July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

And a bunch of comments from me. Alan At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: >Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. >Iâve made a few proposed red-lined edits in >the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further. > >Regards, >Keith > >From: wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter >Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM >To: wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly > >Hi all > >I have taken the draft material from an older >paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place. > >Please see attached and debate away! I've tried >to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and >have suggested that this would be the forum to >use for the Public Accountability Forum >suggestion made by advisors a while ago. > > >best, >Jordan > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >A better world through a better Internet > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" > Comments.docx" >Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - > v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; > creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; > modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT" > >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" >Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - > v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; > creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; > modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT" > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list >WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

8 13

CCWG - Legal team editing of documents part1 unpacked PDFs)
by Bernard Turcotte July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

For those having problems - the first part thanks Hillary. B.

1 0

CCWG - Legal team editing of documents part 2(unpacked PDFs)
by Bernard Turcotte July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

For those having problems. thanks Hillary. B.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

May I suggest that we defer the ICA (or whatever it evolves into) to WS2. I think an interesting discussion is evolving, but we don't need to have it now, and I particularly think that it requires more careful thought. Let's just say there will be a recommendation in WS2 as to how to structure the community discussion leading up to multiple petitions (if required for a single power) and post-petition and prior to voting. We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not. Alan At 24/07/2015 10:57 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Hi all > >I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN >Community Assembly and pulled it into one place. > >Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its >solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the >forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by >advisors a while ago. > > >best, >Jordan > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >A better world through a better Internet > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community > Assembly - v1.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: f_icigutmm0 > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community > Assembly - v1.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: f_icigutn11 > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list >WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

4 3

CCWG - Legal team docs.
by Bernard Turcotte July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

All, For those having problems with the format we will circulate an open format unzipped version shortly. B.

2 1

Fwd: [Acct-Staff] Sidley and Adler Comments on Drafts for Legal Review: Second set of 2
by Bernard Turcotte July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

