August 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
by Mueller, Milton L Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

I think the arrangements you describe would be sufficient to protect the third party interests of registrants under a TLD. More could also be done to ensure that in any such delegation, the new owner doesn't impair the property and service interests of SLD registrants. What I don't understand is the court's feeling that ICANN's interest in the stability and interoperability of the DNS would be impaired by a legally mandated redelegation. I think that argument is just plain false. A redelegation does not create a compatibility issue. I don't think the court understands what ICANN does and was overly swayed by hysterical USG amicus brief that claimed that the whole "model of internet governance" would be destroyed by a pro-plaintiff decision. --MM From: Diego R. Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro@nic.br] Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:30 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; David Post <david.g.post(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran Excellent post, Milton. Do you think the ruling would have been different in case ICANN had any sort of direct access to the database (e.g.: through a escrow service provider)? Put it differently: in case ICANN had access to a full replication of the ccTLD database and could keep things running smoothly, do you the ruling should be different? Best Diego -- Diego R. Canabarro Equipe de Assessoria do CGI.br / CGI.br Advisory Team <http://cgi.br/> Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR - NIC.br <http://nic.br/> diegocanabarro(a)nic.br<mailto:diegocanabarro@nic.br> +55 11 5509 4116 | 5509 1855 PGP Key 007A14F5 Em qui 04 ago 2016, às 18:15:56, Mueller, Milton L escreveu: > As some of you know we've been doing some serious research on this topic and > here is our take on the court decision: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/08/04/plaintiffs-cant-seize-ir-court > -rules/ > > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil > Corwin Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 5:46 PM > To: David Post <david.g.post(a)gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> > Cc: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran > > Paul: > > Greg Shatan raised the same quibble in a comment posted at the website, and > I replied as follows- > > Greg: > Thanks for the positive review of a hastily composed article. You are > correct that the court expressed an assumption that a ccTLD constituted an > attachable property interest, but did not decide that it was. While that > assumption might be cited in a future case involving TLD matters it > certainly has little to no weight. Further, courts might well decide that a > nation's interest in its ccTLD, which is independent of any contractual > relationship with ICANN, differentiates ccTLDs from gTLDs, which are > dependent on being awarded such a contract by ICANN and can be lost if the > registry operator commits a material breach of the registry agreement. > Finally, whether or not ccTLDs or gTLDs constitute some type of property > interest is a separate question from whether second level domains > constitute a form of property. So yes, it was a very interesting outcome > but in no way determinative on the TLD as property issue. Best, Philip > > You are correct that the Court took no position one way or another on > whether a TLD constitutes property, and leaves that issue for another case > at a later date. > > Very best, Philip > > 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 > > From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 5:37 PM > To: Phil Corwin > Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; 'CCWG-Accountability' > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran > > At 09:37 AM 8/3/2016, Phil Corwin wrote: > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="_000_8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21188D2AExchangesierrac_" > > FYI, yesterday I published a short article on the decision which can be > found at > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160802_court_of_appeals_avoids_doomsday_eff > ect_in_iran_cctld_decision/ > > > One small-ish quibble: you write: > > "In reaching its decision, the Court opined (but did not decide) that a top > level domain constitutes an attachable property interest." > > Not sure that's strictly correct. I think "opined" implies that the court > expressed an opinion about the matter (without actually deciding it). But > I don't think it did express an opinion one way or the other; it simply > said that it would "assume" that the ccTLDs constitute property, without > really considering the matter, because it would have no impact on the > outcome. I know it's a nit ... but the question of whether TLDs are > "property" is sure to come up again, and I don't think this opinion is any > support at all - even weak support - for the notion that they are. David > > > > In it I state: > In my view, this result avoids the possibility of a major erosion of > confidence and participation in ICANN by ccTLD operators by making clear > that a respected Court of Appeals in the U.S. possesses adequate technical > understanding of the DNS to avoid a legal decision that could lead to > technical and political instability many nations would not wish to > continue in a DNS coordinated by a U.S. non-profit corporation if it could > be ordered by a U.S. court to transfer control of any nation's ccTLD. This > decision will also hopefully tamp down calls by some parties for ICANN's > place of incorporation to be moved outside of the U.S. by demonstrating > that ICANN's jurisdiction does not create a threat to other nation's > ccTLDs. Remaining jurisdiction issues will be addressed in work stream 2 of > ICANN's ongoing accountability process. > > Best regards to all > > 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 > > From: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cros> > s-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:28 AM > To: 'CCWG-Accountability' > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran > > For those following along in the effort to attach the .ir (and other) > ccTLDs, the appellate court issued an opinion yesterday affirming the > decision of the court below rejecting the effort to attach the domain > (albeit on different grounds). Here is a link to the opinion: > https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D35ACE5F0E9673C08525800 > 3005094AE/$file/14-7193.pdf > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > 509 C St. NE > Washington, DC 20002 > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons> > ulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com%3chttp:/www.redbranchconsulting.com/>> > www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com%3chttp:/www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>> > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com%3chttp:/www.avg.com>> > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12704 - Release Date: 07/29/16 > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Communi<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Communi> > ty(a)icann.org<mailto:ty@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > ******************************* > David G. Post > Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post > Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0> Music > https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets > Publications & Misc. http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 > <http://www.ssrn.com/author=537%A0%A0> > http://www.davidpost.com<http://www.davidpost.com/<http://www.davidpost.com%3chttp:/www.davidpost.com/>> > ******************************* > ________________________________ > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com%3chttp:/www.avg.com>> > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12704 - Release Date: 07/29/16

