August 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Note: ICANN Board Comments
by James Gannon Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

Hey all, Thought I’d just send a quick note that the ICANN board has submitted its comments : https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00006… Haven’t had a chance to read them yet though. -James Gannon

2 1

PC1 tool posted
by Alice Jansen Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

Dear all, This is to inform you that as announced on call #48, the Public comment 1<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> tool (PC1 tool) on your first draft proposal was posted on 19 August. Please note that two versions of the summary report are available. The version directly linked to in the ICANN forum box focuses on CCWG responses while an additional version - "comprehensive tool" available on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Revi… - documents the CCWG's analysis (tags, analysis and summary) in addition to CCWG responses. A reference to the comprehensive document is included in the public forum box for full information. Thank you. Best regards Alice

1 0

FW: Bylaws Drafting Process
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Dear all, Staff sent this email on behalf of the Chairs. This email will also be forward to the external legal counsel. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:46 PM To: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> Subject: Bylaws Drafting Process Sending on behalf of the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Dear John Jeffrey, We hereby wish to notify you that you may proceed, in coordination with our external counsel, with drafting language to include the AoC reviews into ICANN Bylaws, as defined by the CCWG-Accountability and in line with the agreed-upon process (see attached for full reference). The language should reflect the enhancements the CCWG-Accountability has identified in its second draft proposal (see section 9 p.72). As we said before, kindly note that this effort should be conducted in collaboration with the CCWG-Accountability's external legal counsel. They have been instructed to work with you on this effort, including an independent review if necessary. Once an initial draft has been put together, a CCWG-Accountability subgroup will be formed to verify that the proposed language meets the specifics of our second proposal. Both ICANN and the CCWG-Accountability legal counsel will be invited to participate in this subgroup. The CCWG-Accountability subgroup will examine the advice received, adjust as needed, and will share its work product with the full CCWG-Accountability and ICANN Board. The decision to include the Bylaws changes into the proposal and to submit for Public Comment is vested in the CCWG-Accountability. Should the CCWG-Accountability find the draft language unsatisfactory, the draft language will be resent, along with recommendations for our independent counsel, for refining. A detailed overview of steps, responsibilities and dynamics can be found in the attached for further information. Once our final report is approved by Chartering Organizations, ICANN processes will ensue to include the language as appropriate. We look forward to this collaboration and encourage you to contact us should you have questions or concerns. Thank you, The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Attachment: <Bylaw drafting process.pdf>

1 0

SIIA Blog: IANA Contract Extension is the Right Thing to Do
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Dear all, Here below is a blog from CCWG participant Carl Schonander. We¹ll upload it to the Wiki blog page <https://community.icann.org/x/XCPxAg> as part of the group¹s outreach efforts. Please let us know if you have any blogs of your own that you would like us to add to the Wiki. Best, Grace Link: http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2015/08/iana-contract-extension-the-right-thi ng-to-do/ IANA CONTRACT EXTENSION THE RIGHT THING TO DO <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2015/08/iana-contract-extension-the-right-th ing-to-do/> August 18, 2015 By Carl Schonander <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/author/cschonander/> Yesterday, the Commerce Department¹s National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> that it is extending the contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) functions. The contract will be extended by one year from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Briefly, the IANA functions relate to the Domain Name Server (DNS) system, which connects names and numbers. Although this is sometimes described as a ³clerical² function, it is critical to the continued seamless functioning of the Internet. SIIA welcomed <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2014/03/siia-welcomes-privatization-of-inter net-domain-name-function-transition/> the March 14, 2014 NTIA announcement to transition the IANA functions to multistakeholder control. At the same time, we strongly supported the Administration¹s insistence that the conditions <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition -key-internet-domain-name-functions> it articulated for the transfer to be met. SIIA also considers the Congress¹s oversight role to be important, which is why we support <http://www.siia.net/Press/SIIA-Supports-Amended-DOTCOM-Act-of-2015> the proposed DOTCOM <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/text> Act. The bill requires the NTIA conditions to be met, as well as for a number of broad ICANN accountability reforms to be included in ICANN¹s bylaws. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) have developed proposals which make substantial progress in addressing the NTIA conditions. However, more time is clearly needed in order to review and perhaps further develop these proposals. Currently, for instance, there are important discussions on the role of governments (the GAC) with respect to its relationship to the ICANN Board, as well as continued debate on the jurisdiction (California) under which ICANN operates. These issues need to be resolved prior to the transition. For all of these reasons, it was prudent for NTIA to give the multistakeholder community more time to create arrangements, which will be critical for global commerce in the coming years. But by no means does this action indicate a lack of commitment to this transition. The Internet is a critical resource that has developed into the wonderful infrastructure it is through a unique distributed governance arrangement best known as the multistakeholder model. SIIA remains committed to that vision <http://www.infoworld.com/article/2868011/internet/keeping-the-internet-free -means-letting-go-of-icann.html> .

