September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: new blog
by Chris Disspain Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Hi Ed., https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/John+Poole+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/John+Poole+SOI> Apparently he chose to be an observer. Cheers, Chris > > > > From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> > Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> > Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM > To: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] new blog > > Hi Chris, > > I've objected in the past to staff posting to this CCWG members list on behalf of others. To maintain consistency, I again do so here when the posting is done by a respected member of the Board. I do not know John Poole but what I do know is that he does not seem to have a SOI on file. That's an important accountability tool we use here and I do not want to see individuals bypass that requirement by using others, even Board members, to post on their behalf. > > Since we seem to want to link to articles today, even those of rather dubious uneven quality, I'll take the opportunity to link to a very perceptive article that appeared in Monday's Guardian by Emily Taylor: > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-governm… <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-governm…> > > The key paragraph: > > "The community’s solution is for Icann to become a membership organisation. I agree that this is the only outcome likely to deliver accountability. It’s feasible, it gives backstop power to the community and is a well understood model common to many non-profits." > > Best, > > Ed Morris > > > > > > From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:39 AM > To: "Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>)" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] new blog > > All, > > Forwarded at the request of John Poole who cannot post to the list. > >> http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/09/china-caict-objects-to-icann-ccwg.html <http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/09/china-caict-objects-to-icann-ccwg.html> > > Cheers, > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
by Jordan Carter Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Hi all - forwarded to get this to you ASAP, not sure who was meant to. J ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> Date: 23 September 2015 at 14:04 Subject: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal To: "thomas(a)rickert.net" <thomas(a)rickert.net>, "mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr" < mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> Dear Co-Chairs, Members and Participants of CCWG, Attached please find three documents to assist in preparation for our meeting in L.A.: · A memo from Sidley and Adler with our high level observations regarding comparison between the Board Proposal and the CCWG Proposal. · A Summary Comparison of Key Characteristics of CMSM Model and Board Proposal – this or something along these lines will be expanded out in the next several days to include the Sole Designator model as requested on today’s call · Comparison of CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (Community Mechanism as Sole Member) and ICANN Board Proposal (Comparison) We look forward to seeing you in L.A., Holly and Rosemary *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice *Sidley Austin LLP* +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

6 11

Arriving in LAX around 4:42 - share a cab?
by Greg Shatan Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

1 0

Latest blog post from Larry Strickling
by Jordan Carter Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Hi all Happy reading... Reflections on the IANA Stewardship Transition Process September 23, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-p… With the closing of the public comment period, we at NTIA continue to be impressed by the dedication and hard work of the many stakeholders involved in planning the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the Internet’s domain name system. We are pleased to see so many stakeholders participate in the crafting of the plan to transition NTIA’s role related to the DNS technical functions, known as the IANA functions. Everyone that benefits from the Internet has a stake in the success of the multistakeholder model and a voice in this process. Today it is clear that there is a substantial amount of consensus support for the goals and principles established by the two working groups that have led the planning efforts since last year. It is equally apparent that there is consensus on many of the specific elements of the plans that were presented for comment to the global Internet multistakeholder community. However, the comments also reveal that stakeholders have not reached consensus on all the specific tools that have been proposed to enhance the accountability of ICANN, the IANA functions operator, and that there are many questions still to be answered, both about the substance of the overall plan as well as its implementation, before the community will be ready to submit a final proposal to NTIA. This week the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) is meeting in Santa Monica, Calif., to continue work on how to enhance the accountability of ICANN in the absence of its contractual relationship with NTIA. As the stakeholders convene in California, I would like to offer some thoughts as to how the CCWG might proceed as productively as possible to discuss the comments received on the CCWG proposal and continue to craft a plan that will meet the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders as well as the criteria <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> we outlined at the beginning of the transition planning in 2014. The most critical factor for a successful discussion this week is that stakeholders focus on bridging their differences. This transition planning is testing the multistakeholder model as never before. The world is watching to see if stakeholders can find a consensus way forward. Making history is hard work and on matters this important, it is never a smooth path to reach agreement. Do not get discouraged or frustrated. Above all, stay engaged. With those thoughts in mind, here are some suggestions for a possible process: First, stakeholders might consider as their first task to catalogue the many aspects of the CCWG proposal for which there is clear consensus. There does appear to be general agreement on the fundamental principle that there is a need for increased community empowerment in the eventual absence of the NTIA contract. Stakeholders also appear to agree on many of the specific tools needed to provide that empowerment. Second, the stakeholders could then determine what details of the specific agreed-upon tools they need to fill out, particularly any potentially contentious implementation matters. There is not enough detail in the current draft for NTIA to conduct a thorough analysis of how the plan meets our criteria. The questions asked by stakeholders in the public comments demonstrate significant confusion and uncertainty as to exactly how portions of the plan would be operationalized and some apprehension as to whether all possible consequences of this proposal have been fully thought through. Third, after completing these first two tasks, stakeholders should then evaluate whether the package of detailed proposals for which there is consensus is adequate to satisfy our criteria. For example, if this package of consensus measures were implemented, would it provide a commensurate level of accountability that stakeholders perceive has been provided over the years by the backstop of ICANN’s IANA functions contract with NTIA? If the answers to these questions are yes, stakeholders could then consider whether to proceed to prepare a final proposal to be presented to the chartering organizations at ICANN’s October meeting in Dublin. If the answers are no, stakeholders should then engage in a gap analysis to determine what additional measures are warranted in order to satisfy the NTIA criteria. And then, all stakeholders need to come together to reach consensus because there is no alternative path to completing the transition. Stakeholders should not think that they can submit competing plans to NTIA for our consideration. We will not choose between proposals, and it is not our role to substitute our judgment for that of the community. Finally, do not let timing pressures deter you from delivering a fully-formed, well-thought-through plan. As I stated in Argentina in June, provide us a plan that is as simple as possible but still meets our conditions and the community’s needs. Every day you take now to simplify the plan, resolve questions, and provide details will shorten the length of time it will take to implement the plan and increase the likelihood that the plan will preserve the security and stability of the Internet. Putting in the extra effort now to develop the best possible consensus plan should enhance the likelihood that the transition will be completed on a timely schedule. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

2 1

CORRECTION: Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Please refer to this notification which includes all documents - WP1 as well as comment tool (also available in the reading list at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+--+Face-to-F… Note: we will be using the following Virtual meeting room for this meeting: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/ Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:29 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting Dear all, Attached to this email you will a draft agenda Cochairs have prepared in anticipation of your Los Angeles Face-to-Face meeting. This agenda is subject to change and should not be considered final. Please note that the reading list page for this meeting can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+--+Face-to-F… The following wiki page includes information on the meeting - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56135261 We look forward to seeing you in LA or online. Best regards Alice

1 0

NTIA Statement---RE: Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting
by Phil Corwin Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

FYI, I'd also read this statement from Larry Strickling that was just posted... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-p… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:30 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting Dear all, Attached to this email you will a draft agenda Cochairs have prepared in anticipation of your Los Angeles Face-to-Face meeting. This agenda is subject to change and should not be considered final. Please note that the reading list page for this meeting can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+--+Face-to-F… The following wiki page includes information on the meeting - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56135261 We look forward to seeing you in LA or online. Best regards Alice ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15

1 0

the slides from call #54
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

All, some of you have asked for the slides I used for the agenda item on preparations for LA during our last call. Best, Thomas

2 1

New Article on the Road to LA and What's at Stake
by Phil Corwin Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

FYI, I have just published an article titled "The Empire Strikes Back: ICANN Accountability at the Inflection Point" It can be accessed in condensed form, with a link to the PDF of the full piece, at: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150923_empire_strikes_back_icann_accountabi… Realizing that you all have lots of pre-F2F assigned reading, I nonetheless hope that CCWG members, participants, and observers find it useful as they prepare for LA. And I welcome any feedback. Best regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

