September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

"Interesting" Question
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, It appears that the fundamental question, the certification of which to our lawyers was torpedoed as being "interesting" by a Participant, which figured prominently in my Public Comments and Minority Report, seems to have piqued the interest of Sen Ted Cruz (R-Alberta) and some of his conservative cohorts: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2453 I am looking forward to the report to be issued by the GAO, which, since it is to include legal authorities, will help the CCWG's lawyers own research, if any. Even if I might not like the content. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

4 4

AGENDA - Call #55
by Alice Jansen Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call#55<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56138858> - Tuesday, 29 September from 19:00-21:00 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. Assessment of agreement areas, by Fadi Chehadé 3. Work plan to Dublin 4. Engagement plan with Chartering organisations and Board 5. AOB Thank you, Kind regards Alice

2 1

REVISED memo
by Rosemary E. Fei Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com _____________________________ 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.

10 13

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo - TAKING STOCK OF EXISTING BOUNDARIES TO CCWG-ACCT WORK
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear all, Below I have pulled excerpts from the Revised Memo provided by Holly and Rosemary that I believe define some of the boundaries of the CCWG’s work moving forward: From p. 4 at bottom: · Note that the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal provides that the community powers with respect to the ICANN and IANA Budgets are key dependencies. The CWG-Stewardship has acknowledged in its public comment that the community’s ability to veto the ICANN and IANA Budgets separately will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, and has stated that “[w]e believe that the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal on budgets is both necessary and sufficient to adequately satisfy these requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal.” From p. 6 at the bottom: · Note that the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the ICANN multistakeholder community have the ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board. From p. 7 in the middle” · Note that the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the ICANN multistakeholder community have the ability to recall the entire ICANN Board. Also from the middle of p. 7 · Note that the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the ICANN multistakeholder community have the ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA functions) by reviewing and approving: o ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (IFR) or Special IFR; and o ICANN Board decisions with respect to the ICANN and IANA Budgets (discussed in subsection (b), above). The following legal advice contained in the memo also helps recognize certain existing boundaries (comments in blue are my own): P. 2 – middle – Under the Board Proposal, the MEM process and the binding arbitration it provides would not be available for concerns about violations of Articles and standard Bylaws. [MEM process only applies to Fundamental Bylaws] p.2 – middle – It appears that while any individual SO or AC, by consensus, could initiate a petition process to commence MEM arbitration, followed by notice to the other SOs and ACs, to initiate a MEM proceeding, the agreed number of SOs and/or ACs must each, by consensus, support the initiation of MEM arbitration. [Board proposal requires FULL consensus of all SOs/ACs to initiate arbitration.] Top of p. 4 regarding the Board’s proposed ByLaws changes in the context of continuing the current corporate structure and not changing to a Membership corporation: · As a legal matter, there is a level of uncertainty arising to doubt that Bylaw provisions providing these rights to the community as represented by the SOs and ACs would be legally cognizable, let alone enforceable, outside of a member context. [referring to reconsideration/rejection of budget and Strategic Operating Plan – such Bylaws may be void or unenforceable if membership structure not chosen] p. 4 – third bullet from the bottom · We note that the CCWG rejected an empowered designator approach because it could not provide enforceable community powers with respect to budget and strategy/operating plan veto for the very same reasons discussed above in relation to the Board Proposal. p. 9 – middle bullet point · There is nothing about the Sole Member’s internal structure that requires use of a voting mechanism; governance and decision-making within a California unincorporated association is extremely flexible. The Sole Member’s internal voting process could be replaced with the same approach to community decisions as in the Board Proposal. This would provide the community with the same powers, and the same level of enforceability, as the CCWG Proposal. Once again I note that I am not a California lawyer. Just trying to distill the points made by counsel to the CCWG-ACCT that appear to me to set boundaries for our work given the current timetable. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9F4.DC831920] 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/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:55 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org) Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com) ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo +1 Keith! On Sep 28, 2015 12:22 PM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document. I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below: “As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. 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.” If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal. I look forward to seeing the assessment. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>) Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 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

Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Resending this to the right list. Sorry for cross-posting and confusion. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Asunto: Kavouss alternative proposal > Fecha: 26 de septiembre de 2015 9:04:13 GMT-7 > Para: ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org > > Dear all, > > This is the alternative proposal to which Kavous spoke. I am circulating this per his request. > > > Best regards, > > > León >

11 18

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: ICYMI: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

