February 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

ICANN Board comments - Recommendation 3 - Fundamental Bylaws
by Bruce Tonkin March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Hello All, On the Fundamental Bylaws (Recommendation 3), the Board has the following comment following the first reading: The Board is supportive of the changes reflected in the document after the first reading. The Board notes that while it is supportive of the inspection right being reflected as a Fundamental Bylaw, the inspection right should be noted as a right of the community, and not of the Sole Designator, to align with the Board's comments on Recommendation 1. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG

14 42

Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
by Drazek, Keith March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Hi Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I'm submitting the following on behalf of the undersigned members/participants from the GNSO: --------------------------------------------- Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs, We are very concerned with the response of the Board to the request for clarification regarding the need to adjust the thresholds for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers if the number of decisional participants is less than 5 SOACs. Currently the text in Annex 1 and 2 regarding this possibility is ambiguous: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." In our view, there is no question that the thresholds must be adjusted if there are fewer than five decisional participants. We have acknowledged repeatedly and operated under the assumption that there should not be a requirement of unanimous support for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers. Yet, if there are less than five decisional participants, unless the thresholds are adjusted it would require unanimous support for the Empowered Community to: * Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget; * Recall the entire Board of Directors; and * Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process. These powers are central to ensuring that ICANN remains accountable to the Empowered Community. This matter is too critical to the primary purpose of the CCWG-Accountability proposal to remain unclear. As the Board has noted in its own formal comments, "Leaving this issue for future consideration raises the potential for renegotiation of the community thresholds. This potential for renegotiation adds a level of instability and a lack of predictability." Although it has a superficial resemblance to the recent debate over thresholds in the GAC carve-out, we believe it is fundamentally different. There is a great distinction between an SO or AC choosing to not participate, and an SO or AC being blocked from participation in a specific instance, as was the case in the case of the GAC carve-out. We were willing to accept a unanimous threshold for Board recall in the unique circumstances of the GAC carve-out, where the GAC was blocked from participation, but we believe firmly that if any SO or AC elects, whether through a conscious decision or an inability to decide, to not participate, then the non-unanimity principle must be upheld. However, as we saw with the debate over the thresholds in the GAC carve-out, this could be a contentious issue. It is far better to resolve this matter now (and during the drafting of bylaws), prior to the official transfer of the proposal to NTIA, than to delay it when it could have significant negative ramifications on the transition through a failure to resolve it during the implementation phase. Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and Annex 2 be edited to replace "may" with "shall" and add an additional explanatory clause: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support shall be adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." Signed, Phil Corwin Steve DelBianco Keith Drazek James Gannon Robin Gross Ed Morris Brett Schaefer Greg Shatan Matthew Shears

35 108

The Currently Re-Finalized Proposal as Hardcopy
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs. can you please arrange that the participants and members coming to Marrakesh find a single pages (back empty) hardcopy of the Proposal on their desk at Friday's F2F? Does not have to be bound, but if it is in a ring binder please make it available in A4 and corresponding 2 Ring Binder (the famous Leitz Ordner) and Letter/3 Ring Binder (US). Or at least for those who would like one. If it's bound why not put it into the ICANN goodie bag? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