A few questions to CCWG-Legal team( Was Re: Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal)
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Hello, I was looking at the memo comparing the CCWG proposal and the board's and have a few questions/request for clarification 1. Apologies if this should have been clear to me but its not, may i know the "current status quo" referred to in the statement below? "Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models." 2. Bullet point 3 of "Approve Changes to ICANN “Fundamental” Bylaws (Section 4.5)" section seem to be quite un-helpful, especially as the phrase "it appears" was used. Considering that ICANN legal was consulted, does it mean there still wasn't clarity of information to ensure a definite response from CCWG legal? bullet point 4 is also not that helpful; is ccwg saying that board's proposed model does not allow such ability? I think some definite responses would be helpful. 3. The example sighted in bullet point 3 of "Reconsider/Reject ICANN Budget or Strategy/Operating Plans (Section 7.1)" prompts me to ask our CCWG legal to make clear what they believe to be Board's fiduciary duties and where those duties are defined other than in operating documents like bylaws? 4. Based on bullet point 3 and 4 of "Reconsider/Reject Changes to ICANN “Standard” Bylaws (and Enforcement) (Section 7.2)" is it "legally" accurate to conclude that board compliance will be ensured on standard bylaws if the scope of MEM is further reviewed to extend beyond "fundamental bylaws"? 5. Based on the grounds stated under bullet point 1 of "Appoint and Remove Individual ICANN Directors (Section 7.3)" Are there any other grounds in the current CCWG proposal that legal feel is not covered under those 3 items? also based on bullet point 3 is it correct to conclude that the requirement for enforcement would still be based on courts verdict for both models? My question on bullet point 1 applies to 5 as well. 6. Based on bullet point 1 of "Recall of Entire Board (Section 7.4)" May i know if legal thinks the current CCWG proposal had the removal of the ICANN president included? Regards On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > Hi all - forwarded to get this to you ASAP, not sure who was meant to. > J > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > Date: 23 September 2015 at 14:04 > Subject: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM > Proposal > To: "thomas(a)rickert.net" <thomas(a)rickert.net>, "mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr" < > mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, > "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, Alice > Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < > ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> > > > Dear Co-Chairs, Members and Participants of CCWG, > > > > Attached please find three documents to assist in preparation for our > meeting in L.A.: > > > > · A memo from Sidley and Adler with our high level observations > regarding comparison between the Board Proposal and the CCWG Proposal. > > · A Summary Comparison of Key Characteristics of CMSM Model and > Board Proposal – this or something along these lines will be expanded out > in the next several days to include the Sole Designator model as requested > on today’s call > > · Comparison of CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (Community Mechanism as > Sole Member) and ICANN Board Proposal (Comparison) > > We look forward to seeing you in L.A., > > > > Holly and Rosemary > > > > *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* > Partner and Co-Chair > Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > +1 212 839 5853 > holly.gregory(a)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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > Web: www.internetnz.nz > > *A better world through a better Internet * > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

1 0

PC 2 tool
by Alice Jansen Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear all, Attached you will find the public comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> tool for your second draft proposal. Please note that we have requested translations for the two comments received in Chinese and will incorporate them as soon as available. The CCWG-Accountability Cochairs encourage you to read all comments and to take notes of your observations in preparation for LA discussions . All comments are available in a downloadable format on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56136438 Staff has put together slides to facilitate reading of the tool - see attached. Thank you, Best regards Alice

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

I happen to largely agree with the Panel's findings, but this seems to be the week for my seeing humour and irony in lots of places. At 21/09/2015 10:57 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >The panel also thought it inappropriate that ICANN filed arguments >resisting live testimony before the panelists. They thus issued an >interim ruling that the judges would be able to question the >witnesses and ultimately did so. So the Board was seen by the panel >as uncooperative in this respect. Article IV, Section 3.12 of the Bylaws reads: "In order to keep the costs and burdens of independent review as low as possible, the IRP Panel should conduct its proceedings by email and otherwise via the Internet to the maximum extent feasible. Where necessary, the IRP Panel may hold meetings by telephone. In the unlikely event that a telephonic or in-person hearing is convened, the hearing shall be limited to argument only; all evidence, including witness statements, must be submitted in writing in advance." By agreeing to live testimony and questioning witnesses, ICANN would have been in violation of its Bylaws. Alan

4 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Sub-group on ICANN Accountability and Fundamental Rights
by avri doria Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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 <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:08/02/2015 3:42 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch </div><div>Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Sub-group on ICANN Accountability and Fundamental Rights </div><div> </div>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, <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 <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 <nigel(a)channelisles.net><mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> To: 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 <el(a)lisse.na><mailto:el@lisse.na>, 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: 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 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

19 20

ICANN Community Forum document
by Jordan Carter Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

hi all Please see attached doc for the Los Angeles meeting if we choose to use it - this notes current discussions and ideas about improving the level of detail about the ICANN Community Forum, and sets out my view of some key questions the CCWG might like to focus on if the conversation has time to deal with this. To be clear - those "key issues" are just my take and haven't been signed off by the WP. They are to help you think about some of the key issues. You may have others. Staff - please include it in the reading pack for LA. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #54 - 22 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #54 - 22 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/8otYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model 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. CLO and Greg Shatan are not connected to the AC room. Public comment Tool 2 You are all encouraged to review the PC tool 2 in preparation for LA. A common understanding of comments received is a prerequisite for the LA meeting. It can be agreements, issues etc. Community forum discussion will also be added to Los Angeles readlng list. Memo prepared by lawyers on MEM (to be circulated) will also be material to review for LA. Note: we are expecting a communication from SSAC shortly. Comments are also in translation. Feedback: - Statement from ASO on whether plan to participate in model would be helpful. ACTION ITEM: ASO to forward statement on confirmation of participate in model Legal team will be sending us a comparison of MEM and our model. LA Face-to-Face Meeting Review of intro slides put together for the meeting. Work Stream 1 relates to accountability requirements needed for transition. Accountability enhancements the community feels need to be in place to replace backstop. We should provide recommendation that offer implementable solutions. It may be good to clarify that we need final set of Bylaws drafted with our final report. Review of slides prepared Feedback - We should not be reopening model discussion from bottom-up. We should be looking at tweaking model. We can't sacrifice designing a good governance model. We need to be primary. We should be improving what we have. --> This overview is meant to assess what needs ot be made. It is not a judgement on criteria - We need to distinguish between shape of community powers and what is best legal vehicle to implement them. - Chart should compare sole model and MEM. Stick to Paris model. - All should be encouraged to review comments on model and step back from perception that is only Board who raises concern about model - We need to be more open-minded - Concerns about simplification of our processes - real burden lies in ability to communicate model. Communication skills to explain solution and not solution itself that makes it understandable. Mixed points regarding using Ease of Explanation Tijani suggest use Simplicity and Clarity vs ease. AG - in line with Tijani - Ease of explanation should not be an overall criterai. Simplicity is a major factor. JZ - My point is simply that we need to prioritize the measures. Ease of implementation can be a criteria but it's still comes AFTER a comparison to community powers. The sequence here is important GS - Ease of operation and implementation are important. Any system that is easily operationable should be explainable. KA - SMM vs MEM - no need to take strong general positions, need to judge vs requirements - look for areas of reconciliation Izumi O - rephrase to minimum changes to meet CWG requirements to avoid unexpected consequences and for ease of operaiton. Also must be conscious of the time line - we must meet the time requirements. TR - should go offlist with this. TR - Political dimension - how would a model vs another would be received by Congress - very sensitive point given our group not tasked with meeting political requirements - should we have this as a criteria? Full disclosure - co-Chairs will be talking later this week with an ICANN political advisor regarding this.If the group feels it necessary we can pursue this more than this. HG - two staffers that have deep experience and insight on this if necessary. TR - need to understand if the CCWG needs to take the political aspect into account. PK - re political acceptabiltiy - should not be a big issue. the .COM act is not yet passed. Focus on having a plan that has strong accountability and broad support. KA - not criticize ICANN for late comments. would like a comparison table of IRP in SMM and MEM. TR - JC notes on political sensitivies beyond the US is a good point. Just looking to uderstand what is required for the US to approve the proposal. WSIS is important. Understand that some feel political aspect less important. Does the group want to be informed on this in LA? (no support for this- continue discussion on list). TR points 3 and 4 can b e discussed on the list (identify your priorities.....) TR ends this section. LS - point 4 memos from lawyers - high level memos to come today. 3 documents comparing various points. HG - it has been difficult given the Board proposal is spread over a number of documents. 2 calls have taken place with Jones Day for more information. Still a bit of a struggle. JD and ICANN legal wanted to review matrix prior to publication (agreed by co-chairs). they should reply by 5PM today. LS - thanks for the great work. Tijani - support approach but need documents before we leave to LA. Would also like TR slides. LS - ends this section. MW - AOB - we n eed to make progress. IraM and LS will be participating in person in LA meeting. KA - wish to report on ICG meeting RoloefM - request, given he cannot join, but many will participate remotely - it would therefore be very useful to have an early and fixed agenda would be appreciated. MW - we will have a best effort on this given we will need some flexibility. Interest of remote participants will be considered. Comment from HG - all lawyers should formally be itnroduced at the meeting. MW - KA update on ICG meeting. KA - ICG discussed all comments received - modified part 0 of the proposal. some points to raise to CWG - note being sent anon - CWG requirements must be met. CCWG output for Dublin is not probable - ICG waiting for results of LA meeting. MW - meeting closed

