January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: ccNSO Council feedback on the CCWG 3rd Proposal
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Dear colleagues Please find enclosed the ccnso council statement related to our 3rd report. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : > Expéditeur: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> > Date: 7 janvier 2016 18:26:08 UTC+1 > Destinataire: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Cc: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Objet: ccNSO Council feedback on the CCWG 3rd Proposal > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > Please see the attached document for the ccNSO Council’s feedback on the CCWG’s 3rd Proposal. > > Best regards, > Byron > > > > Byron Holland, President & CEO > Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) > Twitter: @cira001 > Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca > www.cira.ca > > >

1 0

draft language for certification to lawyers on HR question
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

All, as discussed during yesterday’s CCWG call, please find below the draft certification language to be sent to the lawyers with respect to the human rights recommendation and the Board’s concerns about legal risks. I plan to certify at 14.00 UTC tomorrow. *** The ICANN Board has raised concerns that the proposed inclusion of language in the bylaws with respect to human rights might lead to an increased risk of ICANN being exposed to legal claims or even law suits. We would appreciate if you could provide us with a brief assessment and suggestions on how such risk can be mitigated. It is our understanding that human rights have been indirectly referred to in ICANN's bylaws already, so please also indicate whether (according to your assessment) the language that shall be added to the bylaws according to our 3rd report is establishing a new risk or an increased risk, if any. *** Kind regards, Thomas Rickert

10 11

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
by Burr, Becky Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Jorge, I personally have been clear and consistent in my view that we were not asking the lawyers a question that can lead to a useful legal opinion. I believe that Holly concurred in my view that we would spend a lot of money and learn that the answer depends on the facts in any specific situation, none of which can be predicted in advance. I know that you and others continue to believe that there is some value in this, but as someone who has been on the receiving end of questions like that, I think would be a tremendous waste of ICANN resources. That said, I’m not the decision-maker here, just offering an opinion. Becky 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> From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 3:47 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>" <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: AW: Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion Dear Becky, dear Co-Chairs and dear all, For info: this is the full text of the GAC consensus input of December 21st on recommendation 5: Changing aspects of ICANN’s Mission. Commitments and Core Values (RECOMMENDATION 5) The GAC notes that legal advice is being sought by the CCWG to clarify the practical effect of this Recommendation, and believes this is appropriate. The GAC expects that any changes will not reduce the current role of the GAC in providing advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN’s policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (as provided in the current ByLaws). This includes issues such as consumer protection, the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and law enforcement. 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 addition, ICANN’s ability to enforce contractual obligations and act upon the public policy advice of the GAC should not be inadvertently impacted. == And: what happened with the question to the lawyers which we decided to formulate to the lawyers on this very issue last December? Could you please inform on the status of this question? Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2016 20:03 An: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion Wichtigkeit: Hoch 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>

4 5

The CCWG and external self-interest
by George Sadowsky Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

I'd like to add something to my recent post regarding Brett Schaefer and the Heritage Foundation. It is now clear that I misinterpreted what Brett wrote in his post regarding comments filed by the Heritage Foundation. I'm asking myself why that happened, and what I come up with was a slightly embarrassing but educational conclusion. When I was reading Brett's post, I was unconsciously more ready to misinterpret it than I was to treat it as a neutral request for inclusion of presumably omitted material. It had very little to do with Brett. I was tired of reading what I believed were unwarranted negative comments regarding the Board and I was in a somewhat frustrated mood. I think that my reaction mirrors to some extent what I've seen in moderately frequent reactions on the CCWG list, where some posters seem quite ready to think and say ill of the Board or established processes or express disdain without looking for or knowing the facts or expressing their concerns directly in a manner leading to useful discussion. The reasons might be different, but I think that it's basically the same infection, born of contentious historical circumstances and strengthened by a downward spiral of mistrust that grows as the available evidence is interpreted in a biased fashion, and it can infect both sides. We do have a choice. We can either nourish this downward spiral in trust, or we can try to kill it. At a minimum, to kill it requires more communication, more directly, more substantively, more immediately and more oriented toward reasonable shared common goals than we have been able to achieve in the past. We don't seem to have effective mechanisms in ICANN for achieving such a state of affairs; we seem to be frozen in processes (or lack thereof) that maintain an existing dynamic that does not clear misunderstandings and problems promptly or thoroughly, but can leave them to fester, nourishing the downward spiral. The nature and level of trust among staff, Board, and community is one of the largest factors that affects how we work together. I think that it would be very useful to address this issue directly, and probably in a larger context than just the accountability process. I speak only for myself here. Does this make sense to anyone? If so, what can we do about it? If not, how am I misperceiving the issue? George