4 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT Extension for Hyderabad Travel Support Applications
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

That was NOT clear to me, and based on the list of names of those who have submitted requests, not to others as well. Alan At 05/08/2016 08:42 AM, Bernard Turcotte wrote: >Alan, > >That is not quite what the policy that was >published says. The CCWG-Accountability has a >fixed budget for member travel period. As such >all travel funding must use the process even if only for 1 night of hotel. > >The policy also says that the co-chairs can >break up the amounts as they see fit and should >work to maximize member participation. As such I >would expect that member requests for 1 or 2 >extra days of hotel would be considered very >seriously to maximize participation. > >I would also like to remind participants that >the funding is for Members only and that the >list of Members can be found at ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59640780>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59640780 >. > >Hope this clarifies things. > >Cheers > >Bernard Turcotte >ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability > >On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >My understanding was that this was JUST for >those who had no funding for travel to >Hyderabad. For Members who are already funded >through some other means, the one day extension is automatic. > >Alan >-- >Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > >On August 5, 2016 3:37:09 AM EDT, Tijani BEN >JEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: >Hi Karen, > >I already sent my application for travel >support, but my name is not on the list. >Why? All I apply again? > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 > &n bsp; <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>Le 5 aoÃ»t 2016 Ã 02:10, Karen Mulberry >><<mailto:karen.mulberry@icann.org>karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> a Ã©crit : >> >>Dear CCWG-Acct. Community, >> >>I wanted to reach out to apologize for the >>initial short turn around for submitting your >>CCWG-ACCT travel support application to attend >>the November 2nd face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad. >> >>I appreciate everyoneâs patience as we work >>with Constituency Travel on the process needed >>to ensure that travel arrangements for CCWG >>members can be handled in a timely manner. As >>a result, we have been able to obtain >>additional time for CCWG members who have not >>yet had the opportunity to submit an application to do so. >> >>Please plan to have your application for >>CCWG-ACCT travel support submitted to >><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>acct-staff(a)icann.org by August 12th. >> >>I would also like to thank everyone who has >>already submitted an application for funding; >>the applications that have been received are >>being posted on the WS2 wiki under travel >>support at >><https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support>https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support >> >>If you have any questions or require additional >>time to consider your plans, please do not >>hesitate to contact CCWG-ACCT Staff Support at >><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>acct-staff(a)icann.or >>g so we can assist you and keep Constituency Travel informed. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Karen Mulberry >>Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives >>ICANN >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org< /a> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >---------- > > >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Community@icann.org>Community(a)icann.org > ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >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 >

