- Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
by Dr Eberhard Lisse May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

The Co-Chairs could not give a toss. el On 2015-05-05 15:34, Nigel Roberts wrote: > "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed > agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor > for the IANA functions in perpetuity." > > > If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is > literally true, aren't we all wasting our time?? > > Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the > accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be > moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch? > > What does the CCWG think? > > > Nigel Roberts [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Draft v.11 for posting
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear all, Here attached is V.11, the final document that will be posted for public comment. This version incorporates all the edits received, including from: Roelof Meijer; Legal Counsel (Sidley & Adler); Samantha Eisner; Kavouss Arasteh; Sebastien Bachollet; Robin Gross ; Steve Del Bianco; Izumi Okutani; Matt Shears; Jordan Carter; Jan Scholte; Becky Burr; and Bruce Tonkin. In additions to these edits, staff worked with the Chairs and the Rapporteurs to clarify each section of the draft. You can download V.11 from the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report The document will be posted in two forms: there will be one version with annexes (³long²) and another version without annexes (³short²). Please know this difference for your communities and clarify that comments will be accepted on either version of the draft proposal. Accompanying the document will be a set up slides/graphics designed by Xplane (and discussed on the 30 April call). Your role: Once the draft is out, it¹ll be part of your role as a CCWG-Accountability member/participants to be 'ambassadors¹ and help reach out to your communities. Hillary Jett from the ICANN communications team will speak more to outreach and engagement on Tuesday¹s call. Webinars: Finally, the Chairs will host two webinars next Monday (11 May) to brief the community on the content of the proposal, and answer any questions the community may have. The announcement will be circulated shortly. Translation: The full proposal has just been sent for translation into all ICANN-supported languages. Congratulations all The draft is roughly 50,000 words, 147 pages, so there¹s a lot to show for your efforts (as if there wasn¹t already!). Best, Grace

4 3

Email to Chairs from Communications
by Hillary Jett May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Hello all, This is the email that is noted in the agenda as the April 29 email from ICANN Communications to the Chairs. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Hillary From: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 2:20 PM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove(a)icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: CCWG & Comms support Hi Mathieu, Thomas, León, In light of this conversation about communications support I wanted to outline what ICANN is prepared to do in supporting the CCWG through the public comment next week. This is obviously in addition to the resources being created by XPLANE, and is open to suggestions or questions! Thanks! Hillary 1. ICANN will use social media to share the public comment. Example, from the CWG-Public comment, ICANN¹s 2 tweets received this feedback: CWG #IANA Draft to Develop #IANASteward Proposal on Naming Related Functions posted for Public Comment #ICANN https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04 -22-en 18 retweets, 3 favorites * 3,281 impressions (total number of people who saw the tweet on their timeline) * 61 engagements (total number of people who expanded, clicked or interacted with the tweet beyond reading on their timeline) ICYMI: CWG #IANA posted 2nd draft proposal for public comment. Will hold 2 Webinars tomorrow to walk through it https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en 7 retweets, 4 favorites * 2,601 impressions (total number of people who saw the tweet on their timeline) * 21 engagements (total number of people who expanded, clicked or interacted with the tweet beyond reading on their timeline) These statistics are from Twitter, but they are also shared out on Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn (Including from our regional ICANN accounts) 2. We send out a news alert to journalists that have inquired about the process anytime between last March and now. This includes a very broad reach through our regional communications team. Articles written about the CWG public comment: The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/24/internet_kingmakers_drop_ego_devise_ future_of_the_internet/?mt=1430150936140 Telesintense: http://www.telesintese.com.br/icann-abre-nova-consulta-sobre-transicao-de-fu ncoes-iana/ (Portuguese) Abranet: http://www.abranet.org.br/Noticias/ICANN-lanca-ultima-consulta-publica-para- definir-seu-futuro-na-Internet-564.html#.VT70PpPzl4M (Portuguese) We have also had inquiries from 3-5 additional sources that have shown interest in writing a story in the coming days. 3. Encourage participants of the working groups, plus ICANN Staff around the world to share with their lists: Example of CWG Public Comment shares outside of IANA mailing lists: * ISOC Internet Collaboration List * ISOC Chapters Worldwide * IANAoversight mailing list AFRINIC * IANAPLAN * Cooperation-WG 4. Update ICANN homepage * Update homepage banner to highlight the public comment on day of Public Comment posting * Sends out alert to anyone who has signed up for ICANN news alerts 5. Share on ICANN Regional and Policy Newsletters We encourage our teams to share the information in a front and center, prime location on their regional mailing lists. What we encourage from you: * Host a Webinar explaining the proposal within the first week of posting for public comment > * ICANN will also send out to our lists as outlined above > * ICANN will help with slides (Encourage using XPLANE similar to CWG) > * Record the Webinar and make both the presentations and slides public on the > wiki * Suggest that members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability share or give presentations to their home constituencies > * This is important because liaising with their SO/ACs will hold a high > weight, and takes some of that responsibility off of the Chairs > * However, we do encourage a Chair or Rapporteur to attend a Webinar -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

CCWG Public Comment is open
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear all, Please circulate this link to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment proceeding: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201 5-05-04-en Best, Grace

4 3

CCWG May 5th agenda
by Mathieu Weill May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the agenda for our regular CCWG call, which will take place at 12.00 UTC today. Call details have been circulated as usual. 1. Welcome & Roll Call & SoI 2. Update on report publication 3. Engagement plan 4. Areas of further investigation for the group : 5. AOB 6. Concluding remarks Talk to you soon. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1

