September 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Introducing Yvette Guigneaux as additional ICANN Secretariat Support for CCWG-ACCT
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Hello all, I’m am happy to introduce a new ICANN staff support person, Yvette Guigneaux, to the WS2 CCWG Accountability community! You may have seen Yvette over the past couple of weeks on the WS2 Subgroup meetings as well as received emails from her. She and I will be sharing the Secretariat support role. Because of these shared duties, we ask that you send any WS2 Subgroup and CCWG Plenary related emails to mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org> so we both can view these important communications. You may also continue to copy acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>. Please help me in welcoming Yvette! With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

5 4

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #4 - 22 Sept
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #4 – 22 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Rw6sAw 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 Action Items: · Aim to have a draft of all sections completed for October 14th (no objections) which could be discussed by the group at its meeting of Oct 20th. Michael Karanicolas will staff drafting the DIDP section - Barbara Wanner will start working on the whistle blower. Chris Wilson to start on disclosure for government interaction - need participants for rest of Disclosure Notes (including relevant elements of the chat): 1. Introductions · Michael Karanicolas: 2 main objectives today as per the agenda. 2. The WS2 Draft Staff Paper discussion · Michael Karanicolas: The paper lists a lot of good sources and background material. ICANN seems torn between the various models of transparency reporting. We expect more from ICANN than just what corporate level standards for reporting and disclosures. Pro-active disclosure re govtt contacts seems a good starting point but good policies in this area go much further - we would expect that ICANN should be at the level of govts. Pro-active disclosure and DIDP rules need to be harmonized. · (note taker lost connectivity temporarily) · Barbara Wanner: I read the NAVEX review of ICANN's Hotline Policy and agree with Michael that its a solid product. Happy to work with others in developing recommendations that build upon the NAVEX report. I may have to drop off early, so just indicating interest. Thx! · David McAuley: disclosure vs IRP. · Michael Karanicolas: uncertain how it would apply in this case. · David McAuley (RySG): Open by default sounds good, with limited exceptions. · Michael Karanicolas: We have not yet prioritized between our 3 main topics but we should do so for the work plan. 3. Agreement of Avenue Forward · Michael Karanicolas: early enthusiasm for drafting has significantly dropped over the last few weeks. This seems to be happening in many groups. One possible explanation is the FEAR OF THE BLANK PAGE. · Chris Wilson: we should review the new timeline presented in the plenary this week. We need to get some substantive material on paper for Hyderabad about 3 weeks prior to that meeting. Looking forward to comments from the group. · Michael Karanicolas: It would seem the best way forward would be to have the rapporteurs draft a first cut and have participants to comment. · David McAuley: for DIDP we could just start commenting on the current policy. · Michael Karanicolas: We have essentially done that at the start of our work. (discussion of previous analysis of DIDP as presented in the paper = Thematic Overview). I will start drafting the DIDP section - Could Barbara Wanner start working on the whistle blower (yes). Chris Wislon to start on disclosure for government interaction - need participants for rest of Disclosure. ACTION ITEM - Lets aim to have a draft of all sections completed for October 14th (no objections) which could be discussed by the group at its meeting of Oct 20th. 4. AOB · Chris Wilson will work with staff to finalize a call schedule. · Michael Karanicolas: (no other topics or poitns) Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #4 - 21 September 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #4 – 21 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/EB2sAw 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 (including relevant elements of the chat): 1. Welcome Note 29 participants at start of call. Greg Shatan: no changes to SOI and no participants on phone only. 2. Approach to ICANN’s Place of Incorporation and Headquarters Location a. Should the scope of the Jurisdiction topic include examining the effects of ICANN's place of incorporation and location (for example, on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and on the settlement of disputes), or should this be out of scope? b. Should the scope of the Jurisdiction topic include the possibility of recommending that ICANN be directed to change its place of incorporation and/or headquarters location, or should this be out of scope? David McAuley: This should be resolved by this group if possible and it may take several weeks. This is essentially the nub of our work. Greg Shatan: uncertain if this is the nub or a red herring. Tijani Ben Jemaa: Agree with DM we need to resolve this here. We need to agree on all the layers. Milton Mueller: David: Are you saying we do not resolve the questions yet, or we do not resolve whether they are in scope or not? David McAuley (RySG): in scope or not - to me that also takes time and thought - I believe not in scope but understand others don't agree. Greg Shatan: the objective of the questions was to confirm the remit from WS1. Kavous Arasteh: Why do we need to discuss this here (2nd question) Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Agree with Kavouss -ICANN's entire new structure and the empowered community is all based on California law. Our task is not to change the place of incorporation of ICANN. But if anybody can point to potential problems, we might look into means to address such problems without changing ICANN’s place of incorporation. Avri Doria: it is not in our scope and shall not be discussed? Milton Mueler: .Jurisdiction of incorporation is a bad idea but not out of scope. Long term we need to address this. My personal view is that it should be out of scope but not against discussing. Greg Shatan: there are 3 answers to the question: invalid, make recommendations to CCWG. Jeff Neuman: 2B is out of scope becasue of practicality. 