2nd set from the legal team. Cheers. B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:35 PM Subject: [Acct-Staff] Sidley and Adler Comments on Drafts for Legal Review: Second set of 2 To: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "icann(a)adlercolvin.com" <icann(a)adlercolvin.com> Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, Here are our comments on the remaining documents we received late Friday afternoon. This includes the documents indicated below, and with we have now sent everything that we have been asked to comment on to date: · Section 4.2 Reconsideration Process Enhancement · Section 7/8: Stress Tests · Section 9: Items for WS2 · Section 10: Implementation · XPLANE Summary Slides · Glossary Please let us know if there is anything you would like to discuss. Also, we look forward to receiving the remaining documents for review. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary and the Sidley and Adler Teams *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP *+1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Acct-Staff mailing list Acct-Staff(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Greg, to be general, I said we had decided not to get in on internal decision on how to allocate votes/voices. Alan At 27/07/2015 11:05 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >This is in reference to the "Community >Assembly," which has no votes, but has a limited >number of seats, and not the "Community >Mechanism," which has votes, and may have either >no seats at all or a potentially unlimited >number of seats (based on fractional voting). > >Still not quite sure why we are creating these >two separate bodies, and how they relate to each other. > >Greg > >On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Greg, I thought one of the ground rules was that >other than saying that votes cast must be actual >decisions of the AC/SO, that we would not delve >into their decision process for how to allocate >votes and certainly not on how to allocates voices. > >Alan > >At 27/07/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >>Ed, >> >>Thanks for the explanation (and the kind words). >> >>I think we still have a significant problem >>here, based on the language in the document >>(and spurred on by your explanation). >> >>First, the language: >> >>Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate >>between one and seven [or eight] people to >>participate in the ICA this is to enssure >>that there is at least some presence from each >>part of the community in the ICA, and some >>likelihood that its activities and discussions >>will include a wide range of perspectives. [emphasis added] >> >> >>The language in red is insufficient to >>accomplish the objective it states -- to ensure >>a presence from each part of the >>community. The mere fact that we give each SO >>and AC the opportunity to pick a number of >>representatives in no way "ensures" that there >>will be a presence from each part of the >>community. A given SO or AC could choose to >>have fewer representatives than "each part" of >>that community, or it could choose a larger >>number but still not distribute seats so that >>"each part" of the community is present. For >>instance, the ALAC could choose to have 3 >>representatives (even though there are 5 RALOs) >>or they could choose to have 8 representatives >>and give 2 each to 4 RALOs and none to the >>5th. It would be easy for a majority of any SO >>or AC to squeeze out a minority. This would >>not violate the letter of this language, even >>though it would violate the spirit. >> >>Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for >>the GNSO specifically gave me pause: "Eight is >>easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO >>houses, and four, the number of GNSO >>stakeholder groups." This is a textbook >>example of the problem, for the simple reason >>that the 3 Constituencies that comprise the CSG >>are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are >>allocated to these 3 groups, one will be frozen >>out and will not be present. Any "community >>assembly" where one or more of these >>constituencies cannot be present fails to meet >>the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as an organization. >> >>In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the >>GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph >>excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added): >> >>Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate >>between one and seven [or eight] people to >>participate in the ICA. Each ICANN SO or AC >>shall nominate at least one person from each >>formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be >>represented -- this is to ensure that there is >>at least some presence from each part of the >>community in the ICA, and some likelihood that >>its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. >> >>On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on >>GNSO structural reform.... I expect it will >>come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if. >> >>Greg >> >>On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris >><<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: >>Greg, >> >>You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if >>you decide to be part of the ICA you will be >>funded. The contribution you've made to our >>accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure. >> >>Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of >>GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO >>stakeholder groups. I would have been happy >>with one (we'd all have to work together to >>select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I >>actually think eight is a pretty good number. >>It allows for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with. >> >>I'll be up front and recognise there are a >>number of proposals floating around for GNSO >>structural reform. I hope there are some we >>agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We >>don't know the future but we do know the >>present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to >>work with regardless of the direction we go in. >> >>I hope this was helpful but should note this >>was my reasoning only. I was not involved in >>the selection of the number presented. I did >>signal my approval, though, of the work done by >>others on this matter for the reasons >>indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job". >> >>Best, >> >>Ed >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>From: "Greg Shatan" >><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM >>To: "Edward Morris" <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> >>Cc: "James Gannon" >><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net >> >, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >> >, "Drazek, Keith" >><<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, >>"Jordan Carter" >><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> >, "<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org>, >>"Accountability Cross Community" >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly >> >>Edward, >> >>Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris >>(since I didn't have the funding to get to >>Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number >>that works best for the GNSO? Thanks! >> >>Greg >> >>On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris >><<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: >>Hi James, >> >>Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did >>agree on having up to eight representatives >>per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much >>I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and >>Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one >>that best works for the GNSO. After all, the >>"5" we've agreed to for voting does not work >>well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO >>compromised there to help other communities. It >>was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the >>number "7" is just an oversight that we can >>correct before we put this document out for public comment. >> >>I believe in a robust, diverse and >>representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to >>exercise the community powers very often but >>when we do I want the entire community to be >>represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. >>One provision in our proposal would tend to >>discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members. >> >>I'd like to propose that we extend funding to >>all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members >>per group. I believe people think the CCWG >>funding methodology, which our proposal copies, >>has worked: it has not, at least not for those >>of us in the noncommercial community. I can >>tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where >>I had to walk for a half hour each night >>following our meetings through a red light >>district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. >>I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which >>I received support for the meeting, is not >>large. My post midnight walk on day one (the >>legal subteam worked until close to midnight >>the first night) was particularly interesting. >> >>I should note the difficulty our supported >>Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the >>CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight >>cancellation and was unable to rebook in time >>to attend. For Paris her initial flight had >>mechanical problems and she arrived after an >>overnight flight and during our Friday morning >>meeting. We should learn two things from her >>story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's >>just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one >>person to present a point of view of an entire >>component of our community at a meeting is not >>wise. With the serious nature of the issues the >>ICA will be considering all voices must be heard. >> >>I should note it's not just noncommercial >>participants who may be experiencing funding >>problems in this regard. I've spoken to >>multiple commercial colleagues whose companies >>commitment will be reduced following the ACCT >>project. We need to ensure maximum >>participation in the ICA for this proposal to >>be guaranteed the diversity of views and >>backgrounds this entire construct needs if it >>is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society. >> >>In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of >>ICA participants per group so that it reflects >>the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed >>out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) >>in the interests of diversity and to ensure all >>voices are heard we need to support all members >>of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered >>nominee system should not be favoured. >> >>In terms of budgetary impact costs can be >>trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense >>to provide full support, for example, to SO >>Council members and not to those nominees who >>will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body. >> >>Thanks for considering, >> >>Ed >> >> >> >>---------- >>From: "James Gannon" >><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net > >>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM >>To: "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >> >, "Drazek, Keith" >><<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, >>"Jordan Carter" >><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> >, "<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org>, >>"Accountability Cross Community" >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly >> >>a) Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to >>nominate between one and seven people to >>participate in the ICA tthis is to ensure >>that there is at least some presencee from each >>part of the community in the ICA, and some >>likelihood that its activities and discussions >>will include a wide range of perspectives. >> >>I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous >>version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris. >> >>-James Gannon >> >>From: >><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >>[ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM >>To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; >><mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly >> >> >>And a bunch of comments from me. >>Alan >>At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: >> >> >>Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. >>IÃÂ¢Ã¢Â¬ve made a few proposed red-lined >>edits in the attached, supportted by comments. Happy to discuss further. >> >>Regards, >>Keith >> >>From: >><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >>[ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter >>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM >>To: <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >>Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly >> >>Hi all >> >>I have taken the draft material from an older >>paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place. >> >>Please see attached and debate away! I've >>tried to be clear on its solely advisory >>nature, and have suggested that this would be >>the forum to use for the Public Accountability >>Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago. >> >> >>best, >>Jordan >> >>-- >>Jordan Carter >>Chief Executive >>InternetNZ >>+64-495-2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >>Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>Skype: jordancarter >>A better world through a better