January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG ACCT Meeting #79 - 21 January
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #79 - 21 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/jJxlAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Holly Gregory, Roelof Meijer on bridge. Update from Chartering Organizations - We are awaiting input from GAC and GNSO. GNSO Council call later today - accountability is on agenda. GAC had a call yesterday and is finalizing its input. Important to receive this input shortly to make informed decisions for way forward. Feedback: - Items to be discussed on this call (see chat). GAC is dedicated to putting feedback together. - GNSO: The GNSO communication will be a summary/consolidation of the SG and C statements. Timeline Overview of timeline and next steps slides Feedback: - We should reduce pressure. Disagree with supplemental report - we should have a revised proposal and should discuss with full CCWG whether changes require a public comment. Not in favor of public comment period but we should still discuss. Body of report should be submitted for comments for longer period of time to ensure there is consistency. ---> Supplemental means a new iteration of the report that takes feedback into account along with a description of the changes. We do not see need for another public comment period as specificities related to implementation. - Time to comment will not be sufficient. We will need to go back to our communities and make sure the bodies approving the report are comfortable with the final version. - Plan is consistent with Dublin plan. But what is the date of submission? --> Some discussions we will have trouble closing without GNSO, GAC input. There are still a number of gaps to bridge that will be closed next week hopefully. Issuing supplemental report in February. - Will timeline delivery date be discussed with NTIA? Need to ensure NTIA has sufficient time for their process. ---> Need for all to compromise to get report out in prompt fashion. - We should not initiate any coordination with NTIA but if they have questions or a need for clarification ,it is their decision to raise the questions and seek clarification CONCLUSION: We will move forward with supplemental draft but will re-discuss with full group for second reading. To preserve integrity of project, CoChairs will produce projections once they have a complete picture and will discuss with the group. Escalation timeframe Is there additional need to discuss this? Overview of conclusions. CONCLUSION: reading of rec 2 escalation timeframe is complete. Fundamental Bylaws Overview of conclusions. CONCLUSION: 2nd reading of rec 3 is complete. IRP & PTI IANA decisions We determined that PTI actions/inactions would be part of IRP. Concern raised that standard may not be limited to Bylaws only. Do we have agreement that the standard of review is different from other types and is there a preference for either approach? 1) Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction or 2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do so is covered by the IRP. Feedback: - Ask the CWG. CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to share this with CWG-Stewardship CoChairs for feedback. This item will be rediscussed next week. Scope of community IRP and separation power Carve out language to be added along with note that we should not use acronyms. Feedback: - Not allowing the rest of the community to disagree with something another set of community produced jeopardizes the multistakeholder model. - A PDP means a public comment period took place. Community could still elaborate a policy by ignoring public comments. What means would community have to stop this? --> There are iterative steps with the community and Board to see whether any recommendations made through the PDP are contravening public interest. - We should make sure we enhance accountability of SO/ACs. We should consider worst case scenarios CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: We will proceed with the conclusion and adopt this. Sebastien/Roelof