4 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 Inspection Rights (first reading)
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

I tend to take an in-between position. I support a simpler process, but one AC/SO is simply not sufficient. In the Single Member model, it would have required the Member to act which presumably would have been at least a majority of the AC/SOs. Regardless of how that would have worked, I note that in the legal analysis, we find the caveat "Authority under Section 6333 is sparse, but it is nonetheless clear that a purpose reasonably related to [a] persons interests as a member does not include a members commercial or political interests...." To allow a single SO to take this action does exactly that. Both the ccNSO and a near-majority of the GNSO have clear business interests at stake and allowing them to solely demand access is no longer a "community" action. Alan At 06/01/2016 11:47 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Hi all > >Just a quick note to say I much prefer the >lawyers' proposed approach on inspection rights, >and do not support the Board's proposal. > >As a matter of principle, the use of these >rights is most likely to help inform a decision >about using the other community powers. Using >the same process as that which applies to those >community powers is overkill: this *should* be a simpler process. > >As a matter of practical effect, the requirement >that an SO or AC agree the request will by >itself prevent vexatious or over-frequent use. >There is no chance of, say, the ccNSO Council, >randomly & inappropriately deciding to exercise such a right. > >So since the practical fears the Board noted >aren't really valid, and since there is wide >agreement as far as I can tell about the >importance of these rights, in my opinion we >should go with what our lawyers have suggested >here, and be clear with the language in the next >version of our document. That's the most >workable and straight forward approach IMO. > > >best >Jordan > > >On 6 January 2016 at 15:53, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: >Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs >In preparation for your Recommendation 1 >Inspection Rightts (first reading) discussion >scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 >January 2016 (19:00 22:00 UTC) - please find >attached the maaterial to review. >Please use this email thread to circulate any >comments you may have in advance of the call. >Thank you > >Mathieu, Thomas, LeÃ³n >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter >Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

AGENDA - Call #75
by Alice Jansen Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Dear all, In anticipation of your call#75<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56988842> – Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 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 min) 2. Recommendation 1 - Inspection rights (45 min) See: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 3 Recommendation 2 - Escalation timeframe (45 min) See: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… Break (10 min) 4. Recommendation 4 - Budget (IANA) (45 min) See: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 5. Recommendation 5 – Mission (45 min) Please note that Becky is in the process of preparing the Mission material. It will be circulated as soon as possible. In the meantime we invite you to refer to public comment summary - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/0… 6. AOB (3 min) Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thanks, Best regards Alice

3 2

Recommendation 12 - work stream 2 - 1st reading conclusions
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #74. The updated document is attached. 1. Clarifications to Interim Bylaws seem to be addressing most of the Boards concerns (pending further confirmation by Icann Board), by highlighting that WS2 will be following similar rules as WS1 : consensus recommendations, endorsement by Chartering Orgs, ability for the Board to engage special dialogue, 2/3 threshold for such Board decisions. 2. Edits to the documents will include focus on fact that WS2 deliberations will be open to all (similar to WS1) 3. Timeframe discussion : target dates are needed, but hard deadlines would not be appropriate or helpful. Document will be reviewed in line with that direction. 4. Enhancing Ombudsman role and function is confirmed as a WS2 item 1. Summary graphics has been updated (see page 4) 2. Becky and Avri to provide a paragraph to describe the type of enhancements that will be considered 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 *****************************

4 3

DOCUMENT - Recommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)
by Alice Jansen Jan. 6, 2016

Jan. 6, 2016

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 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 2

DOCUMENT - Recommendation 2 – Escalation timeframe (first reading)
by Alice Jansen Jan. 6, 2016

Jan. 6, 2016

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 2 – Escalation timeframe (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 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

2 1

Summary material related to recommendations and draft report
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 6, 2016

Jan. 6, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As discussed during our call yesterday, the co-chairs will circulate after each call some material to capture the status of our deliberations regarding each of the recommendations. To facilitate email discussions we will use one email thread per agenda item (one thread for recommendation 12, one for Board removal power for instance). This will also facilitate the inclusion of your inputs. Each thread will include an updated draft of the detailed recommendation, in edit mode. The reference document is the proof-read version of our 3rd report. The emails will also recap the main conclusions of our deliberations, for ease of reference and to help colleagues who could not attend the call catch up with the discussion. Thank you for your attention and we look forward to fruitful and constructive discussions. Best, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

1 0