3 2

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #1 _ 4 August 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #1 - 4 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/HAGsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Welcome/Introductions (Michael Karanicolas, Chris Wilson) * Introduction of participants 2. Overview of Subgroup's Work & Timing (CW) * CW: distributed a Powerpoint presentation last week. Listing of the 4 core issues. Review of timeline. 3. Primary Identification of Issues * Improving DIDP Ed Morris - overuse of the 12 categories by ICANN to deny requests. Would ICANN be open tor reviewing the 12 denial reasons as a more effective way of proceeding. Phil Corwin supports EM and finds trying to use the DIDP very frustrating - should the Ombudsman (an independent party) review to see if the test is met? Michael Karanicols: review mechanisms are critical to this type of process. * Improve ICANN's transparency with respect to governments. Chris Wilson: there has been some discussion on the3 CCWG list on this topic.Michael Karanicols: the non-disclosure agreements will be an important topic. * Improvements to the Whistleblower policy. Avri Doria: there is a pending recommendation from ATRT2 that has been approved by the Board to review the Whistleblower policy. Wondering if this group can motivate getting a professional review done for this. Samantha Eisner: Review is completed 2 parts, first recommendations vs best practices and then possibly extending coverage. Michael Karanicols: hope this group will undertake its own review in addition to this. * Transparency of Board deliberations. Sonigitu Ekpe: important to have Board meeting recorded unless for specific exceptions. Farzaneh Badii: what are the exception to Board transparency ? Michael Karanicols: this is some of the things we will be looking at. 4. Logistics going Forward (Chris Wilson) * Weekly calls? Maybe start weekly and then reduce. David McAuley (RySG): Maybe calls every other week for a few calls and we can see if that is good. * email engagement will be critical * Time of Day - David McAuley (RySG): It seems only fair to move around the clock given vast time zone differences. Times that are available aRE 0500, 1300 and 1900 UTC. * Stick with Thursday every other week and rotate the time of day. No objections. Co-chairs will confirm time and day of meetings going forward. 5. AOB (Michael Karanicols) * Next call will be in two weeks. * Meeting Adjourned.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
by David Post Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

At 05:32 PM 8/4/2016, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >Steve Crocker: Further, the idea that a >court-ordered transfer of control could be >carried out in a way that leaves the registrants >unharmed sounds nice but I donât know how to >implement it. It seems to me to be wishful >thinking, tied to a theoretical construct but unrelated to reality. > >MM: Let me acquaint you with some business and >legal reality then. Why are the plaintiffs >attempting to seize the domain? Because they are >owed $300 million + in damages. How do they >propose to recover those damages? By garnishing >an asset which has economic value. Why is the >.IR domain valuable? Because people pay money to >rent subdomains under it. What is the best way >to benefit from that economic value? Obviously, >by retaining all the existing customers and >collecting their payments as before, and by >growing the number of renters. So the winner of >such a case has every incentive to avoid harming >registrants. And a court could extract >commitments to do that from the winner of such a case. > I'm not sure I agree with you on this. The question of incentives is likely to be much more complicated than this; I am not at all sure that the plaintiffs in this case, or in some future case, necessarily are seeking to seize the domain purely for economic gain; they may be seeking to wrest control from the current operator for any number of other reasons. And it's not at all clear that "a court could extract commitments" from the new owner not to harm existing registrants. When transferring ownership of some asset from X to Y, courts very rarely will impose post-transfer conditions on the new owner, for very good reasons: they don't want to have to define exactly what it means to "avoid harming current registrants," and they do not want to get involved in an ongoing series of disputes about whether the new owner is or is not doing that. David >Now, I agree with you that that sequence of >events is highly unlikely _in this case_ for a >variety of reasons â the fact that Iran is >unlikely to cooperate with Israeli-American >terrorism victims, or with ICANN; the fact that >ICANN or any other cooperative third party does >not possess the data required to maintain the lower-level zones, etc. > >But there might be another way. The value might >also be captured not by the new owners running >the domain, but by inducing Iranâs government >to pay the terrorism victims a certain amount in >order for the plaintiffs to relinquish their >court-ordered right to the domain. All fine and >good if Iran agrees to the bargain, but if it >does not the decision could indeed be holding >the local registrants hostage to a blackout of >their internet access. I guess oneâs >evaluation of this depends on oneâs assessment >of the equities of paying penalties for >state-sponsored terrorism vs. that of the >internet identities of many innocent Iranian >internet users. In this respect I think the court made the right decision. > >The .IR case is more fraught than most because >of the international politics involved. If one >thinks of more normal cases say the delegee of >.uk prooves to be a criminal enterprise and the >court (under UK law) orders a redelegation under >controlled circumstances, it seems perfectly >feasible for a court-ordered property transfer >to take place without harming the registrants. >In fact, I am sure that court-ordered property >transfers of real estate or other enterprises >where customers are involved take place all the time. > >NB: I am not arguing for the plaintiffs in this >case, I am merely pointing out that your idea >that it is _impossible_ for a court-ordered >property transfer to result in anything but harm >to the tenants is a somewhat dogmatic claim. > >Dr. Milton L. Mueller >Professor, School of Public Policy >Georgia Institute of Technology > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* David G. Post Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n Music https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets Publications & Misc. http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

