- Accountability-Cross-Community

FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
by Paul Rosenzweig April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

These may be of interest to the community Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Joelle Tessler [mailto:JTessler@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:07 PM To: Joelle Tessler Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit Washington, D.C. April 28, 2015 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-str ickling-internet2-global-summit --As Prepared for Delivery-- I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2's Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2's partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning. However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, "the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community." Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago. The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today? The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to "identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secret ary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1> [1]" >From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making. Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving. The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved. Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the "United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion." Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control. However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, "multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges." What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation. Most recently, at the ITU's 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU's work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues. This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites. The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed. When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community. I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN's becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress. Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root. The transition plan is being developed by the Internet's stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening. Joelle Tessler Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce jtessler(a)ntia.doc.gov <mailto:jtessler@ntia.doc.gov>

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model
by Greg Shatan April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Holly, It appears that Izumi has withdrawn that text in favor of the text proposed by Robin, which appears in the proposed agenda and in the email from Robin that I forwarded to this list. I would suggest you review and respond to Robin's text instead (and I note that Robin's email has some other related proposed changes as well, which I think you should at least look over). However, I think it would also be important to clarify two points underlying Izumi's text: Whether the current system for selecting Board members is a designator system as defined by the California code. Whether a designator system will work with the SO/ACs in their current state. Thanks! Greg On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > Greg, we agree with your concerns regarding the language highlighted. > Please let us know if you would like us to mark up the suggested text. > Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org');> > on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:14:09 AM > *To:* Izumi Okutani; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org');> > *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model > > I am forwarding this email into the Legal Subteam for discussion and > possible referral to counsel. > > In the "suggested text," which I've pasted in below, I believe the text > that I have highlighted and bolded is contrary to the advice we have > received from Sidley/Adler and in some cases may inadvertently misstate > that advice. Rather than pick it apart here, I think it makes more sense > to discuss this with Sidley/Adler and then bring it back to the full list > or the next full meeting if need be. > > Greg > > SUGGESTED TEXT > > f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of > the powers proposed below - *As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent > with this model,* "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval > or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to > define the role of SOs/ACs as designators,* without the need to organise > unincorporated association. *But they cannot reliably deliver other > aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, *such > as statutory power for full board dismissal* and ability to have legal > standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN > to account. > Crucially, in the view of our counsel, *to have dismissal of the entire > board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, **would require some > additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would > also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated > associations,* so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the > membership model isn't actually achievable. > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','izumi(a)nic.ad.jp');>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for >> 6.6.1.1 f). >> >> >> 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference >> Mechanism >> >> CURRENT TEXT >> Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of >> the powers proposed below ‐ >> mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the >> approval or blocking of >> changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the >> set of powers the CCWG >> believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. >> Crucially, in the view of our >> counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves >> into unincorporated >> associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the >> membership model isn’t actually >> possible. >> >> SUGGESTED TEXT >> >> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of >> the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with >> this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the >> approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing >> the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need >> to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver >> other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, >> such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal >> standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN >> to account. >> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire >> board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some >> additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would >> also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated >> associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the >> membership model isn't actually achievable. >> >> >> Izumi >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** >

