August 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

chart comparing current Mission & Core Values with 2nd Draft Proposal Mission, Commitments & Core Values
by Burr, Becky Aug. 26, 2015

Aug. 26, 2015

I’ve put together a chart with the requested comparison. Hope it helps. Alice, I assume someone will post as appropriate Thanks, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Call with advisors Dear all, This is to inform you that as part of your outreach and public comment process, a call will be held on Monday, 31 August - 13:00-14:00 UTC to collect CCWG-Accountability Advisors' input on the Second Draft Proposal. May we also take this opportunity to remind you that your third webinar is scheduled for tomorrow – Tuesday, 25 August – 18:00-20:00 UTC – see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> for details. Webinar Q&As on your second draft proposal are compiled on a wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54695403<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…> Thank you, Kind regards Alice

3 3

Fwd: ICANN Bylaws Matrix and "Approve or Veto"
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Dear all, Following the series of emails exchanged on the Bylaws Matrix and the Approve or Veto terminology, Counsel had kindly clarified that the wording came directly form the language used in the CWG’s final proposal. We have reached out to the CWG co-chairs and began coordinating to standardize language and take care of any terminology that could lead to error or misinterpretation. Thanks to all who flagged issues on the Matrix. We will update you as it gets adjusted. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > Asunto: ICANN Bylaws Matrix and "Approve or Veto" > Fecha: 19 de agosto de 2015 6:33:41 GMT-5 > Para: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas(a)rickert.net>, acct-staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> > Cc: "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com>, "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas(a)sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan(a)sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam(a)sidley.com>, "Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin(a)sidley.com> > > Dear Co-Chairs, > There has been a lot of chatter on email in the CCWG Accountability group about language in the CWG bylaws matrix regarding the ability of the community to "approve or veto" the ICANN budget. This is the language that is in the CWG final proposal as indicated in the relevant highlighted extracts below and is not an error. We agree that the language will ultimately need to be conformed with CCWG's proposal and will make a note in the matrix. We believe it likely that CWG will accept the formulation proposed by CCWG on this dependency given the detailed work that the CCWG has expended on it. Please consider forwarding this email to the group. > Kind regards, Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > From: Grapsas, Rebecca > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 06:10:17 AM > To: Gregory, Holly; Flanagan, Sharon > Subject: ICANN Bylaws Matrix > > Extracts from CWG Proposal (June 11, 2015): > > Para 105. While this proposal originates from within the names community, it anticipates that, for reasons of coherence of the IANA function and overall operational logistics, all of the IANA functions will be transferred to PTI. However, it is not clear at the time of writing whether the other operational communities will undertake to contract directly with PTI (similar to the manner in which this response envisages ICANN will do), or whether those communities will have a contract with ICANN. If the other operational communities contract directly with PTI, then those communities will need to determine the terms of their contract with PTI for the support of their respective functions. On the other hand, if the other operational communities enter into a contract with ICANN, then ICANN will need to subcontract the performance of the functions to PTI. Which of these approaches is followed by the other operational communities is not relevant for the purposes of the present proposal, so long as those details are not inconsistent with this proposal. In any case, the arrangements for the non-names IANA functions are out of scope for this document except to the extent they impinge directly on the names functions. The CWG-Stewardship has also agreed that approval of all changes to the content of the Root Zone will no longer need authorization (as is currently the case) and that external communications and reporting will no longer need external approval post-transition. This final proposal attempts to meet all of the above requirements by: … > · Ensuring ICANN accepts input from the multistakeholder community with respect to the annual IANA operations budget. > > Para 106. The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision. Specifically, the proposed legal structure and overall CWG-Stewardship proposal requires ICANN accountability in the following respects: > 1. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. > 2. Community Empowerment Mechanisms. The empowerment of the multistakeholder community to have the following rights with respect to the ICANN Board, the exercise of which should be ensured by the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group: > > (a) The ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board and to recall the entire ICANN Board; > > (b) The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA functions) by reviewing and approving (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN budget; … > > Para 109. At the outset, PTI will have ICANN as its sole member and PTI will therefore be a controlled affiliate of ICANN. ICANN will provide funding and administrative resources to PTI through an agreed-upon budget. > > Para 162. In order for the multistakeholder community to steward the IANA Functions, the CWG-Stewardship recommends that: > 1) The IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function. > > 2) Future Fiscal Year (FY) ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed. > > Para 163. Further details on the expected detail, based on the information provided in relation to the FY15 budget, can be found in Annex P. Furthermore, the CWG-Stewardship has identified a number of items for future work that can be found in Annex Q. In relation to PTI, the CWG-Stewardship recommends that PTI should develop and annually update a four-year strategic plan, which should outline strategic