2A however is in scope. Milton Mueller: Agree, Jeff, but that is an argument against changing jurisdiction it is not an argument that it is out of scope Greg Shatan: When we discuss scope we are referring to tthe scope of this group. Phil Corwin: My view is that we should enshrine ICANN incorporation in the US. We should not use scope to limit discussions of this. Milton Mueller: right Philip, it's a question of rationality not scope Pedro da Silva: I see the two questions as belonging to two different parts of our work. 2A is about scope and I believe it includes ICANN's jursidiction of incorporation as part of the layers. The second part of our work is about recommendations and there are many good arguments about not moving ICANN and these will be as valid in 9 months as they are now - but at that time we will have much more input. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): for the gap analysis we should look at the second draft report available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460. The relevant pages are 121-124. Milton Mueller: Jeff, my understanding was that a lot of people wanted to discuss it in WS1 but it was too disruptive a change in the short term so we told them to push it into WS2 Erich Schweighofer: The place of jurisdiction is flexible but it is unwise to change unless the present favourable situation exists. Other options have to be considered, maybe trying with certain activities. Milton Mueller: Jeff, my understanding was that a lot of people wanted to discuss it in WS1 but it was too disruptive a change in the short term so we told them to push it into WS2 Erich Schweighofer: The place of jurisdiction is flexible but it is unwise to change unless the present favourable situation exists. Other options have to be considered, maybe trying with certain activities. David McAuley: the remit in 2A is good. 2B is about identifying alternatives. However I do not beleive we should look at moving ICANN. But we should have alternatives if there is ever a problem. Kavous Arasteh: We should be practical, pragmatic and logical - everything is based on California law and there is a provision in the Bylaws to allow the Board to propose moving if necessary. There is no reason and no possibility that in the next few years that this would ever get approved. We do not need anything on changing jurisdiction of incorporation. Christopher Wilkinson: in 2A my interest is that dispute resolution is available to participants worldwide and not limited to American legal system, mostly about the cost which would prevent many from using it. Paul McGrady: We have been asked in the GNSO to approve a budget for WS2 and looking at alternative jurisdictions will require significantly more funds. As the WS1 recommendation leaves it open to us if we discuss jurisdiction or not - and if we want to do this optional topic we need a consensus call from this group to take work which will take more than a year and 10's of millions of dollars. Tijani Ben Jemaa: If we do not reach consensus on anything we simply report it. Greg Shatan: Given the time left on this call I would ask everyone to read Mathew Shears comment. Kavous Arasteh: What is the status of 2B? Greg Shatan: My impression is there is little support for taking place of incorporation off the table as looking at its effects. Paul McGrady: So we are not talking about the choice of Jurisdiction but rather about the effects of the exisitng Jurisdiction. If there are issues with the effects the group could recommend modified accountability measures to the CCWG. Greg Shatan: yes this is what I am asking. Examples looser pays. So if this cannot be discussed please give a red X. None. As such this should be in scope but will ask the list. 3. Gap Analysis: Annex 12 includes “confirming and assessing the gap analysis.” a. We need a common understanding of what this refers to. Does the “gap analysis” refer to a determination in WS1 that there were no significant gaps in the WS1 accountability proposal resulting from ICANN's current jurisdictional framework? b. How should we confirm and assess the gap analysis? David McAuley: the current Byalws meets the requirements and as such the gap analysis has been done. Kavous Arasteh: GAP analysis needs to be addressed. Pedro da Silva: Disagree with DM and beleive we have not done a gap analysis. the difference betweeen our accountability requirements vs how they were implemented under California laws. One example of this is the models that were available such as Designator and the Empowered Community. Greg Shatan: We need to write this up for disccussion. Tijani Ben Jemaa: there are two interpretations - if there is a need to do one we should have a small group on this. Philip Corwin: @David--Agree that ICANN is free to agree to using law/courts of a jurisdiction other than CA for contract disputes -- but also think it is most unlikely to do so for standard agreements with contracted parties. Why would it want to take on risks of different laws and adjudictaion systems, not to mention cost of hiring local counsel? jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): from the 2nd drafzt report: "1043 Initial gap assessment based on current CCWG-Accountability proposals: 1044 At this point of the work of the CCWG-Accountability, taking into account the comments received, the following issues have been identified for further investigation: • Requirement 4 (ability to sue and be sued to enforce Bylaws or accountability mechanisms): while some consider this requirement to be necessary, others would avoid as much as possible the use of any single country’s legal system. • Trade-off between CCWG-Accountability requirements and options under California law, particularly when discussing the community empowerment model. • Whether IRP decisions against ICANN would be binding despite local jurisdiction decisions. • Requirement 3 on governing law for contracts with registrars and registries may require further investigation. 1045 While these issues require further investigation, the CCWG-Accountability has not yet conducted a substantive examination of alternative jurisdict jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): ....jurisdictions that would better fit its requirements. While some commenters suggest that incorporation of ICANN under other legal systems, such as Swiss not-for-profit, would be beneficial (yet the basis for their assumption remains uncertain), further analysis and deliberation is needed on a fact-based approach to be entertained during Work Stream 2. " jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): at least now its on the record :-) David McAuley (RySG): agree @ Phil Greg Shatan: Strongly encourage particpation on the list. Also ask for people to work on the Google docs. 4. Continued Detailed Reading of the Google Docs. a. First Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGRQqP5Bs923nmDYekZn5ZL7-DQc_QSa0GSnFoj… b. Second Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2eCmjbA6bxJxCEluEHJIBzP_sGPN6krEqDshA0… 5. Other Potential Inputs to our Work. a. More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks (summarized in Staff Paper) b. Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope) c. Experts/Legal Advice