invited to send thoughts on list and we will re-evaluate if it gets traction. Update on Board removal liability mitigation We will be adding clarifications: - Since any individual can petition, it will require a rationale; - There will be a dialogue with Board member; - Pre-service letters to be included. Legal counsel update: language shared with Jones Day on a waiver and we are working on indemnification. We will share in upcoming days. Feedback: - Can we assume that if there are discussions with ICANN legal we can expect change from the Board? Indemnification of whom? -> Legal counsel: No commitments have been made but we are discussing what sort of waiver/indemnificaton (if any) would be acceptable. Breadth and depth are being discussed. CONCLUSION: We will wait to hear conclusions from lawyers. GAC Advice Overview of conclusions. Feedback: - "This recommendation does not create" is not an acceptable wording. Use "shall not create". --> Intent for sentence is to provide directions for implementation where we will draft actual text. - Legal counsel: We are having trouble in having pieces of language consistent. We are uncertain how it is possible to act inconsistently with GAC advice and not have that reconsidered a rejection for example. We are planning to frame a high level concern about this. --> Highlight whether that is due to existing Bylaws or proposed Bylaws. - Rejection by 2/3 would trigger obligation to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. We did not change any of the other language. - This is moving in the right direction. With respect to ICANN needs to act in accordance with its Bylaws: it should be clarified that we are not suggesting that it be limited to Empowered community. - Problem arises in draft Bylaw: we are introducing concept of rejection that does not have this concept in; it adds complexity. - IRP is against action/inaction by the Board and not against GAC advice. Avoiding use of "reject" could address concerns about implied obligations. Need to point out aggrieved party. This is only supposed to restrict Board's obligation to find mutually acceptable solution. It is Board's responsibility to assess advice it received. 2,3,4 is trade-off appropriate? Feedback: - Concerns about 2/3 being unwelcome by congress in light of statement that was made by Fadi. Items 2, 3, 4 for discussion on Tuesday: CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: Lawyers to come back to use on concern that was expressed in consideration of Greg's comments. Items to 2, 3, 4 to be discussed. GAC as decisional participant Concerns expressed about GAC's role are not sufficient to jeopardize consensus of Third report but it is open for debate to see if any traction. Feedback: - In GAC there was discussion about definition. What are decision-making steps? Group needs to initiate petition is not decision-making. How could you prevent GAC from participating in forum. Step 6-7 are important. - NCSG still has concerns. GAC is not permitted to select Board members but we are now empowering GAC to remove Directors and approve budgets. GAC was never designed to do that. We are empowering them. We need to take will of community into consideration. - This may raise real issue as to whether or not ICANN is becoming intergovernment and in violation of NTIA criteria. --> 48 in support - 10 against - All the thresholds no longer work - the model disappears if go down from 5 to 4. CONCLUSION: We will keep report from language. This topic will be rediscussed next week. SO/AC Accountability Overview of discussion items. Feedback: - WS1 gives unilateral control of reviews to Board. It is not a bottom-up approach. CONCLUSION: Clarify process / outcome of structural reviews to address this concern that the Board can restructure at will. Concern with respect to the GAC to be addressed in second reading. Reconsideration Overview of discussion items. Suggestion: acknowledge these concerns and address in implementation CONCLUSION: Move forward with second reading. AOB - Share any views you may have on approaches to speed up process.