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #30 - 28 April
by Brenda Brewer April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Meeting #30 - 228 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619%20> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: Action: staff to add glossary to the report Action: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to appendix and re-format for public comment Action: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable identifying text by line/paragraph Action: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors Action: number questions throughout the document Action: two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to explain group's reasoning Action: staff to add this comparison chart to the report Action: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?) come up with language about the "same basis as the existing NomCom" These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI Alice Munyua , Jim Baskin and Becky Burr, on the phone. We will review the changes made the draft report, to be submitted for public comment soon Reviewed the comments gathered during our past sessions. Today we will review feedback and the comments incorporated. First sections of the document: definition and scoping document, the inventory gathered from community. Circulated only a few hours ago. See URL for the draft report at the top of this notes page 2. Discussion of changes to the draft report following the intense work days Robin's edit "remains accountable" -> is accountable, Izumi's request to have the requests from the CWG highlighted. To make the document more readable will move sections 1-5 to the appendix and being with and executive summary then current chapter 6 This change will be reflected in the next version of the document. Introduction of glossary. Action: staff to add glossary to the report Sense of support for the issue of moving the chapters to the appendix Action: staff to restructure the report, moving sections 1-5 to appendix and re-format for public comment Concern that new text has been added to section 4, and this has not been discussed with the group. Noted that the text we there for the frozen document used during the intense workdays last week. Suggestion to have the sections numbered - this will be done as well as as explanatory sections and working with XPLANE of graphical representation, Consider line numbers and ways to easily refer to text being commented on. Action: Staff to have report numbered in a way to enable identifying text by line/paragraph If people find a term is too legalistic or subjective, please flag in the draft. External legal advisors request to be able to review the document. Action: legal sub-team, provide draft to the legal advisors Review of Section 6. Page 22. Change to explain the graphic on the overall acc architecture. New, so comment. Section 6.2 page 24. Reviewed by Becky. Introduced the notion of guarantees. With consistency across all documents. There was disagreement about the use of "guarantees" in this way, agreed further consideration needed use of guarantees and commitment. Section 6.3. Memo about fundamental bylaws. Section 6.4 Significant changes. Outcome of the discussion of the intense workday, including possible outcomes of the IRP. And IRP cancels or changes an opinion of the board and its decisions would be final. Some comment from legal advice that this was viable. Section 6.5. Reconsideration: more agreement so fewer changes. Section 6.4. Pointing to questions and open issues. Should these be item by item, more readable if the questions are grouped at the end of the section or presented and numbered as reading thorough the section. Action: number questions throughout the document. What's meant by standard of review? Standard of Review means the principles against which the instant case is measured to determine whether a complaint should be upheld. A term in law. 1) we have always assumed the Community (Members) would have standing to file RR or IRP. It is not entirely clear in our document how we would establish standing for the Community. stress test 13. redress mechanisms. concern about blocking. As yet not scoring well. The proposed measure may need to distinguish between community power and those of individual. We as the community may need to have standing to challenge a decisions. And have we done enough to restrain people from using them to block policy making. Operate for now under the assumption that the community does have standing. Section 6.6. community mechanisms. Discussion of the membership model, and the other options available such as the designator model. With rational as to why this is necessary. The member model as the reference model that we feel will work given the legal advice received. Language intend to support this reference model, but not to close off other models. Q. Is there place for an additional section to lay out the risks and benefits of the different models? Are we currently giving the community to understand the pros and cons of models as they make their preference known? A choice: what is taken into the body of the report and what to the appendix. The legal advice will be linked from the main body of the report. Do members want to identify more of the legal advice in the document. There will be a second run-through of tress tests, to ensure that none of our proposal create additional contingencies. ST-WP meets tomorrow. Additional explanation for the risks and benefits would be helpful, but not to the extent that we were have to do the same through every section of the document 6.1.1.1 (i) suggest this should be fleshed out, to say why we reached the decisions we have reached (e.g. legal advice has come back to say this is stronger, etc) Action: Two additional points to be included in 6.1.1.1 (i) to explain group's reasoning. New text to be added to note (1) that the all the groups requirements can be implemented under the reference model, and (2) it has advantages in terms of enforceability The stress tests and mechanisms do not stop an event happening, but the issue is does the community have the means to respond, or the means to challenge how the Board responds. Are our new accountability mechanisms creating new risks, for example capture, do the stress tests mitigate against these? Regarding fleshing out pros and cons, the short table on the powers would be helpful to have in the main document. A comparison chart that was offered as one of the legal memos. Action: staff to add this comparison chart to the report. Have we made sure that we have updated the stress tests to evaluate the model especially around capture. Member model to empower the community, but concern over individual member rights and collective rights. A question many will ask, people will ask what if the community gets captured. Link between this and the question from Jan Scholte and the group should work on the accountability of the community. 6.6.1.1. f. about designators. Not fully explaining the designators model, something more explicit needed. Section 6.1.1.2 Influence in the community mechanism. Co-chairs have contacted the RSAC and SSAC about the proposals. Given a rationale about the reference option, and the pros and cons. Any adjustments needed? Para F. add, and in keeping with keeping with keep ICANN rooted in the private sector. (add to the text) 6.6.2. reconsider/eject budget or strategy operating plans Only change was on the grounds. 6.6.3. page 56 Community power to reject/reconsider ICANN's standard bylaws. Language better reflects what is meant by standard vs. fundamental. Examples changed, added the question. 6.6.4. Powers to change fundamental bylaws. No substantive edits, a question add. And the fundamental bylaws now have a section in the report. 6.6.5 page 57 Updated to reflect language around the nominating committee. Keep the petition model, that the NomCom would be the option, but not to close down any other models. 6.6.6 Recall the Board NomCom. Section g. Both options legally viable. Re-format "On the same basis as the existing NomCom" are we talking about a standing group, or on an ad hoc basis Suggestion to take offline to come up with suggested language. Action: Alan, Cheryl, Avri (+Staff?) come up with language about the "same basis as the existing NomCom". 6.7 Affirmation of Commitments into the bylaws Changes made. Section 8b. Section 6.7.2, incorporation of commitment reviews. (Current method of consensus in GAC Due deference refers to process of finding mutual consensus It was not meant to be fundamental ) ICANN HQ in Los Angeles Commit or will to call, Financial/non-financial rater than non-commercial. Review team must be as diverse as possible. How were prior review teams recommendations implements (Connection lost.) Normally one year after. Action: co-chairs/rapporteurs, recent discussion from list to be reflected in the report 6.7.2. A. require the ICANN board to approve and implement. Not requiring he board to review and implement/ 6.8.2. GAC advice. The GAC chooses how it chooses consensus. ICANN bylaws would only allow due deference to consensus advice. Refers to the current arrangement. That kind of deference would only be due to consensus advice. Article 11 Section 2 bylaws change is being suggested. Question: is this section of the bylaw suggested as fundamental. (Ref 3rd column, page 73) Stress test review on next call, and have been updating both for the CCWG and the requests the CWG put put last week. Page 94. Items for consideration in WS2: Diversity and language for consideration about transparency. Whistleblower policy missing, should be added. AGREED: Enhancements to ICANN's whistle-blower policy. And also suggest adding ICANN's conflict of interest policy. Committed to the "relevant" recommendations. This language can be clarified. More than investigate enhancements. Should be stronger than that. Action: Robin please send language. Conflict of Interest. The policy is quite recent and seems quite robust, what is the rationale for the change, suggestion to discuss conflict of interest on the list. Support for improving the conflict of interest policy. Implementation plan and timeline. Section 9.1. Updating the timeline for next steps 9.2, which includes input from the lawyers on their changes and from staff on the possible implication time for bylaws changes. New, next CCWG call Thursday Arp 30. 05:00 UTC, the call will: Hold a final review of text. A new document version circulated as early as possible, with red-line as mentioned on this call Output from the Stress Test WP meeting. Engagement material - easy to read tools and materials. Glossary of terms Before or after diagram END