I rest my case as to the Congressional hurdles we face and the airtight case that must be delivered to Congress by the NTIA. This question of oversight of(or backstop to) the NTIA supervision of the Internet is likely to get much more press as the Republican primary proceeds. Agree with Chris Disspain that the difference between the AoC commitment on location and jurisdiction is going to be an issue but there is nothing we can do about it at this stage - that IS the Multistakeholder process and either we follow and believe in that process or we don't. This is why time was spent in Los Angeles carefully reviewing ALL public comments. The process followed by the CCWG - ACCT must be systematic and must be reflective of the process followed in previous Working Groups. If not, we have zero integrity and zero claim that "The Multi-Stakeholder process is working and is a beautiful thing." I continue to applaud our Chairs for their handling of this Committee and their reasoned approach to the consideration of public comment from all commenters. As previously stated, I personally support the notion that "tweaks" can be made to the Sole Member model in order to address concerns raised in the public comment period, including comments received from the Board. Further, I would favor an agreement by ICANN to indemnify any director who might be sued for violating a fiduciary duty for following a decision taken by the Sole Member or for resigning because of a decision taken by the Sole Member. Let's face the fact that the entire approved Final Report of the CWG-Stewardship also sets the boundaries of certain Accountability work that must be accomplished by the CCWG-ACCT. Rejecting those boundaries and starting all over again would clearly be "top-down." The CCWG-ACCT Work Stream 1 Charter is also a reality which imposes boundaries. A further boundary is the emphasis on Human Rights - which arguably has nothing to do with what is absolutely the "minimum necessary" for the IANA transition to take place. We are where we are as a result of our beloved "Multistakeholder Process" so it seems appropriate to ask all public commenters, including the Board and ICANN staff, to embrace these facts as we also embrace the transition timing that we are urged to honor as another boundary or condition that must be satisfied and must occur "before the storm." At this point, it may be appropriate to ask the Board (and Jones Day) to address in writing before Dublin what restrictions on Member powers it would advise to mitigate the risks identified in its public comments. Anne [cid:image002.gif@01D0F9DE.A4D8C530] 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/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:54 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: ICYMI: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet The below from Senator Cruz is self-explanatory. I have no doubt it will make Dr. Lisse very happy. Paul Paul Rosenzweig 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 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> 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 Administration's 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, "Not Obama's to Give Away."<http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189> 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 [cid:image003.png@01D0F9DE.A4D8C530] 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 Administration's 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 Administration's 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, "Not Obama's to Give Away."<http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189> 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 Administration's 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, Sen. Cruz recently filed the DOTCOM Act<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2402> 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 here<http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150922%20Grassley%20Cruz%2…> 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 NTIA's authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet's 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 NTIA's decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone file-or any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United States-without 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 file-or any other potential government property-before it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government's Internet oversight functions to a third party. Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIA's 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 Clinton's 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 Department's 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 NTIA's 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 NTIA's 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 Sec'y for Commc'ns and Info., U.S. Dep't 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) ### ________________________________ 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.

2 1

The Road to Dublin....
by Drazek, Keith Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

FYI, as I said during today's F2F meeting in Los Angeles: As we take stock and look ahead to the coming weeks and the road to Dublin, here are my thoughts: 1. We need to continue our review and assessment of all public comments from the second public comment period. We have an established process that must be followed. 2. From the public comments received, including the Board's, we need to identify the areas of our proposal that require additional work, including further explanation and/or adjustment. 3. For the areas that require adjustment, we need to clearly show how the adjustments evolved from the public comments and discussions. This will be important to inform any follow-on proposal and public comment period. We need to show our work. This was made clear by Larry Strickling's comments and recent blog post. 4. As part of that process, or in parallel, I think we should consider Ira Magaziner's proposal to delegate some follow-on "solutioning" work to smaller groups. The public comment response to our second proposal has shown there's a lot of work to be done, and as Ira and Larry both noted, time is getting short. 5. Everyone must be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, without compromising our well-established goals. This is true for the Board as much as it is for the CCWG and the community. Regards, Keith

3 2

Has Fadi's presentation been circulated yet?
by Chartier, Mike S Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....
by avri doria Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Hi, I think slice and dice on the proposal would lose its internal coherence as a proposal. If we change anything substantive, I think the entire thing needs to go out for review. I know I just agreed to a 'moratorium,' but I don't want to leave ideas sitting long enough for them to be called 'agreed upon.' avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> </div><div>Date:09/27/2015 7:49 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin.... </div><div> </div>Hello Becky, >> I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community. To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community. The Board needs to understand and respect that. Thanks – we have also discussed this and agree. One approach I guess could be to put out specific sections that have substantial updates for comment. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....
by Burr, Becky Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community. To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community. The Board needs to understand and respect that. From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin.... Hello Keith, I support your suggestions below. In particular points 4 and 5 below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin FYI, as I said during today’s F2F meeting in Los Angeles: As we take stock and look ahead to the coming weeks and the road to Dublin, here are my thoughts: 1. We need to continue our review and assessment of all public comments from the second public comment period. We have an established process that must be followed. 2. From the public comments received, including the Board’s, we need to identify the areas of our proposal that require additional work, including further explanation and/or adjustment. 3. For the areas that require adjustment, we need to clearly show how the adjustments evolved from the public comments and discussions. This will be important to inform any follow-on proposal and public comment period. We need to show our work. This was made clear by Larry Strickling’s comments and recent blog post. 4. As part of that process, or in parallel, I think we should consider Ira Magaziner’s proposal to delegate some follow-on “solutioning” work to smaller groups. The public comment response to our second proposal has shown there’s a lot of work to be done, and as Ira and Larry both noted, time is getting short. 5. Everyone must be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, without compromising our well-established goals. This is true for the Board as much as it is for the CCWG and the community. Regards, Keith

4 3