March 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Suggested change in working dynamics
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 5, 2016

March 5, 2016

Dear all, Now that our WS1 phase is approaching conclusion we would like to suggest a change in dynamics of our work. We acknowledge that the volume of calls and email exchange during this first phase was exhaustive and we want to thank you and recognize all for your understanding and commitment. What we want to propose for WS2 is a more distributed working method in order to leverage each of the member / participants skills while making the best use of everyone’s time. A possible approach, to be discussed in our Marrakech meeting, is to divide the work on the issues to be developed as part of WS2 into small groups that would be tasked to develop a working plan for each of the groups. These working plans would be presented to the CCWG plenary for discussion and approval. Once the group has approved the different working plans, including a comprehensive list of resources that would involve carrying out each group’s work, each group will begin their work and be responsible for scheduling their meetings and updating the CCWG on a monthly basis. Working plans for each group should consider the use of technology in order to foster inclusive participation from the wider community and to diminish cost of carrying each group’s work. Our role as Co-Chairs would evolve to continue to provide facilitation assistance where needed and coordinate interaction between the various groups, the CCWG at large and ICANN Staff and Board. We look forward to this new phase in our work and welcome your thoughts on this suggested way forward during our session tomorrow. Kind regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León CCWG Co-Chairs Saludos, León

6 7

Google doc for brainstorming
by Grace Abuhamad March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

All We invite you to contribute, comment, etc to the issues list on screen. The document is set to comment/suggestion only. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_MLyIEipAwQVeluoUBaxTIzVN_DDfpMb8wdp4Gz4 Mxw/edit?usp=sharing. Best, Grace

1 0

Draft Letter to Chartering Organizations on Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG
by Grace Abuhamad March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Dear all, Based on our conversation this morning about next steps for the CCWG (Implementation of WS1 and start of WS2), we have drafted a letter to inform the Chartering Organizations of our intentions. Please review and send your feedback on the list. We would like to get this letter out soon (during ICANN55) from a process perspective, so that our Chartering Organizations have some time to discuss, if they choose. Note: when the CWG-Stewardship sent a similar letter to their Chartering Organizations, they gave about one month for feedback, to account for discussions and possible re-appointment processes if needed. For this reason, we also set a month (April 11) as the feedback time for this letter. Best, Grace

1 0

Fwd: CCWG Final report for your consideration
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Dear all, I am forwarding this communication sent by Oscar Robles on behalf of the ASO. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <oscar(a)lacnic.net> > Asunto: Re: Fwd: CCWG Final report for your consideration > Fecha: 4 de marzo de 2016, 9:42:53 a.m. GMT > Para: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Cc: louie(a)equinix.com, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, 'Steve Crocker' <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > > Dear León, > > As a designated Chartering Organization of the CCWG, the ASO states its support for the Final Report of the CCWG WS1. We therefore ask ICANN to accept this document, along with the ICG proposal for IANA Stewardship Transition, for approval during the ICANN 55 meetings in Marrakech. The two proposals should then be forwarded to the US Government for their review, without further delay. > > Oscar Robles > Chair, NRO Executive Committee > for the ASO > > > On 2/23/16 20:36, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: >> Dear Oscar, dear Louie, >> >> In my rush to send this out as soon as possible, I involuntarily omitted to include you in this email. >> >> Please accept my apologies for this oversight. I hope you will find this final report worthy of the approval of your Organization. >> >> Thanks for your understanding. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >>> >>> De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@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" < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Thomas Schneider <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Tripti Sinha <tsinha(a)umd.edu <mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, Brad Verd <bverd(a)verisign.com <mailto:bverd@verisign.com>>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se <mailto:paf@frobbit.se>>, Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu <mailto:fuhr@etno.eu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> >>> Cc: <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org <mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>>, Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org <mailto:julia.charvolen@icann.org>>, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes@icann.org>>, "Kimberly Carlson (kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org <mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>)" <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org <mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, Fadi Chehadé <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade@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 <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 >>> >> >