2 1

Suggested text for designaor model
by Izumi Okutani April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Dear all, As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f). 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference Mechanism CURRENT TEXT Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below ‐ mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually possible. SUGGESTED TEXT f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable. Izumi

2 3

the pwoer to enforce AOC type (6.7) recommendations
by Avri Doria April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Hi, In the draft recommendations (6.7.2): > Require the ICANN board to approve and implement review team > recommendations, including > recommendations from previous reviews. > The final output of all reviews will be published for public comment. > The Board shall consider approval and begin implementation within > six months of receipt of the recommendations. We discussed this as a putting a greater obligation onf the Board than it currently has. But I do not understand how that is the case. At this point, it is still up to the Board to agree or not. In responding to a CWG-IANA based question from an NCSG member on how the IANA Function Review recommendation for a RFP, if such were to ever happen, would be respected by the ICANN Board? Couldn't they just ignore it. I did not have a response and am wondering what part of the community powers I am forgetting. This points to the more general question about any recommendation of an AOC type review. Other than the no-confidence removal of the Board (6.6.6. got to love the numer!), is there anything that gives the AOC-Like review recommendations the sort of Community powers that we have discussed having for budgets, strategy & operational plans (6.6.2) ? Is it possible to include Board rejection of AOC type review recommendations under the category of decision that can be overruled by members? Or is that class of decsion restricted by statute? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

8 16

Redline version of report - from 1.1 to 28 April version
by Jordan Carter April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi all I used Word to do a compare from the frozen 1.1 document - and turned off "formatting" tagged changes so it's easy to see the content. Attached in .docx and .pdf. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