Internet >> >>Content-Type: >>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; >> name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - >> ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" >> Comments.docx" >>Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - >> v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 >>- Community Mechanism - ICANN" >> Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; >> creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; >> modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT" >>Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" >> Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" >>Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - >> v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 >>- Community Mechanism - ICANN" >> Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; >> creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; >> modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT" >>_______________________________________________ >>WP1 mailing list >><mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list ><mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Greg, I thought one of the ground rules was that other than saying that votes cast must be actual decisions of the AC/SO, that we would not delve into their decision process for how to allocate votes and certainly not on how to allocates voices. Alan At 27/07/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Ed, > >Thanks for the explanation (and the kind words). > >I think we still have a significant problem >here, based on the language in the document (and >spurred on by your explanation). > >First, the language: > >Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate >between one and seven [or eight] people to >participate in the ICA this is to enssure that >there is at least some presence from each part >of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood >that its activities and discussions will include >a wide range of perspectives. [emphasis added] > >The language in red is insufficient to >accomplish the objective it states -- to ensure >a presence from each part of the community. The >mere fact that we give each SO and AC the >opportunity to pick a number of representatives >in no way "ensures" that there will be a >presence from each part of the community. A >given SO or AC could choose to have fewer >representatives than "each part" of that >community, or it could choose a larger number >but still not distribute seats so that "each >part" of the community is present. For >instance, the ALAC could choose to have 3 >representatives (even though there are 5 RALOs) >or they could choose to have 8 representatives >and give 2 each to 4 RALOs and none to the >5th. It would be easy for a majority of any SO >or AC to squeeze out a minority. This would not >violate the letter of this language, even though it would violate the spirit. > >Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for >the GNSO specifically gave me pause: "Eight is >easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO >houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder >groups." This is a textbook example of the >problem, for the simple reason that the 3 >Constituencies that comprise the CSG are not >divisible by 2. If only two seats are allocated >to these 3 groups, one will be frozen out and >will not be present. Any "community assembly" >where one or more of these constituencies cannot >be present fails to meet the most basic test for >inclusion and thus fails as an organization. > >In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the >GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph >excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added): > >Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate >between one and seven [or eight] people to >participate in the ICA. Each ICANN SO or AC >shall nominate at least one person from each >formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be >represented -- this is to ensure that there is >at least some presence from each part of the >community in the ICA, and some likelihood that >its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. > >On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on >GNSO structural reform.... I expect it will >come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if. > >Greg > >On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris ><<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: >Greg, > >You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if >you decide to be part of the ICA you will be >funded. The contribution you've made to our >accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure. > >Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of >GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO >stakeholder groups. I would have been happy with >one (we'd all have to work together to select >the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I actually >think eight is a pretty good number. It allows >for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with. > >I'll be up front and recognise there are a >number of proposals floating around for GNSO >structural reform. I hope there are some we >agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We >don't know the future but we do know the >present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to work >with regardless of the direction we go in. > >I hope this was helpful but should note this was >my reasoning only. I was not involved in the >selection of the number presented. I did signal >my approval, though, of the work done by others >on this matter for the reasons indicated. As I >said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job". > >Best, > >Ed > > > > > >---------- >From: "Greg Shatan" <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM >To: "Edward Morris" <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> >Cc: "James Gannon" ><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net>, >"Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >"Drazek, Keith" ><<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, >"Jordan Carter" ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, >"<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org>, >"Accountability Cross Community" ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > >Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly > >Edward, > >Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris >(since I didn't have the funding to get to >Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number >that works best for the GNSO? Thanks! > >Greg > >On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris ><<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: >Hi James, > >Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did >agree on having up to eight representatives per >SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I >gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and >Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one >that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" >we've agreed to for voting does not work well >for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO >compromised there to help other communities. It >was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the >number "7" is just an oversight that we can >correct before we put this document out for public comment. > >I believe in a robust, diverse and >representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to >exercise the community powers very often but >when we do I want the entire community to be >represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. >One provision in our proposal would tend to >discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members. > >I'd like to propose that we extend funding to >all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members >per group. I believe people think the CCWG >funding methodology, which our proposal copies, >has worked: it has not, at least not for those >of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell >you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had >to walk for a half hour each night following >our meetings through a red light district to >get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth >but our NCUC budget, from which I received >support for the meeting, is not large. My post >midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam >worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting. > >I should note the difficulty our supported >Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the >CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight >cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to >attend. For Paris her initial flight had >mechanical problems and she arrived after an >overnight flight and during our Friday morning >meeting. We should learn two things from her >story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's >just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one >person to present a point of view of an entire >component of our community at a meeting is not >wise. With the serious nature of the issues the >ICA will be considering all voices must be heard. > >I should note it's not just noncommercial >participants who may be experiencing funding >problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple >commercial colleagues whose companies commitment >will be reduced following the ACCT project. We >need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA >for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity >of views and backgrounds this entire construct >needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society. > >In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of >ICA participants per group so that it reflects >the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed >out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in >the interests of diversity and to ensure all >voices are heard we need to support all members >of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered >nominee system should not be favoured. > >In terms of budgetary impact costs can be >trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense >to provide full support, for example, to SO >Council members and not to those nominees who >will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body. > >Thanks for considering, > >Ed > > > > >---------- >From: "James Gannon" <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net> >Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM >To: "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >"Drazek, Keith" ><<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, >"Jordan Carter" ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, >"<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org>, >"Accountability Cross Community" ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly > > >a) Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to >nominate between one and seven people to >participate in the ICA this is to ensure that >there is at least some presencee from each part >of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood >that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. > > > >I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous >version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris. > > > >-James Gannon > > > >From: ><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM >To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; ><mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > >Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly > > > > > >And a bunch of comments from me. > >Alan > >At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > > >Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. >IÃ¢â¬ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in >the attached, supportted by comments. Happy to discuss further. > >Regards, >Keith > >From: ><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >[ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter >Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM >To: <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly > >Hi all > >I have taken the draft material from an older >paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place. > >Please see attached and debate away! I've tried >to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and >have suggested that this would be the forum to >use for the Public Accountability Forum >suggestion made by advisors a while ago. > > >best, >Jordan > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-495-2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >A better world through a better Internet > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - > ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" > Comments.docx" >Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - > v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; > creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; > modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT" > >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" >Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - > v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" > Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; > creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; > modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT" > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list ><mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 > > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list ><mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 > >

