- Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Interesting advice for CCWG- Accountability
by Robin Gross Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

ICANN Accountability - a coup or a contract? > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-coup-or… Guest blog by David R. Johnson The Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG) spent part of its second meeting discussing a proposal to convert ICANN into an organization with “members,” potentially including the heads of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (including GAC!??) who might be given the power to overrule ICANN Board Decisions. Many of the other changes on the list for discussion include proposals that would require amendment of ICANN’s Bylaws. One surreal aspect of this discussion is that it is not clear whether the ICANN Board, which must approve any amendment of the bylaws, would ever agree to such changes. It is time for those with effective veto power over any resolution of the accountability issues, and the IANA transition, to show their hands. ICANN appears to want the CCWG to show its hand first, and then react to whatever is proposed. That is a mistake, because it may lead the group to propose things the Board won’t want to accept, or devise oversight mechanisms that can be repealed by later ICANN Boards. And it may lead to proposals for untested structural changes that create new accountability issues of their own. CCWG can and should ask ICANN to indicate, right now, whether it will or will not agree to specific contractual provisions. The answers, whatever they are, would help immensely to guide the CCWG deliberations. Bylaws are a way that a corporation (including a non-profit) governs itself. Contracts, in contrast, are what allows it to govern others, and others to govern it. It would be much simpler to talk about ICANN’s accountability in terms of contractual provisions — enforceable promises ICANN is willing to make to other parties, now, regarding what it will and will not do. The other side of the contract could be registries and registrars, but there could be a third party beneficiary provision that allows anyone adversely affected by the breach of such promises to bring an arbitration before a panel that can issue binding decrees. If this were viewed as a simple contract negotiation, between ICANN stakeholders (at least the registries, registrars and registrants who are regulated by ICANN contracts) and the ICANN corporation (Board), then the accountability issues would look very different depending on whether ICANN agrees to contract terms that limit its ability to impose rules on others. For example, ICANN might find it relatively easy to agree not to impose rules that bind registries, registrars and registrants (1) in the absence of consensus, (2) on topics unrelated to sound operation of the DNS, or (3) regarding content or online behavior that doesn’t itself threaten the operation of the DNS. In contrast, if ICANN decided to reserve the right to use its monopoly over entry into the root zone to impose contracts that regulate online behavior, the nature of the “accountability” issues would change dramatically. A global consumer protection regulatory authority, with the power to take down domain names in order to protect the “global public interest”, would have to be constructed with accountability mechanisms very different from those of an organization that makes only technical operational rules subject to consensus support. The original deal to create ICANN was, at its core, an agreement by a registry to abide by future (unknown!) “consensus policies” that fit within a very limited range of topics. That limited range of topics, known as the “picket fence,” involved issues the global resolution of which were needed to assure sound operation of the DNS. The requirement for consensus support meant that these new rules would be more like operational standards than regulations or laws — because they would have to compete for general approval among those affected. But because ICANN, in possession of the IANA contract, had the power to impose contracts of adhesion on new gTLDs as a condition of entry into the root, it has since decided to use that power to serve its view of the “global public interest.” Now the CCWG seems at times to assume that ICANN should have the power to define and impose rules in relation to some view of the “global public interest” — but it wants to create a new entity, drawn from ICANN’s internal structures, that can second-guess Board decisions by being treated as “members” who can select an independent review panel, approve a budget, dismiss Board members, and even overturn Board decisions. Membership for all netizens in the internet community sounds like a great idea. But what will keep a new entity composed of a limited number of privileged members from itself developing an unrestrained view of its ability to impose rules on others in pursuit of some view of the “global public interest” — and to discipline a board that doesn’t share its views? In contrast, a clear contractual requirement for demonstrated consensus among affected parties before ICANN can make rules that bind others would more clearly achieve the limitation on unchecked power that any accountability regime must be designed to achieve. To make these checks and balances effective, all we need is a judicial branch (an independent arbitration panel) that can enforce the contract terms. And ICANN could, right now, take fears of abuse by a global “public interest” regulator off the table by making clear that it will agree to such contract terms. In short, ICANN would be well advised to tell the CCWG at the outset of the process what it will contractually agree to, as a constraint on its power to tell other people what to do. It is one thing for a do-gooder non-profit deploying its own staff and resources to have some feedback from those it might affect. It is quite another thing for the IANA monopoly over entry into the root zone file to be used to impose “mandatory public interest commitments” and registrar accreditation requirements that exploit the power to revoke domain names (and registrar accreditation) to police online conduct and content — all without any clear provision for due process or the normal limitations on jurisdiction. If ICANN took the “public interest regulator” option off the table, the “accountability” discussion could be greatly simplified. Unless CCWG knows at the outset what the ICANN board will agree to by contract, the process of discussing “accountability” is likely to create a proposal to establish another, even less accountable entity (the privileged “members”), who might be even more inclined than the current board to abuse the power inherent in the IANA monopoly. Should we have such a coup — or just negotiate a contract that puts back inside the original box ICANN’s powers to impose rules on others?

