- Accountability-Cross-Community

XPLANE - comments please
by Adam Peake May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Hi everyone, XPLANE are working to improve the graphics you saw on the call and would appreciate any feedback. Any corrections, comments or ideas on how best to display the board removal/recall? The IRP has been mentioned as the "crown jewels" of the CCWG's work - are the graphics a good representation of what the group is proposing? Thank you, Adam

1 0

Regarding mailing list discussions about the existing MOU between the IETF and ICANN with respect to the IANA functions
by Bruce Tonkin May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Hello Steve DelBianco, In response to your post on the subject of the IANA transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF dated 1 March 200 with respect to the IANA functions already includes a termination clause. From: https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en " This MOU will remain in effect until either modified or cancelled by mutual consent of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or cancelled by either party with at least six (6) months notice" There is no refusal to continue to provide services to the IETF under the current arrangements. There is a supplemental agreement between ICANN and the IETF that defines the commitments, services, and tasks ICANN undertakes to fulfil the IANA services on behalf of the IETF: http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-E… This agreement is subject to annual review. My understanding is that the IETF has asked to incorporate some changes as they relate to termination following the discussions within the IETF on the IANA transition. The ICANN staff feel that some of the changes are in conflict with the current agreement been ICANN and NTIA, and should happen after the NTIA has considered the final proposals from the community. I think there are two scenarios after the NTIA considers the community proposals: (1) The NTIA agrees to transfer stewardship to the community - and we start working on the various legal arrangements to support that (2) The NTIA wants to retain stewardship – in which case we may request changes to the NTIA contract based on the community proposals and then adjust existing arrangements accordingly As far as I am aware – the response so far has been to wait until the process is complete, before changing legal arrangements. In terms of operational improvements – they should continue to be improved based on feedback from the users under the current arrangements, and these improvements could be incorporated into the supplemental agreement. The bottom line is that ICANN will continue to provide and improve its services to the IETF as it has for the past 15 years, and if the IETF is unhappy they already have the right to terminate with 6 months notice. There seems to be confusion between the annual process to update the existing supplementary agreement between ICANN and the IETF - with the overall IANA stewardship transition process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Fwd: Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Robin Gross April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Forwarding Milton Mueller's response upon request. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > "These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process" > > Unqoute > Please kindly before making it more cotraversial, kindly advise the official and formal announcemnertt of the above, > > MM: Kavouss, your comment reveals that you do not understand the situation. ICANN has made no formal announcement about its position regarding RIR and IETF contracts, and _that is precisely the problem_. We learned about these problems from a public report on private discussions made by a CRISP team member who has met with ICANN legal to discuss the CRISP proposal. If ICANN had made an official and formal announcement, we would know a lot more about who we are dealing with, what their position is, any why. Thus, it is pointless for you to insist on an “official and formal announcement” before action can be taken. > > 2. You also stating that > Quote > " these proposals were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria" > Unquote > I do not recall that ICG has ever formally approved any proposals.They were submitted discussed, several questions raised which have been recently replied but the replies were not examined by ICG. .Consequently I do not agree with that statement. > > MM: The proposals were reviewed. No challenges to their completeness or their consensus status were upheld. A potential compatibility issue raised by the RIR/CRISP proposal to deal with IANA-related intellectual property and domain was resolved. But it is true that we have not completed our review, because we do not have the names proposal yet. > > 3. You also stated that > "Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal* > > This is your impression which are not shared by the ICG. > > MM: I did not claim to speak for ICG, but for you to say this view “is not shared by the ICG” makes it seem as if you are speaking for ICG. In fact, all ICG members who have expressed a view on this issue have agreed that it is a concern, although not all would use my direct language. Everyone who has spoken up so far has called for a statement to be made by ICG calling for transparency. You are the only person who is trying to cover up the problem. No one has supported your view. It is your view that, quite literally, is not shared by the ICG. > > 4. You understood that > > "The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries." > This is agin your interpretation. > Nothing has yet been discussed not decided whether each OC would have its own IANA Function operator separately or commonly > We should not jump intop any conclusions . > > MM: Of course this is my interpretation. Is it correct? The issue of separability has been discussed extensively in all three communities. You incorrectly think of it as a question of whether each OC will have a separate IANA function operator. All communities could have the right to terminate their contract without necessarily splitting into three distinct IANA functions operators. For numbers and protocols, it already has been decided that they will have the right to have their own IFO and the right to terminate the contract. > > 5.You did indicate > Quote > " Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition" > Unquote , > OPlease point me toward the expilic decision or conclusion of CWG on that issue. > > MM: I see you are not well informed about the CWG. > See Annex C in the current draft proposal of the CWG. > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-… > Principle 9 says: “Separability: any proposal must ensure the ability: > i. To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line > with agreed processes; > ii. To convene a process for selecting a new IANA Functions Operator; and > iii. To consider separability in any future transfer of the IANA Functions > > 6. You indicated > Quote > " Separabilityand was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one" > Unquote. > Pls provide formal statement by ICANN that they do not wish to maintain the current arrangement with or without reasons > Then we will reveiew their standing position and then comment > > MM: See my answer to your first point above. >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from Holly Gregory
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Hi Holly, Yes. Just forwarded it to both lists. Thanks, León > El 30/04/2015, a las 15:17, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> escribió: > > Leon, can you have this posted? > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>) > > From: Fuller, Miles > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 02:20:03 PM > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Gregory, Holly > Subject: Re: Message from Holly Gregory > > Dear Legal Sub-Team, > > Per your request, attached please find: > > · The revised Sidley – Adler & Colvin Legal Assessment: Executive Summary, Summary Chart and Revised Governance Chart Memorandum. > · The Sidley – Adler & Colvin memorandum regarding unincorporated associations (please note that we are in the process of updating this memorandum to address issues raised in CCWG calls). > · The Sidley – Adler & Colvin Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms Preliminary Response to Legal Sub-Team Templates (WP2) memorandum which includes the Annex A IRP Memo. > > Best, > > MILES FULLER > Associate > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.213.896.6036 > wfuller(a)sidley.com <mailto:wfuller@sidley.com> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** >

