September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Quarterly Stakeholder Call
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Report – Register for the FY16 Q1 call on 6 October 2015 This page is available in: * Português <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-pt> * Español <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-es> * Pусский <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-ru> * العربية <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-ar> * Français <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-fr> * 中文 <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-zh> * English <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> ICANN has announced its FY16 Q1 Stakeholder Call, which will take place on 6 October at 00:00 UTC / 7 October 0800 SGT. The call will cover how ICANN has progressed against its strategic and operating plans for the Quarter ending 30 September 2015. Please click here <http://goo.gl/forms/TrqVNKvprt> to register for the call and to receive joining instructions. If you are unable to access the form, please email us <mailto:icann.communications@icann.org> to register with your full name and email address to send joining instructions to. The call is open for all to attend, including press, and there will be ample time for Questions & Answers (Q&A). A recording of the call will also be available online on the ICANN website here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> . These calls were set up to enhance ICANN's accountability and transparency efforts by making it easy to follow ICANN's progress toward fulfilling its mission of keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. More information Please visit the Reporting page <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> on the ICANN website 24 hours before the call to pre-read the presentation. You can also find other useful resources and background information on this page, as well as archived transcripts and recordings of all previous Quarterly Stakeholder Calls.

1 0

Communications Ideas
by James Gannon Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Hi All, As someone said during the meeting yesterday (I can’t remember who it was) I think some of our issues are around our communications, as the person said “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Our draft report is heavy dense reading and does little to educate the reader who has not been following our processes and discussions. I think that we should collect some ideas on how to improve the readability and understandability of what we have set out in the report. Taking the example of some of the work we did on the remote breakout session yesterday with Steve DelBianco (Who did a great job by the way) I noted that Steve was able to distill the conversation into a single powerpoint slide, and I thought that that was an approach that we might want to take into our next draft. To that end I wanted to see could I get some idea of how we could distill our plans for implementing each of our community powers into a single page each and made an attempt to work an illustrative example attached to this email. I think that having these one pagers at the start of our document would be very helpful and Im sure staff and the comms team can take the concept and make it a lot more attractive and pleasing to the eye than I have (I am many things, a graphic designer is not one of them!) I have also tried to weave in the recommendations from the GAO report on how we present our deliberations to NTIA in an attempt to assist them when it comes to measuring and assessing our work. I think that we should try and collect ideas from everyone on how we can make the report both substantive and easy to follow so happy to hear further ideas. Also please don’t read anything into my phrasing or word choice in the examples, purely for illustration purposes. -James

24 44

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
by Roelof Meijer Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

That¹s a route worth exploring further, in my opinion. With the necessary bylaw changes and the power to spill the board, the community has a lot (and the most effective bit) of leverage Cheers, Roelof On 29-09-15 01:29, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Jonathan Zuck" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of JZuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: >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 > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
by avri doria Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Hi, I understand and used to believe that as well. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org> </div><div>Date:09/29/2015 10:17 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: avri doria <avri(a)ella.com>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> </div><div>Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 </div><div> </div>Avri, WS1 has always been about power and WS2 about implementation. WS1 was never going to be complete and, for that matter, WS2 won’t ever be complete either. That said, if we have the power to spill the board with relative ease, we can easily reconvene, flesh out the member model, submit it to the board and spill them if they aren’t constructive. We don’t need to worry about deadliens, the congress, NTIA, etc. the whole point of WS1 is to ensure the capability to do just this. From: avri doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 9:21 PM To: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach. Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck(a)actonline.org> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Thanks Jonathan. I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt Cheers, Chris On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
by avri doria Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach. Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> </div><div>Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck(a)actonline.org> </div><div>Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 </div><div> </div>Thanks Jonathan. I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt Cheers, Chris On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Take a break team
by avri doria Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Hi, Did not know we had time for Moratorium. But ok. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> </div><div>Date:09/27/2015 8:40 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> </div><div>Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Take a break team </div><div> </div>Kind of a Moratorium????? Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg(a)isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA On Sep 27, 2015, at 5:45 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> wrote: Wholeheartedly agree. Let us all use Monday and Tuesday to catch up on our day jobs. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Sep 27, 2015, at 16:32, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: +1 Keith On Sep 27, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: Amen. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On September 27, 2015 3:14:03 PM CDT, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi all May I respectfully suggest that after the past few days, the wise course is to back off and calm down, rather than building up to fights on the list? Best Jordan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 2

Fwd: Key Characteristics Comparison with Sole Designator Model
by Mathieu Weill Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached an updated comparison chart of the various models, provided by our lawyers. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Key Characteristics Comparison with Sole Designator Model Date : Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:29:27 +0000 De : Emily Chan <echan(a)adlercolvin.com> Pour : Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr) <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx) <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Copie à : ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com> Dear Co-Chairs, Please find attached an updated version of the Key Characteristics Comparison slides that Rosemary and Holly sent on Saturday which renamed the Sole Designator model as the Community Mechanism for Shared Governance model. This updated version reverts the name of the model to the Sole Designator model. Best, Emily ===== Emily Chan Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.421.7555 (phone) 415.421.0712 (fax) echan(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:echan@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com/> The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at echan(a)adlercolvin.com, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. Thank you.

