March 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Meeting-FaceToFace-20170310 Reminder of submission dealine
by Bernard Turcotte March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

All, Simply a friendly reminder that any text to be considered by the plenary for input is due in just over 24 hours (23:59UTC 3 March). This date is for topics that require plenary input. Update presentations can be submitted later but staff would ask that you do so by 23:59 8 March to allow staff to build the various presentation documents. Thank You Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

TR: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17
by Mathieu Weill March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear Colleagues, During the last plenary, we had agreed to reach out to Icann Finance in order to better understand how to proceed with requesting an extension of our timeline. Please find below the response we have received from Xavier Calvez. In addition, Xavier has kindly clarified that the draft operating plan & budget to be published soon will not include any extension of support for our group, until we formally submit a request, which seems a reasonable approach to me. He also informed us that the allocation of staff support resources for our group beyond FY17 may affect ICANN’s ability to support some of the planned review teams in FY18. This is very important to keep in mind during our discussions and when we reach out to the SO/ACs. We will discuss our next steps during the Copenhagen F2F. Best Thomas, Leon & Mathieu De : Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Envoyé : mercredi 1 mars 2017 00:29 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : 'Bernard Turcotte'; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; 'ACCT-Staff'; Becky Nash; Theresa Swinehart Objet : Re: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17 Dear Mathieu, Thank for your question, and for seeking our input on this topic. Apologies for the delayed response. Our expectation of the process required is as follows. Some of the information required that is described below may already be available. Step 1: define the revised work plan of WS2, as extended into FY18 - List of subgroups active during FY18 - Milestones by subgroup, with timeline in FY18 - Number of face-to-face meetings if any - Estimate of legal or other advice if any - Estimate of language services (translation notably) if any The above will enable the PCST to produce an estimated impact of the extension. Please note that the extension would impact the Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget (“OP&B”), as well as the WS2 budget. As an illustration, the current assumption in the Draft FY18 OP&B is that WS2 will be completed as planned by June 2017, and therefore the ICANN staff currently supporting the WS2 work is allocated to other activities in FY18. Step 2: submit the extension request to the Chartering Organization, with appropriate rationale, inclusive of budgetary impact (resulting from Step 1 above), and obtain approval from all Chartering Organizations. Step 3: Inform the Board Finance Committee (should probably happen in parallel of Step 2). Step 4: Suggestion: submit the request for extension of WS2 as a public comment to the Draft FY18 OP&B. This would allow the CCWG to have a transparent record of the request and of its impact on the FY18 OP&B, and provide to the ICANN staff a transparent channel to offer an answer. It would also help ensure that the budgetary impact of the request for extension is linked to the OP&B process. The public comment period for the Draft FY18 OP&B begins 7 March and concludes 28 April. Step 5: If and when approval from the Chartering Organizations is obtained, a formal budgetary request should be made to ICANN, so that it is considered by ICANN Staff and the funding required, if any, is identified, and submitted for approval by the BFC. If this step would occur before the FY18 OP&B has been finalized (by early June) for Board approval (by end of June), then the Board would approve the FY18 OP&B with this request included (presuming funding has been identified). If this step would occur after the FY18 OP&B has been finalized, the Board would need to approve this request separately. Note that the CCWG should consider whether a consultation of the broader community on the request to extend the WS2 should occur or not, formally or not. It is not clear to me yet whether Step 4 would constitute such consultation. Your views would be welcome on this question. I hope this helpful, and I am happy to answer any further question you may have on the above. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 7:02 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, 'ACCT-Staff' <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, Becky Nash <becky.nash(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17 Dear Xavier, Dear PCST, During its plenary meeting on 8 February (https://community.icann.org/x/56jDAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> ), the CCWG-Accountability approved the following action items : • Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year. • Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering organizations regarding potential extension It appears, as you will certainly have noticed through our regular dashboards, that our current approximate level of progress is 33%, 7 months after the launch in Helsinki. While some sub groups are making solid progress, other discussions have required more time, and we need to account for one or even two public comment period for each of them. As such, our group will probably request an extension by a year (all through FY18). At this point, we do not foresee the costs under our “budget ownership” to exceed the budget initially estimated. Our intent is not to request any allocation of extra funds, but only to shift into FY17 what would not have been expensed during FY17. Consistent with the above decisions, we are turning to you and the PCST to inform you about this upcoming request for extension, and to seek your advice about the process we should follow in order to submit the request, not only to the Chartering Organizations, but also into ICANN’s budgetary planning process. Please let us know if you need a call to discuss this. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 1 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #22 – 21 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CKPRAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D292D8.89D1E070] Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Notes (including relevant parts of the chat): 15 participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - any modifications? (none). Kavouss Arasteh (15 minutes into the call) - lodging complaint about trouble being completed. Also, please speak slowly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was only just connected to audio/phone as well Kavouss there were obviously complications 3. Administration (5 minutes) 3.1. Questions to ICANN Legal – Status of Legal Committee Greg Shatan - Leon Sanchez has forwarded our questions to CCWG-Acct Legal comm. 3.2. Hypotheticals document – Propose suspending the work until ICANN Legal responds to the questions. Parminder - this is a slightly different than what has been asked but they may be sequential. Greg Shatan - any other comments? (none). Documents will remain open for comments and people can contribute to them in the meantime we take them up again as a group. Any objection? (none). David McAuley (RySG): support that Greg Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 3.3. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Propose suspending the work until this group completes the review of ICANN’s past and current litigation which will inform the development of that document. Parminder - similar nature to my comment on 3.2. Would ask to keep this document open since review of litigation is not all the information for this document. Greg Shatan - Agree with Parminder and as per previous point the document will remain open for comments. Any objections? (none). Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 4. Questionnaire Update (20 minutes) 4.1. Method for processing responses 4.1.1. Rolling review of responses – Propose new responses to the questionnaire to be reviewed by the Jurisdiction sub-group at each meeting. Greg Shatan - Any objections (none). Parminder - Responses will be available to the sub-group. Greg Shatan – yes – they are posted on the Jurisdiction wiki as they come in. Decision: The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. 4.1.2. Proposal for a review team – Propose review team will be responsible for updating the sub-group on new responses and their status at each meeting as well as elaborating an evaluation framework for responses, for approval by the sub-group, based on the responses received. Greg Shatan - presentation of general expectations of review team. Kavouss Arasteh - Is sound ok now? suggest review team and evaluation team are separate but they should be balanced from all SOACs. Greg Shatan - Only one team. In terms of balance hoping we get volunteers from all groups. Mathieu Weill: Happy to help Mathieu Weill: Also, please all consider doing outreach about the questionnaire in your respective groups Greg Shatan - any objections? (none). David McAuley (RySG): sorry, let's label the RT as a pilot - the job might eat up the team's time so let's make it easy for them to seek relief. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion DM. Kavouss Arasteh: Blanced team Decision: The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. 4.1.3. Selection of the review team Greg Shatan - Volunteers? MW, Parminder, DM, KA, VMarda. Thank you. David McAuley (RySG): If these volunteers plan to be in Copenhagen maybe we can meet briefly. Action Item – staff to try to organize an informal meeting of the RT in Copenhagen. Mathieu Weill: +1 david. Good idea Kavouss Arasteh: May I propose that Mathieu coordinating the wroks of the team Mathieu Weill: Kavouss : thanks but that might be beyond my abilities And not very good to have too many hats Kavouss Arasteh: I do not thing any one oppose to my suggestion provided that mMathieu kindly agrees to that. Decision: Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. 4.2. Review of current responses in tool (document). Greg Shatan - Review of tool Kavouss Arasteh - Is there any threshold to make this valid? Greg Shatan - Good topic for the Review Team. We will also review these responses individually - this is not about voting - its more an information gathering process. Kavouss Arasteh - need wide representation on responses. Greg Shatan - depends on who responds. Any comments on the tool itself or the comments received to date? Kavouss Arasteh - deadline is 17 April - I wish to include the source of the information.and we should not forget the views of the minority. Greg Shatan - Reminder this is a questionnaire and not a survey - sources can be added - all of this is really details for the Review Team. Kavouss Arasteh - Source is important. David McAuley (RySG): good point, @Kavouss - Seun Ojedeji: I agree with Kavouss Greg Shatan - For the review team to consider. We need to give each response its due consideration to find facts - this what the questionnaire is about. David McAuley (RySG): Agree to let RT grapple with this first 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 5.1. Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Mathieu Weill: I'll look at Pool.com<http://pool.com/> (the only one in front of a non US court) Vidushi Marda: i can look at ruby glen Kavouss Arasteh - Please send a request on the list to get volunteers and give a week. Parminder may wish to volunteer for some. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion avri doria: i'll volunteer for Auerbach vs ICANN David McAuley (RySG): those picking cases here please be sure to put name in tool - so others don't duplicate work avri doria: what is the url for this sheet? Mathieu Weill: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… Action Items: · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases. 5.2. Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) Mathieu Weill: Was not really sure of choice of law / governing law so might need to add Parminder - It would be interesting on these cases if they are a matter of facts or principles - given we are considering jurisdiction vs ICANN policies. David McAuley (RySG): if we add to the form lets please write down what we are adding so reviewers are not guessing Greg Shatan - Good suggestion - under outcome. Lets also note if the court considered jurisdiction. Action Item: Will review the form. David McAuley (RySG): courts always "discuss" JX just to say they have it. Parminder: it is significant that court asserts jurisdiction, and full jurisdiction on different icann policy issues Philip Corwin: This is the litigation that ended with what was then the very controversial .com settlement Mathieu Weill - we need to make all the questions in the form crystal clear. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion. Kavouss Arasteh - I will have suggestions for this form. Two different type of judgements etc. Greg Shatan - Godd suggestion - please provide input on list. We have run out of time and will adjourn. Action Items: · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Summary of Decisions and Action Items: Decisions: · The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. · The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. · Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelSupport-ICANN59Johannesburg-25June2017-Announcement and Process
by Bernard Turcotte March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

The body of this email contains: - The announcement for Travel Funding Applications for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Face to Face at ICANN59 on 25 June 2017 - The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Travel Funding Policy - The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Travel Funding Application Form (Applications must be submitted by 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 March 2017) All, The CCWG-Accountability -WS2 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/di splay/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 25 June 2017 in conjunction with ICANN 59 in Johannesburg South Africa. Those Members and Rapporteurs wishing to be considered for travel funding should fill out the attached form and submit it by 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 March 2017 to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org. The funding is for the Face- to- Face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability WS2 , 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 CCWG-Accountability-WS2 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 CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs and published on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support within 7 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-WS2 *Updated Process for Expressions of Interest requesting CCWG Travel Support (December 2016)* The current budgeted amount to support the work of CCWG WS2 members allocates travel support (travel, hotel and per diem) for an amount equivalent to 20 appointed members or rapporteurs to attend only a CCWG face-to-face meeting. The Co-Chairs have the authority to re-allocate this amount – this could include supporting requests for partial funding to allow them to maximize the number of members attending (e.g. the requestor may ask for any or all of the following: airfare, and/or hotel and/or per diem) or to extend the stay of some key participants. You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are officially listed as a Rapporteur or Co-Rapporteur on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Wiki located at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICA NN+Accountability+Home . Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency Travel Guidelines located at: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency +Travel+Home The CCWG travel support slots will be allocated in priority as follows: CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs – 3 slots (or equivalent amount) CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organization Appointed Members CCWG-Accountability Rapporteurs CCWG appointed Members and 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. 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 as well as the availability of alternate funding to the applicant. CCWG Staff support will send out an announcement regarding the application for travel support and deadline for application submissions as soon as a face-to-face meeting has been approved. Applications to request travel support are located at: https://community.icann.org/di splay/WEIA/Travel+Support Completed forms can be sent to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org <Acct-Staff(a)icann.org> for submission to the Co-Chairs for review and approval. All applicants for CCWG WS2 travel support will be posted on the CCWG WS2 wiki under Travel Support. Names will be listed REQUESTED and once approved will be listed as APPROVED for travel support including the type of support that is approved. The 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. The approved list of funded CCWG members will be posted on the WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Suppor <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support>*t* =========================================================== 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-Accountability-WS2 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-Accountability-WS2 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-Accountability-WS2 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):

17 28