- Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for Call on 6 January at 12:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

Dear all, Please see below for the proposed agenda for the call tomorrow on 6 January at 12:00 UTC. I will follow up shortly with the call details (on the notify list), but as always, the Adobe Connect room is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. 3. WS1/WS2 Discussion 4. Definitions / scoping 5. Engagement with the CWG ICANN Board 6. High Level Statement 7. Expectations for the F2F Frankfurt 8. Timeline: highlight questions raised by plan 9. Work Area 4 Update Eric Brunner-Williams 10. 11. AOB 12. Closing Remarks

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 Steve DelBianco WA3 Avri Doria WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

15 17

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 3] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Jan. 3, 2015

Jan. 3, 2015

There are 130 participants. There something like 30 members. And as far as the .NA ccTLD (Manager) is concered there is only one decision maker. Never mind the 7 Billion, I happen to have extensive, first hand, professional and personal experience how the Internet affects inhabitants of developing countries... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > On Jan 3, 2015, at 10:16, Carrie <carriedev(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is a POV > There are 7 billion people in the world your decision impact > > I think there are 130 of us in the group? > > Carrie > Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com > > Sent from my iPhone > >> [...]

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 2, 2015

Jan. 2, 2015

Attached is the PDF version of Tijani's comments. From: Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:17 PM To: "'David W. Maher'" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear David, Please find attached a copy of the table with my modification proposals which are: · Advisory Mechanism: o SSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? o RSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? · Contractual requirements: o Registry & registrar agreements: I believe that the registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the column ³to whom²) · I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org] Envoyé : mercredi 31 décembre 2014 19:03 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA; 'Grace Abuhamad'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc : 'Brenda Brewer' Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December re: Work Area 1 Dear Tijani: I'm afraid I do not understand your questions and comments regarding the 22 December draft of the Accountability Inventory. Perhaps you could make some redline revisions so that we could see what is intended. Thank you. David David W. Maher Senior Vice President Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:18 AM To: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: 'Brenda Brewer' <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the last call. It was out of my control. I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe recording. · There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to those 2 work areas on the wiki. o Why the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended? o Why WA 3 and 4 didn¹t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2? I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through interfaces. Work Area 1: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the following remarks: · Advisory Mechanism: o SSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? o RSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? · Contractual requirements: o Registry & registrar agreements: I believe that the registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the column ³to whom²) · I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? Work Area 2: · While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. All other human rights that are not related to content can be included in the public interest in my PoV. That¹s why I don¹t agree on replacing ³in the public interest² by for protection and advance of human rights and Internet Freedoms². · The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work should remain internal. · Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law? · I don¹t know who is transparency International, and if they are so exceptional in auditing, why they don¹t do so for the other ICANN components such as the Board? Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 leaders for the wonderful work they did. See you today on the call ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De :accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : mercredi 24 décembre 2014 12:55 À : Accountability Cross Community Cc : Brenda Brewer Objet : [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw <https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw> . The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION: contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI * ACTION - WA1: DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion * ACTION - WA2: Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 * ACTION - WA2: Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. * ACTION - WA4: Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page * ACTION - WA4: All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. * ACTION: Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline The next call is on Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> Best, Grace <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 2, 2015

Jan. 2, 2015

Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 8

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by David W. Maher Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

re: Work Area 1 Dear Tijani: I'm afraid I do not understand your questions and comments regarding the 22 December draft of the Accountability Inventory. Perhaps you could make some redline revisions so that we could see what is intended. Thank you. David David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:18 AM To: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: 'Brenda Brewer' <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the last call. It was out of my control. I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe recording. · There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to those 2 work areas on the wiki. o Why the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended? o Why WA 3 and 4 didn’t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2? I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through interfaces. Work Area 1: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the following remarks: · Advisory Mechanism: o SSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? o RSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? · Contractual requirements: o Registry & registrar agreements: I believe that the registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the column “to whom”) · I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? Work Area 2: · While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. All other human rights that are not related to content can be included in the public interest in my PoV. That’s why I don’t agree on replacing “in the public interest” by for protection and advance of human rights and Internet Freedoms”. · The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work should remain internal. · Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law? · I don’t know who is transparency International, and if they are so exceptional in auditing, why they don’t do so for the other ICANN components such as the Board? Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 leaders for the wonderful work they did. See you today on the call -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : mercredi 24 décembre 2014 12:55 À : Accountability Cross Community Cc : Brenda Brewer Objet : [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December Dear all, The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw. The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION: contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI * ACTION - WA1: DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion * ACTION - WA2: Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 * ACTION - WA2: Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. * ACTION - WA4: Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page * ACTION - WA4: All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. * ACTION: Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline The next call is on Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best, Grace ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> Date: 2015-01-01 11:40 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Hi Kavouss, I guess you intend to write the list but it seem it's a PM to me. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Jan 2015 10:36, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear. All > I have no problem to write a Note to the Board asking procedure which will > be used in case some items arising from CCWG requiring change in Bylaws > even though Bruce had indicated the procedure in his recent message. > What I disagree is to write to the Board and asking what changed they > accept from CCWG. > This is not appropriate. CCWG is established. It will send its outcome or > conclusions which resulted from discussions ,debates, meetings and thus our > works should continue freely, openly, in a democratic and transparent > manner without any prerequisite conditions. > Those who believe that CCWG requires prerequisite permission from Board > what to be studied and what should not be studied need to review their > position and allow us to work without any pre conditions and instruction > from the Board > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 1 Jan 2015, at 00:44, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome > especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law > modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making > process may be useful. > Secondly, there are common items of interest between CCWG and CWG so I > think we may learn some hint from board's recent participation in the CWG > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 30 Dec 2014 23:40, "Paul Rosenzweig" < > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > >> All >> >> >> >> As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my >> point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the >> Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send >> to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following >> lines: >> >> >> >> The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been >> considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the >> prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the >> CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s >> recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and >> ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. >> Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on >> the following question: >> >> >> >> “Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability >> recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or >> contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and >> operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent >> mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing >> community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed >> that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, >> restrained? >> >> >> >> If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then >> remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals >> that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. >> If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations >> on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that >> accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be >> commensurately broadened.” >> >> >> >> I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we >> use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our >> decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or >> substantially broadened) our field of consideration. >> >> >> >> Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information >> – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in >> the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in >> seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board >> answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach >> consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only >> the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary. >> >> >> >> So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of >> both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at >> the earliest practicable opportunity. >> >> >> >> I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year. >> >> >> >> Warm regards >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** >> >> 509 C St. NE >> >> Washington, DC 20002 >> >> >> >> Paul Rosenzweig >> >> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >> <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >> >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >> >> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 >> >> Link to my PGP Key >> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> >> >> >> >> *From:* Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM >> *To:* Accountability Cross Community >> *Cc:* Brenda Brewer >> *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 >> December at 19:00 UTC >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on >> 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. >> >> >> >> *Proposed Agenda*: >> >> 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest >> >> 2. Membership Updates >> >> 3. Work Area Updates >> >> WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner >> >> WA2 – Steve DelBianco >> >> WA3 – Avri Doria >> >> WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams >> >> 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG >> >> 5. Expectations for the F2F >> >> 6. AOB >> >> 7. Closing Remarks >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays. Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes: CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1. These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold) David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties. Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions. In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it. Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes. Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.” Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found by the community" Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2. Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2 Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Look forward to discussing on our next call. — 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

13 21

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

Hello Paul, >> "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent? From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is: 'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)." Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as: "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another. While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level. I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws. Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions. I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission. >From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

[CCWG-Accountability] (no subject)
by Robert Heywood Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

please remove me from the mailing list

1 0