2 2

Follow up from the F2F in LA
by Mathieu Weill Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Mr Chairman, Dear Steve, On behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing Icann’s Accountability, we would like to formally express our deepest thanks for your suggestion to host a face to face meeting of our group in Los Angeles on 25th and 26th September 2015, and for making yourself and many Board members available during the meeting. Our group is grateful for such an opportunity to take our work further as well as benefit from the extended availability of many Board members. Based on the substantial exchanges that took place during this meeting, we would also like to emphasize some suggestions related to Board – CCWG engagement in the future. 1. Board members have vast amount of experience regarding the issues our group is addressing. We would welcome their contributions as participants, not only in the CCWG but also in the various work parties we have set up. 2. Considering the very high interest from the community as well as from the Board members on the Accountability issue, we would suggest that Board meetings on the issue would deserve to be granted the highest possible transparency standards. Such meetings, as well as communications between CCWG members and Board members would benefit from being advertised publicly, as well as their conclusions. 3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement. 4. We would also appreciate an opportunity to extend the time dedicated to advancing our group and engaging with the Board during the Dublin Icann54 meeting. 5. Finally, we would also like to suggest the inclusion of regular updates about our work within the SO/AC Chair calls. On such matters, we would see extra value if the leaders of the other transition-related groups (ICG, CWG, …) could also be associated. We hope that these steps will foster an even stronger trust in the multistakeholder, bottom up process that was set up to respond to the challenge set up by the transition of the NTIA Stewardship. As such, they would certainly contribute to the success of this process, which is our common goal. Our group is setting aggressive targets for its work on the basis of the recent comments received from the public, including the Icann Board. We remain committed, as volunteers, to dedicate the right level of efforts to deliver a consensus proposal. As mentioned during the meeting in Los Angeles, a reaffirmation of the Board’s commitment to the process, similar to the 16 October 2010 Board resolution on Board Consideration of Recommendations from our group, would be extremely helpful to avoid any misunderstanding. The NTIA Stewardship transition is a historic opportunity. All components of the Icann multistakeholder model have to raise to the occasion and demonstrate unity of goal, sense of responsibility and commitment to the global public interest. Our hope is that these small steps contribute to our common success. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez & Mathieu Weill PS: Please feel free to share this correspondence to the Icann Board.

4 3

Three questions for the ICANN Board.
by Arun Sukumar Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

In the interest of asking some fairly obvious questions, and to place them on record (since the Board would have had some time to mull these over the retreat): 1. Why is the Board reluctant to support the creation of a Single Member Community to enhance ICANN's accountability? 2. Does the Board believe the NTIA will support the proposal currently put forward for public comment by the CCWG? If it does not believe so, could the Board offer its reasons? 3. Is it the Board's position that there is no community support for the CCWG's proposal? If this is based on an evaluation of public comments, who has opposed it and why? As a participant in the LA CCWG meeting, I could not gather the Board's responses to these meetings. Grateful if they are addressed here, or in tonight's call. Best, Arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

1 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
by Avri Doria Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Hi, I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case. The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize. avri On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Ed > I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. > Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it > speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking > and discussing of almost theory. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri(a)ella.com > <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and >> the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be >> able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing >> aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of >> allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be >> part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' >> about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up >> multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its >> very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it >> aspires to be recognized as. >> >> It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs >> of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or >> another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either >> continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it >> may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that >> never lived up to its promise. >> >> avri >> >> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> >> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.NET >> <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment >> >> Ed, >> >> of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in >> the face until they blink :-)-O >> >> el >> >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >> On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net >> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: >> >>> Kavouss, >>> >>> >>> I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s >>> comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I >>> support and appreciate public comments but we should give special >>> attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put >>> those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received >>> from individual . >>> >>> >>> >>> I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater >>> weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a >>> comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the >>> idea, not to the person or the organisation making it. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

9 9