January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

re-iterating the request for transparent communication!
by farzaneh badii Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs, All Previously, I requested for a transparent public communication channel which allowed everyone to have access to communication between Staff, Co-chairs and others, especially when drafting the proposal. It was not taken into consideration. No public channel was provided for such communication. This would have prevented alot of speculations. Now listening to what CCWG lawyers have to say about not including their comments in the drafts of CCWG proposal (here is the link to lawyers concerns https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw ) which might be just due to a total oversight, I was wondering if I could ask for two things: 1. Please make a public communication channel for co-chair communication with Staff, communication among staff, and any communication that has an effect on drafting the proposal. 2. The lawyers in this call stated that some of their comments were requested to be posted,including some that were sent on Sunday, but they have not been. Can you please clarify which comments and why they have not been posted and if it is an oversight I would like to request all their comments that have not been posted to be posted as soon as possible. Best -- Farzaneh

5 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
by David Post Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

>Jonathan Zuck wrote: > >>Agree with Steve here. We need to keep core >>values minimal. This Christmas Tree is already >>getting weighed down a bit too much for my tastes. Alan Greenberg wrote: >Oh I agree. But it got heavy a long time ago. If >we want to start stripping stuff out that we have added, I am all for it. >Why all this vehemence about this one item? I would suggest that it's because (a) while we may not have reached a tipping point of weighing down the Christmas Tree with so many values and commitments that ICANN will be able, in effect, to do whatever it likes itn the future, we're perilously close, and we should resist the temptation to add any new ones (including this one). And (b) there are far too many things ICANN would be able to justify (in good faith) as being designed to "increase consumer trust" that would take it very far from its core mission - instituting a program to investigate and remedy false, fraudulent, or defamatory claims on websites, for instance. David >Alan > > >>From: >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >> > on behalf of Steve DelBianco >><<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org > >>Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM >>To: Becky Burr >><<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz >> >, Accountability Community >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement >> >>Our recommendation #9 is Incorporating the >>Affirmation of Commitments in ICANNâs >>Bylaws. That includes commitments made by >>ICANN in the AoC, such as the commitment cited >>by Becky, to "promote competition, consumer >>trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace." >> >>First, I donât think we should casually >>discard any of those three commitment items >>just because it is difficult to define. The >>AoC review thatâs just begun will develop >>working definitions as part of its review. >> >>I would answer 'No' to both of Beckyâs >>questions. This commitment does not need to >>be part of Core Values, and could live in the >>bylaws section describing the required AoC >>review of any expansion of new gTLDs. >> >>Since it is in the bylaws, ICANNâs >>fulfillment of this commitment could be the subject of an IRP. >> >>And any changes to this commitment would be >>subject to veto by the empowered community. >> >> >>From: >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >> > on behalf of Becky Burr >><<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz > >>Date: Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM >>To: Accountability Community >><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement >> >> As discussed in our call yesterday, we would >> like to get some discussion started on some of >> the issues with the Mission Statement, >> Commitments & Core Values elements of the CCWG >> Proposal. One of those issues relates to the >> inclusion of the concept of promoting >> âconsumer trustâ in the Commitments and/or >> Core Values. The USCIB comment, for example, >> urged inclusion of a Commitment/Core Value of >> âpromoting competition, consumer trust, and >> consumer choice in the DNS >> marketplace.â ALAC urged inclusion of the consumer trust language. >>This is the topic we will discuss on Monday, >>during the Ad Hoc meeting just announced. Feel >>free to contribute your views in this thread, >>particularly if you are not going to be able to participate on Monday. >> ISSUE: Paragraph 3 of the Affirmation of >> Commitments describes the goals of the AoC, saying: >> "This document affirms key commitments >> by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: >> (c) promote competition, consumer trust, >> and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace.