August 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Final Compiled Version of 2nd Draft Proposal
by Hillary Jett Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

Hi all, Please find attached a Final Compiled Version of the 2nd Draft Proposal. Each individual chapter of this document can be found on the wiki, and this page is the reference page for the group on this 2nd Draft Proposal: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460> This document is currently undergoing a professional design overhaul and will be published tomorrow as a part of the public comment launch. As a note, you will notice that numbering of chapters has been cleaned up. Thanks all, 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

3 2

Appendix for Minority Statements
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

Dear all, We received three minority statements within the deadline: Eberhard, Sebastien, and Edward. These have been incorporated in the attached Appendix H. Please note that we also have a Wiki page available and linked to from the Appendix, as requested during the CCWG-Accountability meeting #46. Thank you, Grace

2 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Working methods
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

Tijani, haven't you figured out that you are wasting your time with these Co-Chairs? Object already and put a Minority Viewpoint on the record. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Aug 1, 2015, at 22:37, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > > Thank you Thomas for your prompt reply. > > As I said several times, I’m engineer and I’m very bad in polemic. I only want to remind you that I said: “This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment”, means that I do prefer a larger consultation assuming that the result will not be used for the text to be submitted for public comment. My point is very clear. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > . > > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert > Envoyé : samedi 1 août 2015 15:57 > À : tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn > Cc : <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Working methods > > Dear Tijani, > thank you for your message. Let me respond to your second concern first. > > We have made clear from the start that we did not want to disginguish between members and participants, but that we are hoping to reach consensus amongst everyone in our group to get the broadest possible support. > > We will only identify the views of the members in case it is not possible to reach consensus in the whole group. > > We hope you still share our view that this approach is more inclusive as we try not to seperate members from participants. > > Please also note that we have discussed most of the issues over the last months and the recommendations evolved over time. In deed, the last days have been demanding for all of us, but - if I may share my personal experience over more than 15 years - regardless of how long a project runs there is always a certain intensity towards completion. :-) > > Most of the areas of our work got very strong support by most in our group and there are only a few questions that I think have caused your concerns. Especially for the discussions of these, community feedback will be very valuable. > > Remember, we will have 40 days of public comment, during that time our group will continue the discussion and we will carefully analyze comments as well as dissenting oipinions from within our group. > > The community may confirm all proposals we identified as getting most traction during discussions. The community may also give us direction that we need to rethink aspects of our work. Should this be the case, we will listen, assess and - as the case may be - adjust. Our report is clearly marked as the second draft, so it is not cast in stone. > > Let me use this opportunity to thank you for being such a thoughtful and tireless contributor to our important work. > > Have a great weekend, > Thomas > > --- > rickert.net > > > Am 01.08.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn>: > > Dear co-chairs, > > I would like to express a general concern about our working methods: > > 1. I do think that the work undertaken by the CCWG is too important and will impact the future of ICANN and the Internet governance in general. I do not think that under any circumstance, we should run after a deadline even if it is imposed by a strong and valid reason because the result may not meet the interest of ICANN as organization and its community as a whole. I believe that our work should not be only done; it must be well done. > > During our work, we were pushed to work under very tight time, with several conference calls a day (we did 12 hours calls in 24 hours, divided in 3 parts). The number of text proposal was so huge that it was impossible to review and comment on them for a good participation; as a result, they do not reflect the exact opinion of all members of the group. > > This makes me wonder who may really participate and impact the decisions in the group. Anyone who has another life than the CCWG one would definitely not be able to actively participle and follow all the language drafted. So, if you are not paid to do this work (by your government or by your company), you will never manage to have an efficient participation. > > Since we were asked by the NTIA to evaluate the time required to finish our work, I was of the view that we have to take the necessary time for a well debated and agreed result. > > This doesn’t mean the work done is not good: I would like here to thank very much the 2 raporteurs Jordan and Beky for their hard work and time and also the 3 co-Chairs for their continuous efforts for consensus building, but some parts need more discussion and more clarity that couldn’t be reached because of the time constraint. > > Finally, I do prefer stay with the NTIA stewardship rather than transit it to the community without robust, clear, fair and workable accountability mechanisms accepted by all the community components. > > 2. As per our charter, only CCWG members participate in the decision making process. Also, the decisions should be taken by consensus. I noticed that when it was necessary to make a straw poll to get the temperature of the group about an issue where there was no full consensus, it was done with the participation of the whole people participating in the call, which doesn’t reflect the temperature of the members allowed to participate in the decision making. This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > <~WRD000.jpg> > L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Community Mechanism for Freeze
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