DRAFT REPORT & AGENDA (Call # 30)
by Alice Jansen April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear all, In preparation for your call #30<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896619> - Tuesday, 28 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>), please find attached your revised draft report which reflects most recent edits. DOC and .PDF are both available on your dedicated wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. The proposed agenda for today's call is as follows: 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 2. Discussion of changes to the draft report following the intense work days 3. Next Steps 4. A.O.B Closing Remarks Please note that a CCWG-Accountability call will tentatively take place on Thursday, 30 April at 05:00-07:00 UTC to finalize, as needed, any outstanding items before publication of the report. We would also like to re-express our most sincere apologies for the unfortunate delays in delivering the draft report and to thank you for your patience and understanding. Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Implementation time
by Greg Shatan April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Just sent the agenda to the Legal Sub Team list. Greg On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > Is there an agenda for today’s call? > > > > *HOLLY* *J.* *GREGORY* > Partner > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > > > > > > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *List for the work > of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 9:26 PM > *To:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; CCWG Accountability > *Subject:* [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Implementation time > > > > Dear all, > > > > In compliance with the working methods of the Legal Sub-team I hereby > inform you that I held a call with Holly Gregory of Sidley Austin in order > to find out which would be an estimate timeframe for implementation of the > CCWG proposals under the hypothesis of each of the options that so far have > been discussed in our meetings. > > > > This call was held over the phone given the short time ahead of our call > tomorrow in which we (the Co-Chairs) thought it would be useful to have a > tentative timeframe of implementation. > > > > Please note that this information is only for reference of our work and > timeline and does not imply nor states that any given structure has been > decided upon as this is something that, of course, will need to be decided > by the larger community after the public comment period(s) for that end. > > > > Below is the reply from the lawyers to this inquiry. > > > > I hope you find this information useful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > León > > > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > > > *De: *"Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > > *Asunto: RE: Implementation time* > > *Fecha: *27 de abril de 2015 19:13:13 GMT-5 > > *Para: *'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > > *Cc: *"Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>, ICANN-Adler < > ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com> > > > > Dear Leon, > > The Sidley and Adler & Colvin teams have conferred and can confirm the > rough estimate that I provided by phone earlier today as follows: > > Assuming that we have very clear direction and guidance, the legal work of > preparing proposed amendments to ICANN’s articles and bylaws could be > accomplished in as little as two weeks. However, as we have explained, in > the drafting process issues may become apparent that have not been > anticipated and need additional guidance from CCWG and this would slow the > drafting process down. > > Similarly, assuming clear direction and guidance on the ACs/SOs and > assuming that these entities do not have assets or revenues, the documents > for the unincorporated associations (assuming 6) could be drafted in > another two weeks. > > Thus, the drafting of amendments to the core ICANN governance documents > and creation of basic streamlined unincorporated association documents > should take about four to six weeks total, to have solid first drafts for > review. > > We do not have any ability to assess what time will be required by CCWG > and other community structures, including ICANN staff, ICANN counsel, the > ICANN board, and each of the SO/ACs, to review, comment on and sign off on > the revised ICANN governing documents and the new SO/AC unincorporated > association documents. We assume that this time could well be > significantly greater than the legal drafting time required. (Nor do we > have insight at this time as to expectations with regard to any discussion > with or review by the NTIA or other US government entity.) > > In terms of regulatory filings, with both the designator and membership > models all that is required is that the new articles of incorporation be > filed with the State of California. (The bylaws need not be filed to > become effective, but will be publicly disclosed to California and federal > government agencies in due course.) There is no approval process to factor > in at the state or federal level. > > Of course, these estimates relate to the CCWG project and do not include > time for any structural changes related to IANA functions under discussion > in the CWG project. > > Kind regards, > Holly > > HOLLY J. GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx > <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>] > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 2:46 AM > To: Gregory, Holly; Rosemary E. Fei > Subject: Implementation time > > Dear Holly and Rosemary, > > I know that what I am about to ask might seem like asking for the numbers > on bingo but we would like to have a rough reference timeframe for > implementation of changes to be ready and legally valid. This, of course, > assuming we choose either structure (membership or designators). > > Please let me know if I can be of further help. > > > Best regards, > > > León > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Nomcom as a UA - legal question
by Greg Shatan April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Holly, Yes, please proceed to answer the questions posed in Avri's email. Thanks! Greg On Friday, April 24, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > Thanks Greg. I take it that the Legal SubTeam would like us to add this > to the list of questions we are answering. Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org');> > on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 05:54:47 PM > *To:* Avri Doria; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org');> > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org');> > *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Nomcom as a UA - legal question > > Avri, > > I am forwarding your question to the Legal Sub Team list. > > Greg > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri(a)acm.org');>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am confused as to how this works. Please forgive my questions. This >> has less to do with the proposal I made then with trying to understand the >> nature of a UA. I had not realized until yesterday that the membership >> model was as popular as it has been defined to be. I had also not realized >> that we were down to membership or designator model as our only choices >> until today. >> >> What qualifies the Nomcom as an association? It can't be the people, as >> there is no continuity, except among the staff. and some overlap in chairs >> as last year's chair, this years' chair and next year's possible chair, >> sit togehter each year. I guess that is a bit of natural person >> continuity. Is that chair thread significant? >> >> Or is that it is always formed according to same bylaw, even if all of >> the people are different, that is a qualifying mark? Is being a differnt >> instantiation of the same process sufficient to define a UA, even if there >> is no continuity of natural persons? >> >> >> thanks >> >> >> avrl >> >> Note: I would have sent this to the legal list, but i never managed to >> get subscribed that one as far as I can tell. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> [image: Avast logo] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMFaQ…> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMFaQ…> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** >

7 9

CCWG report, updated for call of 28 April 19:00 - 21:00 UTC
by Adam Peake April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi Everyone, On behalf of the co-chairs, attached are updated versions of the CCWG report (docx and PDF) The report will be discussed on tomorrow's CCWG call. My apologies for the delay sending the documents. Best, Adam

2 3