1 0

PTI and the IRP
by Avri Doria Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

Hi, I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new principles for the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the IRP, we need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before starting on its implementation. The CWG calls for: > 1. *Appeal mechanism*. An appeal mechanism, for example in > the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the > IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated > issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the > CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal > mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and > re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD > community post-transition. > I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone as By Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers' or CSC complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws, but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need to be. So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of filling the CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation issue. At least not yet. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 8

Blog Post by ISOC's Kathy Brown
by Konstantinos Komaitis Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

Dear all, the following blog post posted earlier today by Kathy may be of interest to you. Best Konstantinos https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2016/01/iana-keeping-ult… * Twitter * Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.internetsociety.org…> * More Later this week, ICANN’s Chartering Organizations will indicate whether they will support the third draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations. This is a significant moment in the IANA transition process. Support for the accountability proposal by the ICANN community will mean that we are very close to a point when the transition can move to its next phase. Since the beginning of this process, the IANA transition has had many moving parts. In its original announcement, NTIA identified what it called “directly affected parties” – each of whom had work to do to develop a consensus proposal on how the transition could take place in a way that upholds the core principles that NTIA set forward. On the operational side, this work has been completed by the IETF, the RIRs and, for the most part, by the names community. The remaining piece is to ensure that, post-transition, ICANN is fully accountable to the community it serves. This work has been ably led by the CCWG. In Dublin, the community reached a milestone inasmuch as it agreed, in concept, to work within a so-called Single Designator Model. It is understood that this governance model can meet the requirements of the community for accountability while having minimal impact on ICANN’s corporate structure. There is also agreement on a set of community powers “designed to empower the community to hold ICANN accountable for the organization’s Principles”. In addition, there is general agreement on the need to clarify ICANN’s Mission & core values; to appropriately reaffirm ICANN’s commitment to human rights; and, to discuss the accountability of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Finally, in Dublin, the community agreed to a general set of procedural steps for the exercise of the community powers, namely: Community powers will be exercised through consensus: Engage, Escalate, Enforce. In short, there appears to be consensus around a governance framework for how accountability will work inside ICANN going forward. Let’s not lose sight of this considerable progress. The open questions that remain to be solved have to do the scope of those powers, who exercises these powers, and the implications for ICANN as a corporation. While these issues are by no means trivial, they are solvable, particularly if the parties stay focused and collaborate in good faith. It strikes me that we are in a place where we need to grab consensus knowing that the community has done the hard work of satisfying the fundamentals of its Charter -- meeting the criteria for success that has been set forth, not just by NTIA, but by and for itself. I was encouraged by Steve Crocker’s blog<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-ceo-succession> earlier this week in which he expressed the Board’s commitment to work with the community to get the transition done on time. For the past few weeks, there have been intense discussions on how to improve the current draft proposal based on community feedback. This is typical in any consensus process but in working collaboratively towards the ultimate objective, we should make sure that the timeframe of the transition is met. Importantly, while the discussions about accountability are primarily focused on the ICANN community and its processes, the outcome of this is critical for the IANA transition as a whole and for all the directly affected parties to the transition. Moreover, seeing this transition through, in a timeframe that is realistic in light of the U.S. political environment, matters for the entire multistakeholder ecosystem. We cannot go back – we cannot simply pretend that the past 22 months haven’t changed the landscape for Internet governance. They have. If we, as a community, fail to deliver, there will be ripple effects throughout the IG ecosystem. But if we succeed, when we succeed, we will have collectively done the right thing for the Internet. Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Senior Policy Advisor The Internet Society

3 2

A modest attempt to advance the "Mission scoping" discussion
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Dear Avri, Dear All, I am chiming into this long thread because I believe Avri's point below is very relevant, and echoes in other terms the concern voiced by our Legal Advisors a few days ago. To quote Holly's email : " For clients facing similar dilemmas, a common approach is to draft general principles into governing documents and provide a mechanism for interpreting them in specific situations. We recommend that the CCWG agree upon and articulate mission principles at a general level appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws, understanding that refinement and interpretation will be needed thereafter. Based on the assumption that we would accept this advice, and that the IRP is the "mechanism for interpretation", we would have to focus on what general principles we can agree on, and only include this set of principles as part of our group's recommendations. Based on my reading of this thread, and the CCWG call discussions, it seems to me that there are some areas of agreement. First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain acceptable : a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internets unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission. Then I noticed what there seems to be agreement that related challenges of Icann decision would be focused on challenging the decision to enter into an agreement,, rather than the decision to enforce an agreement. And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if we were to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any agreement should be defined by policy* (with all the related process safeguards, including bottom up nature as well as advisory inputs), instead of implementation. Then it would be up to the policy makers to define whether eligibility conditions are appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a specific form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable, etc. I hope this is helpful to the discussion. Best, Mathieu PS: I have voluntarily left aside the "grandparenting" discussion which should be another thread. Our lawyers raised 5 very clear and good questions. -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 06:02 À : accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion Hi, Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conversation ongoing on this list, but this seems more like gTLD policy making than clarifying without changing the mission. It is almost as if we want to preclude the freedom of the GNSO to make bottom up multistakeholder decisions about gTLDs or community gTLDs that may be decided upon in the future. We are getting into a very murky issue that is still the subject of reconsideration, CEP and IRP processes. In fact more all the time. I think we are trying to do too much at the last minute with manipulation of the mission to meet people's political ideas about what ICANN should and should not do. My suggestions is that we go back to the wording for draft 3 and just make the minimal changes needed by the the IETF and the RIRs and leave discussions about ICANN's mission for WS2 or elsewhen - this is a long discussion we are embarking on. Personally I am very committed to the policies that the GNSO initiated on communities and while I think there is a lot of work to do on them in the next PDP, I do not think it is work that is appropriate at this point in time for this process. We are supposed to be working on accountability not the mission or the gTLD program. but if this is going to become a question about what is acceptable in terms of communities, their commitments and the contracts they make with ICANN on behalf of the communities they intend to serve, I will have a whole lot more to say. I am currently saving those arguments for the subsequent gTLD PDP, but if those issues need to be fought here and now, I guess I am willing. Is this part of the WS1 task? If so, why? I do not think this is part of the requirement for WS1 and transition. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 5