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] F2F Meeting Details
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Dear all, In addition to regular CCWG-Accountability meetings and at the request of the Chairs, ICANN has offered to support a 2-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 19-20 January 2014. · This meeting will take place at the Le Meridien Parkhotel in Frankfurt, Germany. · Suggested arrival is Sunday 18 January with departure on Tuesday 20 January in the evening (or Wednesday 21 January for intercontinental flights). ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members only <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is 7 January 2014. Members receiving ICANN funded travel/lodging must confirm attendance by 31 December 2014. Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. A high-level agenda overview: DAY 0: Arrive Sunday 18 January Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 19:00-21:00. DAY 1: Monday 19 January (9:00 18:00) DAY 2: Tuesday 20 January (8:00 17:00) Departure that evening (or Wednesday 21 January if needed) List of those eligible for ICANN travel funding: Appointed Members ALAC * Sebastien Bachollet <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713611> (Europe) * Tijani Ben Jemaa <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Tijani+BEN+JEMAA+SOI> (Africa) * Alan Greenberg <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Alan+Greenberg+SOI> (North America) * Cheryl Langdon-Orr <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Cheryl+Langdon-Orr+SOI> (Asia/Asia Pacific) * Leon Sanchez <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Leon+Sanchez+SOI> (Latin America) ASO * Fiona Asonga * Athina Fragkouli * Izumi Okutani <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Izumi+Okutani+SOI> ccNSO * Jordan Carter <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jordan+Carter+SOI> (.NZ, AP Region) * Eberhard Lisse <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Eberhard+Wolfgang+Lisse+SOI> (.NA, African Region) * Roelof Meijer <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/Roelof%20Meijer%2 0SOI.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418766497000&api=v2> (.NL, European Region) * Giovanni Seppia <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/18120874/SOI%20Giovanni%20 Seppia.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312823877000&api=v2> (.EU, European Region) * Mathieu Weill <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Mathieu+Weill+SOI> (.FR, European Region) Co-Chair GAC * Par Brumark <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413451> (Niue) * Olga Cavalli <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Olga+Cavalli+SOI> (Agentina) * Alice Munyua <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/AM-soi.pdf?versio n=1&modificationDate=1418147590000&api=v2> (African Union Commission) * Suzanne Radell <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Suzanne+M.+Radell+SOI > (USA) * Julia Wolman <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823968/Julia%20Wolman-so i.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418147231000&api=v2> (Denmark) GNSO * James Bladel <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI> (RrSG, North America Region) * Becky Burr <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Becky+Burr+SOI> (RySG, North America Region) * Steve DelBianco <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43980848/DelBianco%20-%20S OI.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1384632525000&api=v2> (CSG, North America Region) * Robin Gross <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Robin+Gross+SOI> (NCSG, North America Region) * Thomas Rickert <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Thomas+Rickert+SOI> (GNSO Council, Europe Region) Co-Chair Others * Bruce Tonkin <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Bruce+Tonkin+SOI> (ICANN Board Liaison) * Samantha Eisner <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Samantha+Eisner+SOI> (ICANN Staff Representative)

