September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Marginal gains
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear colleagues Please take the time to read the attached article. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34247629 I feel that the knowledge therein may assist in our work. Nigel

1 0

LA F2F support
by Arun Sukumar Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last call ended, but: Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed through SO/AC leadership? Chartering organisations have had an opportunity to nominate fully funded members. If travel support requests are not many in number, surely they can be evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG co-chairs, with results circulated in the working group mailing list? I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership -- who may or may not have tracked accountability discussions down to this crucial meeting -- is the most appropriate way to get diversity in perspectives. It is potentially unfair to those who are not affiliated to them, but active participants nevertheless. The number of comments in the second period received from organisations that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative of active participation outside. disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel support, and affiliated to NCUC Best, Arun --

6 9

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #53 - 15 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #53 - 15 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/2o9CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC * ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments * ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary. * ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and sole member model. * ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel. Notes F2F meeting We have been offered 5 additional travel slots. We plan to reach out to leadership of Chartering Organizations. Logistics will be easier if in LA. We will submitting our proposal to Board and it makes sense to facilitate participation of Board members so that discussions can be expedited. Objectives of meeting: . continue the analysis of comments in sub-teams; . work on finalizing our consensus recommendations; . advance the documentation and writing up the rationale for our recommendation as well as; . confirm the messaging and presentation of our recommendations so they can be understood more easily. We plan to have comms and graphical experts from Xplane on site. Delivering by Dublin is unrealistic given the comments we have received. We were hoping we would get confirmation of recommendations with second report. Since we have received multiple comments suggesting reconsideration, we do not think recommendations can be finalized in a rush. We will need to establish a new timeplan by LA meeting. We need to keep momentum and work on topics ahead of us. NTIA has made it clear that we need to further document our work. We will need to ask current subteams with analysis of comments received. A prioritization will be needed. We need to work on our message and to determine how we strengthen our proposal to next level. You are encouraged to read the draft narrative circulated on the list that documents what was done. We will be building LA agenda based on comments. Human Rights (WP4) We have an agreement to provide document that establishes high level wording for Bylaws. We also intend to provide rationale for how language was put together. We will address comments received in PC2. A follow up call is to be held this week. Public comment on Second Draft Proposal Staff run through of current trends with a note that more time will be needed to go through nuanced issues. This comment period speaks to importance of our work. Suggestion to reach out to SSAC and RSSAC ACTION ITEM: Reach out to SSAC and RSSAC ACTION ITEM: Work party members to begin digesting comments ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize summary. We will need to determine whether models (MEM and sole model) meet our requirements. It may be useful to receive an update from lawyers on feasibility of model. Suggestion for our lawyers to engage with ICANN lawyers so that we can have final product in time for LA. A matrix would be useful. ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to follow up on comparison of MEM and sole member model. Community forum WP1 had a call and has discussed specifics. More to follow. Update on Bylaws drafting A plan is to be provided soon. Based on input received via comment period, we cannot task ICANN legal with drafting Bylaws consistent with our current proposal while the Board is advocating a different approach. ICANN legal reports to Board. Suggestion to revisit the approach and move an approach where first draft would be provided by our lawyers keeping the block by block approach. Feedback: - Comments that it would be appropriate until final analysis. Board member will not sign off on Bylaws until lawyers of organization have not OKed text. Concerns about wasting time and effort. We first need to reach consensus. - The earlier the better. - We should move forward with drafting and do prioritizing. It makes sense for our legal counsel to hold the pen. Agree bylaws detail helps with Implementation, not with Communication Conclusion: Legal counsel to hold the pen. We will have a similar drafting experience with CWG. Whenever we have consensus we will move forward with Bylaws drafting. ACTION ITEM Cochairs to send a note to staff and to coordinate with CWG as well as counsel. Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693850/2nd-draft-CCWG%20… modificationDate=1442299775002&api=v2> 2nd-draft-CCWG trends-v4.pdf