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] FW: Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

> by inexperienced ICANN staff in the first few weeks of ICANNs existence. A most charitable interpretation, I feel.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Figured i did not write to the list. IMO it will really be good to know whether the point you made further calls for a review of the CCWG proposal or NOT; Saying the board did certain things in the past under existing constitution(bylaw) without indicating/confirming whether such act will continue to happen under the newly proposed constitution (bylaw amendments) does not seem to be helpful to this discussion. We can dwell on the past for all I care, but it has little or no effect on the present nor the future if the past is not put in perspective. Regards On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > I disagree, and maybe its why i will always be of the opinion that too > much history is clouding many people's judgement/view of things. > > Regards > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> > wrote: > >> Don't be silly. A prime example of accountability failure. >> >> >> On 22/09/15 08:30, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Bruce Tonkin < >>> >> >> Is this part of the CCWG proposal in some way? >>>> >>>> >>> Good question. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

2 2

exchange between lawyers
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

All, this is just to let you know that we expect our lawyers assessment of the Board papers shortly. The lawyers are currently running their assessment by Jones Day to ensure there are no misunderstandings of the Board's position. We will update you shortly. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net

3 2

AGENDA - Call #54
by Alice Jansen Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #54 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56134642> - Tuesday, 22 September from 12:00-14:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll-Call, SoI 2. Public Comment Tool 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September…> - Clarification of expectations in anticipation of LA 3. Prepare for our LA face-to-face meeting 4. Discuss memo prepared by lawyers on MEM (tentative - if memo received) 5. AOB Thank you, Kind regards Alice

2 1

Measure of Community Consensus on the final recommendations from the CCWG
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Hello Anne, >> I would have to disagree with the notion that “Community Consensus” requires consensus with the ICANN Board. It is CCWG consensus that is required. Just to clarify my understanding here of the process steps from the CCWG charter. - The CCWG produces a Draft Proposal - Each of the chartering organizations then decide whether to adopt the recommendations - the CCWG will then submit a CCWG-Accountability Board Report which will contain: - the proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability - the notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations - documentation of the process that was followed The level of "Community Consensus" on the final proposal will be judged based on whether all or most of the chartering organizations adopt the recommendations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

narrative - a first attempt
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

All, we have discussed that we need to work on our messaging and document more what we have done. I have tried to write up an introduction to such document, which focuses more on what we build on and keep rather than on the changes. This is meant to start our discussion on how to present our work. At the end, you will only find headings where our work results need to be explained. As you know, the content of the document will need to be rephrased depending on what our final recommendations will look like. Nonetheless, we need to start working on this now. Best, Thomas The Multi Stakeholder Model is what makes ICANN unique and successful in managing a global resource that is essential for running the Internet. Security, stability and resiliency of the Internet unique Identifiers System are the focus of ICANN’s efforts. Since ICANN’s inception, the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, who form the ICANN community, have developed and matured the policy development processes that, when necessary, set the rules that balance the interests of market players, end users and policy makers. The policy development includes public comment periods to ensure all interested parties globally can be heard and that their suggestions can be incorporated. Until today, the US Government has played a key stewardship role in ICANN’s governance. Not only has it obliged ICANN of its duty to regularly review and improve its accountability and transparence, but it also had the opportunity to find another contractor for the IANA functions. While the US government never had to make use of this power, its role has been rightfully characterized as a backstop by many. The CCWG Accountability has been tasked with working on consensus recommendations to enhance ICANN’s accountability for a post-transition era and to offer accountability enhancements that efficiently safeguard ICANN against contingencies, i.e. to replace the historic relationship with the US Government. The CCWG Accountability has analyzed carefully the accountability mechanisms that already exist in ICANN. It has carefully analyzed community input as well as criteria published by NTIA for accountability enhancements and transformed those to a list of requirements for improving ICANN’s accountability. Is has then considered different models and measures to implement and operationalize these requirements, it has listened to the advice of independent experts on corporate governance and accountability as well as independent legal advisers. It has discussed the pros and cons of different models and now suggests accountability enhancements that require least change, least unintended consequences while fulfilling the accountability requirements to the best possible extent. By nature, the focus of the group’s work was on identifying the need for change or amendment. However, it is important to also highlight what the group did not change. - Policy development in ICANN as well as the adoption of policies by the ICANN Board remain unaltered. - The unique advisory role of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the interaction on such advice with the ICANN Board remains unaltered. - The structure, decision-making and way SOs and ACs operate, remains unaltered. - The balance of power of the SOs and ACs is maintained. In order to preserve ICANN’s bottom-up, community-driven multi stakeholder approach, the recommended accountability enhancements include: - specifying ICANN’s role and mission and make it more robust against change to avoid mission creep and keep ICANN focused on its current mission - perpetuating the ATRT reviews required by ICANN’s current Affirmation of Commitment with the US Government, to ensure ICANN continuously works on its improvement - enhancing the Independent Review Process as an independent judiciary assessing whether ICANN operates in compliance or in violation of its bylaws. While strengthening this process the CCWG ensured that the IRP would not be empowered to circumvent the bottom-up nature of the policy processes. The IRP powers are strictly limited to confirming or cancelling ICANN’s decisions and it has no mandate to enforce specific outcomes on these decisions. These enhancements shall provide a basement and framework of enhanced trust and clear limits of what the organization can and cannot do. They ensure that ICANN follows the multi stakeholder model and follows bottom-up consensus-driven processes. In case of issues and contingencies, the CCWG has worked on a nuanced repertoire of community powers so that the community can choose the least invasive measure in case of alleged or actual wrongdoings. While all of the community powers could ultimately be enforced in court, the group has installed safeguards to make it highly unlikely this will ever be necessary. The community powers and the escalation processes for these are very nuanced to ensure they cannot be abused by individual groups or interests. Additionally, there is only a limited number of community powers. These 5 powers are relating to the - budget, strategic and operating plan - changing standard bylaws - changing fundamental bylaws, i.e. those bylaws that shall be made more robust against change (e.g. the mission, commitments and core values) - removing individual directors and - recalling the entire board Four out of five community powers only provide the community with a right to jointly exercise a right to ask the Board to redo a board decision or to veto a decision. Under no circumstances can the Community take decisions itself, let alone overturn the bottom up policy processes. The ICANN Board already engages with the community before adopting a budget. The ICANN Board already engages with the community before it adopts changes to bylaw provisions. This approach remains the same and it will rather be strengthened as an efficient consultation decreases the need for the community to step in after a resolution has been passed. The Community would only need to step in case, for instance, the Board adopts a budget that does not sufficiently fund the operation of the IANA functions, or if a strategic plan approves new activities inconsistent with ICANN’s Mission. Before a community power can be exercised, at least one of ICANN’s existing structures (SOs or ACs) are required to petition for it. Also, different thresholds of support for the execution of the community power are required. A higher degree of community consent is required for recalling the entire board than for vetoing a strategic plan. The only community power that prevents the board from taking a decision before obtaining community approval is related to changes to fundamental bylaws. The CCWG Accountability is of the opinion that changes to ICANN’s mission, commitments and core values or changes to the independent review process, amongst others, i.e. the main pillars of ICANN’s accountability and governance, shall not be changed without very strong consensus within the Board as well as within the community. While mission creep needs to be prohibited, there might be the need for ICANN to adjust to a changing environment. However, the cornerstones of what grants security, stability and resilience of the DNS must get special protection. What is common for all community powers is that the level of support for the execution of a community power must always be close to what would be called „rough consensus“ in a consensus call. Only it is more specified by embracing this notion in a voting scheme giving all existing groups the same level of relative influence as they have today. As explained above the voting scheme proposed by the CCWG only happens in extreme cases, as a last resort check and balance, and is not empowered to replace the bottom up, consensus based processes that is at the basis of ICANN’s core processes. After community wide discussion has taken place, the voting happens within the existing, well tested SO and AC structures, thus avoiding the creation of any new body. Finally, the SO and ACs themselves will be subject to regular reviews of their accountability and transparency practices, to ensure that they remain accountable to the communities they are designed to represent. In sum, the community powers do replace the backstop the US Government has provided so far. These need to be made enforceable as a matter of last resort. In order to make them fully enforceable, a legal person is required for the community to be used as a vehicle for exercising the community powers. Again, the CCWG Accountability is building on existing structures. ICANN is incorporated as a membership organization, but currently does not have any members. Therefore, the CCWG Accountability recommends - to rely on ICANN’s existing strucure as a membership organization rather than changing it, - to only have the community as the one and only member, - to ensure no part of the community gets exceeding rights (either by the ability of pushing through their individual interests or blocking community consensus), and - to ensure the community can only jointly exercise rights, mostly based on consensus. Hence no single SO or AC can exercise community powers or other statutory rights. The community as a whole is empowered to replace the role of the US Government. The CCWG Accountability believes that this truly empowers the Multi Stakeholder Model, relying on each stakeholders within existing and tested structures, in their respective roles. Even more, the CCWG Accountability believes that this community driven model is the only eligible candidate for replacing the historical relationship with the US Government. Finally, it shall be noted that in order to ensure proper checks and balances and a division of powers amongst the legislative (community), executive (ICANN Board), constitution (bylaws) and judiciary (IRP), enhancements to the accountability of the community are also suggested so that rogue players or interests inside the community cannot jeopardize ICANN and its operations. The whole proposal, as further described has been legally assessed by two independent expert law firms and successfully stress tested against various contingencies. [here comes the part that we need to work on] In the following chapters, we present I. an overview of the proposed accountability enhancement, II. an explanation of each component recommendation for of the proposed accountability architecture III. a rationale for i. why we are suggesting the changes ii. what alternative solutions have been discussed iii. why preference was given to the proposed solution iv.. why we are suggesting the changes at this time v. how we propose to deal with the interim phase until the accountability enhancements are fully implemented. IV. Omnibus volume of appendices and supporting documentation In the appendices, you find previous reports, legal assessments, the analysis of public comments received and information on the genesis of the proposed accountability enhancements.

