January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Recommendation 4 - Budget (IANA) - 1st reading conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #75. The updated document is attached. 1. Confirmed clarifications requested by CWG regarding transparency, rationale and role of CWG-Stewardship in elaborating a process for IANA Budget (see pages 5 and 6) 2. Updated paragraph 22 to reflect IAB input, with specific clarification regarding the need to protect SLAs (see page 6, paragraph 22) 3. Guidelines on caretaker budget : a. current principles in the document provide sufficient guidelines for implementation of the concept of caretaker budget, taking note of the work under way in DT-O within CWG. b. As proposed by the Board, the CCWG-Accountability also recommends that the caretaker budget approach be embedded in the Fundamental Bylaws, including the responsibility of the CFO to establish the caretaker budget in accordance with the defined approach. 4. Budget community power provisions will remain as Fundamental Bylaws (as required by CWG) Second reading is planned for Thursday, 14 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Recommendation 1 - Inspection rights - 1st reading conclusions
by Alice Jansen Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

Sent on behalf of CoChairs Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #75. The updated document is attached. 1. Scoping of Inspection rights (§19 and beyond) to address Board concerns, based on Board suggestion and lawyer memo (details on pages 5-6): a. Scope and limitations confirmed, stressing the difference between DIDP and Inspection Rights – Board will review new language b. Inspection rights for accounting books and records and minutes based on a one SO/AC threshold c. Introduce additional suggestion by Icann Board regarding Investigation right (audits), based on 3 SO/ACs threshold. d. Confirmed direction for implementation to avoid abusive claims 2. Discuss regarding GAC as Decisional Participant in the Community Powers differed awaiting final GAC input – see comment page 6 Second reading is planned for Thursday, 14 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Recommendation 4 - power to remove Individual Board director - 1st reading conclusions
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

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 Tuesdays call. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 6

Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

All, please find below our note to the Advisors as discussed during the previous CCWG call. Thomas > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Datum: 23. Dezember 2015 um 22:31:46 MEZ > An: ccwg-advisors(a)icann.org > Betreff: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest > > Dear Advisors, > as you will have noted, the ICANN Board has filed comments on our 3rd draft report a few days back (attached). Our group thanks the Board for these comments, some of which can be addressed during the implementation of our work. > > However, there are a few areas where the Board has raised concerns with respect to the Global Public Interest. > > These are: > > Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community Powers > > Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Engagement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers > Budget & start plan > > Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects of ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values > > Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN’s Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out its Mission > > Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2 > > In its resolution of October 16th, 2014, the Board had clarified that it would test whether final recommendations are in the Global Public Interest. > > We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending. > > However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest. > > We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on > > 1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use; > > 2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and > > 3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified. > > > Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, > Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert > > > Thomas Rickert > Rechtsanwalt > tel: +49.228.74 898.0 > fax: +49.228.74 898.66 > email: thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/> > > RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) > Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany > HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert > > _______________________________________________ > CCWG-Advisors mailing list > CCWG-Advisors(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

16 32

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-techwg] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

There is also the DNSSEC workshop that we coordinate with. I agree with Patrick that the Technical Silo :-)-O has delivered very much bang for very little buck. Have we actually defined ICANN's mission? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On 8 Jan 2016, at 10:27, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se> wrote: > > I don't understand either. > > Please remember that there are a number of various outreach programs by ICANN at the ICANN meetings that do coordinate with each other. The two that I as SSAC chair is specifically keeping my eyes on is the originally ccNSO Tech Day, that is now called just Tech Day, and the DNS (mostly DNSSEC related) education and outreach SSAC runs (one for newcomers and one more deep technical). > > There is an overlap in people working with these three different programs, and we try to ensure that they together create a good outreach program for the participating persons. > > If we in this discussion is questioning why ICANN is spending resources on these meetings, then lets have that discussion. I am happy to defend the small amount of money spent for the very high quality program put together. > > If the questions on this discussion is something else, maybe we should make it more clear which ones they are. :-) > > HELP! > > Patrik > >> On 8 Jan 2016, at 10:16, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> >> As the chair of the TechWg I am really wondering what we are talking about here. >> >> So outreach would also be content censorship, perhaps? Excellent, we can remove the B meetings from the agenda and we don't have to worry about travel funding so much any more. >> >> Smaller TLDs (cc and g) need all the help they can get, and it most definitively is within mission. >> >> greetings, el >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >>>> On 8 Jan 2016, at 00:51, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 06:21:20PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Is training people on the DNS or DNSEC in the same category as content >>>> censorship? >>> >>> Is capacity building in the sense of training people on DNS or DNSSEC >>> really outside ICANN's mission, in the CCWG's proposal? It seems to >>> me that that one could argue it helps the "ensure the stable and >>> secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" realm. >>> >>> If ICANN decided to get into teaching people how to deploy VoIP using >>> SIP, however, I'd wonder why. Or into web administration, or perhaps >>> (more in line with the analogy) WordPress or Drupal administration. >>> And those things do seem to me to be approximately as relevant to what >>> ICANN is doing as content censorship: I don't think ICANN should do >>> either. >>> >>> A >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > Patrik Fältström > Head of Research and Development > Netnod

