September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Keith, I think that this is a pretty good summary of all of the comments that I heard as well. It is far more than just the use of statutory powers that Fadi seemed to reference at the end of yesterday's call. Alan At 30/09/2015 01:15 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote: >Thanks Nigel. > >In no particular order, my interpretation of the Board's written >comments, what we heard in Los Angeles and from Fadi yesterday is: > >-- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is >new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited >time available to meet the September 2016 date. >-- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body >is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to >sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. >-- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a >commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do >not have sufficient accountability at this time. >-- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside >and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards >is problematic. >-- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not >balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups >(SSAC and RSSAC) have said they want to remain advisory. >-- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a >voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. >-- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to >explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes >that are more easily implemented and understood. >-- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring >will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky >message going into the transition. > >I'm obviously not in a position to speak for the Board, but that's >my non-legalistic reading of the concerns. I'd be happy to be >corrected if my interpretation is off-base. > >That was a reply to your question (a). I can't respond to question (b). > >Regards, >Keith > > >-----Original Message----- >From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >Of Nigel Roberts >Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:46 PM >To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can >Do Anything!' problem > >Let's be Frank, here. > >I'm not entirely unreceptive to the view expressed to me by at least >one Board member regarding the idea of a quick win. > >HOWEVER, despite the fairly emphatic nature of the Board's objection >to membership model, I do not believe I have read or heard any >rationale or reasons for their, apparently unanimous, position. > >Personally I have serious doubts about the Single Member model, >although, probably, they are not the same doubts as the Board's. > >But that is the outcome of this WG, and it should not tear up months >of work without a rationale. This is simply the IFWP and history >repeating itself, otherwise. > >Apparently there is some legal difference of opinion between Sidleys >and Jones Day on the technicalities. But I do not beleive that can >be the only reason. > >So, can someone please explain, in simply, preferable non legalistic terms why > >(a) the CCWG proposal is unsuitable >(b) the Board's proposal is more suitable. > > > > That said, I'm not confident this would resolve the Board's > concerns with membership, so we will need to consider all options > available to deliver community empowerment, including variations of > the sole designator implementation. > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Recordings and Transcript links for F2F CCWG ACCT Meetings #55 and #56
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Hello all, The recordings and transcripts for the Face to Face CCWG Accountability meetings #55 and #56 will be posted on the Wiki as available. Day 1 (AM Session) 25 September 2015: https://community.icann.org/x/po9YAw Day 1 (PM Session) 25 September 2015: https://community.icann.org/x/W5tYAw Day 2 (AM Session) 26 September 2015: https://community.icann.org/x/qI9YAw Day 2 (PM Session) 26 September 2015: https://community.icann.org/x/x5tYAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda

3 3

Efficiency vs Deluge
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

I see since 2015-09-28 00:00 (never mind which time zone) 223 messages (and counting) of which 5 are from me (I think :-)-O) and 4 came in during me writing this :-)-O This is not going to work. How are we going to get this to work? Somehow we must start focusing on a single issue and bring that one to a conclusion (before we start with the next one) And how are we going to do that? At the moment I only see one solution, Co-Chairs propose one issue, the plenum of members and participants consent, if we can't get consensus, we have a consensus call among the members. If we get consensus we appoint someone (Bernard Turcotte?) "moderator", to read each incoming message and if it pertains to the subject matter, re-post (forward) it to the list with a subject line consisting of one (several) key words, the name of the poster and the original subject line, ore some other method to allow access or even filter the messages on poster and keywords. That way we still have the deluge, for everybody to read but if we want can focus on the mails only pertaining to the matter at hand. Any better proposals will be greatly appreciated. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