1 0

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Change-Pro Comparison
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Forwarding this information from the lawyers for review and comment. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Re: [Acct-Legal] Change-Pro Comparison > Fecha: 30 de abril de 2015 12:33:04 GMT-5 > Para: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, "'ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org'" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com" <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Responder a: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > > > Dear Legal Sub-Team, > > Per your request, attached please find: > > · The revised Sidley – Adler & Colvin Legal Assessment: Executive Summary, Summary Chart and Revised Governance Chart Memorandum. > · The Sidley – Adler & Colvin memorandum regarding unincorporated associations (please note that we are in the process of updating this memorandum to address issues raised in CCWG calls). > · The Sidley – Adler & Colvin Legal Assessment: Proposed Accountability Mechanisms Preliminary Response to Legal Sub-Team Templates (WP2) memorandum which includes the Annex A IRP Memo. > > Best, > > MILES FULLER > Associate > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.213.896.6036 > wfuller(a)sidley.com <mailto:wfuller@sidley.com> > > From: Gregory, Holly > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:19 AM > To: 'ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org' > Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com; Sidley ICANN CCWG > Subject: FW: Change-Pro Comparison > > Dear Leon and Legal Sub-Team, > > Attached please find comments from Sidley and Adler & Colvin on the draft proposal. We suggest that you read the red line version attached. Also attached is a slightly revised chart for the appendix. > > Let us know if you would like to discuss any of our suggested revisions. > > Kind regards, Holly > > HOLLY J. GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> > > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

1 0

NomCom 6.6.5.g.2
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

This section currently reads: Alternatively, a special committee of the NomCom could be established to deal with removal petitions when they arise. Such a "Recall Committee" would have as chair a previous NomCom Chair and would otherwise be formulated on the same basis as the regular NomCom. Either option is legally viable. As mentioned by both Cheryl and I, the implications of "and would otherwise be formulated on the same basis as the regular NomCom" are vast and likely not what this group really needs. I would strongly suggest that the phrase be omitted. We could either defer the details of this alternative until after the public comment (and perhaps ask for input), or defer it until WS2. Also as noted, the sentence "Either option is legally viable." applies to both options 1 and 2 and should be the 2nd sentence of the base item g. Alan