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

As mentioned on today’s call, here is a proposed definition for global public interest in the context of ICANN: The 'public' part of public interest is concerned more with users and registrants than with contracted parties and others who are deeply involved at ICANN. And the public interest in ICANN decisions is broader than just a secure and stable DNS. Namely, users and registrants want ICANN to make sure the DNS delivers two essential and measurable qualities: Availability and Integrity, of Registrations and Resolutions Availability of the DNS is critical for global users who increasingly rely on the Internet for information, communications, and commerce. Domain name resolutions need to be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, from anywhere on the globe. Availability also means being able to use any language and any script for both generic and country-code domains and email addresses. Availability can also apply to domain names sought by registrants: will domains in new gTLDs be available to the public, or will they be captured by insiders? That kind of availability should also be part of the public interest test for ICANN decisions. Integrity of the DNS is vital to registrants and end-users of the Internet. Registrants rely upon the integrity of domain name registration to ensure that their identities are not misrepresented or misappropriated. E-commerce and Internet financial transactions absolutely require integrity in resolution of domain names and secure delivery of encrypted data. Internet users depend upon the integrity of domain name services to provide accurate and authentic results when they look up a website or send an email. Integrity is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting users to fraudulent websites or providing false information about the true owner of a web domain. I encourage further discussion on the concept of global public interest in our CCWG. This term is too important to leave undefined or let a few individuals define it to fit their own agenda. If we allow 'public interest' to mean anything and everything, it will end up meaning nothing at all. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 12/16/14, 11:48 AM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello All, The origin of the strategic work on public interest comes from the strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf That panel recommended the following definition: "Panel Definitions Submitted to ICANN: As an independent, global organization, ICANN is one of the organizations charged with responsibility for an increasingly important shared global resource: The Internet. As one of the stewards of this resource, ICANN recognizes it has a responsibility to protect and promote the global public interest, both throughout its work, and in collaboration with other entities. ICANN's public responsibility permeates all areas of its work and is at the core of its operations. ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." This definition though has not been formally adopted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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