9 9

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 20, 2015

Sept. 20, 2015

Hello David, >> But why would we want another process in addition to the IRP? That seems terribly overcomplicated, to me - and, in a kind of divide-and-conquer mode, will weaken both the IRP and the new, additional arbitration panel. This task the new MEM arbitration board is being asked to undertake is precisely the one for which the IRP is being constituted - to decide whether the Board has overstepped the limits in the Bylaws. Having 2 separate processes for that one task strikes me as a terrible idea. Yes - I am beginning to think it has just created confusion. The original intent was to make it clear how the community could enforce the outcomes of binding arbitration, without having to change the corporate structure towards a single membership model. For example - I would see it as the same standing panel of panellists for both the IRP and MEM. The idea of splitting out the MEM was simply that you may have a different set of rules and thresholds for how to kick off the process for a community led proceeding. For example maybe the community doesn't need to show material harm to commence a proceeding - whereas an individual company does. >> If the IRP process needs "tailoring" for community challenges, it should be in allowing any individual SO or AC to bring a challenge before the IRP. The Board's submission doesn't change that ability. >> This is in the current CCWG Proposal; the MEM proposal does away with this, by, as you put it allowing "multiple SOs and ACs to challenge Board decisions" - No - the MEM doesn't "do away" with the IRP for individual SOs and ACs. An individual SO and AC could still initiate an IRP. The MEM was intended to be in addition to the IRP and to clearly show how the community could enforce a binding arbitration, as a community rather than as a single member. >> That's not only a significant departure from the CCWG proposal Actually it was an attempt to match the characteristics of the single member model. In the CCWG proposal the Sole Member has standing to bring claims involving its rights under the Articles and Bylaws. The MEM was really trying to replace the single member concept - ie having the ability of the community to bring a claim relating to the articles and bylaws, and having the ability to enforce the outcome of that claim. The fundamental reason for creating the MEM was to show that the community could enforce the binding arbitration from an "independent" review panel without having to change the corporate structure to a single member model. This was split out into a separate mechanism to be presented as an alternative to the single member model. However personally I agree it could be merged into the IRP process if that makes it clearer. >> if the GNSO thinks that the Board has overstepped its bounds, why shouldn't it be able to get a hearing on that question (at the IRP)? Yes - I prefer the simplicity of that approach too. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2015

Sept. 20, 2015

Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs? Alan At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello Alan, > > > >> The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community > to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws. > >Yes the ICANN Board also agrees that the IRP still applies to all >bylaws. It can be used by individuals, companies or groups to bring actions. > > > >> In the body of the Board comments, it says that the Board is > proposing the MEM to allow the community ensure that ICANN is > complying with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, > in the "Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability", it > says that arbitration may be used only for violation of Fundamental Bylaws. > >The MEM is fully funded and is brought by SOs and ACs, if there is a >breach of fundamental bylaws, In the case of the MEM - in addition >to funding the cost of the standing panel, the ICANN also will pay >the legal advice fees for the MEM issue group. Much like ICANN is >paying for the attorney fees for the CCWG today. > >The independent review process (IRP) is itself a fundamental >bylaw. So the two become linked in that if the IRP is used to >decide whether the Board has followed the bylaws, and the board does >not follow the binding decision of the IRP panel (to the extent >permitted by law) - then this would be a breach of the fundamental >bylaw, and the MEM could be applied. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 6

Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG co-Chairs
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-ac countability-co-chairs Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg- accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> As co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), we wanted to provide a quick status update for the community on where things currently stand in our proposal development. At 23:59 UTC on 12 September, the public comment period on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal closed. Stakeholders from all around the world studied our proposal and provided feedback for our consideration -- we received a substantial 88 comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> on the proposal. For a draft overview of the major trends seen in the comments received see here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20 150915/8167a9d5/2nd-draft-CCWGtrends-v4-0001.pdf> [PDF, 3.6 MB]. Overall our assessment at this stage finds that there is significant support and appreciation for the CCWG's requirements and work to date. There was general agreement that elements proposed in the 2nd Draft Proposal enhance ICANN's accountability, and we believe that our group should take this as a sincere recognition of the quality of work done in preparing the proposal. That said, there are still areas of the proposal that many felt need further details or clarification. This reconsideration deserves careful assessment, and it will be important for the group to discuss these details in full to see where and if we can reach consensus before moving into the next phase of our proposal development. Over the next week, our team will be finalizing an assessment of the feedback received and we will begin to allocate out suggestions to sub-groups of the CCWG for evaluation. We sense that some suggestions will be relatively straight-forward to incorporate, and for those suggestions which will prove to be more challenging to find consensus on, we will deliberate at the important face-to-face meeting next week in Los Angeles on 25-26 September. We should expect that a large portion of our time in Los Angeles will be reserved to answering the tough questions, and it's important that we come out of the meeting with an idea of how to move forward together. We've accomplished an extraordinary amount of work since our first meeting in December, but as with so many other things in life, the final stretch may prove to be the most demanding. Let's keep up the energy. Let's keep up the momentum. Our community, including our ICG colleagues, is counting on us to deliver a proposal. Let's make this happen. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Thomas Rickert Mathieu Weill León Sanchez

1 0

Regarding definitions of consensus
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Hello Anne, 1. >> What level of consensus would operate to initiate enforcement action? What level would be necessary within any given SO/AC to initiate enforcement and then what level for the entire Community to consider and develop Consensus? That is a good question. We didn’t want to be prescriptive here. Different parts of the ICANN structure use different models for consensus. E.g. the GAC uses a non-objection approach to determine consensus. The GNSO typically defines consensus for policy matters as a 2/3 super-majority vote. I would expect that each SO and AC would determine what they consider to be consensus as part of their operating procedures (some of which are in the bylaws and some are documented outside of the bylaws. We then talk about "To initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition.". This is for the CCWG to decide - but for example you might want a minimum of two SOs, and perhaps no objections from any of the ACs. The CCWG charter defined consensus as: " The recommendations from the CCWG do not become “consensus” recommendations until they have been formally approved by the chartering organizations. The chartering organizations for the CCWG are: GNSO, ASO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC and SSAC." >> Does the Board anticipate there would be any delays resulting from the MEM “consensus enforcement decision” process as opposed to the Sole Member voting process? We assumed the same time frame. >> 2. What would determine the composition of the MEM and what level of voting by that group would be necessary before enforcement is initiated? The MEM Issue group would comprise representatives of the SOs and ACs that wished to initiate action. It is then up to that Group I think to determine how they want to operate. >> 3. If the MEM has capacity to sue for enforcement as stated in the Board proposal, what is its legal personhood My understanding is that the chairs of the ACs and SOs that are members of the MEM issue group could enforce the action as legal persons, or you could form an incorporated association for the purpose of initiating and enforcing the arbitration. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 6

Preparation for F2F meeting in LA
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Dear all, In preparation of the LA meeting, the existing sub-teams are asked to review the comments relating to their work areas. We think the best way forward would be for the sub-teams to separate those recommendations that can easily be taken on board to improve our recommendations or make them easier to understand. They should also help facilitate a substantial discussion in LA by being able to present the issues raised by commenters and prepare questions for the group to discuss to forge consensus. As we approach our face to face meeting in Los Angeles next week, we would like to set clear expectations for our meeting: 1. We expect this to be a very fruitful meeting that continues to build in an open, inclusive and bottom-up led multi-stakeholder process as it has been the CCWG’s method to date. Our work should continue to focus on the requirements set by the community while remaining open on the options on how to achieve this requirement based approach; 2. We expect to be able to finalize the review of all comments received in our second public comment period and address them accordingly; 3. We expect we can finalize our consensus recommendations along with the accompanying rationale that will allow us to publish our final document; 4. We expect to fine tune our messaging language so our recommendations can be better understood by anyone who reads them; and 5. We expect to have constructive input from the Board as we will have the opportunity to have most Board members attending the meeting. We are at a crucial stage of our work. Our working group, our advisors, our legal team, the community and staff have all invested an immense amount of time in an unprecedented effort. While there may be moments of frustration, let’s not fall in despair and keep the constructive dialogue that has characterized our work flowing. We invite all to keep our minds open and receptive to everyone’s thoughts and proposals. We seem to be very close to achieving our goal based on a common understanding of the community’s needs and concerns. A detailed agenda will be sent as soon as we finish setting it up. This is the last hurdle towards the goal. Let’s jump it all together as one. Best regards, León, Thomas and Mathieu

1 0

Discussion in the GAC email list on stress test 18
by Haan, ir. T.S.M. de (Thomas) Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

All, For transparency reasons I want to share my email (in modified form) sent to the GAC email list on the subject of stress test 18. Thanks … (omitted) for a valuable analysis. It captures the essence of the discussion. As Netherlands we are a strong proponent of consensus decision making, but we fail to see the rationale behind the reasoning that - without the proposed bylaw change- we risk ‘governmental capture’. We have stated this in the Paris meeting/july. It would be therefore very helpful if GAC members in favour of the proposed bylaw change explain the arguments. Assuming that most GAC members have been more or less supportive of the current equilibrium working with the current bylaws, we think it would be beneficial for the GAC to maintain that equilibrium and not change it, as there is no consensus support for it. We consider also the NTIA criterium ‘that the transition proposal must have broad community support’ as equally important as - if not overarching - all other criteria, and we risk NOT having consensus support for the proposal if that specific section (stresstest 18) is maintained. For us NOT getting consensus within GAC will have detrimental effect on the transition process and its follow up, as it will lack worldwide governmental support. Thomas de Haan Ministry of Economic Affairs THE NETHERLANDS tel: +31 70 379 8128 Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is gezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten. This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.

1 0

Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Avri, I was very interested in your comment regarding the need to amend to provide for a community power to allow approval of any replacement IANA provider in the event of separation. This seems to very directly concern the IANA transition itself and the prospect of securing certification of the proposal by the NTIA to Congress. Could you please explain this a bit further in simple language? Are you saying that ICG or Stewardship has specified that in the event it becomes necessary to replace PTI, then approval (or veto) of that choice should be a listed community power of the Sole Member? Just seeking to understand this issue more clearly. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0EFD3.01B37360] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

4 5

Public Comments - Enforceability - Business Entity and Location of Headquarters
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

Dear CCWG I noticed that in the public comments there are a number of comments directed to the potential risk created if ICANN changes its corporate formation to other than a California Non-Profit Membership Corporation (after implementation of Accountability measures) and/or moves offices out of the United States. The risk described is difficulty in enforcing the Community Powers. I know the CCWG must have considered this previously and apparently did not make this a condition or fundamental bylaw, but it does strike me this situation increases the risk that Congress will not leave the proposal alone once certified by NTIA. (One example of a company commenting on this aspect of the proposal is INTEL.) Does the CCWG consider this issue to be “asked and answered”? Or will it be discussed again in the context of the public comment work to be done in LA? I understand that many are focused on addressing the “minimum necessary” to effect the IANA transition in Work Stream 1 and “keeping things simple”, but I do think there is a big difference between the “minimum necessary” for NTIA approval and the “optimum approach” for avoiding issues with Congress after NTIA certification. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F07C.BD36A3B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

comments from Ira Magaziner
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

All, please find below a note from Ira Magaziner, one of our Advisors. I have also included his covering note for your attention. Kind regards, Thomas > Thomas and Colleagues; > > I hope that you do not mind, but I have taken the liberty of framing my views in a short note to you and to Mathieu which is attached. This is not intended for posting but feel free to share it with members of your working groups if you think they will find it useful. > > I look forward to assisting you in your important work if you think I can be helpful. > > Best Wishes, > > Ira Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas(a)rickert.net web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/> RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

7 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
by David Post Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

