September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Take a break team
by Jordan Carter Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

8 12

Summary of current Board sentiment
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Hello All, I am hearing that there may have been some misunderstandings of Steve's comments earlier about the willingness of the Board to work with the CCWG and the wider community on implementing the accountability improvements. I just want to clarify: The Board supports the Board public comments that were sent a couple weeks ago. The Board supports the improvements to accountability recommended by the CCWG - including improvements to the IRP, processes to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets. The Board is very open to continuing to work with the CCWG to find the most effective way of implementing these important accountability changes. The Board put forward the MEM proposal for consideration by the CCWG as an alternative to the single member model for enforcement of new accountability measures in the bylaws, but recognizes that there may be other alternatives that are more effective. The discussions in the CCWG this afternoon highlight that there is a way forward to discuss how to effectively implement the accountability improvements. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

16 18

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
by avri doria Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

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 <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.NET> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment </div><div> </div>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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
by avri doria Sept. 27, 2015

Sept. 27, 2015

Hi, So nothing changed in LA, and any understandings to the contrary are mistaken? 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 10:48 AM (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment </div><div> </div>Hello Eberhard, >> can you please "share your understanding" of what you mean below in the form of an executive summary? OK - I will try. - the Board was getting some feedback that it wasn't aligned with the detailed comments that it submitted - so we wanted to confirm that yes the comments we submitted represent our views on the draft proposal, and our suggestions for improvement. - the Board wanted to be clear that we want to work with the CCWG on a common proposal that we can all support. As Keith noted, this means all including the Board will need to compromise, without compromising our joint goals. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Who'll blink first?
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sept. 27, 2015

Sept. 27, 2015

Becky, while in transit... I agree, but... :-)-O We have (broad) Consensus on a report, and have put it out for Public Comment. So we will now take the comments and apply them to the report. That will be subject to a Consensus Call (if necessary) and another round of Public Comment, if necessary. We also hear that members who did not object against the report now wish to do so, or rather to individual sections. My view is that that train has left the station. But, once we have decided what we want, we'll finalize it, send it to the Board and move on to Work Stream 2. If the Board doesn't like it, well, tough luck, they can communicate to the NTIA whatever they want, but not as what the Community wants. If it needs more time, Mr Strickling can extend the contract so we can figures this stuff out in an orderly, thorough and deliberate manner. I fault our Co-Chairs, not only for the chaotic conduct of the meeting (and the Board call) but also for their inept running of the CCWG, per se. We hear the same arguments again and again and again. We do not progress. The break-out sessions were perhaps a step in the right direction (even though I am personally not a friend of break-out session, and they did give Cheryl a forum to provide light amusement), but the 2 minute sound bites, closing the speakers list, and then moving to the next agenda is not going to achieve anything. As I said on Friday, we need to focus on one issue at a time, advance it to finalization, even if it takes a while, and then be done with it. And I mean done. As in DONE. We are a diverse group and our Co-Chairs are unable to get comprises going within the group, which they substitute by pushing what they perceive as having gained traction. That makes it necessary to have Consensus Calls at the end of a topic and move on. What I also think is extremely unhelpful is that we do not differ between members and participants. Sebastien alluded to this in Paris, and I agree that for example a seating arrangement will be helpful during F2F. But with regards to the blinking, we don't need the transition, the Board does. We need an orderly transition, if a transition takes place. So we need to stiffen stiffen the member's back bone and if we don't like the Board proposal, reject it. And move on. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On 27 Sep 2015, at 13:01, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > > 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> > Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM > To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

PLEASE READ: Face-to-Face logistics Day 1
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Hello everyone! As we prepare to kick of Day 1 of the CCWG ACCT F2F Meeting, I wanted to share a few items of interest. Meeting location: Penthouse Ballroom - First, go to Mezzanine level of hotel, then go to elevator at end of hall. Select (P) for penthouse. WIFI Information SSID: ICANN--‐CCWG--‐2015 PW: LosAngeles2015 Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/IZlYAw Reading List: https://community.icann.org/x/EZlYAw Please note two additional comments have been added to PC2 Tool, which is attached. Adobe Connect: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/ Best, Brenda

1 0

Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Dear all, Attached to this email you will a draft agenda Cochairs have prepared in anticipation of your Los Angeles Face-to-Face meeting. This agenda is subject to change and should not be considered final. Please note that the reading list page for this meeting can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+--+Face-to-F… The following wiki page includes information on the meeting - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56135261 We look forward to seeing you in LA or online. Best regards Alice

4 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Bruce, The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws. In the body of the Board comments, it says that the Board is proposing the MEM to allow the community ensure that ICANN is complying with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, in the "Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability", it says that arbitration may be used only for violation of Fundamental Bylaws. Being able to seek arbitration over violations of AoI and all bylaws is VERY different from just being able to enforce the Fundamental Bylaws. Am I reading this incorrectly? If not, can you please elaborate? Alan At 17/09/2015 05:13 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >..... > >The MEM proposal allows the community to ensure the Board is >following the bylaws, and that the decision of an independent panel >becomes binding. > >.....

17 55

new blog
by Chris Disspain Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

All, Forwarded at the request of John Poole who cannot post to the list. > http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/09/china-caict-objects-to-icann-ccwg.html <http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/09/china-caict-objects-to-icann-ccwg.html> Cheers, Chris

8 7

MEM and enforceability
by McAuley, David Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

I appreciate the board's input and take it as a good faith effort to enhance and evolve the CCWG proposal. However, I have, with respect, three critiques of it. First, the ability to create a remedy if the MEM panel finds against the board is completely within the board's discretion. Even a slight (even inconsequential) "remedy" would be a remedy and would, effectively, bar any viable avenue to court enforcement. Second, (and this applies to any panel ruling) any decision by the board to state that a ruling against it falls into the area of the board's fiduciary obligations (thus frustrating implementation of the ruling) should itself be appealable to ensure that this is, in fact, an objectively justified conclusion. And, third, if we went down this path, the board's ability to create a remedy (subject, I would urge, to some test for reasonableness) should be time-limited so that a claimant need not wait and wonder if it can ever appeal to court. David McAuley

14 35