2 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #57 - 29 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #57 - 29 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/apxYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Reach out to political advisors and ask whether they can provide us with input on politic scene vis-a-vis our model. ACTION ITEM: Define scoping of this action 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. Assessment of agreement areas - Thank you for effort being put in this. - The slide is an assessment of where we believe the community is now. It is not meant in any way to be a position of the Board. This slide is divided into 4 groups and columns. On left hand side: 4 groups of elements to strengthen accountability of ICANN. We took them from CWG-stewardship work. On right hand side: we tried to divide list of items into 4 columns. 1st column elements that have brought agreement specifically designed to replace NTIA backstop role; 2nd column has addition elements of broad agreement but not necessary to replace US role; 3rd column are elements that have broad community agreement on requirements but not necessarily to implement them; 4th column is for items where there is no broad agreement. - We produced this slide for two reasons: 1) amount of material that is available is so vast that many are struggling to get a sense of overall picture; 2) reading public comment to determine areas of broad agreement. We may not have every detail on how to implement these. There are no issues we believe cannot be resolved. How do we provide oversight of IANA by OCs for instance - e.g. First two columns have checked marks because we feel there is broad agreement on all these items. First set is for CWG dependencies - there is broad agreement there. It meets the requirements of replacing backstop and goes beyond that to strengthen accountability of ICANN. Removing Board directors is powerful and limited today. Pre service letter is a contract that forces Board members to resign. Making IRP binding gives an additional avenue. In alignment with principles of third block. We are in synch. The last group speaks about creation of new legal structures. The Board showed concerns in LA. There is no consensus as it will generate a lot of questions. Having a brand new untested model creates capture and generates question about enforceability. It will take time. We don't have this detail. NTIA confirmed that if receives proposal without additional details, NTIA will have a hard time accepting proposal. We need guidance from CCWG on whether the first two columns are sufficient to move forward with the transition. The Board is committed to working within your process. We are trusting you that we will towards solution. Feedback: - you would be so kind and ask Fadi why only the 4th vertical box talks about "new structures".Does he mean SMM? --> Models that create new legal authority that are above Board with very powerful authority is a concern not for their existence but because they will need to be understood and safeguarded, managed in a way that will not create authoritative powers that will not be bound by accountability of ICANN. It is a concern. Every time we create a new structure - questions of who is in that new structure and are they accountable are natural questions that you are asking Board today. Everyone should be clear that all models create new powers on top of existing structure. They need to be understood and bound to make sure organization continues to operate. - Slide summarizes what has been discussed but disagree with line "reaffirm in bylaws current requirement of Board/GAC consultation on consensus advice". Concerns about stress test 18 are not reflected. It is not a broad community agreement. The GAC is still deliberating. It has been proposed by some CCWG members as work stream 1 but no broad agreement. We would welcome details on any changes to structure. --> Agree that this is still work in progress. It includes an asterisk that further work is needed. - What is missing is separation of PTI from ICANN. Membership is not a new idea. --> We can add line to emphasize what you said. We are in alignment. - What kind of details are being sought? Draft Bylaws? Is this something that has been given consideration? --> E.G. what would be threshold for Board members' recall or cause etc. Another instance: voting requirements are unclear - what would they be - Would GAC join - if so, what rights etc. Detail is especially needed on bottom three lines. - Would you agree that there is consensus for power to remove individual director in either model? --> Yes. There is consensus from community for this power. But how does the NomCom do it vs. SO/ACs? Detail needed. Important for stakeholders to have equal ability to remove Board members. Our Board is 100 % in support of this power. - The bottom three rows are carefully constructed so that problem is new structure. What do mean by "new structure". All existing mechanisms rely on existing Bylaws. Do you mean statuory characteristics of membership organization? The member aspect of ICANN is woven into our Bylaws. The membership gene is suppressed. What if we were to consider the designator model? --> If we remove wording of new structure - if those