Dear all, Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified. Best, Grace

4 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Working methods
by Thomas Rickert Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear Tijani, thank you for your message. Let me respond to your second concern first. We have made clear from the start that we did not want to disginguish between members and participants, but that we are hoping to reach consensus amongst everyone in our group to get the broadest possible support. We will only identify the views of the members in case it is not possible to reach consensus in the whole group. We hope you still share our view that this approach is more inclusive as we try not to seperate members from participants. Please also note that we have discussed most of the issues over the last months and the recommendations evolved over time. In deed, the last days have been demanding for all of us, but - if I may share my personal experience over more than 15 years - regardless of how long a project runs there is always a certain intensity towards completion. :-) Most of the areas of our work got very strong support by most in our group and there are only a few questions that I think have caused your concerns. Especially for the discussions of these, community feedback will be very valuable. Remember, we will have 40 days of public comment, during that time our group will continue the discussion and we will carefully analyze comments as well as dissenting oipinions from within our group. The community may confirm all proposals we identified as getting most traction during discussions. The community may also give us direction that we need to rethink aspects of our work. Should this be the case, we will listen, assess and - as the case may be - adjust. Our report is clearly marked as the second draft, so it is not cast in stone. Let me use this opportunity to thank you for being such a thoughtful and tireless contributor to our important work. Have a great weekend, Thomas --- rickert.net > Am 01.08.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn>: > > Dear co-chairs, > > I would like to express a general concern about our working methods: > > 1. I do think that the work undertaken by the CCWG is too important and will impact the future of ICANN and the Internet governance in general. I do not think that under any circumstance, we should run after a deadline even if it is imposed by a strong and valid reason because the result may not meet the interest of ICANN as organization and its community as a whole. I believe that our work should not be only done; it must be well done. > > During our work, we were pushed to work under very tight time, with several conference calls a day (we did 12 hours calls in 24 hours, divided in 3 parts). The number of text proposal was so huge that it was impossible to review and comment on them for a good participation; as a result, they do not reflect the exact opinion of all members of the group. > > This makes me wonder who may really participate and impact the decisions in the group. Anyone who has another life than the CCWG one would definitely not be able to actively participle and follow all the language drafted. So, if you are not paid to do this work (by your government or by your company), you will never manage to have an efficient participation. > > Since we were asked by the NTIA to evaluate the time required to finish our work, I was of the view that we have to take the necessary time for a well debated and agreed result. > > This doesn’t mean the work done is not good: I would like here to thank very much the 2 raporteurs Jordan and Beky for their hard work and time and also the 3 co-Chairs for their continuous efforts for consensus building, but some parts need more discussion and more clarity that couldn’t be reached because of the time constraint. > > Finally, I do prefer stay with the NTIA stewardship rather than transit it to the community without robust, clear, fair and workable accountability mechanisms accepted by all the community components. > > 2. As per our charter, only CCWG members participate in the decision making process. Also, the decisions should be taken by consensus. I noticed that when it was necessary to make a straw poll to get the temperature of the group about an issue where there was no full consensus, it was done with the participation of the whole people participating in the call, which doesn’t reflect the temperature of the members allowed to participate in the decision making. This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Update to 5A.2 on Voting Weights
by Jordan Carter Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Hi all Attached please find mark ups showing update on the voting weights part of 5A based on the discussion at this forty-seventh CCWG meeting. Comments etc welcome, preferably on the main CCWG list. Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

7 11

Updated Executive Summary
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear all, Sharing on Mathieu¹s behalf the updated Executive Summary: Updates include: - WS1 definition included - language to clarify that powers are escalation path - Added mention of IFR challenge (Sabine's point) - removed () around Human rights WS2 issue. Best, Grace

3 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statement review process (Was Re: Minority Statements)
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, I understand that minority statements are allowed. However may I know how the group intend to respond to those statements. Will they be addressed along side comments received from public comment after the closure of the current PC? Or they will not be addressed but included as part of the annexes in the final documents? I am asking because I personally find a few sections of Edward's minority statements unacceptable, which could actually trigger a minority statement from me as well depending on how this CCWG intends to handle minority statements. Regards On 1 Aug 2015 1:11 pm, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: > About twenty minutes ago I submitted directly to the Chairs, per the > instructions given to us by Thomas in his email of 29 July, two minority > statements for (hopefully) inclusion in the report about to be released for > public comment. I had not intended to file any minority statement but, upon > reflection, two aspects of our proposal caused me concern. > > The statements are attached here for community inspection and review. > > Kind regards, > > Edward Morris > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

3 4

so what is the current outcome on human rights.
by Avri Doria Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear esteemed chairs, Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even. Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one? I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not. Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

13 22

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights - way forward
by Nigel Roberts Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