6 7

Analysis of the Reconsideration Request Process
by Padmini Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear all, In the post enclosed below, I have detailed out our experiences, at the Centre for Internet and Society, with ICANN’s Reconsideration Process. In trying to understand this rather fascinating process, I attempted to make a statistical analysis of the 144 Reconsideration Requests that ICANN has received/responded to (As of February 29, 2016). These have included grievances ranging from unfulfilled DIDP requests to issues with timely provision of minutes, to issues with the gTLD programme. The kind of numbers that that this tabular analysis threw up were fairly disturbing: 1. The Reconsideration Committee/Board Governance Committee has* denied 118 of the 144 requests* – an incredible 81.9% 2. Of the 144 requests, *6 were withdrawn* by the requester before ICANN responded. 3. I was *unable to find publicly available responses to 8 out of 144 requests*, one dating back up to 2000, and the most recent ones, presumably still being processed, from 2016. 4. For only *12 out of 144* – a mere 8.3%, either the Committee has responded favourably, or the action against which reconsideration was sought has itself been remedied. 5. The Committee does not seem to have a single uniform time binding its processing of the requests – the number of days that it takes for there to be a proper response has ranged from 7 days to over a 100 days. 89 of the 144 requests have taken more than 30 days to process, and there has not always been an attempt towards a proper explanation for the same. This is quite contradictory to the wording of the By-Laws, which holds that the Committee should attempt to make a recommendation within 30 days. (See Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws) The table may be viewed here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p_sATPBLr264JQC82f8CtPqfA8qdLSN_ySj… I have enclosed my post as well as my charts for the same. Any comments and feedback would be welcome! [image: Inline image 1][image: Inline image 2] Regards Padmini Baruah Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society