2 1

Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #11 - 27 July
by Brenda Brewer July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Hello all, The recordings and transcript for the WP2 Meeting #11 held on 27 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/p4VCAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda No notes or action items recorded.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question
by Nigel Roberts July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Indeed. Which makes it all the more surprising that ICANN would have taken the position it did back then. But that is, perhaps, the snow of yesteryear. The question remains of how to incorporate, at a fundamental level two things. 1. A real commitment to fundamental rights, embodied in the organisational DNA, not just lip-service. 2. Effective (which also means proportionate in terms of expense/costs) means of ensuring this. On 27/07/15 13:49, CW Mail wrote: >> since ICANN's founders … put this commitment in its bylaws, > > Well, actually it is in the Articles of Incorporation (Article 4). > > CW > > PS: I understand from ICANN staff that I now have posting rights to CCWG. So this small comment is also by way of a 'test'. > > > On 27 Jul 2015, at 12:33, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: > >> >>> accept them being traded off against other objectives): >>> i) an obligation "to carry out its activities in conformity with >>> relevant principles of international law", which includes human rights >>> law; and >> >> I would feel much more reassured had you been a position to be able to put the closing double quote where the semicolon is. >> >> Look, ICANN's lawyers argued strongly that international law does not apply to ICANN in ICM Registry -v- ICANN. >> >> It took a learned jurist in the IRP process to remind them otherwise -- since ICANN's founders has put this commitment in its bylaws, it is legally bound to uphold it. >> >> But without effective accountability measures available to those without deep pockets, it remains unsatisfactory -- both .XXX and .AFRICA IRPs, coupled with >> >> (a) the derision shown by the previous CEO towards, and >> (b) the ineffectivess of the current CEO in acheiving >> >> the engagement of fundamental rights inside ICANN >> >> has shown the corporate culture of ICANN is actually inimical to the promotion of fundamental rights. >> >> My view is that upholding fundamental rights is not simple 'motherhood and apple pie'. >> >> It needs to be embedded so that any affected person effectively may hold the corporation accountable for infringing, or failing to protect, fundamental rights; ICANN holding a special position as an international multistakeholder body. >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0