My apologies if someone has pointed this out already, but there's one feature of the Board's proposal that is very disturbing. The memo describing the proposed enforceability regime [https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf] outlines the process: "4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting SOs and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group. 5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a Request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw ..." This completely inverts (and subverts) the nature of the process we have been discussing for months. Instead of a Board that (a) is empowered to act by stakeholder consensus, and is (b) kept in check by an IRP process in which its actions can be challenged by anyone materially affected by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, acting on its own), the new proposal turns that upside down: Under the proposal, stakeholder consensus is required to BLOCK Board action - the challenge can go forward only if "the agreed number of SOs and ACs" support the challenge . That is a very fundamental change in the relationship between the stakeholders and the Board, and not for the better. It makes it MUCH more difficult to challenge Board action that is inconsistent with the Bylaws. And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how this new "MEM Arbitration" scheme doesn't completely destroy the IRP. The Board says "Establishment of the MEM is not intended to replace existing IRP procedures. The MEM provides a legally enforceable arbitration decision on violations of ICANNs Fundamental Bylaws." It may not have been intended, but surely this task was precisely the one that the IRP was supposed to take on, and now it's being off-loaded to some arbitration system. How does that "not replace" the IRP? David At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote: >Chris, Paul > >It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the >community has been asking for a better >specificÂ "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not >longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from >the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus or >not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the >community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal). > >This question to me in this case has been framed >in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk of >capture of the single member as per the memo. I >look forward to my next half day in airports and >flightsÂ to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments. > >Have a nice weekend you both. > >Carlos RaÃºl >On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >wrote: > >With respect Chris, I am deeply serious.Â The >boardâs commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not. > >Â > >And as for âsizeâ when it reflects depth of >analysis, yes â¦ it usually does >matter.Â Glibness is easy when brevity is the >goal.Â Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.Â > >Â > >A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a >year and involved 100s of members of the >community in meeting taking place across the >globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, >actually, produce a proposal that has the >consensus of the Community.Â The Boardâs >brief âwe donât like it and here is our >three page counter proposalâ does not deserve our respect.Â > >Â > >Paul > >Â > >Paul Rosenzweig > ><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > >O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660 > >M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650 > >VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739 > >Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > ><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…>Link >to my PGP Key > >Â > >Â > >From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] >Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM >To: Paul Rosenzweig ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >Cc: Accountability Cross Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in > >Â > >Ahsso, clearly, size does matter.to some.. > >Â > >With respect, you canât be serious. > >Â > >Â > >Cheers, > >Â > >Chris > >Â > >On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >wrote: > >Â > >Dear Seun > >Â > >With respect, you canât be serious.Â The >Boardâs alternate proposal is a 3-page >memo.Â The CCWGâs proposal is an integrated >180 page documents which, even if you limit >yourself to the parts directly related to the >Single Member model (not including stress tests, >or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly >8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) . > >Â > >Paul > >Â > >Paul Rosenzweig > ><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > >O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660 > >M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650 > >VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739 > >Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > ><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…>Link >to my PGP Key > >Â > >Â > >From:Â Seun Ojedeji >[<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]Â >Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM >To:Â Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in > >Â > >Hi Jordan, > >I don't think there is so much details to >develop than what we currently have with the >sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). > >I think the main question we need to ask the >CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the >SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal >standing under the California law. Every other >aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just >the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is >what lawyers needs to come in on. > >Perhaps it's also good to note that what is >being proposed by board has been discussed one >way or the other in the past but somehow we did >not follow-up on the thoughts up. > >Regards > >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >hi all > >Â > >You may be interested to read the comments from >the ICANN board which have now been lodged: > >Â > ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.…>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.… > >Â > >I'd draw your attention to the cover note / >summary and to the memo on the MEM. > >Â > >It's good to see some concrete proposals from >the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. > >Â > >An initial observation - there is a lot of >detail that would need to be developed if the >alternative proposal was to be complete enough >to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. > >Â > >Happy reading! > >Â > >Cheers > >JordanÂ > > > >--Â >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649Â |Â ><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 ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >Â > >_______________________________________________ >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 ******************************* 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 *******************************

3 2

Marginal gains
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear colleagues Please take the time to read the attached article. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34247629 I feel that the knowledge therein may assist in our work. Nigel

1 0

LA F2F support
by Arun Sukumar Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last call ended, but: Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed through SO/AC leadership? Chartering organisations have had an opportunity to nominate fully funded members. If travel support requests are not many in number, surely they can be evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG co-chairs, with results circulated in the working group mailing list? I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership -- who may or may not have tracked accountability discussions down to this crucial meeting -- is the most appropriate way to get diversity in perspectives. It is potentially unfair to those who are not affiliated to them, but active participants nevertheless. The number of comments in the second period received from organisations that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative of active participation outside. disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel support, and affiliated to NCUC Best, Arun --

6 9

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #53 - 15 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #53 - 15 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/2o9CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC * ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments * ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary. * ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and sole member model. * ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel. Notes F2F meeting We have been offered 5 additional travel slots. We plan to reach out to leadership of Chartering Organizations. Logistics will be easier if in LA. We will submitting our proposal to Board and it makes sense to facilitate participation of Board members so that discussions can be expedited. Objectives of meeting: . continue the analysis of comments in sub-teams; . work on finalizing our consensus recommendations; . advance the documentation and writing up the rationale for our recommendation as well as; . confirm the messaging and presentation of our recommendations so they can be understood more easily. We plan to have comms and graphical experts from Xplane on site. Delivering by Dublin is unrealistic given the comments we have received. We were hoping we would get confirmation of recommendations with second report. Since we have received multiple comments suggesting reconsideration, we do not think recommendations can be finalized in a rush. We will need to establish a new timeplan by LA meeting. We need to keep momentum and work on topics ahead of us. NTIA has made it clear that we need to further document our work. We will need to ask current subteams with analysis of comments received. A prioritization will be needed. We need to work on our message and to determine how we strengthen our proposal to next level. You are encouraged to read the draft narrative circulated on the list that documents what was done. We will be building LA agenda based on comments. Human Rights (WP4) We have an agreement to provide document that establishes high level wording for Bylaws. We also intend to provide rationale for how language was put together. We will address comments received in PC2. A follow up call is to be held this week. Public comment on Second Draft Proposal Staff run through of current trends with a note that more time will be needed to go through nuanced issues. This comment period speaks to importance of our work. Suggestion to reach out to SSAC and RSSAC ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary. We will need to determine whether models (MEM and sole model) meet our requirements. It may be useful to receive an update from lawyers on feasibility of model. Suggestion for our lawyers to engage with ICANN lawyers so that we can have final product in time for LA. A matrix would be useful. ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and sole member model. Community forum WP1 had a call and has discussed specifics. More to follow. Update on Bylaws drafting A plan is to be provided soon. Based on input received via comment period, we cannot task ICANN legal with drafting Bylaws consistent with our current proposal while the Board is advocating a different approach. ICANN legal reports to Board. Suggestion to revisit the approach and move an approach where first draft would be provided by our lawyers keeping the block by block approach. Feedback: - Comments that it would be appropriate until final analysis. Board member will not sign off on Bylaws until lawyers of organization have not OKed text. Concerns about wasting time and effort. We first need to reach consensus. - The earlier the better. - We should move forward with drafting and do prioritizing. It makes sense for our legal counsel to hold the pen. Agree bylaws detail helps with Implementation, not with Communication Conclusion: Legal counsel to hold the pen. We will have a similar drafting experience with CWG. Whenever we have consensus we will move forward with Bylaws drafting. ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel. Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693850/2nd-draft-CCWG%20… modificationDate=1442299775002&api=v2> 2nd-draft-CCWG trends-v4.pdf

