief Executive >>>>>> *InternetNZ* >>>>>> >>>>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 >>>>>> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) >>>>>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> >>>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >>>> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>> >>>>>> Skype: jordancarter >>>>>> >>>>>> /A better world through a better >>>> Internet / >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing >>>> list >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX >>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e >>>> => >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> /Seun Ojedeji, >>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>>>>> web: >>>> //https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d= >>>> AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDk >>>> Mr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=0jeGeVlvL9OdHuagA8IF >>>> L55Qf0dISl0O2YMMYr2hgTc&e= >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=A >>>> wMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM >>>> r4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p >>>> 5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e=> >>>>>> //Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>> <tel:%2B2348035233535>// >>>>>> //alt email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >>>> <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> >>>>> <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >>>> <mailto:email%253Aseun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>> >>>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> >>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>>>/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my >>>> view ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >>>> software. >>>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi >>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO >>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx >>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e= >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi >>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO >>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx >>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e= >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jordan Carter >>>> >>>> Chief Executive >>>> *InternetNZ* >>>> >>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >>>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>>> Skype: jordancarter >>>> >>>> /A better world through a better Internet / >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc >>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >>>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir >>> us&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 >>> WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXxCJS >>> GykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e= >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG >>> rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e= >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l… >

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting #17 (8 July)
by Kimberly Carlson July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #17 - 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783018 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action for Alan: To translate the discussion into the public comment report of May 4 and redline it ready for Paris. And will redraft the paper Notes Notes Updates on Community Mechanism, AoC document and. Robin to join the group on budget and strategic plan Members: Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, Robin Gross. Matt Shears comments not reflected as he couldn't join the call 6 issues: Who should participate in the council. Vote weighting from the May 4th proposal Should votes be divided, potential fractional voting allowed? Opt out or opt in on issues Mechanism or formal group? If the GAC participates in the community mechanism should the bylaws be amended? Who participates? Close unanimity. All SO and AC be included. If some as a result of next PC say they don't want to participate then can review their decision then. And need to define what participate means. Q. RSAC and SSAC said they didn't want to participate. Did you consider that? A. The first proposal largely focused on membership and there was confusion of what membership means. Felt, that subject to the next comment, unfair to drop groups off, they said they wanted to stay as advisors. And they can opt out and not participate. Avri: tend to agree not to exclude now. One has just become a charter org. If they asked to be removed, then fine. And if they opt out now, they can opt back in without having to have a bylaws change. Unless they request to be named as excluded. NTIA stress test, sufficiently open? And this approach addresses that. Leave the voting option open for any SO/AC recognized in ICANN's bylaws. So give the opportunity to vote in the future, an open invitation. Need another look at the super majority thresholds depending on voting participation. The SSAC, RSAC and GAC, might participate in an advisory capacity. Keeping them out because they don't want to vote may not be necessary. They can advise the community council. Second item looked at comments referring to the voting weight. Some supportive. Some questioned why the RSAC and SSAC had less and suggested equal votes. Some that the GSNO should have more. Or the votes may shift depending on issues, e.g. gTLD or ccTLD. No closure. Most in favor of the mechanism, but this was only a small number of the total comments. But recognition on proportionality, etc. Dealt with 2 and 3 together by considering fractional voting and issues of seating of people. Jordan. The question was also not clearly set out in the comment. SSAC, a board appointed group. And RSAC a very small specialist group. Votes by issue, this