13 41

[CCWG-Accountability] Blog Update on IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All, Below is the latest blog update by Theresa Swinehart on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability tracks. -- Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd0 -5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd 0-5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598> It¹s hard to believe that 2014 is already coming to a close. This past year has been monumental towards validating the strength of the multistakeholder model, the true test beginning on March 14 with the announcement by NTIA of its intention to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions. Now at year¹s end, I am very pleased with the effort the community has made to inform and develop two global processes to achieve a successful transition. To provide a broader picture of the groups involved in each process, we designed an infographic showing the interrelation of the two processes and the flow of proposals from each. Please take time to review it. Download here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability- 12dec14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability -12dec14-en.pdf> Another great resource that has surfaced is a slide deck published by NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_manage ment_12162014.pdf> that describes its current Administrator role in the Root Zone management. To help inform transition discussions, the resource reiterates the ³clerical and administrative² role that NTIA holds in its oversight of the IANA functions. IANA Stewardship Transition Three operational communities are in the homestretch towards meeting the January 15 target deadline to respond to the ICG Request for Transition Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en .pdf> . The Names community Cross Community Working Group <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg> (CWG) met in Frankfurt <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> at the end of November, where constituent parts of the RFP were further developed. The work of each sub-section was coordinated into a preliminary draft transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e n.pdf> [PDF, 1.72 MB], which is currently up <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> through December 22. Given the progress, the CWG has stated with reasonable optimism that its proposal would be finished sufficiently close to the ICG's target deadline. Each of the five Regional Internet Registries communities has been discussing transition proposals <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-RIR-proposals-updated-201 41217.pdf> at RIR meetings, via mailing lists and through other forums. Each community has selected three members to participate on a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated -rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team> (CRISP Team) to coordinate a single proposal to submit to the ICG. The CRISP Team acknowledged minor differences among the proposals outlined by each RIR, but has since collaborated on accommodating these differences and is in the final stages of developing a draft proposal <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-16122014-c lean.pdf> , which should be published within the next few days. Then following discussions at IETF 91 and through its public mailing list, the chairs of the IANAPLAN WG <http://www.ietf.org/iana-transition.html> representing the protocol parameters community concluded that the working group had reached sufficient consensus on a draft proposal <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/> to move forward with a broader review. The draft proposal underwent an IETF-wide last call review through mid-December, and is now in the hands of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for approval. Enhancing ICANN Accountability The CCWG-Accountability charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> has been adopted by the GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and ASO, and the working group currently totals 150 with 26 members and 124 participants plus 30 mailing list observers. Co-chaired by Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) and Thomas Rickert (GNSO Council), the group has met twice already and will be meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/NBDxAg> every Tuesday until ICANN 52 in Singapore. The working group will also be holding one face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 January. Here is the CCWG-Accountability¹s estimated timeline for completing its work: In addition to the timeline, the CCWG has designated four sub-committees <https://community.icann.org/x/XoMQAw> for organizing the vast amount of research necessary to complete its work. Each work area has designated a Coordinator, and members and participants are currently volunteering to assist with the work. The four areas are: · Work Area 1: Review existing accountability mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 recommendations) · Work Area 2: Review input from the previous public comment period and categorize items into Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2 · Work Area 3: Review issues identified by the CWG-Stewardship · Work Area 4: Identify contingencies (especially in relation to Work Stream 1) I am very pleased to see that the group has developed effective working methods and has become comfortable with the charter over a very short period of time. This perseverance has enabled the group to work promptly and cohesively and has put them on track for the timely development of accountability recommendations for both Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2. Lastly, the Public Experts Group (PEG) has announced its selection of Advisors to the CCWG <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> . These Advisors will contribute research and advice to the working group, and will bring perspectives on global best practices on various topics ranging from Board Governance and Corporate Management to Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights. It is hoped that this external expertise will enrich the discussions of the working group and help to attain the level of accountability necessary for the transition. We encourage the community to stay informed and get involved in the various discussions on each process. On behalf of ICANN and its community, I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to all of the volunteers who will be working on these two processes through the upcoming holiday season. In the meantime, continue to check the ICANN website <https://www.icann.org/> , follow ICANN on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ICANN> , or like ICANN on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/icannorg?ref=ts&fref=ts> , and for quick access to all recent developments on both processes visit the transition homepage here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . Happy holidays! - TS

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: Op-Ed from The Hill
by Jordan Carter Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

This may be of interest. Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: 18 December 2014 at 01:46 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Op-Ed from The Hill To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Here is a link to an Op-Ed that some may find interesting. It probably more directly relates to the Accountability CCWG but accountability mechanisms like this were put in place overall in ICANN, it could impact our proposed solution. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl… Chuck

