- Accountability-Cross-Community

CWG Meeting Notes related to expectations from CCWG
by Mathieu Weill April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Dear Colleagues, I am pasting below the notes of CWG Meeting #40 which addressed the topics of expectations towards our group. This is of course very relevant to our work, in terms of drafting our recommendations as well as the consideration of our workplan and timeline. Best, Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC Date : Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:51:43 +0000 De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Pour : cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> 4. Instructions for CCWG? • ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of its transition plan that: 1. The IANA Function’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function. 2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed. • Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) – Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering (Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular information sharing. • Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the mechanics of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the CCWG’s efforts. • Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms in the draft transition proposal.

3 3

Fwd: Work update and Proposed Agenda: WP1 call #10 - Wed 15 April @ 21h-23h UTC
by Jordan Carter April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

fyi people. J ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 15 April 2015 at 20:17 Subject: Work update and Proposed Agenda: WP1 call #10 - Wed 15 April @ 21h-23h UTC To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all (WP1, copied to CCWG) Our next WP1 meeting is at 21h00-23h00 on Wednesday 15 April, around 13hrs from now. Following the CCWG meeting held around nineteen hours ago, it's clear that there are more questions to ask of legal advisors, and much debate still to be had about the mechanism for our community powers. We *aren't* going to be able to *solve* the *mechanism* question in time for our Public Comment Report content deadline this Friday, *so I propose we don't try to do so - doing so will derail the rest of our work*. [The question of what mechanism will be picked up by the full CCWG in its meeting on Tuesday next week and in the intensive work next Friday and Saturday.] Our focus should be on getting the rest of the material we are working on done, which requires us on Wed 15th and Thu 16th to: - raise any further questions on the *powers *with our lawyers, who will be on the first part of Wednesday's call - seeing if we can in discussion tease out any more elements of the *mechanism*, so as to help Counsel with prep for the discussion at the CCWG next week - discuss the *remaining new Public Comment Report content* we ran out of time to discuss at meeting #9 (the "6.X section of our comment doc) - I had hoped CCWG would discuss this - get consensus, or establish specific lack of consensus (and hopefully options), on the material in our comment document. To achieve these relatively limited and achievable goals by Friday, here is the agenda I propose, with Counsel present for items 2 & 3: *CCWG-ACCT Working Party 1 (Community Empowerment)* *Agenda for Meeting #10, 15 April @ 21-23h UTC* 1. *Review of Agenda Q&A section - to ask questions of counsel to help inform them, and to get some brief answers where possible - ongoing part of the dialogue to support CCWG's next meeting be as useful as possible * 2. *Q&A with Counsel on the "Mechanism" debate* This is to follow up the CCWG meeting on 14 Apr and add any WP1 *perspectives *for Counsel to *consider *as they prep for next week's work (20 mins max ) (slides from the CCWG meeting, which might be useful, are at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890082) 3. *Q&A with Counsel on our Powers* Any remaining questions that didn't get dealt with last meeting (WP1 Mtg #9) in response to the advice from Counsel on our powers (20 mins max) (the memo with the advice in blue boxes under each template is at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Combined%20CCWG%2… ) *Substantive work section - this is where you really need to have read the material, which I remind you most of you will have seen before... for us in WP1 to be moving towards consensus * 4. *Public Comment Document content *A third iteration of the Public Comment Document content will be circulated by me as soon as it is ready - next hour or two. The document will be clean, like last time, but I will also track changes compared with the v2 document (as was done last time). 5. *Agenda for Next Call* -- 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 * -- 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

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Dear Holly and Rosemary, Please do review Robin’s table. I apologize for the delay on assignment and don’t expect you to have elaborated for our call tomorrow but rather give an initial review so we can further discuss in our call tomorrow. Best regards, León > El 14/04/2015, a las 16:42, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > Happy to review with direction from Legal Subteam. Please provide direction ASAP. Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 03:45:49 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > Cc: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Fantastic work Robin and much appreciated! > > I echo Greg's comments concerning the role of litigation in both models. I do like the format and I think it would be a great idea to have it reviewed and improved upon, if necessary, by counsel, for distribution to the general list. > > Best, > > Ed > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:19 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: > Robin, > > Thank you for this. A great deal of effort clearly went into this and this should develop into a very useful tool. However, I think we will need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it. Having reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the rights can be enforced. > > Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced. I'm fairly confident that is not the case. I believe that the remedies listed for the designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are equally available in the member model. With regard to litigation, I think the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the only one) available to members. In other words, such litigation is an extra power, not the only power, available to members. > > The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed. > > Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together! > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > Hello Team, > > What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. > > But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. > > So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. > > The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> > > I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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…> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <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. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

