August 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG ACCT Meeting in Dublin
by villa＠reduniv.edu.cu Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

Hi all, good morning/afternoon I’m starting the organization of my trip to ICANN54 in Dublin next October. In one of the previous CCWG calls, someone asked if had been considered a new Face to Face meeting previously to the start of ICANN54 (such as we did in Buenos Aires). Until now, there isn’t any definition about it, and it’s fundamental to do the flight and hotel reservation in the correct way. The time is passing and as you can see, the hotels nearest to the venue are in “sold-out” condition. Is there any definition about it? Regards, Jorge

6 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 12:00 UTC | 11 August
by Dr Eberhard Lisse Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

Please note my apology, I will be in transit. el On 2015-08-06 15:16, Brenda Brewer wrote: > *CCWG-Accountability Meeting *– Tuesday, 11 August 2015 from 12:00 – > 14:00 UTC [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] With regards to incorporation of reviews from the AoC
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

But we did (correctly in my mind) make other changes where they made sense and would allow a RT to spend their time productively. Alan At 05/08/2015 06:26 AM, James Gannon wrote: >Hi Steve's and CCWG, > > >I followed the conversations around the incorporation of the AoC >reviews into the bylaws on the CCWG webinar lat night with a lot of interest. > > >I believe that there is an extremely interesting discussion to be >had as to the appropriateness and scope of the WHOIS review in >particular, as a strong privacy advocate I think that the review may >not go far enough and I would have loved to have beefed up to review >as part of the CCWG's work along with many other fixes that I could >envision within the AoC that I would like to see, but on this matter >its important that we remember the scope of the CCWG and the scope >of the incorporation of the AoC effort. > > >The incorporation of the AoCs came largely out of the work on Stress >Test 14 which among its conclusions stated > * Another proposed measure is to import Affirmation of > Commitments provisions into the ICANN Bylaws, and dispense with the > bilateral Affirmation of Commitments with NTIA. Bylaws would be > amended to include Affirmation of Commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus > the 4 periodic reviews required in paragraph 9. > > >Currently located in the 2nd Draft Proposal as paragraph 882 on page >107. The Stress Test working party has been working on these key >parts of the proposal since March, allowing plenty of time for input >to be gathered from every stakeholder with regards to one of the key >methods by which we as the CCWG are judging our own work. > > From my own memory, but I'd ask Steve DelBianco or CLO to correct > me, I don't recall any consensus push within the ST-WP to > fundamentally assess the content of the AoC or in particular the > incorporation of the AoC reviews and indeed the wording of the > conclusion to Stress Test 14 reflects that in its choice of > "import" as its active verb when referring to the AoC incorporation > effort. We tread a fine line here in the CCWG between doing what is > necessary in our opinion to enhance the accountability of ICANN and > enacting additional changes via the CCWG process. > >Its my opinion that changing the substantive content of the AoC >reviews during their incorporation into the bylaws would undermine >the fragile balance that the CCWG has strove to achieve throughout >its work. Do I think that the WHOIS review needs to be addressed, >most certainly yes in a major manner, but the CCWG is a wholly >inappropriate venue for that change to be addressed. Changes to the >AoC as they stand now are within the control of the ICANN board and >the NTIA to change, if indeed we have a current AoC affirmation that >is "wrong and destructive" I would suggest that the board needs to >approach both the NTIA and the community with a suggested change, >this is within the ability of the board to suggest and for the NTIA >to agree to as per the current AoC text below > > 11. The DOC enters into this Affirmation of Commitments > pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and 47 U.S.C. 902. > ICANN commits to this Affirmation according to its Articles of > Incorporation and its Bylaws. This agreement will become effective > October 1, 2009. The agreement is intended to be long-standing, but > may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties. Any > party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by providing > 120 days written notice to the other party > >Or as an alternative once the reviews are incorporated into the >bylaws the board of the community or both working together can bring >a bylaws amendment to change the text of the WHOIS review bylaw. We >are not baking in the reviews to never be changed, we are bringing >across a core set of accountability measures without substantial >changes to reflect their current standing, I hope that everyone >understands that the CCWG is not here to fix every aspect of ICANN, >we are here to enhance its accountability, lets be cognisant of that >in our work as we come to this critical time. > >Sorry for a wall of text but I think that this is an important issue >for the community to address and for the board to understand the >reasoning for the communities stance on this. > >-James > * >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Sub-group on ICANN Accountability and Fundamental Rights
by David Post Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