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [ccTLDcommunity] Alternative proposal to the CWG transition plan
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Please find enclosed a draft proposal from auDA forwarded with permission. greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Dec 19, 2014, at 07:21, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > > Yes el, with pleasure > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > >> On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: >> >> Chris, >> >> can I forward to CCWG-Accountability? >> >> el >> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 04:58, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Over the next couple of days auDA will be finalising its comments on the CWG proposal. As part of those we will be putting forward an alternative proposal. That proposal is below and also attached as a word document. I would welcome and very much appreciate input and feedback from ccTLD colleagues on our draft alternative. Like the CWG one, there is more work to do on it and detail to be filled in but I think it stands as a viable way forward that might, as a whole, be more palatable to some ccTLDs than the CWG proposal. Of course I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, once or twice. >>> >>> >>> IMPORTANT - As you know, I’m on the ICANN Board. The below proposal and the comments auDA will make on the CWG proposal come from auDA. The proposal has nothing to do with the ICANN Board and has not been discussed with the ICANN Board. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer >>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >>> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au >>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator >>> >>> >>> >>> auDA’s Alternative Proposal to CWG Transition Plan >>> >>> Assumptions: >>> >>> 1. In a limited number of circumstances (such as 'gross incompetence' or ‘material breach’) there should be an option for the IANA function to be transferred from ICANN to another operator - The Nuclear Option. >>> >>> 2. There should be an enhancing of the current functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN - Functional Separation. >>> >>> 3. There should be a TLD registry operator centric standing committee to liaise with and oversee the IANA functions operator on administrative and service level functions - The Customer Standing Committee. >>> >>> 4. There should be an independent, binding arbitration mechanism to handle certain disputes - Appeals. >>> >>> 5. There should be a separate review body to review any ccTLD revocation and delegation (formally referred to as re-delegation) - The ccTLD Review Body >>> >>> Note - there is a further assumption that the ICANN Accountability working group will deal with ICANN wide accountability recommendations (for example a Board spill mechanism) and that such matters are best dealt with there. It is clear that any fully formed transition proposal from the CWG has to be inextricably linked to the work of that Accountability WG and therefore the timing of the work of the groups needs to become aligned. >>> >>> >>> Proposal: >>> >>> 1. The Nuclear Option - Where the IANA functions operator is grossly negligent or incompetent or in material breach of its obligations under agreed service level commitments or performance indicators, it needs to be possible for the IANA function to be moved to a new operator. >>> >>> This could be achieved by the creation of a ‘Golden Bylaw’, similar to the corporate concept of a golden share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share) The Golden Bylaw would give the TLD registry operators the right, in certain circumstances, to require ICANN to put the IANA function out to re-bid. The Golden Bylaw would set out at least: >>> >>> a) the requirements to trigger the re-bid process - FOR EXAMPLE a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators >>> >>> b) what would need to happen to trigger the TLD registry operator’s vote - FOR EXAMPLE a petition by more than 15% of TLD registry operators >>> >>> c) the composition of a Re-Bid Committee that would oversee the vote and the subsequent re-bid and decide who the successful bidder was. The Re-Bid Committee could, FOR EXAMPLE, comprise of 20 registry operators (split between ccTLDs and gTLDS) plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC >>> >>> d) the basis upon which the Golden Bylaw itself could be changed - FOR EXAMPLE only by a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators >>> >>> e) the other aspects of this proposal set out below. >>> >>> 2. Functional Separation - The current levels of functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN can be enhanced as part of the transition in a number of ways including: >>> >>> a) the IANA department having its own discrete budget >>> >>> b) the IANA department having its own legal advisors and independent legal advice. >>> >>> 3. Customer Standing Committee - This committee would provide the day-to-day liaison between the IANA functions operator and the TLD registry operators. It could be made up of an equal number of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC. It would perform, at least, the following tasks: >>> >>> a) work with the IANA functions operator to agree service levels and performance indicators >>> >>> b) review and re-negotiate the service levels and performance indicators at agreed intervals >>> >>> c) receive reports on and monitor the IANA functions operator’s performance with respect to the service levels and the performance indicators >>> >>> d) conduct a regular IANA functions operator budget review. >>> >>> 4. Appeals - To deal with disputes that arise in respect to matters covered by 3 above there should be a binding arbitration mechanism utilising the services of an independent arbitration organisation. >>> >>> 5. The ccTLD Review Body - The ccTLD community needs to work to come to consensus on the review body contemplated by the Framework of Interpretation WG. Whilst it may not be essential that this work is done by the time of the transition, it is essential that the appeals mechanism set out in 4 above is clearly understood to not be that ccTLD Review Body. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>> >>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

4 5

[CCWG-Accountability] Follow-up to the last call
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