3 3

A Blog about a CCWG Participant!
by Grace Abuhamad April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge Accepting the ICANN Challenge <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/accepting-the-icann-challenge#> For newcomers, their introduction to ICANN can be overwhelming. Our structures and processes can appear incomprehensible; our website information difficult to decipher; our annual meetings a maze of complex issues; our community constituencies might look impenetrable. Many have taken advantage of ICANN's Newcomer and Fellowship programs to ease their entry into this unique world. And if you are a first timer, uncertain whether you can handle the challenge, understand that all of us were new to ICANN at some point. But Arun Sukumar has taken that challenge a step further. Arun is a lawyer and a senior fellow at the Centre for Communications Governance at the National Law University in Dehli, India. He had never been to an ICANN meeting until ICANN 52 in Singapore in February. He described his experience as "a voice in the wilderness". "Personally, I have found that it takes a whole lot of warming up to", Arun said. But he wasn't discouraged. I met Arun in Istanbul in March, at the two-day meeting of the Cross Community Working Group tasked with developing proposals to enhance ICANN's Accountability - a necessary process running parallel to the IANA Stewardship Transition work. When the processes began and ICANN encouraged broad participation from beyond the traditional ICANN communities, Arun accepted that challenge as well and joined the CCWG Accountability as one of 135 participants. The Istanbul meeting was the first time he had met face to face with the other members and participants of the CCWG. During one of the work breaks, Arun agreed to sit down and talk with me on camera. He explained that the National Law University in Dehli supports his travel for participation in ICANN. His job is to report back to those stakeholders in India who can't afford to attend ICANN meetings, to make them broadly aware of what ICANN is all about. Arun said there is great interest in India in the role ICANN plays in Internet governance, and particularly in the IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability processes. Before attending the meeting in Istanbul, Arun participated in the CCWG discussions online. He raised questions about the role of the independent advisors in the CCWG, about ICANN's Mission Statement and Core Values. But Arun admitted, his entry into ICANN hasn't been easy. "To be frank, it has been an uphill task to be part of the institutional culture of ICANN, to be an active participant in ICANN discussions, because I have found that there are some concerns about diversity that ICANN has to address immediately, especially around the context of the IANA transition". But Arun also said he had established a rapport with several CCWG members and participants online and that during the face to face meeting in Istanbul he found it easy to communicate ideas with the group "even though they may not be entirely acceptable to people sitting across the table". <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/sukumar-2-750x424-13apr15 -en.jpg> When the Istanbul meeting ended on that second day and most members and participants had left the room, I noticed Arun had not. He was standing with two others from the group, listening for the most part, as they offered suggestions on community constituencies that might interest him and how he could further ease his entry into ICANN, reminding him that they too once were newcomers. The full video interview with Arun Sukumar can be found here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhmtNi4M6tc> .