2 1

Follow-up: Venue & Travel - September Face-to-Face Meeting
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hello all, Just a kind reminder to send your RSVP to acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> by 21:00 UTC Tuesday, 15 September if you plan on attending the Los Angeles Face-to-Face Meeting in-person. See original note below for details. Thank you to all that have already responded. Kind regards, Brenda and staff From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:07 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Venue & Travel - September Face-to-Face Meeting Dear all, We would like to confirm the dates and location for your September face-to-face meeting: Dates: 25-26 September 2015 (two full working days) Venue: LE MERIDIEN DELFINA SANTA MONICA 530 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica CA 90405 United States <http://www.lemeridiendelfina.com/en/lemeridien> http://www.lemeridiendelfina.com/en/lemeridien We invite you to confirm your in-person presence by sending an RSVP to <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> acct-staff(a)icann.org by Tuesday, 15 September- COB. Please note that only the 26 members, the ATRT Expert, and the ICG Liaisons are eligible for travel funding. Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at their own expense. Legal counsel and Advisors will be invited to join the CCWG in Los Angeles. Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an alternate. Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability and are approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. As always, remote participation will be available for this meeting. Feel free to contact ICANN staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ) should you have any questions. Thank you Best regards, Alice

1 0

Initial Trend Analysis for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear all, Here is the draft slide deck presented on the call today. We are still working to provide you additional detail and analysis. Also, I¹ll note that we have not yet finished our analysis on the Principles section, so that is why this was not referenced in the slide deck. Best, Grace

1 0

Apologies
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Please note my apology, if belated, I had to attend to the day job on short notice. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

1 0

AGENDA - Call #53
by Alice Jansen Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #53 - Tuesday, 15 September from 06:00-08:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI 2. Public comment on Second Draft Proposal - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/ 3. Update on Human Rights (WP4) 4. Draft agenda for our LA Face-to-Face meeting (25-26 September) 5. Update on Community forum (WP1) 6. Update on Bylaws drafting 7. AOB Thank you, Kind regards Alice

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting | 14 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 14 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/eY9YAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Link to Google doc for today's discussion: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw…

1 0

Fundamental Differences Beteen SMM & MEM--RE: Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes
by Phil Corwin Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Thanks for doing this Greg. It is very helpful (and Happy New Year). And thank you for discerning that the Board may be urging that the WS2 work be shunted to the dead end swamp of a PDP. I think this would be a grave mistake, jeopardizing both cohesion and inertia. If anything like this was adopted I would urge a re-think and expansiomn of what should be in WS1 and thus assured of timely implementation. As for your observation at the top of the second page, “Unclear what is meant by “community powers” (may be referring to Fundamental Bylaws)”, the answer can be found in the Memo on proposed Approach for Community Enforceability: * MEM arbitration would only be for alleged violations of Fundamental Bylaws, while the CCWG’s SMM-based IRP would be available for alleged violations of any part of AOC or Bylaws. Under the MEM proposal, for anything other than a Fundamental Bylaw allegation only the present IRP (which is limited scope and only advisory, at least according to the longstanding Board and Jones Day position – is that still the case post-.Africa?) would remain in place as the available, inadequate remedy. * Under MEM, if the Board were found to have violated a Fundamental Bylaw it would be required to remedy that, but in a manner “within its discretion”. That could allow for a very watered down response that nonetheless might qualify as an acceptable remedy, and there is no clear way for community to challenge the Board’s decision. The SMM’s IRP allows for a binding decision to be ordered implemented by the Board. * Access to courts is available under MEM only if the Board has failed to remedy after an adverse decision. But, as just noted, the discretion leeway might allow for a very weak ‘remedy’ that nonetheless could still be deemed sufficient to block access to the courts. Court access is assured under the SMM. If the Board’s alternative were to be adopted I think it would be incumbent upon the CCWG to review and probably expand the number of Fundamental Bylaws, as they would be the only basis for invoking a MEM arbitration. That would of course have the downside of making more of the Bylaws subject to a higher threshold for change. Given the input that the CCWG received from its lawyers, I remain skeptical that the MEM provides a model that creates adequate legal standing for court access. Even if it does, the individuals composing the MEM Issue Group would appear to have potential personal liability, although the MEM proposal says that ICANN will indemnify and hold them harmless due to that. Regardless of that offer, the individuals involved (heads of internal ICANN groups) may still hesitate to invoke MEM much more than under the framework of the CCWG’s SMM proposal because of the risk of being personally caught up in litigation – and potentially liable. In that litigation liability regard, note Q. 14 in the FAQ document: Q14: Does the MEM Issue Group possess the right to sue ICANN in order to enforce the MEM arbitration decision in court? If so, is there a risk that the MEM Issue Group can be sued? A14: The capacity to sue comes along with the capacity to be sued, although it is highly unlikely that the MEM Issue Group would engage in any conduct that would be subject to litigation. In any event, ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision. (Emphasis added) Therefore, there is a possibility that in a very heated future disagreement, ICANN might express its view that the individual members of the MEM were potentially engaging in conduct subject to litigation and that invoking a MEM arbitration might invite a countersuit. That could certainly dampen the willingness to proceed. Even if the hold harmless and indemnify pledge bears out, who wants to be caught up in the misery of a lawsuit? Summing up, as I read it, the scope of Board action subject to MEM-triggered arbitration is much narrower than under the CCWG’s proposal, and the Board retains very broad discretion to respond to an adverse MEM decision with a weak remedy that could nonetheless be sufficient to block access to court. So the Fundamental Difference between the CCWG Proposal and the Board’s proposed alternative is not just replacement of the SMM with the MEM, all other things being equal. The scope of actions subject to MEM arbitration would be much narrower, the ability to compel the Board to take a particular action would be substantially diluted, and the individuals comprising the MEM would be exposed to litigation risk. I don’t see how that squares with the level of enhanced accountability deemed necessary by the CCWG. That is my reading of what the Board has provided. If I am wrong in any aspect of that reading then I would appreciate being so advised. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 3:03 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes Here is the PDF. Greg On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I've reviewed the Board's Comments Matrix and Notes in some detail. I found it somewhat difficult to extract the key disagreements with and differences from our proposal, given the length and format of the document. I've prepared a chart attempting to summarize all of the key disagreements/differences (and mentioning a few but not all of the key points of agreement as well). I've also inserted my own notes, as well. I found this very helpful and I hope you will too. If desired, I can put this up as a Google Doc if others want to refine it or comment on it collaboratively. I'll send a PDF shortly. Many of the Board's key points have been mentioned in prior discussions or documents. There is one important point that I don't recall seeing earlier. The Board essentially rejects the idea of Work Stream 2 and wants all of this work done using other ICANN community processes instead. This is explained fully in point 47, but foreshadowed in a number of places throughout the document. I hope you find this useful. L'shana Tova and Happy New Year to those observing the holiday. Regards, Greg ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

2 1

WP1 Meeting and agenda| 19:00 UTC | 14 September
by Jordan Carter Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

hi all I wanted to extend the invite to all ccwg participants, the note I sent to WP1 with some agenda thoughts is below and the details for the call and Adobe room are after that. J Hi all I realise that many of you are taking time to read and digest the feedback so we are keeping the meeting very simple on the 14th. Here is a link to a google doc you could helpfully look at before the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw… It is meant to be a place for you to add your thoughts about the subject of how we make the Community Forum part of the Second Draft Proposal more comprehensive. Jorge's comments are there. The doc is set to tracked changes so.... please feel free to add your thoughts! We will discuss the issue and record thoughts from the call in the same document. The rest of the doc contains a copy of what we put in the second draft proposal as a base to update and amend; then the wording precisely as in the Second Draft Proposal for the record; and then the earlier draft we had done which did have more precision. Speak with you soon, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Brenda Brewer* <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 14 September 2015 Updated to a ONE HOUR call. Thank you! Please join the CCWG-Accountability *WP-1* *Meeting *– Monday 14 September at 19:00 – 20:00 UTC Time zone converter *here* <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WP1+Meeting+&iso=2…> *Adobe Connect: **https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ * <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> The dial-in details are below - *please let me know if you require a dial-out.* _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: *WP1 * 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 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-6868-2631 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

2 3

W Currie and auDA comments to CCWG
by Jordan Carter Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hi all I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading. auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly. Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call. Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work. Worth reading both. auDA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.… Currie: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.… cheers, Jordan