priorities, while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the ICANN community. A fully approved budget should be developed on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget [FN 22] to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN Budget. PTI’s actual financial performance should be measured monthly against the PTI budget, and should be reported to the PTI Board. In addition to any statutory requirements, it is the view of the CWG that an independent financial audit of PTI’s financial statements must also be required. [FN 22: In developing its budget, the CWG-Stewardship recommends that PTI review best practices of other similar organizations.] > > Para 194. The CWG-Stewardship’s proposed changes are to be implemented after NTIA approval of the IANA Stewardship Transition plan. Some changes are ready to be implemented, and others may require further assessment by the ICG as they may affect and be of interest to other communities involved in the IANA Stewardship Transition. For all changes, including changes that do not require further assessment by the ICG, the community will work with ICANN in implementation. The CWG-Stewardship expects that the following implementation items could be completed in approximately three to four months, in accordance with the advice of independent legal counsel: (1) identifying the ICANN assets that relate to the IANA functions to be assigned to PTI and assigning those assets to PTI pursuant to an assignment agreement to be entered into between ICANN and PTI, (2) incorporating PTI and drafting the PTI governance documents (i.e., articles of incorporation and bylaws) and (3) drafting, negotiating and finalizing the ICANN-PTI Contract.35 The CWG-Stewardship has attempted an initial list of elements for implementation as follows: … > · IANA Budget: The CWG-Stewardship worked closely with ICANN Finance in developing recommendations for transparent budget processes and itemizations regarding IANA operations costs. Recommendations on ICANN’s budgeting process can be implemented as further details of the CWG Accountability proposal are defined and approved. Developing a PTI budget is part of, and dependent on, the establishment of PTI. There are other recommendations (in particular, the ability of the community to approve/veto the ICANN budget) that have been requested of the CCWG-Accountability as part of a key dependency with the CCWG-Accountability as soon as their work is finalized. … > · Community empowerment mechanisms: These have been requested of the CCWG-Accountability as part of a key dependency with the CCWG-Accountability as soon as their work is finalized. [FN 38: In particular, mechanisms such as: the ability to recall the ICANN Board, the ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions including decisions relating to periodic or special reviews of the IANA functions undertaken through the IFR and approval of the ICANN budget, the ability to approve changes to ICANN’s fundamental bylaws as well as the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group in order ensure the ability to exercise these kinds of rights. ] > > Para 434. CCWG Accountability Dependencies > Enumeration of the relevant accountability mechanisms relating to the IANA Budget: > · The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. > > Annex S – Draft Proposed Term Sheet: > Budget Meetings; Funding. ICANN will meet [annually] with the [President of PTI] to review and approve the budget for the IANA Naming Services for the next [three] years. ICANN shall fund PTI at agreed budget levels. > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > **************************************************************************************************** >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Wp4] [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
by Paul Twomey Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Leon There was a dialogue on this list on 12-13 August, involving Nigel, Becky, Martin, Eberhard, Greg, Avri and myself, pointing out the difficulties the Guiding Principles present for certain aspects of ICANN's commitments and work. Putting forward the wording below appears to just ignore that dialogue. I cannot support wording that says "support without reservation for the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" I could support wording that says '"Hereby affirms its intent to develop by-laws and policy, drawing where appropriate on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to give effect to human rights within its work, as defined by the mission of the Corporation." Best Paul On 8/25/15 5:03 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: > Dear all, > > Here is the second mail on starting the discussion on HR. > > Below you will find the first draft of high level objective by Nigel > Roberts for your review and feedback. > > Best regards, > > > León > >> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >> >> *De: *Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> >> *Asunto: **Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human >> Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected* >> *Fecha: *24 de agosto de 2015 13:50:53 GMT-5 >> *Para: *wp4(a)icann.org >> >> Draft of High Level Objective >> ============================= >> >> RECOGNISING ICANN's special role in the functioning of the world-wide >> Internet; >> >> FURTHER RECOGNISING ICANN's unique nature as a multi-stakeholder, >> private-sector led organisations; >> >> HAVING IN MIND THE COMMITMENT of the corporation set out in Article 4 >> in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation to carrying out its activities >> in conformity with relevant principles of international law and >> applicable international conventions and local law; >> >> ASSERTING that it wishes to ensure the same level, when acting within >> its distinct mission, of rights for Internet users and businesses >> that would be expected of it were it a state actor; >> >> HEREBY AFFIRMS its support without reservation for the United Nations >> Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and intends to >> develop by-laws and policy to give it full effect within the work and >> defined mission of the Corporation. >> >> >> >> On 08/24/2015 07:12 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote: >>> Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform >>> discussion. >>> >>> A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel >> _______________________________________________ >> Wp4 mailing list >> Wp4(a)icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com