Please add me to the list as well - thanks David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* At 08:38 AM 8/3/2015, Suzanne Radell wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_BLUPR05MB337F68F5DE430DDF92704B69F770BLUPR05MB337namprd_" > >Thank you, Leon. Iâd like to be on the list as well. Cheers, Suz > >Suzanne Murray Radell >Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA >sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov >202-482-3167 > >From: >accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa >Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 10:01 PM >To: Jordan Carter >Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Sub-group on ICANN >Accountability and Fundamental Rights > >Thanks Nigel and all who have expressed their >interest in joining this sub-group. > >We will ask staff to setup a mailing list for >the sub-group so we can begin coordinating actions and discussions. > >Please allow a couple of days for this to be setup. > > >Best regards, > > >LeÃ³n > >El 02/08/2015, a las 17:51, Jordan Carter ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> escribiÃ³: > >I'd imagine quite the opposite! As per Grace's >email I expect we can find an email list set up for us in the next day or few. > >Jordan > >On Monday, 3 August 2015, avri doria ><<mailto:avri@ella.com>avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > >Hi, > >Figure people are already fed up with me on this topic. > >I will understand, and can save all my comments for the end. > >avri > >Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >Date:08/02/2015 3:42 PM (GMT-05:00) >To: <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch >Cc: ><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Sub-group on ICANN >Accountability and Fundamental Rights > >I responded initially. Please include me as well. Thank you. > >I note that Avri Doria's name is not >included. I have a sneaking suspicion she would wish to be included as well. > >Greg Shatan > >On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:32 >PM, <<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> wrote: >Dear Nigel and all, >please add me to the subgroup. >thanks! >Jorge Cancio > >Von meinem iPhone gesendet > >Am 02.08.2015 um 21:30 schrieb Nigel Roberts ><<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net%3cmailto:nigel@channelisles.net>nigel(a)channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>: > >Dear All > >I was wondering if somehow we might arrange a >get-together of those interested in the topic, in Dublin. > >If you are one of the people who expressed a 'me >too', you should have just received the below, >from me. (If you didn't but would have expected to, please say!). > > >N. > >-------- Forwarded Message -------- >Subject: Sub-group on ICANN Accountability and Fundamental Rights >Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:16:25 +0100 >From: Nigel Roberts ><<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>nigel(a)channelisles.net><mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> >To: ><mailto:deinhorn@bakerlaw.com%3cmailto:deinhorn@bakerlaw.com>deinhorn(a)bakerlaw.com<mailto:deinhorn@bakerlaw.com>, >stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, >seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, >Dr Eberhard W Lisse ><<mailto:el@lisse.na>el(a)lisse.na><mailto:el@lisse.na>, ><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%3cmailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, >malcolm(a)linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>, >leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, >mshears(a)cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>, >robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>, >dmcauley(a)verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>, >egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> >CC: ><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, >rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> > > > >Dear Colleagues > >I have just spent the last 10 minutes or so going through the 'metoo' >messages on the main list. > >I think I have collected here the list of all Members and Participants >who have expressed an interest in either participating in the work of >the proposed sub-team, or alternatively who wish to lurk and read the >mail (I make no distinction at this stage between the two). > >The purpose of this mail is, essentially, a check call. > >Unless you have received this email in error (i.e. you are NOT wishing >to be involved), you need not reply. > >I'll post something to the main listshortly . . > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ >+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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

CCWG Webinars
by villa＠reduniv.edu.cu Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

Hi all, good morning! Is there any official communication about the CCGW Webinars next week? I would like to have it to share it with our respective communities. The one shared by Alissa Cooper about the ICG Webinars is a good example. Regards, Jorge

8 7

With regards to incorporation of reviews from the AoC
by James Gannon Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

