October 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

D
by amack Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for CCWG Accountability Plenary #24 | 18 October 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Hello all, You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Plenary Meeting #24 – 18 October 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/xyUhB The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call). A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D3482F.2AB71260] Action Items: * Staff to prepare Ombuds draft recommendation for public consultation * Staff to schedule second reading of the Transparency final recommendations for 27 October plenary. * Co-Chairs to consider various suggestions made as to the way forward for the Jurisdiction report and post their decision to the list. Raw Caption Notes * Word doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69281223/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69281223/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * Ombudsman second reading of the draft recommendations– Approved, no objections can proceed to public comment. * Transparency first reading of the final recommendations – Approved no objections. Can proceed to second reading. * HR-FOI second reading of the final recommendations – Approved no objections. Can be included in the final WS2 recommendations. * Jurisdiction first reading of draft recommendations – Approved with Brazil and Parminder objecting. Co-Chairs will consider way forward to second reading and post their decision to the list. Requests: * (none) Documents * WS2-Plenary-20171018-Slides-V1.4BT<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69281223/WS2-Plenary-20171…>

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Okay that's helpful information Milton. Thanks Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 18, 2017 10:03 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: Seun said: If I may, how does our recommendation serve as improvement from the status quo? I mean what category of applicants will start to feel the positive impact of our recommendation? The answer is that SDNs are a very small number of people who are singled out for sanctions (e.g., a known war criminal), whereas most sanctions apply to all nationals of the sanctioned country; e.g. all registrars, all registry applicants and all domain name registrants. So there is a huge improvement if sanctions are removed from ordinary domain name registrants but a few SDNs are excepted. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. *During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.* I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan *Rapporteur*

3 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Plenary Reading of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report
by Paul Rosenzweig Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Please note my apology for the Plenary meeting tomorrow. I will be on a plane somewhere over the eastern seaboard of the United States. Please accept this note as my reflecting my full support for the two recommendations presented by the subgroup and the expression of my hope that the Plenary will accept them for first reading and agree to them as final recommendations at the second reading in Abu Dhabi (which I will also be unable to attend). I also join fully in Milton Mueller’s observation that the minority dissenting reports are not really dissents (in the sense of objecting to the actual recommendations made) but are more properly characterized as lamentations that the work of the subgroup did not reach a broader consensus for what the proponents perceive as even more substantive reform. I opposed their proposals in the subgroup as impractical and unwise and continue to do so now. To the extent the Plenary considers these dissents I would urge that their concerns be tabled and that the plenary move forward with the consensus recommendations before it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> &search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 11:37 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Plenary Reading of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report All, I'd like to remind you that at the upcoming CCWG-Accountability Plenary on October 18 at 19:00 UTC, there will be a first reading of the draft recommendations. If it passes this first reading, it will be presented for a second reading at the Face-to-face meeting on 27 October. If it fails to pass a second reading at the 27 October meeting, it cannot be included in the final report. If it fails to pass a first reading at the 18 October meeting it would require exceptional circumstances to have it pass a second reading at the 27 October meeting. Please attend the Plenary session so that your views are heard, and so you can hear the views of other members of the Plenary. Greg

3 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

FWIW, I actually don't think a Yes or No response will be applicable to the questions as written. It could have been written as: Do you think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services? ...... Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 18, 2017 5:03 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: > Parminder (and Thiago) > > I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit > of a simple Yes or No answer: > > > > 1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC > license for DNS services? > > 2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told > by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC > sanctions? > > 3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC > license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it? > > 4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition > to the contracted parties’ contracts? > > > > If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the > subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the > status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the > consensus recommendations. > > > > Looking forward to your answers. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < > thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org; gac(a)icann.org; GAC <gac(a)gac.icann.org>; > ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. > Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For > consideration by the CCWG. > > > > > > > > On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have > come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with > the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that > there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the > recommendations are not enough for them. > > > This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a > whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not > otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple > pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it > constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still > be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. > (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will > know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar > dilemma.) > > A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it > says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt > one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that > some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have > been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address > key issues of the mandate given to the group. > > Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great > humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is > formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world > community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly > under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this > jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very > significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global > governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, > like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to > maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, > without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt > to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would > certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the > committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar > is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction > sub-group's report.. > > parminder > > > > > > So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve > consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on > jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could > never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this > report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of * > parminder > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM > *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br> > <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org; gac(a)icann.org; GAC <gac(a)gac.icann.org> > <gac(a)gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. > Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For > consideration by the CCWG. > > > > Dear All > > Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now > includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single > document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. > > This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, > assuming that it continues to function. > > Best regards > > parminder > > > > On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear All > > I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the > required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft > recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly > consider them. > > My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about > what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first > expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, > detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus > justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required > elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. > > Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to > the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's > behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 > hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus > within the deadline I hope. > > Best regards, parminder > > > > On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of > Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the > jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by > the CCWG plenary. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Thiago > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican > n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] > *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 > *Para:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction > *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for > CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review > > All, > > > > One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the > document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in > fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and > Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was > correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. > > > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > All, > > > > Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted > from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each > page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. > > > > Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! > > > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > All, > > > > I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for > consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. > > > > It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be > submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary > separately from the Draft Report. > > > > *During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup > considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a > potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business > with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this > registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian > nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has > concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the > concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the > Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any > way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup > will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.* > > > > I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg Shatan > > *Rapporteur* > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20171018-AgendaV1.2
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