1 0

CCWG-Accountability WS2 - Schedule of Plenary meetings to Hyderabad
by Bernard Turcotte Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

All, The schedule for plenary meetings to Hyderabad is as follows: - 0500UTC 4 October (Tuesday) - 1300UTC 19 October (Wednesday) We have also set aside 1300 25 October (Tuesday) in case there is a need for an additional meeting prior to Hyderabad but this meeting will only be confirmed, or not, at the 19 October plenary meeting. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs.

1 0

New ICANN Bylaws
by Hillary Jett Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/new-icann-bylaws New ICANN Bylaws Author: Steve Crocker Today, on behalf of the ICANN Board, I am pleased to announce the adoption of the new ICANN Bylaws, which reflect changes made as a result of the IANA Stewardship Transition package of proposals. The new Bylaws are the result of hundreds of hours of work by the community and the legal teams. The Regional Internet Registries Service Level Agreement and Internet Engineering Task Force Memorandum of Understanding Supplemental Agreement have also been approved for signing and will go into effect after the transition. Later today, ICANN will be transmitting the new Bylaws to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA has previously stated that adoption of the new Bylaws is required for them to complete their review of the proposals, which is expected to occur in June. This is an important milestone for ICANN and the community. As we await the release of NTIA’s report, we continue to prepare for implementation of the transition proposals. We thank everyone for their continued hard work and support during this transition process. -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