1 0

WS2-Master Call Schedule - Invitation to view
by Bernard Turcotte (via Google Sheets) Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

I've shared an item with you: WS2-Master Call Schedule https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… It's not an attachment -- it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. All, Given the number of group meetings (9 WS2 + IRP-IOT) in addition to CCWG plenaries the potential for scheduling mix ups is high. To assist with this staff has developed a CCWG master schedule as a Google Sheet. Each tab is a month and each line is a day of the week. Greyed out areas are not available for scheduling meetings (weekends or major holidays). We hope you will find this useful for keeping track of which meeting is happening when as well as a tool for scheduling new meetings. If you have comments on how to improve this we would appreciate receiving these. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
by David Post Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

At 09:37 AM 8/3/2016, Phil Corwin wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21188D2AExchangesierrac_" > >FYI, yesterday I published a short article on >the decision which can be found at ><http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160802_court_of_appeals_avoids_doomsday_eff…>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160802_court_of_appeals_avoids_doomsday_eff… > One small-ish quibble: you write: "In reaching its decision, the Court opined (but did not decide) that a top level domain constitutes an attachable property interest." Not sure that's strictly correct. I think "opined" implies that the court expressed an opinion about the matter (without actually deciding it). But I don't think it did express an opinion one way or the other; it simply said that it would "assume" that the ccTLDs constitute property, without really considering the matter, because it would have no impact on the outcome. I know it's a nit ... but the question of whether TLDs are "property" is sure to come up again, and I don't think this opinion is any support at all - even weak support - for the notion that they are. David >In it I state: >In my view, this result avoids the possibility >of a major erosion of confidence and >participation in ICANN by ccTLD operators by >making clear that a respected Court of Appeals >in the U.S. possesses adequate technical >understanding of the DNS to avoid a legal >decision that could lead to technical and >political instability many nations would not >wish to continue in a DNS coordinated by a U.S. >non-profit corporation if it could be ordered by >a U.S. court to transfer control of any nation's >ccTLD. This decision will also hopefully tamp >down calls by some parties for ICANN's place of >incorporation to be moved outside of the U.S. by >demonstrating that ICANN's jurisdiction does not >create a threat to other nation's ccTLDs. >Remaining jurisdiction issues will be addressed >in work stream 2 of ICANN's ongoing accountability process. > >Best regards to all > >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 > >From: >accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig >Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:28 AM >To: 'CCWG-Accountability' >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran > >For those following along in the effort to >attach the .ir (and other) ccTLDs, the appellate >court issued an opinion yesterday affirming the >decision of the court below rejecting the effort >to attach the domain (albeit on different >grounds). Here is a link to the opinion: ><https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D35ACE5F0E9673C08525800…>https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D35ACE5F0E9673C08525800… > > >Paul > >Paul Rosenzweig >509 C St. NE >Washington, DC 20002 ><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 ><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>www.redbranchconsulting.com >www.paulrosenzweigesq.com >My PGP Key: ><http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com >Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12704 - Release Date: 07/29/16 >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* David G. Post Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n Music https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets Publications & Misc. http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