things were built into our Bylaws, then we are okay. Concerns when not fully understood and when no safeguards to preserve multistakeholder. How are those powers in check and accountable? How are decisions reflecting public interest and mission of ICANN? What is the legal assessment of what is already in our Bylaws. Need to ensure decisions are made in global public interest - Does the Board's objection to the sole member model apply to a sole designator model? In particular, there are strong grounds to argue that ICANN currently operates under a designator model, so that it would not be a "new structure" --> Unclear how designator model would work. We are saying no to concentration of powers in three rows. It should not infringe global public interest or nature of our organization. Ethos of ICANN not to concentrate power and to balance it between SO/ACs. - This slide is interpreted as assessment of what is going on. We need to assess public comments. We need to ensure that all voices in room are getting channeled. Disperse powers among community outside all 16 Board members. We need to keep away from language. We have promise of mutual accountability. ---> Slide is a personal attempt to understand and build bridges. We can all use your assessment. CCWG vs. Board does not help - Board is fully committed to working in process.. Our number 1 is to community and not to corporate. - Avoid possibility for one part of community to struggle against another part at court level. It is an important point that needs to be taken into account. ---> Our good chunk of our community cannot participate. We have a subset of community in single point. When parts of community are not in model, a subset of comments suddenly has those powers. Idea that will be listening to advice needs safeguard. All details are necessary when power is limited to a smaller group of SO/AC. Conclusion: Dialogue has not reached point where all parties feel full understanding of rationale and characteristics of proposals. We need to reach this level. Work plan to Dublin We have limited time and wish to focus WP parties to reading community comment and labeling them into three areas: 1) consensus; 2) refinement/requiring details; 3) divergence. We will task Work Parties to oversee this and submit additional details. In Dublin: address Work Party reports in AM - Afternoon key adjustment to proposal including approving alternatives Feedback: - There is no point in having SO/AC Chairs represent interest of groups. All meetings should be open. --> No one has suggested establishing secret meetings or excluding anyone from meetings. --> Goal of WPs is to complete work of analyzing community feedback and coming back to group with a set of options by OC T 12 so that in Dublin the CCWG can make decisions. These groups are not decision-making. Roles of rapporteurs are to gather input. - Where will additional time be slotted? - Support having a group that waves red flags to advance work and coordinate overall process. - A lot of concerns could be dealt with easily if we clarified what is meant in last slide. If could clarify that means appointed in CCWG as opposed to creating new group. Is there any thought about which Board member/lawyer. What would this new small group be coordinating? --> Encourage the Board to designate liaisons to work with WPs in place. This could lead to more active engagement between Board and CCWG. Legal teams would be invited to join as well as Board's legal advisors. - Output is aimed to show how analysis can be done and how it relates to comments receive. When it comes to substantive work, development of work in these subgroups in a concern. Full group will be subject to limited timeline. It would be better to work with current structure of open WPs. - Support for staying with same approach. - What is focus group? --> No change to current structure. We are only encouraging Board members to join us. - Impossible to attend all discussions. - Texts should be open to all community. --> All groups are open and transparent. - Don't call them focus groups. - Bruce-Rinalia and Cherine will be joining WPs. Engagement Plan with Chartering Organizations and Board Would you like to include political advisors or would the group prefer not to engage with advisors at this time? There is no clear preference ACTION ITEM - Reach out to political advisors and ask whether they can provide us with input on politic scene vis-a-vis our model. Feedback: - Stick to professional and technical - not political. --> It is our role to ensure group's views are heard. It is an important point. ACTION ITEM: Define scoping of this action On report communications - Kieren's note advised that our report is written for community. It makes sense to keep our format as it includes our methodology. On top of that we should be working on separate document to make language easier to understand. Are there additional actions we should take action on? We should not do a rewrite of report but suggestion to remove genesis and focus on content instead. Feedback: - Agree with short format. We need to engage comms and X-plane in detailed manner. - Try to capture clarity of discussion earlier to modify proposal. Could this be followed up through three Board members - Ensure there is understanding.