11 11

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #6 | 20 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #6 – 20 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/oBysAw 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. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Review of the draft agenda, agenda adopted. 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN and drafting teaumry provided by Greg remarks reasonable support for Ruggie principles but need to analyze the specific ones to see which ones apply to ICANN's core values and which ones do not apply. and to what degree they apply. Need to discuss specific principles to determine what can be supported and to develop a framework of implementation. Need to make the work more detailed and constructive to move forward. Question raised as to if ICANN is a business enterprise, as ICANN is a non-profit. 3. Discussion of specific Ruggie Principles - Principle:Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. Discussion - Enterprise or non profit, raised concern of the use of the term address and should/may and the meaning/application of the term to ICANN, Question does this work for the ICANN context is the approach recommended to be taken. organization is more like business enterprise - principle appears to have a lot of flexibility - something to be mindful of in considering, this is more of guidance for decisions for ICANN, should not be considered as expansion of ICANNs mission, the bylaw mentions applicable law that deals with human rights, need to look at what the applicable law is, Question raised as to if ICANN is purely a business enterprise - clearly is not ,ICANNs remirt and methods of action is not business enterprise, areas where ICANN does not function as a business enterprise that the Ruggie principles do not apply to ICANN core values, need to look at the bylaw, suggestion to address the issues one by one, need to understand the laws on human rights and then how applicable to ICANN, intent is to determine whether ICAANN should be subject to human rights and is ICANN avoiding its obligations in a core value, bylaws and addressing adverse human rights in which it is involved, ICANN responsibilities bound by applicable law, - Principle - The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Discussion - role of ICANN and how to include it in applicable law 4th Ruggie Principel - Question as to the extend we can apply human rights to ICANN - human rights are carried out and obligations are embedded in state laws that non state actors must follow, how expressed in applicable laws determines with obligations that need to be followed, suggestion Section b does not apply and should be tossed out completely, need to move discussion to list as to whether to keep section b or remove, question as to whom do you seek, to prevent, work to take this text to the ICANN example off list and address at the next session. Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 5.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61611168/Presentation%20Me…>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Meeting #5_21 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #5 – 20 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Pg6sAw 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 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today. Rapporteurs to deliver their subgroups paper 3 weeks (October 5th) prior to Hyderabad outlining work. 2. Staff to review resources to see if there is a means to do interviews with leaders to assist in drafting positions. Sub-groups to advise staff if interested in this assistance. Notes: Notes (including key elements of the chat): Action Items: · Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today 1. Welcome/SOI · Thomas Rickert: No one on phone only. No new SOIs. Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez send their apologies. 2. Update on US Senate Hearing on IANA Transition · Steve DelBianco: Theme for this call is keep calm and carry on. Background on current situation vs Congress. Two main factors for conservatives, Political positioning vs a liberal administration and the disrespect of Congress vs the transition from ICANN and NTIA. We should assume there will be at least a 9 week delay in transition. We should not split the transition and accountability Bylaws. · David McAuley (RySG): We have a third witness on this call as well - Paul · Paul Rosenzweig: Thanks David -- I'm glad you noticed. I don't have any need to intervene · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): oh, yes, Paul's point of view would also be useful · Greg Shatan: Intellectual Property interests have a variety of views. · Paul Rosenzweig: Jeff -- what would you like to know specifically -- I'll answer if I can · Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Whether your assessment is the same as Steve's and whether you believe the outcomes are as Steve has said (in your view) · Brett Schaefer: Why shouldn't the accountability reforms be implemented now if the transition is delayed? The bulk of them are not dependent on the transition. Indeed, Bruce and Cherine said that that was the original plan in Morocco. What if the transition is delayed longer than 9 weeks? Are you prepared to wait forever for accountability implementation? · Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): I don't see any reason to wait. · Edward Morris: Agree with Brett and Julf. · Avri Doria: Do we really need to split the Bylaws why not just include a statement that the PTI stuff is not active until the transition. · Alan Greenberg: @Brett, there is a lot of work to do to split the Bylaws and that will take time. I presume that will not be done until it is obvious the delay will be substantial. (> 9 weeks). But that is hypothesis on my part. · Paul Rosenzweig: Assuming it is part of the bill at all ... · Philip Corwin: Near-term Board implementation of accountability measures in face of a delay would be very helpful in ending the Congressional roadblock, while refusal to do so would add fodder to critics, IMHO · Edward Morris: PTI is roughly 5% of the new Bylaws. · Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): +1 Philip · Edward Morris: Good point Phil. · Matthew Shears: interesting point Phil · Alan Greenberg: Even a rider saying that parts are inoperable is a Bylaw change that must go through due process which is time-consuming. · Greg Shatan: @Milton, not denying that some elements of the IP community are playing a role; we saw