FINAL AGENDA - Call #79
by Alice Jansen Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Dear all, In preparation for your call #79<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56990860> – Thursday, 21 January 2016 - 12:00-15:00 UTC - (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please disregard the previous agenda and refer to the below. Many thanks Best regards Alice --- 1 Welcome, Roll Call & SOI (2 min) 2 Update from Chartering Organizations (5 min) 3 Timeline and next steps (10 min) - slide-deck attached 4 Rec 2 - Escalation timeframes (third reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (10 min) 5 Rec 3 - Fundamental Bylaws (second reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (10 min) 6 Rec 7 – IRP & PTI IANA decisions (20 min) 7 Rec 4 – Scope of community IRP and separation power (second reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… & http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (10 min) 8 Rec 7 – Scope of IRP (third reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (10 min) 9 Update on Board removal liability mitigation - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (10 min) Break (10 min) 10 Rec 11 – GAC advice (continued) (20 min) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 11 Rec 1 – GAC as decisional participant (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (20 min) 12 Rec 10 – SO/AC accountability (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (20 min) 13 Rec 8 – Reconsideration (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… (20 min) 14 A.O.B (3 min) From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:49 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 - Call #79 Dear all, In anticipation of your call #79<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56990860> – Thursday, 21 January 2016 - 12:00-15:00 UTC - (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), please find below a proposed agenda. Note: item # 13 is TBD. Timing for agenda items will be communicated as soon as possible. 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI (2 min) 2 Update from Chartering Organizations 3 Timeline and next steps 4 Rec 2 - Escalation timeframes (third reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 5 Rec 3 - Fundamental Bylaws (second reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 6 Rec 4 – Scope of community IRP and separation power (second reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… & http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 7 Rec 11 – GAC advice (continued) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 8 Rec 1 – GAC as decisional participant - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 9 Rec 10 – SO/AC accountability (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 10 Rec 8 – Reconsideration - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 11 Mission (TBD) 12 Update on Board removal liability mitigation - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 13 A.O.B (3 min) Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