1 0

An Update on NTIA's Announcement to Extend IANA Functions Contract
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-ntia-s-announcement-to-extend-i ana-functions-contract ICANN's Theresa Swinehart discusses NTIA¹s announcement of the IANA functions contract extension. The additional time is necessary for the global community to complete its work and for ICANN to implement the community¹s proposals. Watch the full video here: https://youtu.be/QiBy0wiiiYQ

1 0

Fwd: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Hi all, I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work forward. The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves. If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke) Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> > Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix > Fecha: 11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5 > Para: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > > > Dear All, > > Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. > > Could you please forward to the CWG? > > Thanks > > SHARON FLANAGAN > Partner > Sidley Austin LLP > 555 California Street > Suite 2000 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> > www.sidley.com <http://www.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. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>

7 12

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #49 - 18 August
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #49 - 18 August will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0Y9CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: Interested CCWG individuals to reach out to Cheryl and to send in proposed scenarios ACTION ITEM: Leon to adjust action/timeline ACTION ITEM: Send any inconsistencies you notice to Co-Chairs. Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Update on PC tool Feedback on PC1 is due today - 23:59 UTC. We are missing one section from respective parties. Resilience Analysis & Community Mechanism Objective: look at the mechanism and determine whether unintended consequences. This is in line with blog spot from Larry Strickling. This is different from Stress Tests. It has done great work in thinking through scenarios. There has been a lot of thinking when analyzing PC1 report. --- Feedback: - We should not overemphasize issues. We should avoid marginalizing governments. --> It would be worth engaging in assessment that not destabilizing ICANN - Notes: comments to remove stress-test 18 were not taken into consideration. --> We have discussed this question in length on numerous occasions. There has been a wish to have it removed but it did not get sufficient traction. ST 18 has been tagged as a requirement. Our charter specifies that we need to follow NTIA requirements. Suggest minority statement or submitting a public comment. - Stress Test WP has done a good job analyzing ICANN's performance without NTIA contract but we have not tested our solutions. This resilience exercise will be important. We will need to document that we have tested our model. - ICANN's Board and legal department prepared impact analysis questions. It underlines suspicion that solution will have an impact that will need to be mitigated. --- Comments were made that not seen new system up and running and no one would have way to see how it functions. We should be forward-thinking and go through day-to-day scenarios. This project fits under work area 4. Members of ST party are by default members of resilience group. ACTION ITEM: Interested CCWG individuals to reach out to Cheryl and to send in proposed scenarios ------ Human Rights Work Party On last call agreed that Nigel Roberts would lead drafting effort - i.e. high level wording on human rights. We are continuing discussions on the list. Proposed timeline and action plan can be adjusted as needed W Aug 17 - finalize initial wording to begin discussing high level wording. W Aug 24 - first call to discuss initial wording. W Aug 31 - Continue discussion. W Sept 7 - Finalize wording for CCWG consideration and approval on W Sept 14 Two calls per week might be needed. --- Feedback: - Are you referring to Bylaws amendments? Its agenda sets out half the task. --> It will include the rationale and analysis by subgroup. - Explanatory note is going into details. We should not go down that road.It should remain high level. - Explanatory note would be as a product of document. It is not meant to be incorporated into Bylaws - We do not need an elaborate research of what it means since there already is broad understanding - We need to discuss common grounds. Understanding is important. ACTION ITEM: Leon to adjust action/timeline A.O.B There are inaccuracies in the CWG matrix that will need to be addressed. These will be relayed to the CWG. The CCWG will have its own matrix when time comes. - There are inconsistencies in the report (e.g. approval incorrect in Fundamental Bylaws context) ACTION ITEM: Send any inconsistencies you notice to CoChairs. Closing Remarks The PC1 tool will be published in 24 hours. More will be shared on Human Rights work party's work. We will begin work on resilience analysis

1 0

Apologies
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Brenda, Grace, please note my apology, the day job called. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

3 2

Questions related to Budget rejection
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

I have two questions related to Section 7.1 - The terms "veto" and "reject" a budget seem to be used interchangeably to refer to the same action. If that is the case, it should be explicitly stated, and perhaps only a single term used. - Paragraphs 389 and 390 seem to be at odds with each other. 389 says that if there is a second community veto, the previous year's budget will be used. 390 talks about the community's judgement of the Board's response to a 2nd veto, but under the proposed 389, there is no opportunity for a Board obeying the Bylaws to do anything other than comply. What form of response is 390 envisioning which would be non-compliant? Alan