2 1

Follow-up: Venue & Travel - September Face-to-Face Meeting
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Hello all, Just a kind reminder to send your RSVP to acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> by 21:00 UTC Tuesday, 15 September if you plan on attending the Los Angeles Face-to-Face Meeting in-person. See original note below for details. Thank you to all that have already responded. Kind regards, Brenda and staff From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:07 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Venue & Travel - September Face-to-Face Meeting Dear all, We would like to confirm the dates and location for your September face-to-face meeting: Dates: 25-26 September 2015 (two full working days) Venue: LE MERIDIEN DELFINA SANTA MONICA 530 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica CA 90405 United States <http://www.lemeridiendelfina.com/en/lemeridien> http://www.lemeridiendelfina.com/en/lemeridien We invite you to confirm your in-person presence by sending an RSVP to <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> acct-staff(a)icann.org by Tuesday, 15 September- COB. Please note that only the 26 members, the ATRT Expert, and the ICG Liaisons are eligible for travel funding. Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at their own expense. Legal counsel and Advisors will be invited to join the CCWG in Los Angeles. Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an alternate. Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability and are approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. As always, remote participation will be available for this meeting. Feel free to contact ICANN staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ) should you have any questions. Thank you Best regards, Alice

1 0

Initial Trend Analysis for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear all, Here is the draft slide deck presented on the call today. We are still working to provide you additional detail and analysis. Also, I¹ll note that we have not yet finished our analysis on the Principles section, so that is why this was not referenced in the slide deck. Best, Grace

1 0

Apologies
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Please note my apology, if belated, I had to attend to the day job on short notice. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

1 0

AGENDA - Call #53
by Alice Jansen Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #53 - Tuesday, 15 September from 06:00-08:00 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. Public comment on Second Draft Proposal - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/ 3. Update on Human Rights (WP4) 4. Draft agenda for our LA Face-to-Face meeting (25-26 September) 5. Update on Community forum (WP1) 6. Update on Bylaws drafting 7. AOB Thank you, Kind regards Alice

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting | 14 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 14 September will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/eY9YAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Link to Google doc for today's discussion: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw…

