September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: new blog
by Chris Disspain Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

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

2 1

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
by Jordan Carter Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

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

6 11

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

Sept. 24, 2015

1 0

Latest blog post from Larry Strickling
by Jordan Carter Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

2 1

CORRECTION: Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

1 0

NTIA Statement---RE: Agenda & Reading List - LA Meeting
by Phil Corwin Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

1 0

the slides from call #54
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

2 1

New Article on the Road to LA and What's at Stake
by Phil Corwin Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

1 0

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

Sept. 23, 2015

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

1 0

PC 2 tool
by Alice Jansen Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

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

2 2