5 4

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #1 _ 4 August 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #1 - 4 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GQGsAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Introductions from those who are participating on today's call. 2. Background on the items to be discssed in the subgroup, including details on specific suggestions that had been raised during WS1 3. Review of Steve's Lighting talk from Helsinki that covered key items that the subgroup should consider as part of the workplan 4. Review of the draft CCWG letter regarding ATRT3 scope and focus so that it does not overlap with the work of WS2 work and recommndations that would come out from those disucssions. - discussion on how to measure and what to measure to determine effort over other elements such as results and outreach, one issue is the size of some of the community groups - need to also consider looking at openness along with outreach reach - results maynot be enought to look at, effectiveness could be a useful meassurement tool as well ACTION ITEM: Send link to Master CCWG Calendar (see link below) * * https://community.icann.org/x/FCOOAw Documents Presented * AccountabilityofSOAC.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61604121/AccountabilityofS…> * Steve on SOAC Accountability.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61604121/Steve%20on%20SOAC…> * CCWG-ATRT3 and WS2.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61604121/CCWG-ATRT3%20and%…>

1 0

CCWG - Accountability - Draft letter to the ICANN Board regarding ATRT3
by Bernard Turcotte Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

All, Given the many overlaps between the WS2 work and ATRT3 and as per the CCWG request in Helsinki please find attached the draft letter to the Board with the CCWG recommendation with respect to ATRT3. If you have any comments please post them to this list by replying to this email (the Subject line will help us track this) by Monday August 8th 1200 UTC. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Acct Hyderabad Meeting and Travel Funding Process for Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 3, 2016

Aug. 3, 2016

I stand by what I said. We are not talking about fundingfor the one additional day tagged onto the ICANN meeting, but for full funding including travel. The past "rule" was that we do not do this at all. That rule notwithstanding, we have funded the occasional travel request for co-chairs or others who are very heavily involved in the CWG activities. Itis thatlevel of involvement that is being referred to here. Alan At 03/08/2016 04:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Certainly, there is need to be prudent and justify the figures >spent. What is important (and why I urge for care) is that >disqualifying any CCWG member travel based on such criteria as >performance should be done in sync with the appointing SO/AC. >Usually I will expect such SO/AC to consider a replacement of such >person and not deny the affected CO a participation slot. > >There are CCWG members who just joined not long ago, there are some >who only participate on targeted issues, there are various level of >motivations/expertise which would all imply varying level of >contributions by members. There is a reason why the CCWG composition >is the way it is and one of such reason is to ensure balance, >representation and diversity. > >That said, I also hope that we will observe significant care and >prudence on legal side of things as well. I believe that should >receive more of our focus and attention going forward. ;-) > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 3 Aug 2016 9:02 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 03/08/2016 04:14 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>On 2 Aug 2016 5:57 p.m., "Karen Mulberry" >><<mailto:karen.mulberry@icann.org>karen.mulberry(a)icann.org > wrote: >> > >> > >> > NOTE: In evaluating the applications for travel funding the >> Co-Chairs will consider applicant's attendance to CCWG meetings >> and their contributions to the ongoing work. >> > >> > >>SO: I encourage Co-Chairs to be very careful with this one. A >>member what it is and evaluation should be based on that; it should >>remain within the scope of respective appointing SO/AC to determine >>if such a member is performing or not. > >Careful, certainly, but this must be a criteria for exceptional >travel funding by the CCWG. > >We are in a new world where the CCWG will be allocated a finite (and >modest) amount of travel funding. If that budget is exceeded or to >justify next year's funding if we are still running, we will have to >demonstrate that we are using the funds effectively. As the Chair >one of the chartering organizations I expect no less. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Acct Hyderabad Meeting and Travel Funding Process for Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 3, 2016

Aug. 3, 2016

At 03/08/2016 04:14 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >On 2 Aug 2016 5:57 p.m., "Karen Mulberry" ><<mailto:karen.mulberry@icann.org>karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > > > NOTE: In evaluating the applications for travel funding the > Co-Chairs will consider applicant's attendance to CCWG meetings and > their contributions to the ongoing work. > > > > >SO: I encourage Co-Chairs to be very careful with this one. A member >what it is and evaluation should be based on that; it should remain >within the scope of respective appointing SO/AC to determine if such >a member is performing or not. Careful, certainly, but this must be a criteria for exceptional travel funding by the CCWG. We are in a new world where the CCWG will be allocated a finite (and modest) amount of travel funding. If that budget is exceeded or to justify next year's funding if we are still running, we will have to demonstrate that we are using the funds effectively. As the Chair one of the chartering organizations I expect no less. Alan

2 1