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Speaking from whois perspective, I would expect a scenario where whoever holds the TM (IETF trust for instance) to be the admin contact while ICANN would be technical contact for the domain name. I don't think we need to argue on the need for ICANN(IFO) to have "operational" access to the domain name. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Aug 2015 18:42, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: Steve You are right and for that reason ICANN must not have the IP rights to the IANA.ORG domain name, or indeed unfettered control (as this discussion implies. Insteadm it must have a licence allowing it to be used day-to-day *BY* ICANN, as long as it is the IANA contractor. It must have de-facto day-to-day operational control. But that's it. Therefore the Registrant of IANA.ORG needs to become a trusted third party that holds the registration ON TRUST (in the legal sense) for the beneficial owner (call that RightsCo if you like), who provides an unlimited-use license to ICANN (or any other company that might get the IANA contract in the future) under the terms of its carrying out the IANA function. On 18/08/15 17:20, Steve Crocker wrote: > Becky, > > Not quite right. I believe there are three trademarks, but far more > important than the trademarks is the control of the iana.org domain > name. Despite the thousands of words of email devoted to the trademarks, > in the case of IANA they’re of only modest, at best, practical importance. > The domain name, however, is a key piece of the operation. > > Steve > > > > On Aug 18, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > > I think that the IP rights in question are limited to the IANA trademark, >> which the USG transferred to ICANN in 1999 or so. >> >> 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 8/18/15, 3:11 AM, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: >> >> Gabi, >>> >>> thank you for posting this. >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I want to place on record, that this needs SIGNIFICANT thought, and >>> considerably more detail than what is provided here. >>> >>> In particular what actual Intellectual Property Rights do they mean, >>> EXACTLY? And I would like to see them in a numbered list :-)-O >>> >>> Most certainly will the root zone (database) on which the NSF is >>> performed, and the contacts database (DEF) NOT fall under this. >>> >>> >>> Without having thought this through to the end, however, I think this is >>> a WS1 item for the CCWG Accountability, and needs to be dsicussed on >>> tonight's call. >>> >>> >>> Fortunately, we have time, the transition has been postponed to >>> 2016-09-30 last Friday >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_blog_ >>> >>> 2015_update-2Diana-2Dtransition&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFO >>> >>> ifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=xEvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH_5RfpEaBO3-n >>> jFirHo3sc&s=anSaVt_Y73vPTokKGDZODQOgEpcSMCQYfov_F17TFqo&e= >>> >>> greetings, el >>> >>> >>> On 2015-08-18 09:16, Gabriella Schittek wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> ICANN has released a statement regarding the IANA Intellectual Property >>>> Rights: >>>> >>>> === >>>> ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)15 >>>> August 2015 >>>> ICANN supports the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) proposal and >>>> the underlying proposals from the Community Working Group (CWG), the >>>> Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team and the Planning >>>> for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) working group. >>>> The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the Intellectual Property >>>> Rights (IPR) component of the proposal. The Board believes that for >>>> stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator >>>> must have operational control over the IANA.ORG >>>> < >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iana.org_&d=AwICAg&c >>>> >>>> =MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=x >>>> >>>> EvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH_5RfpEaBO3-njFirHo3sc&s=4i-xg4Yjhd2u-vOhYZeKXLv1fPbl >>>> EqzcJUU3MkUOa58&e= > domain. >>>> During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of >>>> the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed >>>> among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as >>>> the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those >>>> trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG >>>> >>>> < >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iana.org_&d=AwICAg&c >>>> >>>> =MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=x >>>> >>>> EvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH_5RfpEaBO3-njFirHo3sc&s=4i-xg4Yjhd2u-vOhYZeKXLv1fPbl >>>> EqzcJUU3MkUOa58&e= > domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA >>>> Functions Operator. >>>> If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise >>>> delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold >>>> the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days >>>> after the neutral third party is identified by the operational >>>> communities. >>>> We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward >>>> to hearing from anyone in the community. >>>> >>>> === >>>> >>>> See >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_a >>>> >>>> nnouncement-2D2015-2D08-2D15-2Den&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62c >>>> >>>> JFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=xEvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH_5RfpEaB >>>> O3-njFirHo3sc&s=kkb9yxPPFQICrdDt6_by0xp5V6I-9OPO6Ap5eKlTttQ&e= >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Gabi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dman >>>> >>>> agers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lUL >>>> >>>> rw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=xEvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH >>>> _5RfpEaBO3-njFirHo3sc&s=hj0Oa8KWrcB67Gt8uRpbH-r3gLgTrpp6HraDXEfJoYU&e= >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >>> el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >>> PO Box 8421 \ / >>> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana >>> >>> gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw >>> >>> &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=xEvMoIyL67gEqHJRspVNVH_5R >>> fpEaBO3-njFirHo3sc&s=hj0Oa8KWrcB67Gt8uRpbH-r3gLgTrpp6HraDXEfJoYU&e= >>> >>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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