4 4

Fwd: [Wp4] [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Dear all, Here is the second mail on starting the discussion on HR. Below you will find the first draft of high level objective by Nigel Roberts for your review and feedback. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> > Asunto: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected > Fecha: 24 de agosto de 2015 13:50:53 GMT-5 > Para: wp4(a)icann.org > > Draft of High Level Objective > ============================= > > RECOGNISING ICANN's special role in the functioning of the world-wide Internet; > > FURTHER RECOGNISING ICANN's unique nature as a multi-stakeholder, private-sector led organisations; > > HAVING IN MIND THE COMMITMENT of the corporation set out in Article 4 in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation to carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law; > > ASSERTING that it wishes to ensure the same level, when acting within its distinct mission, of rights for Internet users and businesses that would be expected of it were it a state actor; > > HEREBY AFFIRMS its support without reservation for the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and intends to develop by-laws and policy to give it full effect within the work and defined mission of the Corporation. > > > > On 08/24/2015 07:12 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote: >> Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform discussion. >> >> A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly. >> >> >> >> Nigel > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #50 - 25 August
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #50 - 25 August will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/049CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions 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. 2. Preliminary ICANN Board Comments Board is scaling up efforts and involved in this. They announced steps that are important for us to be aware of: 1) seeking external counseling input that will be inserted into forum; 2) reaching out to third party experts on governance to assess impact of proposal; 3) they will be using these briefing materials to build their comments. They provide useful examples of concerns e.g. change of role of ACs and new powers that are being granted, risk of paralysis and IRP related concerns. We have been trying to organize calls with the Board but have not been able to find a time. Concerns that dialogue is not taking place. Board announcement might turn discussions into expensive battle of experts instead of dialogue. Feedback: - Part of comments are positive. The fact that they are seeking advice should not be criticized but their comment is a warning: we should not be destabilizing delicate balance. - Impression of feedback should have been given earlier in process. Why did they not seek experts feedback earlier? This may delay in process. What are we negotiating? - Board proclaimed desire to discuss issues in BA but no follow up in Paris. What of Bruce's attendance to calls? We need an open and constructive discussion with Board. There needs to be understanding behing report before submitting additional comments. - It is normal for the Board seek its own advice. If it implements what we propose and somehow it does not work, ICANN will crash. Important not to create a biased. - Can't argue with wish to have solid and capture-proof model. What we have come up with needs to be looked at carefully. Board taking that on is a good thing. How we deal with problems they identify will be interesting. - There is a problem of misunderstanding - we have always had Board members with us. They understand what we are doing and it is their responsibility to evaluate. We need to dialogue with Board. The Board has no interest in collapsing our work - they have concerns. - We have to determine how we can improve dialogue with Board. We can't ensure we will come with a stable proposal to the end. We have minority statements, comments in disagreement etc. We need to see how we will honor that. - Next steps is to bring together group to start working on IRP and rules of procedure. Expert report could be extremely damaging and counterproductive. - It can be extremely helpful if Board comes up with feedback to identify gaps (e.g. staturory rights on first proposal). If the Board comes back to us with counter proposal, based on misunderstandings or information they did not get access to, it will be disastrous. We need to be careful about overall impression of dialogue. We should avoid that Board signals to outside world is that it is derailing transition or community discussion. Suggestion to get back to Board to make the door wide open for dialogue. We should be forthcoming and we suggest writing the Board a letter to avoid complications. On corporate advisors, we should share concerns we see with the Board that ICANN has come us with idea of public experts. We did not go far enough in eyes of some advisors with our proposals. Two scenarios can happen: 1) external advisors agree we have not been far enough; 2) external advisors say we went too far - it will be perceived as Board asking for less change. - It is legitimate for the Board to seek advice but there is value in scheduling a meeting with ICANN Board's legal experts to avoid misunderstandings. ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to write correspondence to Board Chair and Board liaison that recognizes legal independence in advice but urges a closer collaboration especially with respect to legal experts. A draft will be circulated on list. 3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG - Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group? Feedback: - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership. - Where is it noted that we need to specify process? - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of approach or go with different proposal. 4. Human Rights discussion Progress includes two discussion starter documents: first draft on high level objective and background briefing. We are in process of closing doodle poll for call this week. Feedback: - We should be concise and high level. Progress accomplished in upcoming weeks will be shared with CCWG. 5. Feedback received by group Members on Second Draft Proposal Opportunity to relay initial feedback. Feedback: - Simplicity of community mechanism. IPC discussion on contract enforcement. Discussion happening on unintended consequences which is a good sign. --> We identified potential ambiguous reference in revised mission. Edit proposed to Core Values. ACTION ITEM: Greg, Becky, Steve to follow up on IPC discussion. - Preliminary discussions within GAC: core value 7, voting power of work (participation or not), unclarity on what it is being suggested. Working on ST 18 and core values language. - Current model is not ALAC's preference but can live with it. Comparison between current bylaws and changes is needed. --> Synopsis is on its way. ACTION ITEM: Alan to relay ALAC concerns on proposed Bylaws revisions 6. ICANN 54 CCWG-ACCT 16 Oct Friday 09:00 - 17:00 Possible engagement session on Monday afternoon either in conjunction with ICG or CCWG alone CCWG-ACCT 22 Oct Thursday 08:00 - 10:00 --> Touch-base to see where we stand with chartering organizations 7 A.O.B /