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #22 14 April
by Brenda Brewer April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #22 call on 14 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728 These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Notes 1. Please remember to complete your SoI - reach out to staff if any assistance is needed. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 2. We will focus on easiest to explain, understand and implement Have analyzed mechanisms and powers - California law has powerful tools 9 Under CA law and under contract law there are powerful tools to achieve the mechanisms the CCWG is seeking. Clearest path is to org an membership body made up of the same groups as currently elect directors. Under a designator model, also ached much of this. But membership also gives powers to review and approve certain board decisions. Under corporate law the community has rights and these are based around the concept of a corporate purpose. The purpose is tested in the articles and further defined in the bylaws. And the community will have the power to hold the Broad to that corporate purpose. Including the word to remove the board. Power to amend bylaws. Also the approval and rejection right is also powerful (what CCWG has been calling veto rights), and these are the powers that membership gives over the designator approach We believe ICANN as a member org is the path to the powers the CCWG seeks. The duty of care to the organization. Directors should apply their own judgment to what is best for the organization. They are also required to bring with them knowledge of the community that elected them. Member structure: The SO/AC who elect director would become members. The directors retain fiduciary responsibilities, but the community has powers to greater direct the board. Members: primary role to select and remove the board. Classify the membership. Each class would choose internally who it wants to put on the Board, these rights are heavily protected. There are some downsides in that the protect members have a right to sue and can be disruptive. Suggest in this case that the members be a incorporated entity. Take the SO and AC and form as an unincorporated association. And this is a low standard give the already exciting organization of the SO/AC. The current internal body would become and separate legal entity. The stature allows for reserve powers, and the powers CCWG seeking can largely be delivered, so long as the Board's powers overly reduced. Question about the NomCom role. Could be a member, or be eliminated and have its work given to other new One class of members to vote on another class of members' directed. This could be worked around through contracts which would allow the classes of members to work together. Members can unilaterally amend bylaws. The Board can also amend bylaws, or the right take-away. Members can veto changes. Can require actions to be approved. Members have the right to sue, if assets were not used for the purpose for which the corporation is organized (the corporate purpose) Member advantage: key is to amend the bylaws, to approve or veto board actions and the standing to sue. However designators still viable. Notion of a two-tier board structure. It is not the same as the European supervisory board. A larger community board and executive board. The community board has oversight over the executive and designates authority to the executive board. The large community board has power to interfere and overrule the executive board. Need to change the bylaws to classify voting rights. Procedure to allow the community to amend the bylaws and adding the community provisions such as reserve powers and independent review process. Outside the bylaws provisions need to provisions to allow removal rights. Believe can be done without radically changing the familiar structures of SO/AC Desired powers. Based on WP1. Which work for members and which for designators. Both can remove individual directors. Both can approve or change the bylaws and protect fundamental bylaws. To block board actions that conflict with the bylaws and mission: members can do this, much harder for the designators. The powers reserved to the community under a member organized ICANN are stronger than under designator organized Block strategic plan or budget, members have the powers, for designators unlikely or problematic Principles of contract law. Community veto power of certain board decisions. To the extent that it applies to specific board decisions, the member approach will have more influence. Rights can be reserved for members, but not for designators. Q. creating legal entities of the SO/AC can this open them up for legal action. If the GNSO makes policy recommendations, could it later be sued for those recommendations. Concern when he ccNSO was created that joining a member organization would reduce the ccTLD managers individual rights. Can we get what we want, without all the restructure. Can the powers be given through the powers in the bylaws? A. The trade off between the member and designator structure is how much power. Can have all of the power, except the veto power over certain board decisions under the designator structure. Are they needed if you have other strong powers, such as removing the board or control over bylaws. Concept of legal viability. In the ICANN bylaws provides that groups has the right to name people to the board. What is legally viable, the lawyer answer may be to provide a mechanism to force the board to do what you want it to do. Many of the things wanted can be put in the bylaws, but if the board ignored it, then the question is there any way to change that. Q. 1. is it feasible to have an independent standing panel that would be bind to the board, i.e. the independent review panel 2. can we call the board to action when they are not taking action A. under the member model, a lot of flexibility in how to give veto and approval rights. Need greater level of research to know. A. the concept f being able to force the board to do something, under both there is an option to remove an individual or entire board. But to force the board to do something, that's where the members structure is much stronger. Forcing the board to do things, by amending the bylaws, or by the members taking on an action and doing it are possible. Yes, the NomCom can be constituted as a member, and perform its current functions. The only way for one class members to remove the directors appointed by another class of member would be through some contractual relationship and removal of the entire board. SO/AC are created by the ICANN bylaws, and the bylaws controls what they can and cannot do. Is this retained as separate bodies? Current vision for this, the unincorporated association. Brief articles of association, would cross reference out of the articles to refer to existing ICANN documents, no need for governing documents as they already exist. So the SO.AC retain their current persona. The designator model can be made to work. But the clarity around roles, is simpler under the member model. Designator path is considered more complicated. How does a govt representative fit into this structure. Govt currently has the GAC and the selects non-voting observer to the board. Can a govt representative be considered as a member? They way seen under the member or designator structure, did not see the GAC having a voting members. NomCom would continue to function and to provide some diversity etc to the board. Spring board action in cases of inaction. A mechanism to cause the board to take action. There coercive power exists in the selection and removal of directors. Can formalize the process to call for a meeting of community representatives and the board to express concerns. Forcing the board to act is hard because they are fiduciary and they have to have the right to take decisions. Which can be done under the current arrangements? Slide 20. Currently, it closely represents a designator model. Desired powers: SO/AC if considered designators will have approval rights over certain articles or bylaws, and can recall the whole board, cannot block board action such as the adoption of budget or strategic plan. 1. Note: TLG no longer appoints to ICANN board 2. Nuance. Bylaws can be put in place that allows the community, using whatever mechanisms it wishes, to veto the budget, strategic plan, etc. The Board could ignore that veto and if they did, the next power could be to remove the board. 3. Problems with membership based organization and current structure of the NomCom and particularly GAC advice and how it is treated under the bylaws. Need to also address WP2 issues, and reviewing the IRP and how this can fit in the recommendations will be the subject of legal sub-team call (Wednesday, 15 April. 15:00-17:00 UTC) Yes we can have all the options, but some trade-off for a solution that might be easier to implement. The requirements were not unrealistic. 3. CCWG Workplan and timeline Not wishing to lose momentum, but recognizing the concerns about the high workload and heavy document load. The report, the first administrative parts of the report document is largely complete. See solid progress from WP1 and WP2. And feel the group has achieved a great deal. To pull the parts together to a cohesive document Eberhard Lisse: disagree with the approach being taken, we need more time to discuss. Short term work time. Our charter in the context of the transition, and deliver in a time frame consistent with the CWG as we are supporting some of their proposals. We expect it hear more from CWG on their requirements after their 2 day intense work session of Monday/Tuesday this week. And we need our proposal to be available for ICANN #53 and consideration by the SO/AC, Our Istanbul target was for public comment launch on April 21. We want members to be able to comment on the proposals. We need assurance on legal feasibility, and we have good progress and issues for legal group to investigate Way forward. 1. focus, and suggestions on list we might do that on the CWG needs, as they respond after their intense work days. Adjust our approach: 3 step approach: 1. this week focus on WP so they complete proposals by the end of the week. 2. To turn around a 20-25 page draft report over the weekend and 3 day freeze Monday-Wednesday so the group can consider. 3. a 2 day intense work period based on the CWG model, Thursday/ Friday next week Revised call schedule. Cancel the CCWG calls of Thursday Apr 16, Friday Apr 17 (set Friday as target for the draft report to be circulated) and cancel the additional meetings of Monday Apr 20 and Tuesday 21st. Keep the regular Tuesday Apr 21 CCWG 19:00 UTC. Consider CWG comments and follow-up on legal advice). Intensive April 23/24 work period as inspired by the CWG process of meetings. And finalize the proposals - we are extending the time line. Cover the CWG requirements as a priority. No face-to-face May meeting, but June 19 in Buenos Aires. Request the spread the meeting times for the intense meetings across the timezones (Agreed, will be amended) Outcome of WP1. Aware WP1 may present options, and public comment can be used to provide feedback on issues. Legal advice affecting WP2 recommendations. Agreement to cancel the schedule and introduce the new meeting times (revised for timezones) Discussion of stress test 18 to next meeting. Summary report, and plan for intense work days next week. END

