May 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: CCWG Accountability comment
by Niels ten Oever May 21, 2016

May 21, 2016

Dear Mathieu, Thanks for this. There is an issue related to the Human Rights bylaw, which we have discussed and on which I think we reach agreement that has not been addressed in the CCWG public comment. Namely the comment made by Seth underneath, the exclusion of the text "unless and", about which I thought we reached consensus. Since the CCWG comments have already been submitted, how would you advice to proceed on this matter? Best, Niels On 05/13/2016 07:45 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Note for all: This does not address the inclusion of "unless and" in > Section 27.3 (a), which makes the FOI on HR conditional and does not > reflect the CCWG Report which only says the Core Value is not in force > "until" the FOI is developed. Already said this, with some support. > Repeating for reference once again. > > > Seth > > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Attached is the comment posted to the public comment forum on the Draft >> Icann Bylaws on our behalf. Thanks to all of you for contributing to this >> effort. >> >> >> >> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/ >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu >> >> >> >> De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] >> Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2016 18:19 >> À : 'comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16(a)icann.org' >> Objet : CCWG Accountability comment >> >> >> >> Please find enclosed the comment submitted on behalf of the Cross Community >> Working Group en Enhancing Icann’s Accountability. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez and Mathieu Weill >> >> Co-chairs >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

3 5

article from The Hill - FYI
by Chris Disspain May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/280354-republicans-continue-attempts-t… <http://thehill.com/policy/technology/280354-republicans-continue-attempts-t…> Cheers, Chris

1 0

ICANN Bylaws change required
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Please remove all occurrences of "Sponsoring Organization" and/or "Sponsoring Organizations" from the Bylaws where they refer or may refer to ccTLD Managers and replace where a reference to ccTLD Manager(s) is needed by "ccTLD Manager". There are no Sponsoring Organizations in the ccTLDs only ccTLD Managers, as per the recommendations of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group. Putting this incorrect terminology into the Bylaws would allow an opt out for any ccTLD Manager so desiring. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

3 3

blog from board retreat - FYI
by Chris Disspain May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-chairman-s-blog-an-update-from-our-may-… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-chairman-s-blog-an-update-from-our-may-…> Cheers, Chris

2 1

Board resolution on Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations
by Bruce Tonkin May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Hello All, See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en i. Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations Whereas, the Board believes that providing increased access to Board deliberations is important, and that increased openness is an important means of working toward that goal. Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its Amsterdam workshop how to improve its functioning and agreed that enhancing the visibility into the Board deliberations and decision-making processes was an important part of becoming more accountable and more transparent. Whereas, the Board noted the call from the community for increased openness and transparency. Whereas, the Board believes that a positive first step towards increased openness is publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings of its deliberative sessions to the extent that such information or dialogue is not subject to confidentiality restrictions or privilege. Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Board to develop a proposed plan for the publication of transcripts and/or recordings of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan to include an assessment of possible resources costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; and (ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed processes relating to publication of transcripts and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki.

3 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board resolution on Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations
by James Gannon May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

This is an excellent step Bruce, very happy to see the proactive measure on this. Kudos to the board. On 18/05/2016, 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Bruce Tonkin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: >Hello All, > >See below. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en > > >i. Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations > >Whereas, the Board believes that providing increased access to Board deliberations is important, and that increased openness is an important means of working toward that goal. > >Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its Amsterdam workshop how to improve its functioning and agreed that enhancing the visibility into the Board deliberations and decision-making processes was an important part of becoming more accountable and more transparent. > >Whereas, the Board noted the call from the community for increased openness and transparency. > >Whereas, the Board believes that a positive first step towards increased openness is publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings of its deliberative sessions to the extent that such information or dialogue is not subject to confidentiality restrictions or privilege. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Board to develop a proposed plan for the publication of transcripts and/or recordings of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan to include an assessment of possible resources costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: > > (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; > > and > > (ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed processes relating to publication of transcripts and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki. > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

ASO comment
by Izumi Okutani May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

FYI, the ASO has submitted comment to the new Draft ICANN Bylaws at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00008.ht… --- The ASO has reviewed the Draft New ICANN Bylaws developed, to reflect the recommendations contained in the proposals by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), from the Internet numbers community perspective. The ICANN accountability for the Internet numbers community is based on the contracts between ICANN and the RIRs ; the ASO MoU and SLA on the IANA Numbering Services. The Draft New ICANN Bylaws reflects key points in the ICANN accountability from the ASO perspective in this regard, and we support the draft document as proposed. We have confirmed that, based on the CCWG-Accountability proposal, the Draft New ICANN Bylaws clearly states number resources related matters are out of scope of IRP and reconsideration, which is essential for us in the ICANN accountability for the Internet numbers community. The ASO is aware of discussion on section 1.1(d)(ii) regarding grandfathering of existing agreements, and have no objection to removal of that section if the community wishes to do so. Best Regards, Oscar Robles Chair of NRO Executive Committee for the ASO ---

2 5

Business Constituency point about Affirmation Reviews in the new draft Bylaws
by Steve DelBianco May 14, 2016

May 14, 2016

Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews. These 2 reviews are already late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible. -- Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened." BC Comment: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. — Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.” BC Comment: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.

3 2

ICG comments
by Alissa Cooper May 13, 2016

May 13, 2016

FYI, the ICG submitted comments on the draft bylaws. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00006.ht… <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00006.ht…> — The ICG appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft ICANN Bylaws. The ICG previously communicated concerns about Section 1.1(d)(ii) to the Bylaws drafting group [1]. However, these concerns were not addressed in the draft Bylaws that were posted for public comment. Section 1.1(d) "grandfathers" a number of agreements into the Bylaws in order to prevent parties from challenging those agreements on the basis that they violate the ICANN Mission statement. Under Section 1.1(d)(ii), (A) applies to RA/RAA agreements; (B)-(D) apply to agreements between ICANN and the NRO, ASO, IETF, RZM, and PTI; and (E) applies to ICANN's Five-Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Operating Plan. (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of the agreements appearing in (B)-(E). The ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community and allowed the operational communities to define their own transition plans. The ICG and the CCWG proposals define those wishes, and any changes to the Bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG proposals. Unlike Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A), the substance of which was debated in the CCWG and is documented in paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, the substance of (B)-(E) have not enjoyed appropriate community involvement or review. These sections affect much of the Internet community since they apply to agreements with a variety of external parties, including all of the operational communities. Because several of the referenced agreements have not yet been written and most have not yet been agreed to by the relevant parties, the draft Bylaws essentially allow these external agreements to define ICANN's Mission. This seems like a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it creates the possibility for the agreements to contradict or circumvent the desires of the community who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s Mission throughout the IANA stewardship transition process (see paragraphs 140-147 of the CCWG proposal). The ICG believes that in order for the Bylaws to be considered consistent with the transition plans, Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) need to be removed, and Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) needs to be edited to apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A). This assumes that (F) is indeed called for by paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, which we leave for the CCWG to judge. Regards, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-April/004877.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-April/004877.html>

1 0

TR: CCWG Accountability comment
by Mathieu Weill May 13, 2016

May 13, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Attached is the comment posted to the public comment forum on the Draft Icann Bylaws on our behalf. Thanks to all of you for contributing to this effort. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/ Best Thomas, Leon & Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2016 18:19 À : 'comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16(a)icann.org' Objet : CCWG Accountability comment Please find enclosed the comment submitted on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group en Enhancing Icanns Accountability. Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez and Mathieu Weill Co-chairs

1 0