â >>Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: >> IIf and when new gTLDs (whether in >> ASCII or other language character sets) have >> been in operation for one year, ICANN will >> organize a review that will examine the extent >> to which the introduction or expansion of >> gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust >> and consumer choice . ICANN will organize a >> further review of its execution of the above >> commitments two years after the first review, >> and then no less frequently than every four years. >> In the Initial Draft Proposal, this >> AoC language was transposed into the Core >> Values by requiring ICANN to depend âon >> market mechanisms to proote and sustain a >> healthy competitive environment in the DNS >> market that enhances consumer trust and >> choice.â (Para 107, page 27 Initial Draft Proposal) >> In the 2nd Draft Proposal we elected to >> delete the reference to consumer trust in the >> Mission statement and include it in the Review >> section of the Bylaws (See 3rd Report, >> Appendix 9, Para. 33). The reason we agreed >> to make this switch was because it is not a >> standalone ICANN commitment in the AoC, >> rather, it is specifically tied to new gTLD >> expansion and specifically tied to a required review. >> Several commenters in both the 2nd and >> 3rd comment round argued that the Core Values >> should specifically call out consumer >> trust. Some have disputed my characterization >> of Paragraph 3 of the AoC (i.e., it states the >> goals of the AoC but does not recite a >> specific commitment), on the grounds that my >> characterization is an opinion and not a fact. >>QUESTIONS: >>Should an AoC provision specific to TLD >>expansion be leveraged to impose generalized, >>independent, and affirmative competition and >>consumer trust protection obligations on ICANN? >>Does ICANNâs fundamental Mission to ensure >>âstable and secure operationâ of the DNS, >>and its various Commitments (i.e., to use >>processes that enable competition, and >>to preserve stability, reliability, security, >>global interoperability, resilience, and >>openness) adequately address this concern? >> >> >>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 >>/<http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz >>_______________________________________________ >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #76 - 12 January
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #76 - 12 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FZVlAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Bruce to relay conclusion to Board. * ACTION ITEM: Double check language for ATRT can accommodate. 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. Steve Crocker - Barrack Otieno - Malcolm Hutty on audio only. No updates to statement of interest. Rec 4 Board removal liability mitigation - Second reading Board input: Whatever will be used to justify to other SO/ACs, community members should be the rationale that will be documented in writing for the Board member to address. It will be tied to the SO/AC. Restrictions are put on ability to state rationale. In terms of pre-service letter, Board is comfortable with agreeing to comply with instructions from Empowered Community but uncomfortable with waiving rights for defamation and indemnification. - Board members facing defamatory content should not be without legal relief. Feedback from lawyers was included. See paragraph 39. We will have waiver requested by commenters but also a corrective safety net for the Director in question in case SO/AC brings wrong accusations. Feedback: - "comprehensive" should not be included. Without indemnification and waiving rights, no point in having power. - Written rationale offering reasons should be sufficient - Replace "is invited" with "if requested, will be invited". If appropriate is incorrect. - Remove "comprehensive". It creates possibility of challenge. Conclusion: comprehensive will be removed. Proposed conclusion: For claims that are within what is appropriate, it will be hard to reason why there should not be any waiver. Where the allegations cross border of defamation, waiver would not be valid: Board member could seek relief. Board input: Not agreeing that this a waiver. We could consider legal advice on indemnification. ACTION ITEM: Bruce to relay conclusion to Board. Feedback: - Officer of SO/ACs should be able to exercise power in good faith but can we create that indemnity? - If only Chairs are indemnified, Empowered Community conversation won't happen - There should be balance between Empowered Community and Board member if exposes to outrageous allegations. Conclusion: Ask Lawyers to reach out to ICANN legal Team/Jones Day to ensure appropriate language is found and bring back feedback from legal team. Rec 12 - Work Stream 2 - Second reading Board input: Discussion focused on paragraph 5. Outstanding concerns: Board preference would be: "limited to". Topics are broad. New topics can be added in regular review cycles (e.g. ATRT). A clear scope and set of issues is needed. Board is also concerned about adding dates to the Bylaws (paragraph 3). We want clear set of issues that will be resourced. Suggestion: SO/ACs could spin off some of these suggestions. Refer to comment: First, the Board agrees that a transitional bylaw can be used to define the Board's commitment on WS2 matters. Second, the effort anticipated