All, thanks to all of you for your attendance and participation in the last telephone conference and on the mailing lists. With this e-mail, we would like to follow up on the call we had on Tuesday. We plan to circulate comparable e-mails to you after every call to make it easier for everyone to keep track of the action items. This e-mail contains the following: I. Action Items II. Welcome to advisors III. Note to the CWG IV. Refined outline of tasks for Sub Groups V. F2F Meeting in Frankfurt VI. Closing remarks I. Action items: 1. ACTION: group to go to Subgroup1 wiki page and provide comments on the document before the next call 2. ACTION: Subgroup 1 will be repurposed to take on defining the term "accountability" in relation to the questions posed by Mathieu to the mailing list (David and Samantha are willing to lead this effort) 3. ACTION: review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list 4. ACTION: Colleagues to help build a comprehensive list of contingencies by the next call. 5. ACTION: Mathieu to identify a tentative Work Plan that will include timeline for legal review Please note that all action items are also listed in the meeting notes, which are written in the notes section of the Adobe Connect room and which will be sent to the list for every meeting. II. Welcome to advisors You will have seen the announcement on the mailing list yesterday. The PEG has identified and appointed 6 advisors. In addition to the kind notes that some of you have already sent, we would like to welcome the advisors. Their expertise will be immensely valuable to our group's and surely help to make progress in our work. We look forward to their joining the list and calls very soon. We do plan to invite the advisors to one of our next calls and agree on how we best interact with them. III. Note to the CWG We will send the following note to the CWG co-chairs Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson shortly: Dear Lise and Jonathan, thank you for providing us with the document outlining areas of overlap between the CWG and the CCWG. Rest assured that we will work on the items you identified with priority. We acknowledge that time is of essence and we plan to get back to you with a preliminary suggestion in response to your points in the second half of January. Please note that this might be subject to change as the work of your group progresses and needs to be taken into account as well as our deliberations will evolve. This may also impact the determination whether certain items are to be dealt with in work stream 1 or / and work stream 2. Kind regards, Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert Co-Chairs of the CCWG IV. Refined outline of tasks for Sub Groups A. WA 1 After the inventory of existing accountability mechanisms has been delivered for the CCWG’s review and adoption, the refined tasks to be undertaken are, for each mechanism identified, try to answer the questions of : a) is the mechanism providing check and balance, review or redress (see Netmundial definition of accountability in our Charter) ? b) to whom does this mechanisms seek to make Icann accountable ? c) for what purpose does this mechanism make Icann accountable ? This would then be a great starting point to assess which issues are most needed to be tackled. B. WA 2 With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following: Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory). Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter. Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations. As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations: Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to: What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause? What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition? How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after. If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented? How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to: What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition? If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented? How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to: What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role? What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms? What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed? If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date? C. WA 3 No changes. D. WA 4 With regards to WA4, we have suggested to the group to try and expand the list of contingencies before we can focus on those with higher impact or greatest relevance related to the IANA Stewardship transition. Inspiration for contingencies can be found in generic risk management standards. All of them start with identifying a list of threats that are relevant to the organisation. Specific suggestions have been shared on the WA4 list. V. F2F Meeting in Frankfurt A location has been secured for the Frankfurt meeting. Grace will send out details under separate cover. VI. Closing remarks We would like to close this e-mail by thanking you again for your involvement in the group. It is good to see a lot of discussion going on that helps the group and sub groups shape its positions. For those who have not yet spoken up or written, please do make yourself heard. All the input you might have is appreciated and welcome. Also, please check the work results, papers that are produced to see whether the points you made actually made their way into the documents as they will be the basis for the whole CCWG’s review and our discussions. Thanks again and kind regards, Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert Co-Chairs of the CCWG