not about policy so answer is no to differential votes. Need to be clear on questions in the coming round. About differential votes, the issue might pertain to one of the SO/AC rather than to the others. SSAC picked by the Board: yes it approves the nominations, but it comes from its own nominating process. And if you consider their issue as a primary issue of ICANN then there are good reasons for parity. Normalized votes, can work. But they do make the situation much more complicated. Greg. General comment. Some justification for less weight to SSAC and RSAC. They don't represent stakeholder communities in the same way. They are fundamentally different. Alan. Don't agree with differential votes. SSAC represents a large group and interest. The RSAC loss easier to justify. Suggest leave open and ask a very clear question next time Fractional voting. Should a group choose to divide its vote in fraction below one, then should allow. Jordan. Should allow. All dependent on this being a group of people. But we should set some limit on the number who can represent a group. Stress test issue - is there a need for a member's avatar to cast the vote, and what does this mean for the potential rogue voter. And the stress test will remain. Other officers of SO/AC need to communicate that a problem occurred and request to hold a re-vote. Going rogue: for removal of the Board, there were directed votes. But silent on other issues. Could apply that to directed vote to all the powers, or ensure that the votes cast represent the views of the SO/AC There seems support for the votes to be traceable back to the SO/AC How to handle a SO/AC or individual which abstains. Don't count abstention or opt outs, but there should be a minimum number of yes votes, but need the answer to 2 above before we can finally decide. Can there be votes through email or through a formal group. If a group it will grow to justify its own existence. But these issues are important and may require a degree if socializing to gain community support, perhaps even public comment. Suggest there should be a group. There may be need to meet face to face, which raises issues of travel support. Create a construct to allow it to meet. Staff support to help understand an issue. Even if the people are together on a phone or together physically, or just an email, then the vote should be recorded. That the votes be transparent and accountable. 6. If the GAC chooses to participate in some way or form, then it should not have other preferential treatment. ATRT2, recommended that if any AC gives formal advice, the Board must respond positively or explain why not. Middle ground might be that the GAC cannot issue advice counter to the advice of the community council. Others suggest CAG should pick one or the other. May be heading to a bylaws amendment that only where the GAC has consensus must the board provide deferential treatment. Note, GAC advice may have been given to the Board prior to the community council meeting. Don't tie voting to the giving of advice that the group was created to give. Avri: feel they are getting a double bite at the apple. Feel the two powers are incompatible. Falls to the category of making the governments more equal. Hearing today, Fadi made a statement about governments, we should check. OK if they opt out of the mechanism. Need to think about them having additional powers. Steve to capture comment and send to Alan. Action for Alan: To translate the discussion into the public comment report of May 4 and redline it ready for Paris. And will redraft the paper. AoC update, revised text as circulated. OECD privacy guideline and other tweaks. Steve: Edits since Monday. Page 3, Board and GAC chair designate members and there is no diversity requirement. Our requirement to be as diverse as possible is a new proposal. Question then how many? Steve's proposal, keep open, but voting would be equalized among SO/AC. Avri: the complication of votes, from and indeterminate number of participants. These ATRT processes are meant to be consensus affairs, not jumping too quickly to voting. If we can reach consensus then that is best. The numbers flexible. Keep the core group small. Something predictable, easy to decide. Diversity: the instruction the two chairs had did ensure diversity, and wish to transfer that to the five chairs. Overall concern about putting the diversity requirement into the bylaws when diversity it undefined. The number 3 doesn't help anyone, not a natural number. If we talk about diversity and representativeness then can't ignore where they come from. 3 is unhelpful. Greg. Is membership and important factor, or is participation key? If membership less important then easier to accept. Alan. Don't ignore the board in this. Strong support for Avri's view. People who have the skills for the task. The number 3, the smallest number with a wide spread of opinion. Believes skill set dependent on diversity, but can be swapped. Jordan: instinct, don't make a distinction between us, but use the CCWG. But concerned that neither proposal doesn't limit the number participation and that doesn't seem right for this issue. Put to the CCWG in Paris. And in text, remove the name labels. Steve. Public comment from Spain, first element about putting for public comment. Bottom of page 4. Remove the requirement that the ATRT look at other review teams. They only review ATRT implementation. Timing: 1 year of convening. And from convened to convening in terms of frequency. For each of the AoC reviews. WHOIS review, page 7. OECD guidelines, not force of law. Steve alternative, to look at privacy guidelines. Convene: might say when the group meets for the first team. Suggest pass through as a note and see what lawyers drafting think about it. Assent on the OECD tweak. Friday call: recall of the board, and community powers on Friday Monday call: bylaws revisions, Alan on removal of individual directors and text mark-upon the community mechanism. END