in WS2 should be performed through cross community working groups chartered by multiple groups across ICANN, effort and not all work must be done by the existing CCWG-Accountability. Third, the Board agrees that it will treat consensus based-recommendations on the limited list of WS2 topics (set out in the CCWG-Accountability's redline) just as it will consider the consensus-based WS1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Fourth, the Board does not support the inclusion of a timeline for the required completion of WS2 efforts in the transitional Bylaw. Finally, the Board supports that the costs of WS2 must be subject to the budgetary process for the year. If the budget is exhausted and additional resources are necessary, the chartering organizations must support a request for Board consideration on additional funding. Conclusion: We will take on "limited to". - Feedback from Advisors indicates that diversity needs to be strengthened. We will need to clarify Ombudsman section (Avri and Becky). Adding a note that further items beyond those enumerated in WS2 could be accommodated through regular review cycle is a good suggestion. Feedback: - Unsure the ATRT scope is open to any issues the community would like to introduce. We may need to change Bylaw accompanying the ATRT. --> We have accommodated possibility. ACTION ITEM: Double check language for ATRT can accommodate. - Add clarification that SO/ACs can spin off new issues Conclusion: Second reading is complete. Changes outlined above are to be incorporated. Rec 7 - Scope of IRP - First Reading Refer to discussion points established for first reading. 1.a - 1.b Does the group consider inclusion of PTI actions/inactions as within scope? Feedback: - It does not seem controversial. Exclusion of protocol parameters - likewise - is not controversial and consistent with way numbers related issues have been handled. These two suggestions are clarifications. - Do we have outcomes that go along with it? There should be results that can address this. --> IOT can be in charge of developing those. - PTI structure will be a Fundamental Bylaw. There should be IRP framework to make sure there is no breaching. This requirement is reasonable. - Inconsistency: PTI is an affiliate of ICANN. - Not convinced the result is a violation of Bylaws. PTI is a creature of Bylaws. in our proposal, we need to say possible outcome is a violation of Bylaws or in case of action/inaction, a remedial action. - ICANN's responsibility is to ensure that PTI carries out what contracted to do. Applying something to subsidiary leaves uncertainty as to what would happen if there is separation and if a new body starts new role. Wording seems specific to PTI. We cannot guarantee it will be with us forever. - Should we not just extend standard of review to include PTI bylaws / rules ? - If exclusion, who will develop any required appeal mechanism? --> Mechanisms in place but clarification is needed in our report. Conclusion: Amend 1.a and 1.b to reflect comments voiced on call. 1.c Feedback: - If we take out notion that IRP would have responsibility for reconciling conflicting decisions among expert panels, we would return check with respect to panels. - We need to design a process with respect to experts panel's decisions. Setting up scope is where appeal could be. - IRP is not there to challenge opinion of experts but should be able to challenge decisions of experts as conflicting with Bylaws". It is possible that decision is fundamentally different. It should be within scope of IRP. - Technically, the challenge would be ICANN Board's failure to ensure consistency with Bylaws. - If the experts were self-interested, it would be overturned by the reconsideration process as it would not be operating consistent with the rules of the process. The IRP in that case would be to challenge the Board's decision on that point. Conclusion: Refinement is needed based on comments raised during the call. 1.d - Board concern: having IRP related to DIDP would be engaging it in operational decisions. DIDP should be a reconciliatory process. Feedback: - Is an appeals process available to all? Is the nature of DIDP limited to following Bylaws or can it go to substance? DIDP process should be independent. --> Yes, available to all. Board comments call for appeal to be limited to violation of Bylaws. It is a narrower standard to what was initially proposed i.e. an independent judiciary function. - Labeling something operational should not exclude it from IRP. IRP may itself require access to documents. IRP panels should help have oversight of process. - Important to have independent process in current draft instead of Work Stream 2. Board comment: DIDP in Work Stream 2 should consider if there is a more robust path. Ombudsman could apply broad tests that are in DIDP process and could be first point before reconsideration process. Board is not closing option of independent judiciary. We support that there is an independent party but we should not confuse purpose of IRP. DIDP to be examined in Work Stream 2. Conclusion: WS2 should explore ways to enhance the DIDP to provide an appeals mechanism if not an IRP. 2. Set of suggestions received. Feedback on how IOT should be handling these. Feedback: - There should be ongoing capability for keeping adequacy of IRP process under review in light of experience and with support of standing panel. This should be discussed in IOT. Conclusion: Suggestions to be passed on to IOT. IOT to examine comments and to provide a way forward to incorporate suggestions, as appropriate. Rec 6 - Human Rights - First reading Refer to discussion items. - We have certified request to lawyers to get assessment of whether inclusion of Bylaw would increase risk of ICANN be exposed to claim and as such, how can risk be mitigated. Feedback is expected for second reading. 