All, Given we do have the Transparency report and that we do not expect to raise significant issues with the plenary we have modified the agenda to have the first reading of the Transparency final report after the second reading of the Ombuds draft recommendations. We would close out readings with Human Rights and Jurisdiction (new agenda below). This would allow us to have a maximum of time for Jurisdiction while allowing other reports to be considered by the plenary. Given we do have to complete a first reading of the Jurisdiction report at the 18 October plenary we would also like to advise everyone that if necessary we will extend the meeting to allow us to complete this. Currently the meeting is scheduled for 19:00 to 21:00 UTC but we would ask plenary participants to allow for an extra 15 minutes if required. Thank you. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 ====================================================== *Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 18 October 19:00 to 21:15 UTC* 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration 3.1. ICANN 60. 3.1.1. Face to Face plenary is Friday 27 October 8:30 to 17:00 local time (04:30 – 13:00 UTC) 3.1.2. Hight interest presentation on WS2 Monday 30 October 10:30 - 12:00 local time (06:30 – 08:00 UTC). 3.1.2.1. *Note we need to have 1 rapporteur per sub-group present at this session to answer questions from the community*. 3.1.2.2. Rapporteurs please confirm your presence to staff by Thursday 19 October 23:59 UTC. 3.1.2.3. In cases where there are co-rapporteurs please confirm to staff which co-rapporteur will be delegated to answer questions with your confirmation of presence. 3.2. ICANN 61 3.2.1. Reminder we will hold the usual pre-conference face to face on 9 March 3.2.2. Reminder of funding rules. 3.2.3. Confirmation of travel funding dates: 3.2.3.1. Begin accepting applications Thursday 12 October 3.2.3.2. Close applications Sunday 19 November 23:59 UTC 3.2.3.3. Submit final list to ICANN Monday 27 November 4. Legal Committee Update 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). 5. Second reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group 6. First reading of the final recommendations of the Transparency sub-group 7. Second reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group. 8. First Reading of the draft recommendation of the Jurisdiction sub-group. 9. AOB 10. Next Plenaries 10.1. Friday 27 October face to face – all day 11. Adjournment

4 4

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20171018-AgendaV1.2 - Human Rights FOI - Compromise Language
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

All, In case you missed the original message from Greg Shatan here is compromise language for the HR-FOI Final Report which is acceptable to all - attached below. This meets the request of the Co-Chairs from the 11 October plenary that the parties try to achieve a compromise which would remove the need for a minority position in the Final Report. The Co-Chairs would like to thank all the participants involved in reaching this consensus which clearly demonstrates the value of having all participants working collaboratively and in good faith to reach recommendations which represent as broad a consensus as possible. The Co-Chairs also look forward to the plenary swiftly approving the HR-FOI Final Report. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Transparency-FinalReport
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

All, Please find attached the final report of the Transparency subgroup in PDF (clean and red-lined) which is being presented for a first reading at the 18 October plenary. Although it did not meet the formal deadline for submission for that plenary it was still accepted because 1 these recommendations were already presented to the plenary in January and 2 the revised version submitted here has few significant changes (see red-line). Given these points and the fact that the changes made address most of the public comment made it is also expected that the plenary will not require a second public consultation. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelFunding-ICANN61-Announcement
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

All, ** The CCWG-Accountability has travel funding for some Members and Rapporteurs to attend the Face to Face meetings held the day prior to an ICANN meeting who do not have any other funding available to them to attend. Members are those individuals that are specifically appointed by the chartering SO/ACs to the CCWG-Accountability - the list of Members can be found at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59640780 . Rapporteurs are those listed as such on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Wiki for specific sub-groups located at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+SubGroup+Topics. Please see the attached policy for details regarding this funding. If you are not a Member or a Rapporteur, please do not apply as there is a very limited number of seats available. The next Face to Face meeting of the CCWG-accountability will be held on Friday 9 March 2017 in conjunction with ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico. . Those Members and Rapporteurs wishing to be considered for travel funding should fill out the attached form and submit it by Sunday 19 November 23:59 UTC to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org. The funding is for the Face- to- Face meeting, which can include airfare, hotel and a per-diem allocation for meals for attending the Face to Face meeting only (and not the full ICANN meeting). However, in analyzing the requests the Co-Chairs will consider requests for partial funding (such as only an additional day of hotel and per diem to attend the Face to Face meeting) in order to maximize participation. As such Members are encouraged to only apply for what they need to allow for funding as many Members and Rapporteurs as possible. The final decisions on travel funding will be made by the Co-Chairs and published on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support within 3 days of the application period closing (a confirmation of the posting will be sent to the CCWG email list). Those being supported will then be contacted by ICANN Travel using the standard ICANN travel funding process to arrange details. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the CCWG-Accountability support staff at Acct-Staff(a)icann.org . Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs. ======================================= ** *CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Supported Travel Request Form* You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG-Accountability only if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are an officially listed Rapporteur for a WS2 sub-group. The CCWG Co-Chairs will review the applications received, including the requests for partial support, and determine the list of approved CCWG members who will receive travel funding. The CCWG approved travel support list will be submitted to ICANN Constituency Travel for processing according to community travel guidelines Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency travel guidelines located at: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home CCWG appointed Members or rapporteurs requesting consideration by the Co-Chairs for travel support to attend a face-to-face meeting must complete and submit the travel request form by the stipulated deadline in order to be considered for funding. Applicant Identification ======================== Name: Chartering Org or Rapporteur for which WS2 Group: Email address: Date of Request: Other sources of support ======================== Please indicate if you are receiving travel support from another organization to attend the ICANN meeting I am receiving support from another organization (yes or no): If you are not receiving support from another organization, please proceed to “Support requested from CCWG-Accountability”. If you are receiving support, please provide the information requested below: Name of the Organization(s) providing the support: Indicate type of support and how many days the support is provided (BY FUNDING ORGANIZATION): Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days): Support requested from CCWG-Accountability =========================================== Please indicate the type of travel support (including the number of days) you are seeking from the CCWG for WS2 – please remember this is only for attending the Face to Face meeting and is not for the entire ICANN meeting. Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days):

2 1