1 0

Fwd: Updated Agenda plan for 10 July and 13 July calls
by Jordan Carter July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Dear CCWG members - please see below the items WP1 will be dealing with in the next few days as we race towards the 14 July freeze. best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 9 July 2015 at 12:12 Subject: Updated Agenda plan for 10 July and 13 July calls To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all >From our call this morning here is my record of the agenda items we are dealing with... please read and correct any mistakes. Friday 10 July 19h00-21h00 UTC * Community Powers - budget and strategic plan (Zuck, Gross) * Community Powers - recall of whole ICANN Board (Drazek) * Any other matters needing further discussion Monday 13 July @ 20h-22h UTC * Community Powers - bylaws (Okutani) * Community Powers - fundamental bylaws (Carter) * Community Powers - removal of individual ICANN Directors (Greenberg) * Mechanism - text that relates to discussion document from 8 July (Greenberg et al) * any other matters needing further discussion It is possible I might find time to get the Fundamental Bylaws item done in time to deal with on 10 July - possible but not likely. So consider that as a remote chance of moving one item up into the 10 July call. Thanks all for the work that is going on. If you would like to get in the loop in drafting any of this material, please contact the lead writer noted above. cheers Jordan

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 | 8 July
by Brenda Brewer July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WP3 on 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783267 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Leon's document to be uploaded to the wiki. Notes WP3 Meeting #2 -- 8th July 2015 These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Welcome and roll-call Alan Greenberg calling in. 2. Review of Action Items from call #1 Please review the geographic review document, noted in the reading list and recently sent to the mailing list. The Board will act in Dublin, after a period of delay the document will be acted on. The final document hasn't yet be present to the board for action. Expected that will be implemented, included some degree of self-selection for some small islands, but the overall structure of 5 regions will remain, with some self determination to be considered. Asks why the paper is particularly relevant? Perhaps in that it doesn't do much to address diversity issues. Comment: Was the large and populous region of the Asia Pacific fairly represented? Could the number of regions be increased, perhaps to 7. But this represents the current option on geographic regions in ICANN. But there is discussion of sub-regional groupings. Volunteers to populate sub-groups. Haven't noticed any until an hour ago, when one participant asked to join the staff accountability sub-groups. sub-groups: SO/AC accountability, staff and board accountability, Diversity * Diversity - <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity * SO/AC accountability - <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783727> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783727 * Staff accountability - <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+accountability> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+accountability Please add name on the relevant wiki page or make your interest known to staff: <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> acct-staff(a)icann.org What are the work stream 2 issue in regards to each of the accountability, transparency, diversity issues. We should not remain silent on diversity in the IRP panel or in the SO/AC accountability Presentation of a draft document on SO/AC accountability. Based on a review of documents on the reading list. Identifying mechanisms already in place. Leon, "preliminary inventory of existing accountability mechanisms for SO/AC". Will be shared with the group. Many of the AoC issues are targeting board and staff rather than the SO/AC Bylaws, leaves open for each SO/AC to consider accountability/transparency in their own procedures. We might dive into these to see how they address this. And make broad recommendations, but not in details. SO bylaws must be approved by the Board. ACs do not have to do this. Jan S. The SO/AC gain very significant powers under the proposals, but preliminary review see there are almost no provisions that hold the SO/AC accountable to their own or the broader Internet community. This is a problem. Jan is right. And we know that the groups in ICANN only represent a very small subset of the larger community. Can make sure that those participating are accountable to their own membership. ICANN talks about the need for diversity, but we don't do a lot about it. What is different is now significant new powers are about to be given to the SO/AC, and perhaps these issues cannot be put off further. Even to WS2. Identify and itemize issues, and relate to any WS1 issue. Do we need to make each constituency accountable? We are looking at a complex path. The problem is implementability. When talking about SO/AC accountability, we talk about accountability to the community (i.e. other SO/AC), then the community it represents. Are we talking about accountability of the GNSO, or SGs or constituencies. Is it a self-governance issue, or to be dealt with by some outside agent. Do we really trust the "community". We are empowering the community collectively. We want to hold the Board accountable, but concern also about the community. We need to find a way to do something, but be careful about where we put our trust. Raise as objectives or questions. So they are accountable within their own community and the community as a whole Sub group of WP1 and weighting mechanisms. ACs looks at broader issues than ICANN. Action: Leon's document to be uploaded to the wiki. Meeting times for the WP3 calls, which are the correct dates and times. The calendar invites are correct. Next call Friday 10th at 06:00 UTC. Staff confirm the calendar invites are accurate. When will we have follow-up discussion on the lawyer's presentation? Homework for the group to review and a wider discussion in the group about the models. Build consensus is Paris. And on the call next Tuesday. Calls scheduled to accommodate other CCWG calls and to, as possible, share the burden of inconvenient call times. If you wish please use the presented document of SO AC existing mechanisms as a basic template. END

3 2