1 0

Fundamental Differences Beteen SMM & MEM--RE: Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes
by Phil Corwin Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Thanks for doing this Greg. It is very helpful (and Happy New Year). And thank you for discerning that the Board may be urging that the WS2 work be shunted to the dead end swamp of a PDP. I think this would be a grave mistake, jeopardizing both cohesion and inertia. If anything like this was adopted I would urge a re-think and expansiomn of what should be in WS1 and thus assured of timely implementation. As for your observation at the top of the second page, “Unclear what is meant by “community powers” (may be referring to Fundamental Bylaws)”, the answer can be found in the Memo on proposed Approach for Community Enforceability: * MEM arbitration would only be for alleged violations of Fundamental Bylaws, while the CCWG’s SMM-based IRP would be available for alleged violations of any part of AOC or Bylaws. Under the MEM proposal, for anything other than a Fundamental Bylaw allegation only the present IRP (which is limited scope and only advisory, at least according to the longstanding Board and Jones Day position – is that still the case post-.Africa?) would remain in place as the available, inadequate remedy. * Under MEM, if the Board were found to have violated a Fundamental Bylaw it would be required to remedy that, but in a manner “within its discretion”. That could allow for a very watered down response that nonetheless might qualify as an acceptable remedy, and there is no clear way for community to challenge the Board’s decision. The SMM’s IRP allows for a binding decision to be ordered implemented by the Board. * Access to courts is available under MEM only if the Board has failed to remedy after an adverse decision. But, as just noted, the discretion leeway might allow for a very weak ‘remedy’ that nonetheless could still be deemed sufficient to block access to the courts. Court access is assured under the SMM. If the Board’s alternative were to be adopted I think it would be incumbent upon the CCWG to review and probably expand the number of Fundamental Bylaws, as they would be the only basis for invoking a MEM arbitration. That would of course have the downside of making more of the Bylaws subject to a higher threshold for change. Given the input that the CCWG received from its lawyers, I remain skeptical that the MEM provides a model that creates adequate legal standing for court access. Even if it does, the individuals composing the MEM Issue Group would appear to have potential personal liability, although the MEM proposal says that ICANN will indemnify and hold them harmless due to that. Regardless of that offer, the individuals involved (heads of internal ICANN groups) may still hesitate to invoke MEM much more than under the framework of the CCWG’s SMM proposal because of the risk of being personally caught up in litigation – and potentially liable. In that litigation liability regard, note Q. 14 in the FAQ document: Q14: Does the MEM Issue Group possess the right to sue ICANN in order to enforce the MEM arbitration decision in court? If so, is there a risk that the MEM Issue Group can be sued? A14: The capacity to sue comes along with the capacity to be sued, although it is highly unlikely that the MEM Issue Group would engage in any conduct that would be subject to litigation. In any event, ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision. (Emphasis added) Therefore, there is a possibility that in a very heated future disagreement, ICANN might express its view that the individual members of the MEM were potentially engaging in conduct subject to litigation and that invoking a MEM arbitration might invite a countersuit. That could certainly dampen the willingness to proceed. Even if the hold harmless and indemnify pledge bears out, who wants to be caught up in the misery of a lawsuit? Summing up, as I read it, the scope of Board action subject to MEM-triggered arbitration is much narrower than under the CCWG’s proposal, and the Board retains very broad discretion to respond to an adverse MEM decision with a weak remedy that could nonetheless be sufficient to block access to court. So the Fundamental Difference between the CCWG Proposal and the Board’s proposed alternative is not just replacement of the SMM with the MEM, all other things being equal. The scope of actions subject to MEM arbitration would be much narrower, the ability to compel the Board to take a particular action would be substantially diluted, and the individuals comprising the MEM would be exposed to litigation risk. I don’t see how that squares with the level of enhanced accountability deemed necessary by the CCWG. That is my reading of what the Board has provided. If I am wrong in any aspect of that reading then I would appreciate being so advised. Best 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 3:03 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes Here is the PDF. Greg On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I've reviewed the Board's Comments Matrix and Notes in some detail. I found it somewhat difficult to extract the key disagreements with and differences from our proposal, given the length and format of the document. I've prepared a chart attempting to summarize all of the key disagreements/differences (and mentioning a few but not all of the key points of agreement as well). I've also inserted my own notes, as well. I found this very helpful and I hope you will too. If desired, I can put this up as a Google Doc if others want to refine it or comment on it collaboratively. I'll send a PDF shortly. Many of the Board's key points have been mentioned in prior discussions or documents. There is one important point that I don't recall seeing earlier. The Board essentially rejects the idea of Work Stream 2 and wants all of this work done using other ICANN community processes instead. This is explained fully in point 47, but foreshadowed in a number of places throughout the document. I hope you find this useful. L'shana Tova and Happy New Year to those observing the holiday. Regards, Greg ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

2 1

WP1 Meeting and agenda| 19:00 UTC | 14 September
by Jordan Carter Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

hi all I wanted to extend the invite to all ccwg participants, the note I sent to WP1 with some agenda thoughts is below and the details for the call and Adobe room are after that. J Hi all I realise that many of you are taking time to read and digest the feedback so we are keeping the meeting very simple on the 14th. Here is a link to a google doc you could helpfully look at before the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja7jj-9z4QSYyFV5puZM6NC_zWt36VhxXRQQUWw… It is meant to be a place for you to add your thoughts about the subject of how we make the Community Forum part of the Second Draft Proposal more comprehensive. Jorge's comments are there. The doc is set to tracked changes so.... please feel free to add your thoughts! We will discuss the issue and record thoughts from the call in the same document. The rest of the doc contains a copy of what we put in the second draft proposal as a base to update and amend; then the wording precisely as in the Second Draft Proposal for the record; and then the earlier draft we had done which did have more precision. Speak with you soon, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (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 * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Brenda Brewer* <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 14 September 2015 Updated to a ONE HOUR call. Thank you! Please join the CCWG-Accountability *WP-1* *Meeting *– Monday 14 September at 19:00 – 20:00 UTC Time zone converter *here* <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WP1+Meeting+&iso=2…> *Adobe Connect: **https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ * <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> The dial-in details are below - *please let me know if you require a dial-out.* _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: *WP1 * For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. _______________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: *COUNTRY* *Number* *Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

2 3