Recommendation 7 - Scope of IRP - 2nd reading conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached. 1. Discussed comments related to scope of IRP (paragraph 7) a. Agreed to inclusion of PTI actions or inactions (CWG Requirement) with clarifications on : i. Scope of appeal being restricted to naming ii. Implementation group to check with CWG how best to achieve definition of standard of review (possibly through inclusion of PTI Bylaws / rules in the IRP standard of review) iii. CWG dependency requires ability to ensure PTI compliance through IRP. Two alternative approaches available: (1) provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction or (2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do so is covered by IRP. b. Agreed to exclusion of protocol / parameter decisions (IAB comment – paragraph 18) with mention of existing appeals mechanisms for numbering and protocols / parameters for clarification c. Agreed that challenge of expert panel decisions (Board concern / alternate suggestion) is limited to challenge of whether panel decision is consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws d. Process for escalating denial of access to documents under DIDP to be developed as part of WS2 review of DIDP (Board concern ‘ alternate suggestion), with ultimate appeal through IRP. DIDP decisions alleged to be in violation of ICANN Bylaws may be challenged in IRP. 2. Empowered Community Legal fees (born by ICANN ?) in case of Community IRP (see paragraph 14 – following Steve del Bianco note in the chat) 3. Other comments and suggestions are provided as implementation details for Implement oversight group (see paragraph 37) 4. Agreement on carve-out language (modified as noted below): Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the ICANN Board’s adoption of the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP), including a challenge to the policy itself, may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP. NOTE: This language should also be included in (a) Community powers/Annex 4, (b) as a parenthetical statement at the end of the lead-in language in paragraph 69, just prior to bullets; (c) as a parenthetical in paragraph 117 of the draft proposal; and (d) paragraph 54 of Annex 02. Third reading is planned for Thursday, 21 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Recommendation 11 - GAC Advice - 1st reading - initial conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the initial conclusions of our deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached. 1. Clarify whether current drafting imposed mandatory voting from the Board and represents an unintended change to the current practice (see IPC detailed comment page 8 on http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30… ) To address this concern, add this clarification to Rec 11 and Annex 11: This recommendation is intended to limit the conditions under which the ICANN board and GAC must try to find a mutually acceptable solution. This recommendation does not create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider and/or vote on GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA transition. This recommendation does not create any new assumption that ICANN is bound to implement any advice that is not rejected by the board, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA transition. 2. Confirm or discuss need for such a recommendation to change how GAC Advice is being treated by the Icann Board, in light of comments received. 3. Confirm or discuss recommendation that at least 2/3rds of the Board was required to reject GAC consensus advice to the Board. 4. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of formal objection and that the definition of objection/consensus cannot be changed. Others specifically supported this provision. 5. Add the requirement that a rationale must be provided for formal advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. The Board should determine whether the rationale is adequate. 6. Add a clarification that ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise – that is inconsistent with Bylaws: While the GAC is not restricted as to the advice it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take action that is inconsistent with its Bylaws. The empowered community will have standing to bring an IRP to challenge whether any board action or inaction that is inconsistent with its bylaws, even if the board acted on GAC advice. The discussion will be continued on call #79 (21 January). Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Recommendation 9 - AOC reviews - 1st reading conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached. 1. The Competion, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice review text is reintroduced. 2. All AOC reviews (+ IFR) should be incorporated into the Bylaws. 3. The WP- IRP IOT will examine the suggestion to include a mid-term review of the IRP (page 3). 4. The ATRT scope will be expanded to include a review of the IRP (page 12 - paragraph 89). 5. The representation and number of seats on Review Teams that relate to gTLD reviews will remain unchanged from the Third Draft Proposal. (page 9 – paragraph 54) 6. Amended title of WHOIS/Directory Services review to say WHOIS/Future Registration Directory Services” to accommodate future changes (paragraph 113 – page 14). 7. Article XVIII of ICANN Bylaws should remain a Standard Bylaw (see paragraph 5) 8. The Board suggestion regarding AoC reviews operational standards to be developed as part of implementation should be included, on the understanding that specifics of recommendation 9 would be respected and that this text would address implementation details only (see paragraph 8 page 3) Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
by Burr, Becky Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Is attached in DRAFT FORM. Anything missing or wrong should be attributed to incompetence rather than conspiracy. I am still working on questions in 1 section. I will also shortly resend a variety of previously circulated resource documents. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

24 98

CCWG - Rec 12 - Final version for legal review
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

All, Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft version of Annex 12 for legal review. This version has been generated from the conclusion of the second reading document with the following changes: - Includes high level legal edits - Re-arranged order of recommendations so they match the order they are presented in the document. - Includes Ombudsman review language - Includes an updated Section 4 (was changed from Changes to second draft, now changes to Third Draft) As such you will find attached 2 documents: - CCWGV4-Annex 12-FinalDraftV0.3BT-TC - track changes version with listing of changes - CCWGV4-Annex 12-FinalDraftV0.4BT-Clean - Clean version Once this legal review is completed (48 hours), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

1 0