4 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Hillary Jett Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Hi Jorge, The language was updated over the weekend after being noticed by the co-Chairs and Rapporteurs. A change made as a result of concerns expressed by some members of the GAC and the ICANN Board regarding the applicability of the “carve out” (Annex 1) to recalling the Board if an IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice was not available. Initially, the Supplemental Proposal recommended that if the Empowered Community could not challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice via the IRP that the lower threshold of the “carve out” would still apply for recalling the Board. The final version of the Supplemental Proposal does not include the possibility of using the lower threshold of the “carve out” to recall the ICANN Board should the community not be able to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice via the IRP. The change is reflected in the blog posting here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis… Best, Hillary From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:17 AM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: AW: Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Dear Hillary This para is a bit misleading, isn’t it? · A change made as a result of concerns expressed by some members of the GAC and by theICANN Board regarding whether or not the GAC could be a member of the Empowered Community when invoking an Independent Review Process triggered by the Board acting on GACadvice. Initially, the Supplemental Proposal recommended not including the GAC as a part of the Empowered Community in such circumstances (on the CCWG-Accountability list, this was termed the “carve out” of the GAC); the final version removes this constraint. Or have we missed something (i.e. the carve-out being removed)? Best Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Hillary Jett Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2016 22:30 An: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis… Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Transition another step closer as accountability proposal is sent to Chartering Organizations · The final CCWG-Accountability proposal for accountability enhancements that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition has been sent to its six Chartering Organizations for adoption. · The CWG-Stewardship is finalizing a letter confirming that the CCWG-Accountability proposal meets all of their requirements. · The ICG will finalize their proposal for transmission to the ICANN Board and NTIA upon receiving confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship. CCWG-Accountability proposal On 23 February, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) forwarded its Final Supplemental Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations for the approval of its six Chartering Organizations (GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO, SSAC). The Final Supplemental Proposal incorporates: · Feedback received during the public comment period on the Third Draft Proposal. · Further development of the recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability members and participants to resolve the sometimes-conflicting issues raised by community feedback. · A change made as a result of concerns expressed by some members of the GAC and by theICANN Board regarding whether or not the GAC could be a member of the Empowered Community when invoking an Independent Review Process triggered by the Board acting on GACadvice. Initially, the Supplemental Proposal recommended not including the GAC as a part of the Empowered Community in such circumstances (on the CCWG-Accountability list, this was termed the “carve out” of the GAC); the final version removes this constraint. Final approval of CCWG-Accountability’s Work Stream 1 recommendations triggers the next phase in theIANA Stewardship Transition – the transmission of both the transition and accountability proposals to theNTIA by way of the ICANN Board of Directors. The transmission is expected to take place during or immediately following the Public ICANN Board Meeting on 10 March. Timeline 1 March 2016IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) teleconference (12:00-13:00 UTC) to discuss finalization of its proposal based on confirmation by CWG-Stewardship that the CCWG-Accountability supplemental report meets all of their requirements. 9 March 2016Deadline for CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations to indicate their support for the Supplemental Draft proposal. Pending approval by all Chartering Organizations, CCWG-Accountability Chairs to forward the proposal to the ICANN Board of Directors. 10 March 2016 ICANN Board considers the Supplemental Proposal at its Public Board Meeting at ICANN55. ICANN Board forwards the Final Supplemental Proposal to NTIA, together with the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. When the NTIA receives the proposals, it will review the contents to ensure that the proposals meet thecriteria published by the NTIA on 14 March 2014. NTIA will also inform U.S. Congress about the status of the proposals. NTIA’s contract with ICANN expires on 30 September 2016 but NTIA has the authority to extend the contract if needed. IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability discussions at ICANN55 DateTimeSessionRoom 5 Mar12:45-15:00GNSO: CCWG-Accountability DiscussionDiamant 14:30-16:00GAC: IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability: OverviewCristal 17:00-18:00GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG AccountabilityCristal 6 Mar08:30-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-AccountabilityCristal 11:15-11:45GNSO: Update on CWG-Stewardship ImplementationDiamant 11:45-13:00GNSO: Update on CCWG-AccountabilityDiamant 7 Mar10:15-11:30High-Level Governmental Meeting: IANA Stewardship Transition OutcomesCristal 10:30-11:45IANA Stewardship Transition ImplementationAtlas 11:45-13:15High-Level Governmental Meeting: Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governments role in the new ICANN frameworkCristal 13:30-15:00CCWG-Accountability Engagement SessionAtlas 8 Mar11:00-12:30ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition ProcessRoseraie 12:00-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-AccountabilityCristal 14:30-15:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-AccountabilityCristal 16:00-18:00GAC: Finalize GAC Position as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-AccountabilityCristal 9 Mar13:30-15:30GNSO Council meetingToubkal 13:30-18:00ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition Process and ccNSO Council MeetingOliveraie 10 Mar16:00-17:30ICANN Public Board MeetingAtlas Note: The CCWG-Accountability will meet in Marrakech during ICANN55, but at this point, the main focus of the CCWG’s work in Marrakech is planning Work Stream 2 activities. Work Stream 2 focuses on accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has requested confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Draft Proposal meets all of the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship held a teleconference on 25 February to discuss its response to the CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations and the ICG regarding whether the Supplemental Proposal meets all of the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements. The draft letter of confirmation is here. When the ICG receives confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship, the ICG will finalize the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community for delivery to the ICANN Board to transmit to NTIA. To do this, theICG will hold a teleconference on March 1. IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) A group consisting of representatives from the three IANA operational communities has been finalizing details on how IANA IPR should be managed after the transition has occurred. IANA IPR consists of three IANA trademarks (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA and the IANAlogo) and their registrations as well as three IANA-related domain names (iana.org, iana.net, andiana.com) These discussions are still underway. To follow recent developments you can follow the mailing list, iana-ipr, which is publicly archived here. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 26 February 2016