3 2

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

I must have missed those stated plans... Alan At 17/12/2014 11:07 PM, Carrie Devorah wrote: >Why are you worried about planning for >California laws when the stated plans are if and >when Congress lets IANA go the plan is, not to >keep ICANN/IANA in America but to move IANA to >Switzerland where it will be under legal oversight for DRS of WIPO? >Sincerely >Carrie Devorah > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:41 PM, LeÃ³n Felipe >SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa <<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >Dear Kavouss, > >I like the idea of examining other options. >Which options should we be looking at? > >Best regards, > >LeÃ³n >>El 17/12/2014, a las 14:21, Kavouss Arasteh >><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: >> >> >>Dear All, >>The entity may be one option. However, it is not what we were thinking of >>First of all, no mentioned was made of GAC >>Second the composition of the group is not mentioned >>Third the footing is not mentioned >>Fourth the legal Framework is not mentioned and >>More importantly, it seems to me that every >>possible effort is made to maintain the current >>structure as we are talking of SO and AC >>.However, this is not the realistic composition. >>We need to look at other option in which the process is more democratic. >>All these SO and AC are not fully democratic as >>the stakeholder does not have direct role on that >>Please kindly do not limit us to merely existing practice and model >>There are variety of possibilities >>I know most of you are for statuesque >>But I and many others wants to see and examine other options >> >>Kavouss >> >> >>2014-12-17 17:45 GMT+01:00 "Carlos RaÃºl G." >><<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>crg(a)isoc-cr.org>: >>Dear Steve >> >>Are you suggesting we include changes in the >>bylaws within the scope of the working groups? I would have a few suggestions! >> >>Cheers >> >>Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez >><tel:%2B506%208335%202487>+506 8335 2487 >>Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >>El dic 17, 2014, a las 10:20 AM, Steve >>DelBianco >><<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> escribiÃ³: >> >>>This pertains to our discussion yesterday >>>about a permanent, cross-community >>>âMembershipâ group to hold ICANN board and >>>management accountable to the community. It >>>was described this way in >>><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…>draft3 >>>for work area 2: >>> >>>Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent >>>cross-community representative structure (all >>>ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to: >>> >>>Appoint members of Affirmation review teams >>>Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute >>>(option to use independent panel) >>>Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval >>>Approve annual proposed ICANN budget >>>Recall one or all ICANN Board members >>> >>> >>>One of the groups >>><http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/>proposing >>>a community of stakeholders as ultimate >>>authority posted a relevant >>><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl…>Op-Ed >>>in a Washington paper today. Daniel Castro of >>>the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote: >>> >>>California state law applies since ICANN is a >>>registered nonprofit corporation in the state. >>>As such, California law allows nonprofit >>>organizations to have statutory members. >>>Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an >>>effective check on the ICANN board's power is >>>to create statutory members of ICANN with >>>extensive authority over the board. This >>>authority could include removing board >>>members, overturning board decisions, etc. The >>>statutory members would likely include the >>>chairs of the various ICANN "supporting >>>organizations" and "advisory committees," such >>>as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) >>>responsible for IP address policy and the >>>Country Code Name Supporting Organization >>>(ccNSO) responsible for managing the country >>>code top-level domains. To ensure that the >>>statutory members do not hold too much sway, >>>their actions could be limited to situations >>>where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus). >>> >>> >>>We welcome further elaboration of legal basis >>>to enable this modification to ICANNâs >>>bylaws in conformance with California law. >>> >>> >>> >>>Steve DelBianco >>> >>>Executive Director >>> >>>NetChoice >>> >>><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org >>>and <http://blog.netchoice.org/>http://blog.netchoice.org >>> >>><tel:%2B1.202.420.7482>+1.202.420.7482 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >-- >Sincerely >CARRIE Devorah >562 688 2883 > > > >DISCLAIMER : >With the continuing crossing and interfacing of >platforms both on & off line both with & without >our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent >over the Internet anymore is ever private nor >should be presumed to be so. If it is that much >of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a >lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 8

[CCWG-Accountability] Public Experts Group Announces Advisors to CCWG-Accountability
by Hillary Jett Dec. 17, 2014