1 0

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

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs Meeting with Lawyer-1 March
by Brenda Brewer March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability co-Chairs Meeting with Lawyers , 1 March 2016, will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/UxWAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: Rosemary and Holly to review previous quotes - based on IRP experience - and determine whether adjustments needed. ACTION ITEM - Schedule a debrief call after Marrakech to finalize this discussion. 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. WS 1 implementation Legal counsel: CoChairs should proposed a way forward for WS1 implementation upon which we can react. CCWG: Work plan decisions are to be made with full group. We have used legal counsel estimate in our discussions with ICANN finances. We anticipate setting up subgroup(s) to oversee drafting in coordination in ICANN legal - outcome of these groups would be sent to the full CCWG. ICANN Board is getting organized to follow this work very closely and we expect Board engagement. Legal expenses are being publicized. There is community concern about amount being spent. We will however need to implement more cross-control measures. We should try to structure quotes in a way that they are linked to the project plan. We need to be more cognizant of expenditures: initial draft and two revisions could be a potential structure. Legal counsel: Cost is driven by way community works. Finding consensus is hard process. It is difficult for us to provide realistic estimates. Developing estimates take time. Recommend to sit in a "cave" and produce a report. Ask questions to whomever is available. Issue draft and discuss. Concerned about process where negotiating at outset. To work with other legal counsel is complex. To not charge for quotes, we must rethink the discounted basis CCWG: Access to arrangements between ICANN and firms would be helpful. Discussion on rates and quotes is desirable. Move forward with providing quotes for "cave" approach. Questions should be prioritized for legal counsel to stay within costframe. ACTION ITEM: Rosemary and Holly to review previous quotes - based on IRP experience - and determine whether adjustments needed. WS2 We are looking towards drafting team approach for WS2 items. Intensity of legal expertise might not reach same level as WS1 needed but will need legal advice at some point. We will be working on framework in Marrakech. Legal Counsel - On jurisdiction, group needs to get clarity on terminology. If do it without legal input, it will be very confusing. It could benefit from upfront engagement. CCWG needs to be mindful of resources and time management. More heads-up needed. CCWG: Vice versa - CCWG would need time indications from legal counsel to build work plan. Board Finance Committee Legal costs is one component of it. Some ideas are yet to be investigated. It will be an agenda item in Marrakech. One of discusions was to work on estimates. Board Finance committee was looking into reinforcing project management of our group and in-house counsel reporting to IANA project. Other ideas: prioritizaton, time management etc Legal Counsel - not wedded to holding the pen. Sometimes easier if do work ourselves straight from beginning. ACTION ITEM - Schedule a debrief call after Marrakech to finalize this discussion.

1 0

Slide deck for F2F (on screen now)
by Grace Abuhamad March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Dear all, Please see attached for the slide deck used in today¹s F2F discussion. This is the deck on screen at the moment. Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
by Alan Greenberg March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

To the best of my knowledge, the GNSO has not passed a formal motion saying that they will participate in the Empowered Community (EC), and I *KNOW* that the ALAC has not. I believe that the same is true for the ccNSO. If and when we ratify Recommendation 1 describing the EC as including the ALAC (as we have in our comments to the earlier drafts), we will de facto have accepted out participation Alan At 01/03/2016 11:37 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >Kavouss, > >I am mildly surprised that you, as someone who >has been very protective of the right of the GAC >to make its own decisions, is not upset with the >determination by the CCWG to make GAC a >decisional participant by default before it has >actually made this decision for itself. > >Best, > >Brett > >From: >accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:28 AM >To: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa >Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue > >Dear All, >Yo are too worried about something that we still do not know how it happens >The text approriate and clearly mention that if >the No of Decision Making SO and AC changed the threshold should be adjusted >That is more than sufficient. >People need to refrain concentrating/ focussing >on a particular AC nor envisage all possible senarios. >We are not wtritting Bylaws at this stage . >There is ample time and competent individuals to >look at the matter once happened. >Let us discontinue this counterproductive discussion >Regards >Kavouss > >2016-03-01 16:32 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L ><<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>milton(a)gatech.edu>: > > >From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] >Sorry, wrong. The assumption has been made and >it is the same as the assumption that was made >in the Third, Second and First Draft Reports. >GAC is going to be listed in the fundamental >bylaws as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community. > >Huh? See below > >The only way that could change would be if GAC >advised it did not wish to do so. Same with any other group. > >Which they havenât done yet. Ergo, my statement below was correct. > > >On 1 March 2016 at 13:16, Mueller, Milton L ><<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: >Whether one agrees with Brett or not, the fact >remains that GAC has explicitly told us that it >is _undecided_ on whether to be a decisional >participant or not. Therefore, until we get a >positive decision from them, we cannot assume >that they will be by default. Greg S. was saying essentially the same thing: > > > >---------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org > >_______________________________________________ >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

F2F AC room --> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/rak55-cristal/
by Alice Jansen March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

https://icann.adobeconnect.com/rak55-cristal/

1 0

ICANN55 Briefing Document
by Aarti Bhavana March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached a pre-event briefing document we prepared for a discussion organised with Indian stakeholders. This document is limited in scope and gives a peek into some of the key recommendations of the CCWG Accountability proposal. It is also forward looking and highlights some areas to focus on in Work Stream 2. While this was prepared keeping in mind interests and concerns of Indian stakeholders, I hope you may find it useful as we head into the CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face, and plan our work ahead. As always, I welcome your feedback and comments. Warm regards, Aarti Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . *ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com <http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com>*|

1 0