Hi Steve's and CCWG, I followed the conversations around the incorporation of the AoC reviews into the bylaws on the CCWG webinar lat night with a lot of interest. I believe that there is an extremely interesting discussion to be had as to the appropriateness and scope of the WHOIS review in particular, as a strong privacy advocate I think that the review may not go far enough and I would have loved to have beefed up to review as part of the CCWG's work along with many other fixes that I could envision within the AoC that I would like to see, but on this matter its important that we remember the scope of the CCWG and the scope of the incorporation of the AoC effort. The incorporation of the AoCs came largely out of the work on Stress Test 14 which among its conclusions stated 1. Another proposed measure is to import Affirmation of Commitments provisions into the ICANN Bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral Affirmation of Commitments with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to include Affirmation of Commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus the 4 periodic reviews required in paragraph 9. 2. Currently located in the 2nd Draft Proposal as paragraph 882 on page 107. The Stress Test working party has been working on these key parts of the proposal since March, allowing plenty of time for input to be gathered from every stakeholder with regards to one of the key methods by which we as the CCWG are judging our own work. >From my own memory, but I'd ask Steve DelBianco or CLO to correct me, I don't recall any consensus push within the ST-WP to fundamentally assess the content of the AoC or in particular the incorporation of the AoC reviews and indeed the wording of the conclusion to Stress Test 14 reflects that in its choice of "import" as its active verb when referring to the AoC incorporation effort. We tread a fine line here in the CCWG between doing what is necessary in our opinion to enhance the accountability of ICANN and enacting additional changes via the CCWG process. Its my opinion that changing the substantive content of the AoC reviews during their incorporation into the bylaws would undermine the fragile balance that the CCWG has strove to achieve throughout its work. Do I think that the WHOIS review needs to be addressed, most certainly yes in a major manner, but the CCWG is a wholly inappropriate venue for that change to be addressed. Changes to the AoC as they stand now are within the control of the ICANN board and the NTIA to change, if indeed we have a current AoC affirmation that is "wrong and destructive" I would suggest that the board needs to approach both the NTIA and the community with a suggested change, this is within the ability of the board to suggest and for the NTIA to agree to as per the current AoC text below 11. The DOC enters into this Affirmation of Commitments pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and 47 U.S.C. 902. ICANN commits to this Affirmation according to its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws. This agreement will become effective October 1, 2009. The agreement is intended to be long-standing, but may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties. Any party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by providing 120 days written notice to the other party Or as an alternative once the reviews are incorporated into the bylaws the board of the community or both working together can bring a bylaws amendment to change the text of the WHOIS review bylaw. We are not baking in the reviews to never be changed, we are bringing across a core set of accountability measures without substantial changes to reflect their current standing, I hope that everyone understands that the CCWG is not here to fix every aspect of ICANN, we are here to enhance its accountability, lets be cognisant of that in our work as we come to this critical time. Sorry for a wall of text but I think that this is an important issue for the community to address and for the board to understand the reasoning for the communities stance on this. -James 1.

2 1

L. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ: "Ted Cruz's Fight to Protect the Open Internet"
by Greg Shatan Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

This opinion piece (behind a paywall) appeared on The Wall Street Journal's website yesterday. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-fight-to-protect-the-open-internet-14… I'm not sure what's more troubling; his embrace of Ted Cruz or his misinterpretation of "consensus." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to safeguard the open Internet from > authoritarian regimes. You’d think that would be an easy position to take, > but it’s not. The Texas senator and presidential candidate is bucking the > leadership of his Republican Party to push hard against the Obama > Administration plan to abandon America’s protection of the Internet from > political interference. The Obama plan for Icann if the US contract ends > now requires only a “consensus” among governments to dictate Internet > policy. That’s a far lower standard than today’s requirement of unanimity > and would further sideline US influence. The majority of authoritarian > governments could act together to politicize Icann. Instead of censoring > GayRightsInRussia.org or LiberateTibet.org only in their own countries, > Russia and China could forge a “consensus” to impose a global ban. > Protecting the open Internet was a bipartisan issue for many years and > should be one again. The Obama Internet giveaway invites a high-profile > campaign issue for politicians who oppose it. Considering the popularity of > the Internet, being for it is better politics than being against it. I wonder if Crovitz (and Cruz) would see a bylaws commitment to Human Rights as a way to "protect the open Internet" and combat "political interference" from "authoritarian governments"? It might be the first time they were Human Rights crusaders (other than for things like the "right" to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, e.g., regarding gay marriage).... Greg

4 5

Public Comment on 2nd Draft Proposal
by Hillary Jett Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Hi all, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en. The dates of the public comment will be 3 August 23:59 UTC 11 September 2015. Please be sure to share this widely! A reminder, the group has scheduled two Webinars this week: * 4 August from 19:00 21:00 UTC * 7 August from 07:00 09:00 UTC If you¹d like to register for a Webinar, please send a note to acct-staff(a)icann.org. Additionally, all resources for the 2nd Draft Proposal can be found on the wiki space. This includes the full draft proposal, chapter by chapter break downs, translations (as they become available) and the XPLANE visual deck: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 Thanks again all, and congratulations on a job well done! 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

Public Comment period open for Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Announcing the public comment period is now open for the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) Please see the following link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en Comments close on 12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

1 0

Minority Statements
by Edward Morris Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

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

6 9