1 0

TR: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear Colleagues, It is good to be back and find out that you have made great progress during the last week, as illustrated by the attached correspondence from the CWG Stewardship chairs, who confirm that our Supplemental Final proposal meets their requirements. Best Mathieu De : Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Envoyé : lundi 29 février 2016 11:19 À : 'Grace Abuhamad'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Patrik Fältström'; byron.holland(a)cira.ca; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Cc : 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Heidi Ullrich'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'Steve Sheng'; glen.gery(a)icann.org; 'Olof Nordling' Objet : Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Importance : Haute Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and co-chairs, Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal We write in response to your groups recent publication of the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (the Final Proposal). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Please see our full response attached to this email. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Customer Standing Committee (CSC), Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. This document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Thank you for resolving each of the issues raised in our comment letter relating to your groups publication of its third draft proposal (the Third Draft Proposal) and for all your hard work in reaching consensus. As you know, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. In summary, we confirm that the Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Congratulations on your Final Proposal and thank-you again all for your collaboration and cooperation throughout this extended period of intense work. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Hillary Jett Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis… Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Transition another step closer as accountability proposal is sent to Chartering Organizations The final CCWG-Accountability proposal for accountability enhancements that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition has been sent to its six Chartering Organizations for adoption. The CWG-Stewardship is finalizing a letter confirming that the CCWG-Accountability proposal meets all of their requirements. The ICG will finalize their proposal for transmission to the ICANN Board and NTIA upon receiving confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship. CCWG-Accountability proposal On 23 February, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) forwarded its Final Supplemental Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations for the approval of its six Chartering Organizations (GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO, SSAC). The Final Supplemental Proposal incorporates: Feedback received during the public comment period on the Third Draft Proposal. Further development of the recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability members and participants to resolve the sometimes-conflicting issues raised by community feedback. A change made as a result of concerns expressed by some members of the GAC and by theICANN Board regarding whether or not the GAC could be a member of the Empowered Community when invoking an Independent Review Process triggered by the Board acting on GACadvice. Initially, the Supplemental Proposal recommended not including the GAC as a part of the Empowered Community in such circumstances (on the CCWG-Accountability list, this was termed the “carve out” of the GAC); the final version removes this constraint. Final approval of CCWG-Accountability’s Work Stream 1 recommendations triggers the next phase in theIANA Stewardship Transition – the transmission of both the transition and accountability proposals to theNTIA by way of the ICANN Board of Directors. The transmission is expected to take place during or immediately following the Public ICANN Board Meeting on 10 March. Timeline 1 March 2016IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) teleconference (12:00-13:00 UTC) to discuss finalization of its proposal based on confirmation by CWG-Stewardship that the CCWG-Accountability supplemental report meets all of their requirements. 9 March 2016 Deadline for CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations to indicate their support for the Supplemental Draft proposal. Pending approval by all Chartering Organizations, CCWG-Accountability Chairs to forward the proposal to the ICANN Board of Directors. 10 March 2016ICANN Board considers the Supplemental Proposal at its Public Board Meeting at ICANN55.ICANN Board forwards the Final Supplemental Proposal to NTIA, together with the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. When the NTIA receives the proposals, it will review the contents to ensure that the proposals meet thecriteria published by the NTIA on 14 March 2014. NTIA will also inform U.S. Congress about the status of the proposals. NTIA’s contract with ICANN expires on 30 September 2016 but NTIA has the authority to extend the contract if needed. IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability discussions at ICANN55 DateTimeSessionRoom 5 Mar 12:45-15:00GNSO: CCWG-Accountability Discussion Diamant 14:30-16:00GAC: IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability: Overview Cristal 17:00-18:00GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG Accountability Cristal 6 Mar 08:30-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability Cristal 11:15-11:45GNSO: Update on CWG-Stewardship Implementation Diamant 11:45-13:00GNSO: Update on CCWG-Accountability Diamant 7 Mar 10:15-11:30High-Level Governmental Meeting: IANA Stewardship Transition Outcomes Cristal 10:30-11:45IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Atlas 11:45-13:15High-Level Governmental Meeting: Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governments role in the new ICANN framework Cristal 13:30-15:00CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session Atlas 8 Mar 11:00-12:30ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition Process Roseraie 12:00-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability Cristal 14:30-15:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability Cristal 16:00-18:00GAC: Finalize GAC Position as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-Accountability Cristal 9 Mar 13:30-15:30GNSO Council meeting Toubkal 13:30-18:00ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition Process and ccNSO Council Meeting Oliveraie 10 Mar 16:00-17:30ICANN Public Board Meeting Atlas Note: The CCWG-Accountability will meet in Marrakech during ICANN55, but at this point, the main focus of the CCWG’s work in Marrakech is planning Work Stream 2 activities. Work Stream 2 focuses on accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has requested confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Draft Proposal meets all of the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship held a teleconference on 25 February to discuss its response to the CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations and the ICG regarding whether the Supplemental Proposal meets all of the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements. The draft letter of confirmation is here. When the ICG receives confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship, the ICG will finalize the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community for delivery to the ICANN Board to transmit to NTIA. To do this, theICG will hold a teleconference on March 1. IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) A group consisting of representatives from the three IANA operational communities has been finalizing details on how IANA IPR should be managed after the transition has occurred. IANA IPR consists of three IANA trademarks (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA and the IANAlogo) and their registrations as well as three IANA-related domain names (iana.org, iana.net, andiana.com) These discussions are still underway. To follow recent developments you can follow the mailing list, iana-ipr, which is publicly archived here. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 26 February 2016