4 4

Fwd: [Wp4] [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Dear all, As commented in our call today, I am forwarding the discussion starter paper on HR prepared by Nigel Roberts. You will se that this is a paper to kick start our discussion on this very important issue but keeping in mind the need to begin with a high level statement as part of our WS1 work and aiming to further develop on the issue as part our WS2 work. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> > Asunto: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected > Fecha: 24 de agosto de 2015 13:12:15 GMT-5 > Para: wp4(a)icann.org > > Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform discussion. > > A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly. > > > > Nigel > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting with Advisors | 13:00 UTC | 31 August 2015
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Thank you. Did I miss the Doodle Poll for this meeting? I have prior engagements which I can not re-arrange on such short notice. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Aug 25, 2015, at 03:10, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Advisors – Monday, 31 August 2015 from 13:00 – 14:00 UTC > Time zone converter here > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ > > The dial-in details are below - please let acct-staff(a)icann.org know if you require a dial-out. > _______________________________________________________________ > Participant passcode: CCWG ACCT > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > _______________________________________________________________ > > Dial in numbers: > COUNTRY Number Toll Free Number > ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL 0800-7610651 > CHILE 1230-020-2863 > CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 > CHINA CHINA – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA 800-011-1093 > FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 > INDIA 000-800-852-1268 > INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 > ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA 001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 > THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > <mime-attachment.ics>

1 0

Call with advisors
by Alice Jansen Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

Dear all, This is to inform you that as part of your outreach and public comment process, a call will be held on Monday, 31 August - 13:00-14:00 UTC to collect CCWG-Accountability Advisors' input on the Second Draft Proposal. May we also take this opportunity to remind you that your third webinar is scheduled for tomorrow - Tuesday, 25 August - 18:00-20:00 UTC - see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en for details. Webinar Q&As on your second draft proposal are compiled on a wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54695403 Thank you, Kind regards Alice

1 0

AGENDA - Call #50
by Alice Jansen Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #50<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54693843> - Tuesday, 25 August from 06:00 - 08:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please below a proposed agenda: 1 Welcome, roll call, SoI 2 Preliminary ICANN Board Comments - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00006.… 3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG 4 Human Rights discussion 5 Feedback received by group Members on Second Draft Proposal 6 ICANN 54 7 A.O.B Thank you, Kind regards Alice

1 0

IANA Contract Extended
by Malcolm Hutty Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

"Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals." -- Extract, NTIA statement 2015-08-17 (yesterday) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition In the light of this announcement, do we still think we are done? Or does the extra time give us the opportunity to improve our proposal further? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

5 4