1. - 2. Any objections with aligning approach that we should avoid hard deadlines? Feedback: - ALAC suggestion is OK. - ICANN Board mentioned that reference should be postponed until framework developed. Can we agree to refer to Human Rights in high level fashion or is the Board recommending no mention of Human Rights at all. - Is Board concerned about timing or wording? Conclusion: Approach is reasonable until we have further discussion in item 2. Board concern: Board does not want Bylaw provision without explanation of how it relates to ICANN. We should first do interpretation work and then incorporate it as Bylaw. Option to have Bylaw activated once Framework of Interpretation is determined. Feedback: - There are different views: In order to mitigate perception, comments should be addressed in detail. Deferring to Work Stream 2 would meet Board concerns. Bylaw to come into force after framework is elaborated would be safe. - Unable to find legal justification for the concern in Board comment. Article 19 legal counsel: in a lot of companies, there is no avalanche of law suits and extra vulnerability. This is confirmed by CCWG lawyers. Board should come up with legal analysis of where these concerns come from. Option 2A where add GPI to mix is unclear. Differ should be defer. --> It would be helpful to receive the legal input the Board received. - We should receive input from GAC. How is C an alternative to A and B? - 2A would mean solving GPI first. 2C should reformulated: clarify what will be addressed in what Work Stream. - Board comment is not isolated. 2B is best option. Consensus was to make high level recommendation in WS 1 and go deeper in WS2. - What we currently have is a high level commitment in WS1 and framework in WS2. Unsure whether CCWG should define GPI. Board should come up with discussion. We should not conflate issues. Board input: Of three options: B is preferred option. C is viable option. Rather than having IRP create a binding case law, we think the community should define it. Once it is defined, IRP can use it as its criteria to make determinations. What will be applicable laws is another question that comes into equation. Feedback: - Applicable law is intentionally put as it is. - Agree that Framework of Interpretation should inform Bylaw. Most of Board comments are already addressed in Bylaw text. There is a misunderstanding about role of corporations and governments in enforcing human rights. Conclusion: We will use input from lawyers and any material from Board to inform second reading next week. Modifications proposed will be included. Rec 5 - Mission - Ad hoc meeting report - Consumer Trust issue was specifically discussed. AOC has a reference in paragraph 3 and obligates ICANN to conduct reviews in context of gTLD expansion. We transposed consumer trust language into Core Value. We took that out on grounds that being challenged, that consumer trust language was specific to new gTLD expansion and should not add a new substantive provision, scope of responsibility to Article 1. ALAC, USCIB and others have continued to challenge that determination and note that Bylaws speak to competition, not Consumer Trust issues. We did not reach solution. There still are convictions that Article 1 should refer role with respect to Consumer Trust. Other feel we should not add a new substantive obligation with respect to Consumer Trust without understanding consequences. While we transposed AOC and did not add new concept, we will continue to report back. Feedback: - Are we also considering comments on coordination/facilitation? --> IAB language was incorporated. Marrakech meeting Travel support from ICANN will reach out to Members for 4 March meeting where we will be discussing Work Stream 2 scoping as well as implementation for Work Stream 1. We will have same policy as for other meetings. We will be working on agendas. We are envisioning an outreach session on Monday and a closing session on Thursday. There will be SO/AC sessions depending on agendas. ICANN has been very receptive to CCWG requests. Feedback: - Be mindful of GAC session on Monday. ---> Participation from all members is not a requirement for outreach session but we will do our best not to clash it with other sessions. - Timing of sessions needed. ---> We are working on this. A.O.B Feedback: - Can we have a revised timeline and what is the timeline we are working with? ---> We cannot provide you with a revised timeline at this point. We need to have feedback first. We will re-evaluate timeline as soon as we have specific input. - ICG is having a meeting tomorrow. There is no clear timeline and hope it will have no impact on ICG schedule. Can you confirm? ---> Not in a position to assure that it will have no impact. It is our intention that it will not.

