July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values
by Avri Doria July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hi, As far as I can tell this fell through the cracks among the various WPs I am hoping to bring this up during our discussion in Paris. I do not want to let it fall through the cracks especially since it respond to two of the comments on various human rights like freedoms of expression and association. Not quite sure what session it will fit into. I suggest a final core value that reads: > Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the UN. > thanks avri > On 14-Jul-15 00:27, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In his comment 100 Willie Currie raised the issue of enshrining freedom >> of expression in the in the core values. >> >> In comment 123 NCSG worte: "We support the addition of respect for Human >> rights to the core values and support the addition of an obligation for >> human rights impact analyses for ICANN decisions to the mission. NCSG >> has consistently recommended that ICANN adopt the “Respect, Protect, and >> Remedy” framework which was developed for private corporations" this is >> the framework documented by the UN called *in Guiding Principles on >> Business and Human Rights *< >> *http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>* >> >> >> These Guiding Principles are grounded in recognition of: >> >> (a) States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human >> rights and fundamental freedoms; >> >> (b) The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society >> performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights; >> >> (c) The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate aeffective remedies when breached > I argue that we need to add something to our next version to take these > comment into account. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

10 14

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Individual ICANN Board Members removal requirements
by Seun Ojedeji July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hello, I am writing to strongly indicate my amazement that some CCWG participants (all categories of participants) thinks SO/AC should be allowed to remove its appointing members unconditionally (i.e without any other SO/AC input), especially considering that CCWG has determined to go the "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" makes this even more strange. Here are a few of the reasons why i think this is totally inappropriate as i don't think there is need list several reason for this to be compelling: - Board members acts in the interest of the organisation including the community, its not appropriate to create a representative board and i think that is just what we would have done by permitting such removal possibilities. - Since board members acts in the interest of the community, it should require same to remove it. - The appointing body post-transition will be CMSM and it will require the same CMSM to remove - Allowing such individual SO/AC removal would also put nomcom elected members at disadvantage/advantage (depending on how it is viewed) - SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) Overall i am not against board removal, i am however against board remove by individual SO/AC. At best they can initiate and when it gets to the CMSM level the whole community threshold to exercise the "member" should be in-effect It is my hope that the Co-Chairs would understand these points and also appreciate the fact that consensus is not entirely by numbers. Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

GAC Members Inputs updated
by Tom Dale July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Dear CCWG Attached please find an updated version of GAC members inputs incorporating the submission from China. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

2 1

Updated Day 2 Agenda
by Hillary Jett July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hello all, Please find attached an updated agenda for today¹s meetings. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris discussion
by Steve DelBianco July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws. By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today: Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1. Allow ATRT to amend these reviews, too. Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team. Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to Prioritize their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations." Remaining challenges: How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE. Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

5 5

Fwd: Caretaker Board - presentation from counsel
by Jordan Carter July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Hi all This doc may come up for discussion in the agenda item regarding community power for recall of the ICANN Board. It is up for discussion on the WP1 list (or of course here). cheers Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 17 July 2015 at 08:58 Subject: Caretaker Board - presentation from counsel To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all I've just realised I got the below / attached last night, but just saw it. Please review. It seems to me this does demonstrate a number of viable options for the caretaker board concept. best Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Additional GAC Input: China
by Tom Dale July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Dear CCWG The Government of China, in their capacity as a GAC member, has asked that the the attached input be added to that already submitted from GAC members. With apologies for the late submission. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

1 0

Fundamental Bylaws: For Discussion
by Jordan Carter July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Hi all We also agreed we would discuss the updated Fundamental Bylaws part of the proposal by email. Please find the paper attached. The changes are not significant but there is commentary on one significant issue. - WP1 made a call to NOT include the locational requirements in the Articles or Bylaws as "Fundamental" - they would still be protected in the bylaws and Articles, and would be subject to the Standard Bylaws veto if a proposal to change that was ever made. Other points: - there is text to explain this more clearly, based on feedback in the comments and at meetings - clarified (but may be too far) that the Separation review and PTI would be Fundamental Bylaws, as well as the CSC and IFR. (I think we need to take these back out.) Please read, discuss, etc. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Standard Bylaws: for discussion
by Jordan Carter July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Hi all At the meeting today, we said we'd deal with Standard Bylaws by email. In summary: the feedback largely related to tweaks and adjustments, and most of it was taken on board or not agreed with. The attached paper was part of the reading pack. It shows tracked changes on the following: A) suggesting a specific 15 or 30 day calendar window for the exercise of this power, following Board final decision on a bylaws change (compared with unspecified in May). B) suggesting a 2/3 threshold in the community mechanism, symmetrical with the Board threshold (and lower than the 3/4 proposed in May). Discussion on A - the time window. The most consistent feedback in the public comments was to give more time for the exercise of this. But WP1 disagrees. Bylaws Changes by the time the Board formally adopts them have been known in public for months, and have recently completed a 40 day public comment period. So there is no need for the window to allow for full consideration as if we had never seen them before. What the 30 days needs to allow for is time to exercise the power through the community mechanism. But in saying that, there also needs to be time for (what I hope will be a standard) petitioning process to spur consideration of the power. We had not designed in that timeframe. Personally I would like these timing things to be as consistent as possible across all the powers, and so we need to detail the petition mechanism for all powers. I have no points to raise in discussion on B. SO - discuss away. Thoughts, considerations, angles, etc. cheers Jordan Rapporteur, WP1, CCWG-ACCT -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
by Bruce Tonkin July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

From: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transit… Theresa Swinehart has posted the following blog: Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls One of the words most often heard during the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes has been coordination - coordination amongst communities, coordination amongst members and participants of working groups, coordination amongst community and staff members. As many who follow these processes know, they can at times be complex, and are interrelated. One group can rely on another for various needs, such as the formal dependency between CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, or the necessary inputs groups contribute into each other's processes by way of Public Comment periods. At an informal breakfast meeting during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires with many of the transition working group chairs and SO/AC leaders, we shared a working draft transition timeline, and discussed how we could better ensure clearer alignment amongst all the agendas, timelines and expectations. As a result of the discussion that followed, the group decided it would hold monthly facilitation calls with each other, ICANN leadership and NTIA, to discuss where each group stands at that given point in time. The group also decided that these meetings would not to be used to discuss substance. The group agreed to share publicly the working draft transition timeline [ https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-tra… ] (see attached) , as well as an audio file [ http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-e… ] of the first call with the community held last Thursday. As we move steadily towards completion of the first phase of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, it is vital that we all stay aligned, and these monthly calls will help facilitate that. To listen to the audio of the first call, please see here: http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-e…

1 0