- Accountability-Cross-Community

Fadi Chehade Written Responses to Senate Questions
by Greg Shatan April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

I thought the attached would be of interest. These can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/1188647-2015-04-13-en. I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue. Greg Shatan

4 4

Fwd: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 19, 2015

April 19, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding this summary from the CWG list as it encompasses information worth taking into consideration for our work. Also attaching a PDF file for your convenience. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > Para: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 18 de abril de 2015 12:49:58 GMT-5 > De: Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal > Responder a: cwg-client(a)icann.org > > > Dear All, > > Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG. This also includes the CCWG dependencies. > > Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss. > > Best regards, > Sharon > > SHARON FLANAGAN > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@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. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

1 0

Board workshop - Friday 24 April to Sunday 26 April in Los Angeles
by Bruce Tonkin April 18, 2015

April 18, 2015

Hello All Just a note that I will be attending a Board training day and two day workshop in Los Angeles from Friday 24 April to Sunday 26 April 2015. I believe I will be on a flight for most of one of the CCWG Intensive Work Days. I will try to follow the finalization of the initial report from the CCWG and will also be discussing the output of the group with the Board on Saturday morning. If there are any specific questions or feedback that the CCWG would like from the Board please let me know. Regards Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Work Party 1 content for the First Public Comment Report
by Jordan Carter April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear CCWG colleagues Attached in .docx and .pdf forms is the output of Work Party 1 for the comment report, on community powers mechanisms. As far as WP1 is concerned this is now "frozen" for our work as a full CCWG next week. There are no further WP1 meetings scheduled. This will be, as I understand it, incorporated in the consolidated document by the co-chairs and staff for circulation over the weekend - co-chairs, please correct me if I have got that wrong. In contrast with what I wrote a few hours ago, the aspects on incorporating *AoC commitments *in the bylaws are still in the text - the reconciliation task with WP2 is still ongoing and so I haven't moved it. I will circulate a tracked-changes version of this paper on the WP1 email list so that WP1 members and anyone else can see what the changes were between this version and the fourth draft. bests, 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

Note re AoC commitments between WP1 and WP2
by Jordan Carter April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi all Becky and I have just spoken as WP2 and 1 rapporteurs about the location in the comment document of updates to the Core Values of ICANN that would take into account the commitments ICANN made in the Affirmation of Commitments. Both Working Parties have been doing some of this work. Becky's group in WP2 has done a more thorough re-write of the principles and values; WP1 colleagues tabulated the AoC commitments and proposed wording. Since Becky's editing work and rethinking is more advanced, this is how we'll deal with it for the purposes of the document freeze: - Becky will review our WP1 v4 content and incorporate any insights into the final proposal she makes for the "Freeze" - this is in the "Fundamental Commitments and Core Values" Section of WP2 work - I will move our table about these commitments out of the body of our WP1 content, and lodge it as an appendix. This is so the text is all there, and when we do our meetings next week, everyone can cross-check Becky's incorporation job against what WP1 had done. When we discuss it in the full CCWG, it will be likely that Becky will lead that discussion, but I anticipate that Matthew, Avri, Steve, Fiona et al who did that translation work in WP1 will be key contributors to that discussion. Thanks everyone. Good luck with the sprints. 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 *

2 1

CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Proposal - Draft Report
by Adam Peake April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi everyone, On behalf of the CCWG co-chairs, attached is a first draft of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Proposal. Please find the related documents in the attachment to this e-mail. They can also be found on the CCWG wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report We have aggregated all the documents we have for the sake of completeness, but you will find that there are huge parts you are already familiar with. The scope and definitions part has not been touched in the last weeks. The same goes for the inventory of existing accountability mechanisms and input from the community. Hence, the number of pages should be manageable. We will work on overviews and other means to make it easier to understand shortly. The draft only includes introductory chapters, summarizing past CCWG work: 1. Introduction and Background 2. Methodology 3. Definitions & Scoping 4. Inventory of existing ICANN Accountability Mechanisms 5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers In preparation for release of the full document and to get ahead on the timeline as much as possible we would like to send these chapters for translation. The chapters remain open for comment after the freeze and we will take amendments as agreed by the group. The document is considered draft, if you have any comments or suggested edits, please send to the list. Best, Adam

1 0

ISTACC call 2015-04-15
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability. For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context): This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum. I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational. But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this. And I find that starting at the beginning helps. Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them. The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate. It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently. I will liaise with CWG staff to find it. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 12

Freeze document - section 8 - work stream 2
by Mathieu Weill April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Attached are clean and redline versions of the work stream 2 section of the report. I have incorporated all comments received to date, many thanks to contributors. This is the draft version for your consideration during the "freeze" period. Further comments are still possible and will be discussed during 23-24 Apr meetings. No further version of this document will be published in the meantime. Staff will include the clean versions on the draft report wiki page shortly (where you will be able to find all sections and subsections conveniently). Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 4

ICANN Accountability - Indian Perspectives (A report)
by Arun Sukumar April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hello, Last month (March 13), the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University New Delhi, held day-long roundtable sessions on ICANN Accountability concerns. The event was supported by the National Internet Exchange of India and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India. Attached to this mail is a report of the conference - a document we believe for the first time articulates in writing diverse Indian perspectives and comments on the IANA transition and ICANN accountability. The roundtable discussants were briefed by an ICG member Milton Mueller and CCWG co-chair Mathieu Weill. The Q&A with them, transcribed in this report (faithfully we hope!) highlights some of the concerns that Indian stakeholders have on Work Streams 1 and 2. Its a fairly exhaustive (25 pages) report, but we hope you will find it useful and informative. Special shout-out to Mathieu for his time and valuable input to the conference! Best, Arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

4 3

work plan and next steps
by Thomas Rickert April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list. We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by - installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far - compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents and - holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice. We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728>). We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days. Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right. Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible. We will provide you with further information shortly. Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas

5 4