1 0

"Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
by Burr, Becky Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

As discussed in our call yesterday, we would like to get some discussion started on some of the issues with the Mission Statement, Commitments & Core Values elements of the CCWG Proposal. One of those issues relates to the inclusion of the concept of promoting “consumer trust” in the Commitments and/or Core Values. The USCIB comment, for example, urged inclusion of a Commitment/Core Value of “promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace.” ALAC urged inclusion of the consumer trust language. This is the topic we will discuss on Monday, during the Ad Hoc meeting just announced. Feel free to contribute your views in this thread, particularly if you are not going to be able to participate on Monday. ISSUE: Paragraph 3 of the Affirmation of Commitments describes the goals of the AoC, saying: "This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: … (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice …. ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years. In the Initial Draft Proposal, this AoC language was transposed into the Core Values by requiring ICANN to depend “on market mechanisms to proote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market that enhances consumer trust and choice.” (Para 107, page 27 Initial Draft Proposal) In the 2nd Draft Proposal we elected to delete the reference to consumer trust in the Mission statement and include it in the Review section of the Bylaws (See 3rd Report, Appendix 9, Para. 33). The reason we agreed to make this switch was because it is not a standalone ICANN commitment in the AoC, rather, it is specifically tied to new gTLD expansion and specifically tied to a required review. Several commenters in both the 2nd and 3rd comment round argued that the Core Values should specifically call out consumer trust. Some have disputed my characterization of Paragraph 3 of the AoC (i.e., it states the goals of the AoC but does not recite a specific commitment), on the grounds that my characterization is an opinion and not a fact. QUESTIONS: Should an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion be leveraged to impose generalized, independent, and affirmative competition and consumer trust protection obligations on ICANN? Does ICANN’s fundamental Mission to ensure “stable and secure operation” of the DNS, and its various Commitments (i.e., to use processes that enable competition, and to preserve stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness) adequately address this concern? 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>

11 13

DOCUMENT - Rec 6 – Human Rights (first reading)
by Alice Jansen Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 6 – Human Rights (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday, 12 January 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León

6 6

Board feedback on recommendation 4
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Hello All, The Board discussed recommendation 4 in the Board information call today, and offers the following response: The issue of potential liability to community members for action taken during the Board removal process raises some concerns for Board members, particularly around the suggested mitigation of using pre-service letters to obtain waivers from Board members that they will not sue community members for conduct in the Board removal process. The Board does not support the use of a waiver clause in pre-service letters (or the full indemnification clause), making service on the Board subject to waiving any manner of conduct from a large group of potential actors. That does not seem to enhance accountability. The Board notes the CCWG-Accountability's insertion of a requirement to subject both NomCom and AC/SO appointed directors to the same process (including conversations with the Board Chair), as well as highlighting the need for consideration of independence in selecting replacement directors. Additionally, the Board notes the CCWG-Accountability insertion of a requirement for a written rationale to accompany a Board member removal petition. As some in the CCWG-Accountability have appreciated, the Board's statement that rationale should be presented is not an attempt to predefine the conditions for removal. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG

1 0

UPDATE - Recommendation 4 - power to remove Individual Board director - 1st reading conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs All, please find attached the updated document on Recommendation 4. This includes language offered by our lawyers for para.39. You will remember there was a concern expressed that the waiver to be signed by the Directors should not lead to a situation where the Director is defamed, e.g. when unfounded allegations are made that the Director is e.g. a murderer or fraudster. Our legal counsel has advised: "As to the extreme example you pose regarding defamation, the waiver that we are suggesting is unlikely to be viewed as absolute. A court would likely view it through a lens of equity in relation to the specific set of facts presented; outrageous facts that involve intentional known falsehoods may lead to a court not recognizing the waiver as against public policy." Also, we have included the requirement for a comprehensive and written rationale for Board member removal and the requirement for a dialogue with the Director (see para. 41). Best, Thomas, Mathieu, León From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 3:02 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: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 4 - power to remove Individual Board director - 1st reading conclusions Dear Colleagues, Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #74. The updated document is attached. a. to mitigate risk of litigation in case of Board removal, pre-service letters for Board members could be required (see paragraph 39 page 9) b. a written rationale will be offered very early in the process c. Lawyers are tasked to provide adequate language to provide adequate direction for implementation. POST MEETING NOTE : This version includes edits to incorporate comments from the Icann Board (section 3c – page 12 of the Icann Board comment) that were not included in the previous version (thanks to Kavouss for drawing our attention to this). Each of these comments were considered as useful directions for implementation. (see paragraphs 41 and 48) 2nd reading is planned during next Tuesday’s call. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs and Lawyers Meeting (8 January)
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs and Lawyers (8 January) will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw 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. HJGregory - reasoning for call - at this critical time in the project want to discuss if the team could be more useful to the process. Concerns regarding the edition of documents since their comments are not being included. Also need greater clarity about which of our comments get posted. Uncomfortable with the certification requirements but this should not apply to the drafting of documents. We would also expect to understand what is expected for implementation so we can reserve the resources accordingly. Finally need guidance on Marrakech given participation by phone would not be practical. MWeill - Thank you for your directness. Looking at your questions. On integrating comments - the timeframe did not allow us to work with smaller comments. The co-chairs initially focused on any major comments. TRickert - we are going through different phases. Making too many changes in any version of the document would cause concern to the community. Going into details too much can distract people from focusing on the major issues. So a balance must found between what legal and staff can do. HJGregory - we understand you concerns but wanted to ensure that our concerns were clear. This being said we would recommend posting our comments to the entire group and that the group is our client. Often we are not involved on an issue does not mean we have opined in any fashion. There may be a misconception on the level of comments from the lawyers wrt the 3rd draft. MWeill - we are editing the 3rd version currently - we have to consider your input more up front. But we have to find a way to make this efficient for everyone. Given we are working on recommendation by recommendation we could ask for legal comments on a per recommendation which has had a first reading. HJGregory - this sounds like a good idea, but the answer to dealing with lawyer comments is not to ignore them. TRickert - We agree with you but we have been working to incredibly tight schedules. RMFrei - we need to understand why our comments are taken or not. TRickert - Understand but the new interactive approach should handle this issue. Documents that go out after the first reading will include all the lawyer comments. We should also document which comments are accepted or not. HJGregory - this sounds acceptable. MWeill - next implementation HJGregory - support using the details to implementation. At some point the implementation cannot be made by the full CCWG. Also understand the cost implications for ICANN. As such implementation should not be with done with the full group. MWeill - was not the strategy of oversight groups for implementation not ok. HJGregory - concern that using the same group of people for oversight and uncertain they can get above trying to line edit vs checking for consistency. MWeill - Understand that this is a challenge and there is no way around it. This is in part because of community experience with other implementation exercises having generated unexpected results. HJGregory - Would encourage the co-chairs to help the oversight participants that the process is going to be different - it will not be interactive drafting - lawyers will draft the documents and the oversight will group can comment on if it matches the guidelines. We will get there. Implementation needs to be a different process. TRicket - Implementation is about ensuring that the group's wishes and the work product. But understand we have to streamline to make it efficient. HJGregory - Marrakesh - we have real concerns that we can be effective via the telephone. Understands it depends on what the requirements are given where we are. MWeill - currently expecting ICANN55 to scope WS2 and would not expect lawyers would be required for this. There would also implementation work on WS1. So we do not expect the draft Bylaws will be ready for ICANN 55. HJGregory - one approach could be for us to book refundable airline tickets and as time progresses we can decide if we are needed. As such we should make reservations which can be cancelled. MWeill - the IRP skill set would be needed in Marrakesh - but we would expect that the total number of lawyers on the ground would be less than previously. RMFei - I will probably sit this one out if the focus will be IRP. So I will wait to figure this out. HJGregory - what could we be doing to help you more.? please let us know. TRickert - thanks for the offer we will need to think about it some more. Things are moving quite a bit, commenting ad hoc on every suggestion that is circulated. After the first reading we publish this to the list and lawyer comments would be best there. HJGregory - agree with this. HJGregory - maybe the first step should be to reach out to Jones Day to understand their risk analysis of this. RMFrei - also not everything is black and white - there are some judgement call. TR and MW - in case lawyers have concerns about provisions that currently exist in the Bylaws, and may not be within the CCWG remit, they should discuss with JD first. RMFrei - on current process for reviewing changes to recs.? HJGregory - we should review materials from scratch? TRickert - the lawyers would share their high level comments on each recommendation / agenda item after 1st reading, then provide detailed feedback after 2nd reading . best to get your input after the first reading where you can insert your comments. Acceptable? HJGregory - yes. TRickert - certification of human rights question. The reason it makes sense to certify this because ICANN believes it is opening significant risk. Need to understand vs current risks. HJGregory - need to understand what you mean by human rights. HJGregory - this is it for us. Conclusion of the call.

1 0

DOCUMENT - Rec 7 – Scope of IRP (first reading)
by Alice Jansen Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 7 – Scope of IRP (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday, 12 January 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León

3 3

AGENDA - Call #76
by Alice Jansen Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Dear all, In anticipation of your call #76<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56988949> – Tuesday, 12 January 2016 - 06:00-09:00 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 (5 min) 2. Rec 4 - Board removal liability mitigation - Second reading (30 min) *Note: Thomas will be sending a revised document shortly. 3. Rec 12 - WS2 - Second reading (30 min) - see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 4. Rec 7 Scope of IRP - First reading (30 min) - see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… Break (10 min) 5. Rec 6 - Human rights - First reading (30 min) - see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 6. Rec 5 - Mission - Update on ad hoc meeting (30 min) 7. Marrakech meeting (10 min) 8. A.O.B (5 min) Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0