3 4

Feedback requested - CCWG Engagement plan
by Mathieu Weill April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear all, As discussed, we are moving this discussion to the list as our time on the calls is pretty busy with more urgent matters. We have put together a proposed engagement plan to help disseminate and socialize the progress we have made to date. Attached and below you will find an outline of our suggested toolkit for your consideration. The engagement plan was essentially designed to help set the stage for our public comment period and prepare for discussions to be held at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. As we ran out of time on our call last week to discuss the plan, we would be very grateful if you could please share any objections or comments you may have by 16/04. Webinars Webinars are an excellent tool to walk interested individuals through our milestones and initial conclusions. Together with a Q&A, it is a great way to provide a comprehensive overview of our mandate, activities and collect some initial feedback to guide us through our next steps or identify areas that need clarification, if any. We suggest organizing a repeat session to accommodate all timezones. Webinars are recorded, transcribed and ICANN may also book language services, as deemed needed. We suggest locking 09:00-10:30 UTC and 18:00-19:30 UTC on Wednesday, 29 April. Interviews Interviews are a great way for us to share our unique perspectives and to explain the process in our own words. We suggest continuing this outreach effort as work evolves. Videos We suggest creating a video which would be a compilation of pods assembling storytelling information and progress updates using, among other things, excerpts from interviews, nteractive graphics to facilitate and deepen understanding of our work and of how it is bridged to other processes. The Xplane team would help translate the process into graphics. The video could be a good way to reach a broader audience. Mailing-List We would like to suggest setting up a mailing-list where anyone would be in a position to send feedback or comments on an ongoing basis. This list would be an additional avenue for the community to submit feedback. We suggest kicking this off after our public comment closes to allow for continuous feedback. This is a tool that has been very useful in some processes: the ATRT for instance. Members Activities led by members of the CCWG to update their respective memberships (and beyond) are of essence in socializing the work of the CCWG and Cochairs recognize all the efforts that are being conducted. It is a key component of the engagement plan altogether. Sharing discussions held with your communities and flagging issues that were brought up – if any – will help us prepare for the public comment period and proactively unearth some of the issues and concerns that might be raised to address them before our report is issued. Receiving this information will help us get a sense of what will be problematic and optimize the outcome of our public comment period. We look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Best regards Mathieu -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

3 4

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] FW: Change-Pro Comparison
by Mathieu Weill April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Forwarding this to the main CCWG list. This document includes the comments from Sidley and Adler & Colvin on the draft proposal we discussed in the call today. Many thanks to them for the swift turnaround. As discussed during the call, our goal remains to issue a new version of the document by 23.59 on 30 April, upon which your comments will be welcome until 23.59 on 1st May. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [Acct-Legal] FW: Change-Pro Comparison Date : Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:19:22 +0000 De : List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Répondre à : ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org Pour : 'ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org' <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Copie à : Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Dear Leon and Legal Sub-Team, Attached please find comments from Sidley and Adler & Colvin on the draft proposal. We suggest that you read the red line version attached. Also attached is a slightly revised chart for the appendix. Let us know if you would like to discuss any of our suggested revisions. Kind regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

.Africa IRP updates
by Jacob Malthouse April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear All, Head's up that there are some significant recent IRP updates on the .africa case showing substantial differences of view on how the process should be conducted: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dca-v-icann-2013-12-11-en The implications may be worth considering in how the RfR/IRP process is developed and stress-tested, notably in regard to witness statements and in-person hearings. Best regards, Jacob.

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document
by Robin Gross April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

I agree that we can delete it from the end of (f) in para 169, BUT the end of (d) where we explain the rationale for Alternative A should then say: d. "The rationale for Alternative A is that it gives the bulk of influence to the SOs, while guaranteeing a say for the ACs on an equal basis between them. It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN, which is rooted in the private sector." So the phrase is descriptive rather than duplicative, and belongs in (d) where the rationale for the suggestion is provided. Thanks, Robin On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > It’s fine for me Thomas. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert > Envoyé : jeudi 30 avril 2015 11:45 > À : Drazek, Keith > Cc : Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed text to add to public comment document > > All, > we had agreed earlier today to just delete the second half of the sentence, so in my view, the „private sector“ term is gone. > > see para 122 2.f.- the sentence would now read: > > a. . It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN. > > > > > and we deleted: > > and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector. > > > I hope that helps, > Thomas > > > > Am 30.04.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: > > I recall we had a lengthy discussion on the term "private sector" during our chartering process for the CCWG. It is not meant to exclude users or governments from participation. In this context, it is used to clarify that the management of assigned names and numbers is "not a governmental function." > > Regards, > Keith > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > I have a real problem with this. > > There is no doubt that the private sector has been a major and influential component since its inception, but it is similarly true that governments and users (albeit in varying models) have been an integral component of ICANN. Our roles may be different, but our roots go as deep, and the import of the public interest in ICANN cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. > > Alan > > At 28/04/2015 08:05 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > As requested in our call today, below is proposed text for various parts of the draft public comment document. > > Section 6.6.1.2 > p. 54 add to end of (f): > "It is therefore more closely aligned with the existing structure of ICANN and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector." > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0