one as a witness in the Hearing. However, "IP interests" are not monolithic and there is a diversity of views, including support for the transition and for the multi-stakeholder model. · Philip Corwin: It's not just the IANA contract. NTIA must also end RZMA contract with Verisign so that it can contract directly with ICANN to perform root zone maintenance. Until that is in place ICANN would have no power to direct root zone changes. · Milton Mueller: Uncertain how we could continue with the transition if there is a new administration. · Steve DelBianco: many variables. We lose nothing by waiting until the election is done. · Edward Morris: Matt, I am not an expert on the "test drive" strategy. What I do know is that by delaying implementation we are playing into the hands of those who are opposing the transition. · Steve DelBianco: "test drive" makes no sense, since we will not "test" our powers in a few months or even a few years. Test Drive is equivalent to indefinite delay. · Matthew Shears: agree Steve · Milton Mueller: Yes, Ed, we need to get as many of the accountability reforms implemented as possible · Megan Richards, European Commission: @Steve -agree on ineffectual test drive. · Paul Rosenzweig: We lose nothing by waiting. Some of the opposition ICANN can do nothing about. We will know by the end of tomorrow if a new rider has been included or not. · Kavouss Arasteh: This is purely an American political issue and we should just move on. · Steve DelBianco: I agree with Paul, that events are moving this week. Let's not game-out all the outcomes. Let's get back to work on WS2 · Steve DelBianco: WS2 implementation is part of the Board's commitment -- regardless of IANA contract · David McAuley: +1 @Steve · Edward Morris: Agree Steve · Avri Doria: Steve, rights, and after Sept 30, that commitment comes due. · Sivasubramanian M 2: Is the US budgetary allocation / NTIA spending on Transition so substantial that the US budgetary process becomes one of the obstructions? · Steve Delbianco: asper previous answer. · Thomas Rickert: We have done a great job so far and we should be patient and wait for the next few weeks. As to the possibility of a Test Drive - we have baked extensive consultation between the Board and the community which should obviate the need for the community to exercise the community power would make a test drive difficult. 3. WS2 Planning and Timeline · Thomas Rickert: WS2 work plan. There is light engagement by the community currently possibly due to the political uncertainty or fatigue. All items in WS2 are important and need to get done. We probably need to readjust our work plan to be able to deliver by the end of this FY17. · Karen Mulberry: (presentation of slides on Planning and progress). Public Consultations now planned in February and May 2017. · Kavouss Arasteh: We should not revisit what has been decided in WS1. · Sivasubramanian M: WS2 ought not to be time-limited earlier there was a discussion on Accountability as a continuous, ongoing process. · Matthew Shears: a number of the issues under discussion are shaping the discussion on transition in the political sphere - these issues should be dealt with asap particularly if we are going to stagger from CR to CR · Edward Morris: Agreed Matt. · Niels ten Oever: @Siva - if we don't set deadlines this work will never end. · Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Setting public comment periods intersessionally ahead of ICANN 58 and 59 respectively so that these meetings can initiate their finalization with maximum visibility for community is very sensible and practicable approach. · Greg Shatan: It is important for us to recognize that the work in the sub-groups cannot advance if people do not participate. It is important to have active participation on the list and in Google docs between meetings. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I have a certain difficulty in planning too much ahead given the present uncertainty regarding the whole process · Avri Doria: it is hard to get people to focus on WS2 while WS1 remains only a possibility · Thomas Rickert: There is effectively little interest in most sub-groups currently. Most participants seem to be waiting to see something to comment on vs writing something. · Christopher Wilkinson: Agree we need more participation in the sub-groups, its not fatigue its just a mountain of work. · Avri Doria: Blank sheets of paper are an insurmountable problem for many people. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): clear the overall situation and then we will be able to set clear deadlines · Mark Carvell (UK GAC rep): Much of WS2 are key enhancements and strengthening of the ICANN model that need to be developed anyway regardless of current political uncertainty. · Jeff Neuman: And there is a lot of other substantive work going on in the ICANN community at the moment. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Jeff is right · Tijani Ben Jemaa: need to focus on what is required of WS2 by WS1. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I would be interested in having figures about the engagement from the community - volunteer fatigue is melting active participants to a reduced group. · Jeff Neuman: @jorge, and my fear is that the community has fatigue on the non-policy issues that ICANN is engaged in. In other words, ICANN is supposed to coordinate substantive policy.....but we have spent the last 18 months+ on procedural accountability issues. What good is an incredibly accountable organization if it cannot perform the substantive tasks it was formed to do. · Thomas Rickert: ACTION ITEM: Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today. Unless rapporteurs can deliver a paper 3 weeks prior to Hyderabad we need to do something else. One option could be to do interviews with leaders by staff to write down positions? Minor support and no objection. This is optional and sub-groups that want to use this should advise us of this. · Jeff Neuman: Lots of substantive issues on ICANN's plate now: RDDS/WHois, New gTLD Reviews, SUbsequent Procedures, Rights Protection Mechanisms, Privacy Proxy, Universal Acceptance / Awareness, etc. · Michael Karanicolas: Personally - I'd rather draft something myself than provide input by phone. · Niels ten Oever: Is there staff capacity for that? Sounds good to me! Would save a lot of time. · Sebastien Bachollet: I we agree to this schedule we should stick to it. · Thomas Rickert: No opposition to using the new project plan and ensure that we follow it. 4. Update on Action Item from 30 August Plenary · Karen Mulberry: There are meetings on the 9th. · Sebastien Bachollet: the last day is for the new bodies only. 5. WS2 Budget Update and Travel to ICANN 57 Hyderabad · Bernard Turcotte: (Presentation of slides) · Tijani Ben Jemaa: Rules are different at each embassy. · Alan Greenberg: Varies greatly from one country to another for an Indian visa - very complex. · Kavouss Arasteh: this visa caused issues for many. ICANN should come to some arrangements with countries it holds events in. 6. WS1 WP-IOT-IOT (IRP Implementation Oversight Team) · Becky Burr: (Presentation of the slides). First issue is the application of subsequent modifications rules of existing IRPs. · Avri Doria: Support and explanation of some details regarding the alternative. · Kavous Arasteh: Normally rules are not retroactively applied - but in this case I would support this. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I'm not sure whether others feel the same, but without having some prior info in writing on the issues explained by Becky and Avri it is extremely difficult to follow. · Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge, yes ,it is difficult but the way it has been drafted is quite understandable · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Thanks for that clarifications Becky and Thomas · David McAuley (RySG) 2: I was active in the sub-team discussions and this alternative seems a fair compromise of the positions stated. · Becky Burr: Next is Deadline to file, There are several alternatives. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): under the current rules there seems to be a short timeframe for filing, but it is only triggers if you have or should have awareness. In the new alt 2 24 months would be a hard stop: even if you have no clue you would not be able to file a dispute if you gain awareness afterwards... · Malcolm Hutty: The issue is that we have different disputes, originally there were only process disputes and claimants usually know very quickly if there is an issue. but under the new rules there are also claims vs ICANN following its own Bylaws which is different. As such Alternative 2 is not good. Would be ok for a fixed delay for procedural claims. The 45 days seems a very tight timeline - does this make sense for the EC to make a claim. · Chris Disspain: Malcolm, how do you ensure that folks do not take actions over time that make them effected so that they can bring a claim and could you give me an example of something that would require your formulation? · Chris Wilson: some statute of limitations for all claims makes sense. · Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Malcolm's point about the EC decision process is quite compelling · Greg Shatan: Agree with Chris, there needs to be some finality. · David McAuley: Have agreed that 45 days is too short but support Alternative 2. We need some finality. · Kavouss Arasteh: Malcolm, you said 45 days is too short. what time frame in your view is not short · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): on the other hand an absence of a statute of limitations weakens legal certainty · Alan Greenberg: @Malcom, what deadline for filing would you propose for a harm that is delayed? · Greg Shatan: I could see expanding the 45 days, at least for the EC. · Greg Shatan: I support Alternative 2. · Becky Burr: Please note that the 45 days is tolled once CEP is initiated, so as a practical matter you only need to signal. Any other views? · Alan Greenberg: Alos support Alternative 2 - there has to be finality. · Malcolm Hutty: If we are agreeing to a fixed time then we are doing something different from a court and is not compatible with the Bylaws. alternative depends on a watchful community but someone may not be harmed and therefore cannot file. · Kavouss Arasteh: Perhaps 24 months may be argued to be too long? · Chris Wilson: For sure! But 2 years is a long time, IMO. · Chris Disspain: my preference would be fewer than 24 but I can accept it if that is the consensus view · Kavouss Arasteh: Could be change 24 by 12 months? · Chris Disspain: that would be better in my view Kavouss · Kavouss Arasteh: I have not seen in any analogous case putting such a long period like 24 months · Chris Disspain: all of these things are a balance and need to be both accommodating and workable · Becky Burr: but anyone could apply for a name, be denied, and challenge - so I’m not moved by the no standing - the potential lack of motivation is a legitimate concern. · David McAuley (RySG) 2: +1 @Chris · Greg Shatan: 24 months seems an acceptable compromise. Kavous · s Arasteh: Supports alternative 2 but not more than 12 months. · David McAuley (RySG) 2: it is a difficult thing to calculate but the IoT seemed to think 24 months is right if alternative 2 is used · Chris Disspain: it is the members of the community to have to work most closely within the ICANN framework....especially the contracting parties...they are entitled to a degree of certainty about position so that they can get on with what they need to do · Greg Shatan: I think 24 months is appropriate. I see calls for longer and shorter times, which indicates we got it right. · Becky Burr: Seem to be gravitating towards Alternative 2 with some time. third issue is Cross Examination of Witnesses at hearings. · David McAuley: Support alternative 1 strongly. The panel needs to be given a reasonably high bar to avoid trials each time. · Kavouss Arasteh: Prefer Alternative 2 but could live with Alternative 1. · Greg Shatan: do not really support any of these. If we have witnesses, we need to be able to cross examine. · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): If the role of the hearings gains weight it is important to also consider flexibilities as to venue and language · Edward Morris: Excellent point David. I also support alternative 1. · Becky Burr: Jorge, those issues will be decided going forward, not as part of the supplemental rules update · Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Agree Jorge, the very principle of witnesses and cross examination has implications on the ability to remain accessible to all and provide level playing field for non English speaking parties · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): thanks Mathieu - that's it - and the venue also plays a role · Becky Burr: No more inputs. · Thomas Rickert: Adjourned. Documents · CCWG WS2 Final v2 Plenary 20Sept2016.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61607486/CCWG%20WS2%20Fina…>