5 4

Board comments now in
by Jordan Carter Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.… I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

11 20

Fiduciary duties and MEM / CMSM
by Jordan Carter Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hi Bruce, Thanks to you and Chris for your replies. Just want to focus on the fiduciaries bit: On 13 September 2015 at 16:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au > wrote: > > > > >> Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable > without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold > (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system? > > > > I don’t understand the question. From my understanding Directors of a > board have the same fiduciary obligations regardless of where it is > membership or non-membership organization. The arbitration model I think > could apply to either type of organization as well. > > > My understanding of this issue is as follows. [I too, joyously, am not a lawyer...!] The fiduciary obligations of the Board to the organisation etc have been well discussed. In particular, they create some issues in terms of ensuring that accountability mechanisms without a member leave the Board as the final decision-maker. That is why for instance ICANN has long opposed binding arbitration - having an external decision-maker who could bind the Board could be incompatible with those obligations and place the Board in an impossible position. Same with the various community powers that have been proposed - in the current situation, they could erode the ability of those obligations. In creating the Community Mechanism as Single Member, this problem was resolved. The fiduciary duties directors face in a membership-based organisation are subtly but significantly different. Because the "membership body" is one with various rights, there are no conflicts between its ability to make decisions and the Board operating with integrity in response to them. This difference is implicit in many of the Board's suggestions about how to change the community powers etc in the feedback lodged at the end of last week, and in how the MEM would operate. It is not surprising it's important, because it goes to the heart of who has final authority in the ICANN system - the Board, as it does today & would under the Board's proposed alternative, or the community organised through the CMSM, as it would under the CCWG's proposal. To me this is a core difference in approach we should tease out carefully and accurately. It is why on the call with the Board on 3 Sept, I tried to be clear that the issue goes well beyond the ability to "enforce the powers in Court". It is this shift in fiduciary responsibility that is an important difference. I hope this is clear, but recognise it is a brief effort at clarity.... cheers Jordan

4 3

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP4 Meeting | 11 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-4 meeting on 11 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MIRYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda 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. Agenda: 1. Review Greg's document Greg's agenda: 1. Confirm tasks: (a) Briefing and Discussion Paper; (b) Proposed Bylaw language 2. Briefing and Discussion Paper to become part of next CCWG Report 3. Is there any further use for the text in the "High Level Wording"? (Should all or any part of it be brought into the Briefing and Discussion Paper Draft) 4. Confirm which Google Doc we are working in going forward 5. Outline major points for Briefing and Discussion Paper * Why is this needed now -- NTIA "backstop" / "duty bearer" role going away * What Human Rights are we referring to? -- UDHR, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICT Sector Guide on implementing Ruggie Principles, etc. * Fundamental Rights vs. Human RIghts * What does "respecting" Human Rights mean [assumes we adopt that language in Bylaw]? * How do Human Rights apply in the ICANN context? * How will this be implemented? * Does this create new rights/obligations within ICANN or simply confirm existing ones?

1 0

Two questions on MEM Arbitration
by Arun Sukumar Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hello, A couple of questions on the proposed MEM arbitration process: a. How is it different from the Independent Review Panel Mechanism? In the Board's response to the CCWG proposal, it has correctly restated the three areas that IRP will be invoked for: 1. Hear and resolve claims that ICANN through its Board of Directors or staff has acted or has failed to act in violation of its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws (including any violation of the Bylaws resulting from action taken in response to advice/input from any Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization); 2. Reconcile conflicting decisions of process-specific “expert panels”; and 3. Hear and resolve claims involving rights of the Sole Member under the Articles or Bylaws (subject to voting thresholds). The Board suggests the MEM arbitration mechanism would be more appropriate for No. 3. Given that the MEM and IRP mechanisms are strikingly similar (this is my understanding from a cursory reading of the MEM proposal), why create this distinction? From the MEM standpoint, what is special about this arbitration method that it is competent to adjudicate rights involving the community, that the IRP cannot? b. MEM Arbitration and enforceability in California courts. My concern (again from a preliminary understanding of the MEM proposal) is that the MEM arbitration ecosystem, thanks to its enforceability in Cali courts, will create a community of legal experts and arbitrators in the US that the ICANN community will become excessively reliant on. The influential role that lawyers have played in the CCWG's working is illustrative. If the nature of the ICANN community is expected to change over the course of the next few years (in terms of diverse and international representation), wouldn't this requirement of enforceability in California courts be an artificial obstacle? What stops the MEM model from being enforced in any court of law anywhere in the world - can't this can be incorporated in ICANN's bylaws? Arun -- -

1 0

Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes
by Greg Shatan Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

All, I've reviewed the Board's Comments Matrix and Notes in some detail. I found it somewhat difficult to extract the key disagreements with and differences from our proposal, given the length and format of the document. I've prepared a chart attempting to summarize all of the key disagreements/differences (and mentioning a few but not all of the key points of agreement as well). I've also inserted my own notes, as well. I found this very helpful and I hope you will too. If desired, I can put this up as a Google Doc if others want to refine it or comment on it collaboratively. I'll send a PDF shortly. Many of the Board's key points have been mentioned in prior discussions or documents. There is one important point that I don't recall seeing earlier. The Board essentially rejects the idea of Work Stream 2 and wants all of this work done using other ICANN community processes instead. This is explained fully in point 47, but foreshadowed in a number of places throughout the document. I hope you find this useful. L'shana Tova and Happy New Year to those observing the holiday. Regards, Greg

3 3

ICANN Board submissions to the CCWG public comment process
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 13, 2015

Sept. 13, 2015

Hello All, For ease of access, attached are the documents posted to the public comment forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 6

Venue & Travel - September Face-to-Face Meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 12, 2015

Sept. 12, 2015

Dear all, We would like to confirm the dates and location for your September face-to-face meeting: Dates: 25-26 September 2015 (two full working days) Venue: LE MERIDIEN DELFINA SANTA MONICA 530 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica CA 90405 United States http://www.lemeridiendelfina.com/en/lemeridien We invite you to confirm your in-person presence by sending an RSVP to acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> by Tuesday, 15 September COB. Please note that only the 26 members, the ATRT Expert, and the ICG Liaisons are eligible for travel funding. Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at their own expense. Legal counsel and Advisors will be invited to join the CCWG in Los Angeles. Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an alternate. Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability and are approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. As always, remote participation will be available for this meeting. Feel free to contact ICANN staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>) should you have any questions. Thank you Best regards, Alice

13 15

responding to your questions from 8-Sep-2015
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 12, 2015

Sept. 12, 2015

Kavouss — during our 8-September CCWG call, you raised two questions that I promised to look into. First, you noted that our 2nd draft proposal, para 642, shows we we did 26 stress tests — the number we had in our first draft report. In our final report we will correct to reflect that we did 34 stress tests. Second, you reported that stress test 18 was not consistently described in the two places it appeared in our draft. I compared the stress test 18 table on page 85 with the table on page 103 (shown below). You are correct — there is an inconsistency. Para 833 on page 103 includes the phrase “due deference to GAC Advice” whereas that phrase does not appear in para 612 on page 85. We’ll drop that phrase in our next/final report. Regards, Steve [cid:EE1F0F05-E5E1-40C1-BC8C-33707700BD91]

1 0

Call(s) on Thursday
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 12, 2015

Sept. 12, 2015

Dear all, The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule two calls for Thursday 30 July: * 11:00 13:00 UTC * 17:00 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made) Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today. Best, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:24 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IMPORTANT: Doodle Poll for Thursday Call Dear all, On today¹s call we did not complete the review of documents, so there is a need for another CCWG-Accountability plenary call on Thursday. We need to schedule this call with 24h notice, so this gives us a very short "Doodle-window². Please complete the Doodle below by 05:00 UTC on Wednesday 29 July. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/v7pnmag2puyba8g5 Thank you, Grace

10 19