1 0

Slides - Short term WorkPlan
by Alice Jansen April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the short term work plan slides that are currently being discussed. Best regards Alice

2 1

CCWG call today (April 14) slides and AC room recording
by Adam Peake April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Hi everyone The slides presented by the legal advisors on the CCWG call earlier are on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890082 Please see bottom of the page, ICANN CCWG - Presentation Slides.pdf (presentation delivered on call #22 - 14 April 2015) The Adobe Connect room recording is available so you can review the call, please see the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728 Transcript and MP3 recording should be available within 24 hours. Thanks, Adam

1 0

Agenda and dcoument for today< meeting
by Kavouss Arasteh April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other . Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .

6 6

FW: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation
by Alice Jansen April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached a copy of the slide-deck the lawyers have prepared in anticipation of your call today. Thanks Best regards Alice From: <Hofheimer>, "Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:08 PM To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Subject: FW: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 5:04 AM To: 'Brenda Brewer'; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Subject: Final Slide Deck CCWG Presentation Here is the slide deck to share. It can be posted to the list after our call now. JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** 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

CWG input to our group
by Mathieu Weill April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As you may know, the CWG has started today an intense work period of 2 days. You will find the notes of the 1st session below. Thomas and I were invited to provide an update on the CCWG. You will also note that the CWG puts emphasis on their expectations towards our work. We can expect a consolidation of these requirements to be sent to us shortly after their 2 days of work. For illustration purposes, the first session already addressed : - budget requirement > *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we > need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all > IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. - ccTLD delegation appeals > *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the > DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to > develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later > date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). - also mention of a periodic review of IANA performance > These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #35 - 13 April Date : Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:47:01 +0000 De : Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Pour : cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576 *Action Items* *Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language*** *Notes* *1. Opening Remarks * · ·Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days. ·6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. ·Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. ·Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well. ·There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: · ·ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) ·Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) ·Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) ·Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. *2. CCWG-Accountability Update***(Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the CWG requirements. If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. Wiki link:https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw *3. DT-O (budget)* ·DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez ·Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure. ·Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. ·No disagreement with DT-O recommendations ·CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? ·Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal ·If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto? ·The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. *4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)* ·Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism ·Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received) ·Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. ·So recommendation is to not pursue this now ·The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. ·For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). *5. DT-N (Periodic Review)* ·These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. ·First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that ·Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with ·The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment ·Does the review expand to address IANA policy? ·Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period. *Action*(staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language *6. AOB* *7. Closing Remarks*

4 7