1 0

CSMM as WS2
by Jonathan Zuck Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts? Jonathan

4 4

More on the Legal Grounds for the IANA transfer
by Paul Rosenzweig Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

The letter yesterday from Senator Cruz et.al, referenced a legal opinion from the General Counsel at the Department of Commerce. I had not seen that letter before and wasn't even aware that it had been issued. I managed to track it down. Here is a link, for those who are interested in the question: getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/15.06.11-Strickling-Response-on-NT IA-and-IANA-Property-Letter.pdf Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9>

7 7

FW: ICYMI: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet
by Paul Rosenzweig Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

The below from Senator Cruz is self-explanatory. I have no doubt it will make Dr. Lisse very happy. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key ICYMI- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an affirmative determination of whether the Obama Administrations plan to transfer U.S. oversight of the Internet violates the Constitution. The Wall Street Journal's columnist L. Gordon Crovitz reported on the letter today in his Information Age column, <http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189> Not Obamas to Give Away. From: Press, Cruz (Cruz) Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:54 AM Subject: RELEASE: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet UNITED STATES SENATE Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561 Phil Novack: phil_novack(a)cruz.senate.gov <mailto:phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov> September 28, 2015 Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet Judiciary Chairmen Grassley and Goodlatte, with Rep. Issa, join Cruz to get answers on whether Administrations plan violates the Constitution WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an affirmative determination of whether the Obama Administrations plan to transfer U.S. oversight of the Internet violates the Constitution. The Wall Street Journal's columnist L. Gordon Crovitz reported on the letter today in his Information Age column, <http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189> Not Obamas to Give Away. Sen. Cruz said: Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. If the contract governing U.S. oversight of the Internet is indeed government property, the Administrations intention to cede control to the global stakeholder community -- including nations like Iran, Russia and China that do not value free speech and in fact seek to stifle it -- is in violation of the Constitution and should be stopped. The letter is being sent at a time when efforts by both the Administration and Congress, via the DOTCOM Act, are underway to facilitate the transition of U.S. control over the Internet without an affirmative vote from Congress. In another action to protect U.S. control of the Internet, <http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2402> Sen. Cruz recently filed the DOTCOM Act as an amendment to the highway reauthorization bill the Senate considered in July. Cruz's amendment is identical to the original version of the DOTCOM Act being considered by the Senate with one exception: it would require Congress to have an affirmative up or down vote on the Obama Administration's plan to give away the Internet. Read the full text of the Cruz-Grassley-Goodlatte-Issa letter <http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150922%20Grassley%20Cruz%2 0Goodlatte%20Issa%20GAO%20Request%20ICANN.pdf> here and below: September 22, 2015 Mr. Gene Dodaro Comptroller General U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Dear Mr. Dodaro: On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to the global stakeholder community. This proposed transition raises questions about NTIAs authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internets infrastructure to a third party. The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government currently designates as a national IT asset.[1] Creation of the root zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States control ever since. Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. One question arising from NTIAs decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone fileor any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United Stateswithout authorization from Congress. This concern was raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone file and concluded that it was unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.[2] The 2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised the GAO at the time that we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary to authorize transfer of the root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the root zone fileor any other potential government propertybefore it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the governments Internet oversight functions to a third party. Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIAs contract with ICANN would not result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others believe that termination of this contract would result in government property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual deliverables are property of the United States. Supporters of this position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense contracts.[4] In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership or control over the root zone file. For example, President Clintons Internet czar Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the entire Domain Name System because [t]he United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.[5] Additionally the Commerce Departments contract with ICANN explicitly declares that [a]ll deliverables provided under this contract, including the automated root zone, are the property of the U.S. government.[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the root zone file. Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file.[8] Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps regarding NTIAs planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions. 1. Would the termination of the NTIAs contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN? 2. Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property? 3. If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity? Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis. Please contact Jonathan Nabavi (Chairman Grassley), Sean McLean (Senator Cruz), Vishal Amin (Chairman Goodlatte), and Veronica Wong (Congressman Issa) of our staffs if there are questions regarding this request. Sincerely, ______________________ _________________________ Charles E. Grassley Ted Cruz Chairman United States Senator Senate Committee on the Judiciary _______________________ __________________________ Bob Goodlatte Darrell Issa Chairman Member of Congress House Committee on the Judiciary [1]See, Verisign Company Information: http://www.verisign.com/en_US/company-information/index.xhtml [2]U.S. Government Accountability Office., GAO-B-284206, Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (2000) [3]Letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secy for Commcns and Info., U.S. Dept of Commerce, to Representative Sean Duffy & Representative James Sensenbrenner, U.S. House of Representatives (June 11, 2015) [4]U.S. Congressional Research Service. Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress (R42351; August 18, 2015), by Lennard G. Kruger [5]Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World 41 (2006) [6]Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012. [7]See, Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218742 between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Verisign, Inc. Also see, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012. [8]Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No 113-235, § 540, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014) ###