Dec. 17, 2014

Hi all, The Public Experts Group has announced its selection of Advisors to the CCWG. To view the original post, please see here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en Selection of Advisors to the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process The Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group <https://community.icann.org/x/_wPxAg> (PEG) announces the selection of Advisors to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). As stated in the revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en> from 10 October, The Public Experts Group (PEG) was tasked <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en> with selecting up to 7 Advisors to the CCWG. Through the course of its work, the PEG identified <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-10-16-en> the following areas of expertise as critical to the process and to the evaluation of Advisor candidates: * Board Governance and Corporate Management (for example operational, finance, risk management) * Global Accountability and Transparency theoretical, practical, tools and metrics * Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights (for example consumer protection) * Governmental Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance * International Law/ Jurisprudence (for example choice of law) The PEG is pleased to announce the following individuals, serving in their personal capacities as Advisors to the CCWG: > Roberto Bissio, Executive Director of the Instituto del Tercer Mundo -- Area > of Expertise: Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights (for example consumer > protection) > > William Currie, Consultant in ICT Policy and Regulation -- Area of Expertise: > Governmental Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance > > Valerie D'Costa, Program Manager at infoDev -- Area of Expertise: Governmental > Engagement and Relations and Multistakeholder Governance > > Ira Magaziner, Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Clinton Health > Access Initiative -- Area of Expertise: Governmental Engagement and Relations > and Multistakeholder Governance > > Nell Minow, Shareholder Advocate -- Area of Expertise: Board Governance and > Corporate Management (for example operational, finance, risk management > > Jan Scholte, Professor, University of Gothenburg and University of Warwick -- > Area of Expertise: Global Accountability and Transparency theoretical, > practical, tools and metrics The Advisors roles are to contribute research and advice, and to bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich the discussion, all while engaging with a broader network of accountability experts from around the world. The PEG continues its search for an Advisor who will bring expertise in International Law/Jurisprudence and will strive to select this Advisor as soon as possible. Once the PEG has concluded its work, it will no longer be active in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process. However, the PEG notes that the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process considered that while the PEG's formal task is to select Advisors, PEG members could continue to be available provide additional assistance if there is an identified need for further independent input or expertise. The members of the PEG are: Ms. Jeanette Hoffman, Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society; Ambassador Janis Karklins, Latvian Ambassador. Chair of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG); Mr. Larry Strickling, NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce; and Mr. Brian Cute, Chief Executive Officer, Public Interest Registry -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 (202) 249-7554 Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Sign Up for Work Areas!
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 17, 2014

Dec. 17, 2014

Dear all, Here is the latest list of volunteers for each of the four work areas. Please sign up if you are able and interested. Please note that Work Area 3 still does not have a coordinator. Best, Grace Work Area 1: Existing Accountability Mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 Recommendations) Coordinators/Rapporteurs: David Maher / Samantha Eisner Volunteers: * Robin Gross * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * * Becky Burr * * Stephanie Duchesneau * * Bruce Tonkin * * Malcolm Hutty * * Par Brumark * Edward Morris * Avri Doria * Alice Munyua * Julia Wolman * Finn Petersen Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YIMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability1(a)icann.org Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/ Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2 Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both. Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco Volunteers: * Jordan Carter * Leon Sanchez * * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy * * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * * Becky Burr * * Stephanie Duchesneau * * Robin Gross * * Paul Rosenzweig * * Olivier Muron * * Malcolm Hutty * * Alain Bidron * * Suzanne Radell * * Jeff Neuman Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/ Work Area 3: Review Issues Identified by CWG-Stewardship Coordinator/Rapporteur: TBC Volunteers: * * Jordan Carter * * Leon Sanchez * * Yasuichi Kitamura * * Michael Benaudis * * Martin Boyle * * Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva * * Malcolm Hutty * * Avri Doria Link: https://community.icann.org/x/ZoMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability3(a)icann.org Public archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability3/ Work Area 4: Identify Contingencies (especially in relation to WS1) Coordinator/Rapporteur: Eric Brunner-Williams Volunteers: * * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy * * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * * Dina Beer * * Malcolm Hutty * * Edward Morris * * Sarah Kiden * Rudolph Daniel * Olga Cavalli Link: https://community.icann.org/x/aIMQAw Mailing List Address: ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/

17 16