2 2

Fwd: Re[2]: Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
by Paul Rosenzweig Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

Oops... -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android -------- Forwarded message -------- From: Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: < a href="mailto: avri(a)acm.org "> avri(a)acm.org<< a href="mailto: avri(a)acm.org "> avri(a)acm.org> Date: Thursday, 07 January 2016, 09:58PM -05:00 Subject: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion >Not at all. I was thinking more about the idea say of paying for broadband expansion. Which is something I would fully support but that ICANN should not be in the business of. There are many good things I want someone to do, just not ICANN. And then there are bad things I want no one to do. Very different as you say substantively but both out of scope in my view. >-- >Paul Rosenzweig >Sent from myMail app for Android Thursday, 07 January 2016, 06:21PM -05:00 from Avri Doria < avri(a)acm.org >: > >> >> >>On 07-Jan-16 17:44, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: >>> I think it is both manifest and self-evident that if GAC advice were >>> to, hypothetically, be that the Board should engage in some activity >>> that was beyond its mission(say capacity building or content censorship) >> >>Remarkable to see those two as having the same weight. >> >>Is training people on the DNS or DNSEC in the same category as content >>censorship? >> >>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

1 0

FW: ICANN Hugs China's Multilateral Internet Governance Initiative
by Phil Corwin Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

FYI, I have just published an article with the above title. It can be found in short and long versions at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160107_icann_hugs_china_multilateral_intern… Best regards 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16

1 0

Mission limitations
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

For the record, please note that there has been no response from Jorge - or anyone in GAC - to this question Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 10:22 AM To: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: acct-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion Jorge: Can you please clarify what the implications are of this: The GAC further expects that changes to ICANN's mission and core values should not constrain the Board from accepting and implementing GAC advice. In MM: Do you mean to imply that there should be no limits of ICANN's mission?

2 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GPI
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Hello Kavouss, >> 1. Do you think that public interest of Community “A” is identical to those of country “B” or “C” or…? No. I think each country is likely to have its own definitions of the public interest that are often constructed as national laws. I also think that there will be common public interests amongst countries - that are often developed into international treaties. For example international conventions that relate to the laws of the sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_S… . >> 2. Do you also think that the Public Interest of Country “ D” is identical to that of Countries “E “or “ F*,…? No. >> 3. Do you think that the Public Interests of those referred to in 1) and 2) above are stable within a period of time or it would change according to circumstances? ,…. They will evolve over time just as laws evolve over time. Some rules are more stable than others - for example the constitution of a country may change very rarely, whereas taxation laws may change frequently. >> 4. Do you think that there is a way to have such a summation of all these different elements / categories to achieve what is called “GPI? I think with respect to ICANN's mission - I think that it is possible to agree to a set of global public interests. For example, that there is a unique, global root file for top level domain names, or that there is a global unique set of Internet Protocol addresses that is sufficient for all resources connected to the Internet. >> 5. Do you also think that at the time of implementation, even if, and only if, we could have such a summation in an appropriate manner, there would a need to have a criterion/ criteria to determine whether or not such interests were met / observed? I think much of what could be defined as the global public interest is already spread across the Articles of Incorporation, our current Bylaws, and the proposed changes in the CCWG report. For example in the Articles of Incorporation it states that there is a global public interest served by "coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet". >> 6. Do you think that the human judgement/ interpretation at the time of implementation may be different? Yes - I think human interpretation of a set of rules can change over time. In our case the humans involved can include members of working groups, the staff, the Board, and the panellists sitting on an IRP panel. I think we need to provide enough detail in our rules and procedures so that they can be followed by a new set of people. Right now I suspect that we rely on a fair bit of knowledge and experience from people that were around at the time the Internet Protocols were first developed in the late 60's and early 70's. In 20 years time - many of these people will be gone. >> There are many other questions of social, psychological, legal aspects of such definition and its scope of application. Agreed. I am only an engineer so most of these topics are well outside of my area of expertise. I am thus honoured that you should ask my opinion on the global public interest. I am still confident though that a set of principles can be developed to help further define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN's mission. These principles can help guide those that join our community in the future. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

14 15

On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis
by Alice Jansen Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs Dear all, Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary and analysis of the public comments received on our Draft Proposal. In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to read the document as well as comments available for full reference at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30…. Note: a download all page is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613 Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF, the tabs and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your understanding. Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8 January - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…. In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613 Thank you Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

20 28