1 0

Update on the Status of the Transition Negotiations In Congress
by Paul Rosenzweig Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

As there was much interest yesterday, I thought I would share this update from the Washington Post on negotiations regarding the US budget and their effect on the IANA transition: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/20/senate-leaders-s ay-they-are-close-to-deal-to-prevent-government-shutdown-provide-zika-funds/ FWIW, in my opinion the Post is more or less our "home town" newspaper and tends to have solid sourcing for articles like this. Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 O: + 1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/

5 6

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #7 - 19 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #7 – 19 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAC4Aw 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 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #7_ 19 September @ 05:00 UTC The meeting will be recorded. *6 will mute and unmute your phone lines. Apologies: Susan Payne Agenda: Meeting #7 of the Work Stream 2 DT Ombuds. • Roll Call / Apologies – Welcome – Opening Remarks • Action Items from our last call #6 • Discuss the document (V5) • Report to the plenary of the ccwg WS2 • Next Meeting • AOB Notes (includes relevant parts of chat): Meeting #7 of the Work Stream 2 DT Ombuds. Roll Call / Apologies – Welcome – Opening Remarks · Sebastien Bachollet: 7 participants. No other special points. Action Items from our last call #6 · Sebastien Bachollet: will review in the draft document. Discuss the document (V5) · Sebastien Bachollet: Update on Bylaws update regarding the Ombuds office. · Asha Hemrajani: clarification regarding PTi being a subsidiary or an affiliate - ICANN legal counsel has agreed to affiliate and not subsidiary. Second point relating to PTI Bylaws vs Ombudsman - ICANN legal counsel does not believe there is a need to modify the PTI bylaws to include the Ombudsman. there could be other modifications to allow the Ombudsman to work with PTI. · Herb Waye: more of a communications objective would be fine. · Sebastien Bachollet: All these inputs are already in the document. Do we consider the request of the CWG on naming functions for PTI. As to the Bylaws I would like to be certain this is ok and would suggest we discuss this with the CCWG. My personal preference is that we need more than just update the website and we do not modify the Bylaws we should modify the Framework of the Ombuds. · Herb Waye: We should look at the definition of affiliate and see if it is inclusive for the ICANN community which could be enough. · Asha Hemrajani: Would support including in the Ombudsman Framework. Definition of affiliate (read by AH). · Sebastien Bachollet: would be great if you could send to the list so we can include it in the document. Any other input. · Chris LaHatte: put in simple terms, PTI is part of the ICANN community and therefore within jurisdiction. · Herb Waye Ombuds: The Office has always leaned towards inclusiveness · Chris LaHatte: we have a broad church approach :-) · Sebastien Bachollet: (went over questions in the document). Need inputs on these questions in the document. · Herb Waye: We could bring in an external expert to do a review if this would be acceptable to the group - we could share the costs for this. · Asha Hemrajani: re an external expert we need to have quotations and a clear mandate before proceeding so we have a budget for this. · Sebastien Bachollet: I am unclear if we need an expert or not - I will bring this back to the CCWG later today. · Herb Waye Ombuds: It is also something I can fund as a review of the office is common practice and something that needs to be done frequently as part of the framework. · Sebastien Bachollet: Questions regarding the Diversity Office and the Election Office vs Ombuds office. · Herb Waye Ombuds: Diversity possibly... Elections not so sure. Need more analysis · Chris LaHatte: we can look at failure of process in an election but not being in charge of elections · Herb Waye Ombuds: Agree Chris · Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just want to point out we have to remain open to dependencies and inter-dependencies throughout our mandate given some of the other groups have not even started. · Sebastien Bachollet: Fully agree and just wanted to get the ball going. Report to the plenary of the ccwg WS2 · Sebastien Bachollet: Will raise the issue of coordination, PTI, Review (ATRT2). Any other points. Next Meeting · Monday September 26th 1300UTC. AOB · Herb Waye: Participation could be brought up at the prep and CCWG meetings. · Sebastien Bachollet: Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #3 - 14 Sept
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #3 – 14 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/shusAw 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 (BT): Relevant web pages: General Jurisdiction wiki https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction This meeting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61610930 1. Welcome, attendance, SOIs, etc. Vinay Kesari: no changes. 2. ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A, particularly #7 Greg Shatan: (from the ICANN response) Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition?No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California. Vinay Kesari: any comments? Tijani Ben Jemaa: What is the value of this for our work? This does not seem to add anything for us. Christopher Wilkinson: Concerned with the activities of the Sidley law form - codifying the relationships between all parts of ICANN seems to be significantly too much. This would be a cause for thinking of moving from the US jurisdiction. Erich Schweighofer: Christopher Wilkinson is right: a benevolent jurisdiction without much interference is a key element. Tatiana Tropina: I never thought that tjis group in the WS2 was supposed to discuss the issue of the ICANN jurisdiction as a corporation... Pedro da Silva: ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A is unclear if this is the position of the community or a single Board member. Question 7 should not be relevant to our discussion. Jeff Neuman: I have to admit I am lost. I am only paying attention to WS2 items so if there are other documents I need to review, can we please post those docs Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Bylaws and Articles have ALWAYS said California corporation and location. We didn't change that. But we did give the empowered community the ability to block bylaws change, and to approve any change to the Articles. Kavous Arasteh: We should not be discussing this Q&A question as it is misleading. Tijani Ben Jemaa: let us focus on working on our draft document. Vinay Kesari: The Q&A question 7 is relevant input. Greg Shatan: All CWG related issues should be out of scope for this group. Kavous Arasteh: Agree with respect to CWG. Pedro da Silva: Why misleading - because it limits the issue of jurisdiction to California law and brings no new information to our discussion. Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Pedro -- jurisdiction of ICANN's contracts can be specified in the contract. Not the same thing as ICANN's place of location Gerg Shatan: Is jursidiction oof headquarters of ICANN a topic for this group? Pedro da Silva: Yes - it is important no to pre-judge the answers to the multi-layer discussions. Jeff Neuman: I do not believe that the place of incorporation is in scope for this subgroup Tatiana Tropina: I also don't believe that the place of incorporation is for this group to decide . Jeff Neuman: As Mr. Marby said during the testimony today, ICANN's entired new structure and empowered community is all based on California and California law. If we deviate from that, then ICANN's entire model and everything we have worked on for the past number of years gets thrown out the window. Greg Shatan: Obviously there is a difference of opinion on this and we should note that this is an open question which we will have to resolve soon. Robin Gross: Jeff and Tatiana are right. We can't redo all those reforms at this point. Kavous Arasteh: Location of ICANN head office is not open for discussion. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we do not need to be so absolute - the current location is a fact. We always said we would look at whether that means any problem. If there is such a problem, that does not mean that we suddenly change the location, but that we look for solutions that are reasonable... Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: All I am defending is an open approach to this topic and thereby not antecipate any results. Edward Morris: Section 24.1 of the new Bylaws puts the place of business in Los Angeles, California but does allow for the establishent of offices elsewhere. Tijani Ben Jemaa: This Q&A is not relevant to our work let us focus on our work. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): anyway, the present and real location of ICANN is a place called "adobe connect" :P 3. Scope discussion: - Continue Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup) Greg Shatan: we need to increase contributions. Kavous Arateh: what do you mean by gaps. Greg Shatan: this language is in Recommendation 12 from the WS1 report. Jeff Neuman: Remove BUT NOT NECESSARILY and agree that we cannot get into where ICANN is incorporated. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm not sure whether this subgroup is empowered to change the "job description" established by the full CCWG... that's why I always suggested to start with annex 12 and its wording, without picking and choosing from it. Jeff Neuman: Perhaps a better way to state this is "What are the issues that arise due to the current jurisdiction in which ICANN is located"? jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would agree with that Pedro da Silva: what is the difference between the accountability requirements from WS1 vs the implementation. Also we cannot change the scope provided to us by the full CCWG. We need to consider all aspects of jurisdiction. Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But as said, location is one aspect - the venue and character of the arbitration mechanisms and litigation venues, as well as the applicable law to disputes would be important issues Jeff Neuman: Can you point me to the exact location in the WS1 final report which states that we remain open to consider the place where ICANN is incorporated? Greg Shatan: there are obviously two views vs location of incorporation. We may have to bring this back to the plenary if we cannot resolve this ourselves. We have two significant issues we need to continue to discuss: Should the scope include where ICANN is incorporated and what a GAP analysis would be in this case. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree with Greg: some questions, especially if they mean to change text agreed by the CCWG and the community as a whole in Marrakech, at least need to go to the plenary Jeff Neuman: And my proposal is that we do not talk more about the incorporation for the reasons Mr. Marby testified today Jeff Neuman: And because that would overturn everything we have done for the past several years Kavouss Arasteh: If we recosider the location all assumption based on which the " Sigle Designator2 was adopted will disappear and we would be sent back to square one Pedro da Silva: People seem to be concerned that we even discuss this - we need to understand how ICANN's jursidiction interferes with its work. Kavouss Arasteh: Location of ICANN IS DIFFERNT FROM JURISDICTION Jeff Neuman: @Kavouss - agreed. And that is not the same thing as "place of incorporation" Jeff Neuman: But I do not believe we can or should touch incorporation jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): First is to assess problems - of all kinds. Second is looking to meaningful, reasonable means to adress such problems... Tijani Ben Jemaa: Why do we keep working with Google docs which is not acceptable to all. We should work on the Wiki. Also we need to start on the multi-layer jurisdiction. We need to agree on the layers. Greg Shatan: We can try to Wiki tool for one aspect such - maybe GAP analysis. - Commence Discussion of draft Scope/Focus Google doc (to be circulated) 4. Other Potential Inputs to our Work: - More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks (summarized in Staff Paper) - Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope) - Experts/Legal Advice 5. AOB 6. Upcoming Meetings Greg Shatan: next meeting is 21 Sept. 1300UTC 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

1 0