5 4

Regarding GAC participation
by Perez Galindo, Rafael Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Good morning/afternoon/night to All In order to make an informed decision on the role the GAC could take on in the different models under discussion, it is still unclear to me what the legal implications of participation in a voting mechanism are for governments, even more in the absence of a precedent or parallel that we could draw on. Hence, the ability for governments to participate in wider community voting processes under a foreign jurisdiction is a point I would like to raise with the CCWG's legal advisors, along with the issue of governments liability as participants e.g. in the sole member of a non-for-profit corporation (which stems from the fact that governments would be subject to CA jurisdiction). This issue was first raised by Anne Aikman-Scalese (9th september email) and I believe no answer has been provided to date: "[...] I still did not receive an answer with respect to my question regarding the applicability of CA Corporations Code Section 18630 which provides as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a member or person in control of a nonprofit association may be subject to liability for a debt, obligation, or liability of the association under common law principles governing alter ego liability of shareholders of a corporation, taking into account the differences between a nonprofit association and a corporation.". In conclusion, I kindly ask the Co-Chairs to forward these questions to the CCWG legal advisors about (1) ability, (2) legal implications and (3) liabilities of governments if they took part as voting members in the community mechanism to be deployed under CA jurisdiction. An answer should be provided for the three models under discussion (SMM, Single designator and MEM). Looking forward to receiving the legal advice, thank you and best regards Rafael GAC_SPAIN

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] More on the Legal Grounds for the IANA transfer
by Carlos Raul Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Thank you David I was about to hire a new California lawyer just for LACRALO.......SPANGLISH speaking of course. On Sep 29, 2015 6:49 PM, "David Post" <david.g.post(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion, no ... there's no "property" being transferred as part of > the transition, so this argument has never made any sense to me. > > David > > > At 07:33 PM 9/29/2015, Carlos Raul wrote: > > Can the IANA operations, sole subject of the stewardship transition, be > classified as "intelectual property"????? > > > *Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez *+506 8837 7176 > Skype carlos.raulg > _________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > > *COSTA RICA * > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> > wrote: > > Right – the onnly problem being that FAR Section 45.101 definition may not > be the accurate definition since it expressly excludes intellectual > property. > > Â > > [image: []] > > 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 | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > Â > > Â > > Â > > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 1:55 PM > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] More on the Legal Grounds for the IANA transfer > > Â > > The letter yesterday from Senator Cruz et.al, referenced a legal opinion > from the General Counsel at the Department of Commerce.Â I had not seen > that letter before and wasnâ€™t even aware that it had been issued.Â I > managed to track it down.Â Here is a link, for those who are interested in > the question: > getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/15.06.11-Strickling-Response-on-N… > Â > > Â > > Paul > > Â > > Paul Rosenzweig > > Red Branch Consulting, PLLC > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com > > www.paulrosenzweigesq.com > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > Â > > Â > > ------------------------------ > > 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. Â§2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.gif" > Content-ID: <image001.gif(a)01D0FAC9.2AD7A350> > X-Attachment-Id: 91a32d2bfc0e54c3_0.0.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> > music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic > <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com > > ******************************* >

1 0

Work plan to Dublin
by Mathieu Weill Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration. Thank you for your feedbacks. Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

11 19