2 1

Fwd: CCWG Final report for your consideration
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 26, 2016

Feb. 26, 2016

Dear all, I am forwarding the transmittal letter sent to the Chairs of our Chartering Organizations for your knowledge. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Asunto: CCWG Final report for your consideration > Fecha: 23 de febrero de 2016, 5:20:42 p.m. GMT-6 > Para: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Thomas Schneider <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Tripti Sinha <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, Brad Verd <bverd(a)verisign.com>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se>, Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org>, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>, Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, "Kimberly Carlson (kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org)" <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org>, Fadi Chehadé <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> > > Dear Chartering Organizations, > > The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its report on Work Stream 1 recommendations. You can download the full report here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw>. > > As per the CCWG-Accountability’s Charter, we now seek your approval to submit this final report to the ICANN Board and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 9 March 2016 to meet the overall timing requirements, which would allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. > > The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountability’s 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. > > The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with five minority statements from members recorded for Chartering Organization consideration (see Appendix A). Please note that we are publishing our report today with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we have given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached this morning. We will send you a revised Appendix A on 25 February. > > As noted in the CCWG-Accountability report, the group worked to meet both NTIA requirements for the overall IANA Stewardship Transition (Annex 14), and the CWG-Stewardship dependencies for the naming community on ICANN accountability enhancements (Annex 13). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts. The CWG-Stewardship will deliver a letter to you confirming that its dependencies have been met, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. > > We will make ourselves together with or other key contributors available to you before and during the ICANN 55 meeting in Marrakech to answer any questions you may have and explain any details of the report. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>. > > Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. > Thank you very much for your continued support. > > Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez > CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs >

13 18

Review/withdrawal of minority views
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Dear all, As we finalize the report for transmittal to Chartering Organizations, we want to offer the five members who submitted minority statements (Eberhard, Olga, Robin, Izumi and Tijani) an opportunity to revise (or retract) those statements, and for any other members to submit statements, if they would like to do so. The process for this will be as follows: Members have 48h (starting from receipt of this email) to submit any revisions, retractions, or new minority statements. We will publish the full report today, including the 19 February version of Appendix A. However, we will note in our transmittal letter to Chartering Organizations that a revised Appendix A will follow in 48h. After the 48h period (approximately at 2100 UTC on 25 February), we will update and recirculate the 25 February version of Appendix A to Chartering Organizations. To be clear, we will accept revisions to, or retractions of, existing minority statements, and new minority statements from SO/AC appointed members. We will keep to one statement per member. Thank you, Leon and Thomas (Mathieu is on leave)

3 2

Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and observers, I¹m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-0 2-22-en. I¹ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. Why you? You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share. What¹s the point? There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but they are such an awesome form of multistakeholder policymaking that the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. How much time do I have? The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days left, until 23 April at 23:59 UTC. You could jot down some thoughts during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the action during the sessions! The email to which your comments may be sent is: <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org>. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc¹ed here). I am passionate about this work because we¹ve innovated and learned so much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing that path forward. Grace

1 0