With respect to Paul, I think he's way off base here. But I totally agree with his warning of possible dangers here. So may I join the chorus of "WITHIN ITS MISSION"!!! Paul, you gonna come back as CEO?? On 08/01/2015 09:49 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Absolutely agree with Paul. > > We need to take ICANN far from the political fights to keep it focused on its mission. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Paul Twomey > Envoyé : vendredi 31 juillet 2015 18:01 > À : accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights - way forward > > +1 > I am sympathetic to the general thrust of the discussion, but I am > DEEPLY worried about anything which makes ICANN look like a place were > definitions of Human Rights and their application is discussed. > Knowing how poisonous and constantly aggravating this is in the UN > system, we may end up inadvertently attracting a whole new set of > diplomats into the GAC which will risk GAC turning into a very divisive > force in the ICANN structure. (Even in the UN, the Human Rights > battles have resulted in one UN entity being dismantled (almost unheard > of in UN history) and another established) We really do not want to go > down that path. So keeping within Mission and being very specific as > to how some clear rights may apply to specific things ICANN does (eg > freedom of expression in gtld string applications) will be useful. > > Paul > > On 8/1/15 2:38 AM, James Gannon wrote: >> I second Robins support. >> >> -James >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >> Sent: 31 July 2015 17:37 >> To: Accountability Cross Community >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights - way forward >> >> I also support this key language from Keith. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Jul 31, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> >>> Many thanks to Co-Chairs for this suggestion on the way forward. >>> I support the suggested approach. >>> >>>> It could also be added here: >>>> >>>> - this assessment and a firm commitment to add a human rights related Commitment into Icann's Bylaws WITHIN ITS DEFINED MISSION >>> I also support this suggestion from Keith. >>> >>> >>> Izumi >>> >>> On 2015/08/01 0:24, Drazek, Keith wrote: >>>> Thanks to the Co-Chairs. >>>> >>>> I support this approach with one caveat. I expect this is already understood but needs confirmation. >>>> >>>> Consistent with the CCWG discussions on the issue, when we present the issue to the public, it must be made clear that any such bylaw amendment is limited to ICANN's mission. It cannot be used as a tool to expand ICANN's mission, now or in the future. Without this, we do NOT have consensus to include the reference. I assume this would fit under the proposed section: >>>> >>>> - the underlying requirements expressed during the debate, >>>> >>>> It could also be added here: >>>> >>>> - this assessment and a firm commitment to add a human rights related Commitment into Icann's Bylaws WITHIN ITS DEFINED MISSION >>>> >>>> Thanks and regards, >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 7:51 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> As announced during our last call, the co-Chairs have reviewed where we are on this issue. Our group is tasked to work on the basis of consensus, and we have focused on assessing where this condition was met. >>>> >>>> It is our conclusion that : >>>> 1) our group has achieved consensus on including a human rights related Commitment in Icann's Bylaws. >>>> 2) no particular wording currently proposed achieved consensus. >>>> >>>> As a consequence, we propose to include into the public comment 2 report (in the Mission & Core value section, a draft is included below) >>>> - this assessment and a firm commitment to add a human rights related Commitment into Icann's Bylaws, >>>> - the underlying requirements expressed during the debate, >>>> - the concrete language proposals that were considered by our group so far, as examples >>>> >>>> Finally, given the strong momentum on the issue, both during the meeting and on list before and after, and taking into account the high level of complexity involved, we suggest to kick off ASAP a subgroup to further refine the requirements and assess potential options based on further studies of the current situation and "agreed-on" language. >>>> >>>> We thank you all for your understanding and commitment on this topic, as well as the extensive discussions both on list and during the calls about this. >>>> >>>> As a reminder, Minority statements filed until Saturday 12.00 UTC will be incorporated into the report to be published on Monday. Statements filed after this deadline will be published online but not incorporated into the report. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Leon, Thomas & Mathieu >>>> Co-chairs >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> NEW SUBSECTION IN 3A Mission, Commitmennts & Core Values >>>> >>>> Elaborating an Icann Commitment to Human Rights >>>> >>>> The CCWG-Accountability extensively discussed the opportunity to include into Icann Bylaws a Comittment related to Human Rights. The group commissioned a legal analysis of whether the termination of the IANA contract would induce changes into Icann's obligations with regards to Human Rights (LINK). While no significant issue was found to be directly linked to the termination of the IANA contract, the group acknowledged the recurring debates around the nature of Icann's accountability towards the respect of fundamental human rights. >>>> >>>> These discussions identified the following, non-exhaustive, list of accountability-related requirements : >>>> - the NTIA criteria to maintain the openness of the Internet, including free expression and the free flow of information >>>> - the need to avoid extending Icann's mission into content regulation >>>> - the importance of assessing the impact of Icann policies on Human rights >>>> >>>> Examples of language that could serve as a Commitment were as follows : >>>> - Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information. >>>> - Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights. >>>> >>>> The group has achieved consensus on including a human rights related Commitment in Icann's Bylaws. However no particular wording currently proposed achieved consensus. Reiterating its commitment to elaborate concrete proposals as part of its mandate, the CCWG-Accountability is calling for comments on this approach and the underlying requirements. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ***************************** >>>> Mathieu WEILL >>>> AFNIC - directeur g�n�ral >>>> T�l: +33 1 39 30 83 06 >>>> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill >>>> ***************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0