Webinars! CCWG-Accountability: Presentation on the Draft Report for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability): Presentation on the Draft Report for Public Comment <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en#> The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability was established to initiate a related process to the IANA Stewardship Transition process to ensure that ICANN's accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government. This report for public comment represents the current work product of the CCWG-Accountability. It is focused on draft Work Stream 1 recommendations (Work Stream 1 is the CCWG-Accountability's work on changes to ICANN's accountability arrangements which must be in place, or committed to, prior to the IANA Stewardship transition), which were the focus of the first five months of work (from December 2014 until May 2015). These recommendations are not presented as the consensus of the CCWG-Accountability at this point. The CCWG-Accountability is seeking confirmation of its approach and guidance upon several options. The CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar&iso=20150511T11&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar&iso=20150511T19&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> . If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer(a)icann.org and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CCWG-Accountability Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/x/rYQ0Aw> . Further information For further information about the CCWG-Accountability's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. For further information about the related IANA Stewardship Transition process, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability.

1 0

Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we¹d rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. Almost there! Grace

18 40

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft v.11 for posting
by Sébastien Bachollet May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

Thanks Good work Talk to you tomorrow All the best Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date : lundi 4 mai 2015 23:07 À : Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Draft v.11 for posting > Dear all, > > Here attached is V.11, the final document that will be posted for public > comment. This version incorporates all the edits received, including from: > Roelof Meijer; Legal Counsel (Sidley & Adler); Samantha Eisner; Kavouss > Arasteh; Sebastien Bachollet; Robin Gross ; Steve Del Bianco; Izumi Okutani; > Matt Shears; Jordan Carter; Jan Scholte; Becky Burr; and Bruce Tonkin. In > additions to these edits, staff worked with the Chairs and the Rapporteurs to > clarify each section of the draft. You can download V.11 from the Wiki here: > https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report > > The document will be posted in two forms: there will be one version with > annexes (³long²) and another version without annexes (³short²). Please know > this difference for your communities and clarify that comments will be > accepted on either version of the draft proposal. Accompanying the document > will be a set up slides/graphics designed by Xplane (and discussed on the 30 > April call). > > Your role: Once the draft is out, it¹ll be part of your role as a > CCWG-Accountability member/participants to be 'ambassadors¹ and help reach out > to your communities. Hillary Jett from the ICANN communications team will > speak more to outreach and engagement on Tuesday¹s call. > > Webinars: Finally, the Chairs will host two webinars next Monday (11 May) to > brief the community on the content of the proposal, and answer any questions > the community may have. The announcement will be circulated shortly. > > Translation: The full proposal has just been sent for translation into all > ICANN-supported languages. > > Congratulations all The draft is roughly 50,000 words, 147 pages, so there¹s > a lot to show for your efforts (as if there wasn¹t already!). > > Best, > Grace > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

RV: Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Perez Galindo, Rafael May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

From: "RICHARDS Megan (CNECT)" <Megan.Richards(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> Date: 4 May 2015 16:18:51 CEST To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Sorry but there is no intention (at least not from us) to change ICANN bylaws or the AoC (none of which by the way refer to "private sector led multistakeholder" approach). The point is to ensure that multistakeholder is exactly that : multistakeholder. The fact that ICANN is a private sector non-profit corporation does not change the nature of multistakeholder input (neither do any of the cited references which refer in differing circumstances to the activities or nature of ICANN as a "multistakeholder, private-led, bottom up organisation") Sent from my iPhone On 04 May 2015, at 15:55, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Agree with Paul and Ed. Removing the "private sector" qualifier is inconsistent with the existing bylaws (Core Values, #11), and sections #1, #4, and #8 of the Affirmation of Commitments. It represents a significant and unacceptable modification of the status quo. Thanks- J. From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:20 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Of course, all the governments want to eliminate the phrase "private sector" from discussion, even though it has been part of the ICANN Bylaws and AOC for dozens of years. I would too if I were in their shoes. As a non-government person who reads the NTIA conditions as critically emphasizing only one thing - the absence of future government control - I would see the elimination of a phrase that has been in the system for a long time as signifying a change in practice. Clearly the governments do too - that's why they want it eliminated. If we make this change we signal to the world that the governments will have a bigger role than they do now, and we jeopardize the transition altogether. Ed Morris is right - this is a change we should not make ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 8:08 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman; Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi All Spain would also like to stress our support for the use of the term "multistakeholder" without additional qualifiers. Best Rafa De:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman Enviado el: lunes, 04 de mayo de 2015 13:34 Para: Avri Doria; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all I would like to echo my GAC colleagues regarding the definition of the term "multistakeholder" to be used in the report. We (DK) agree that using the term "multistakeholder " without the qualifiers is preferable as the term in itself embraces all stakeholders. Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Kavouss Arasteh Sendt: 2. maj 2015 18:16 Til: Avri Doria Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear Avri, YES and Yes . I fully agree with what you said we just need to mention everywhere referenced " in a multistakeholder button up approach without any refernce to private or public..We are emerging more and more and should refrain to motivate any division or polarisation. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 17:28 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>: Hi, I too agree that the report should take a multistakeholder view that treats all ICANN stakeholders equally. I do not think that it is necessary that that all stakeholders decide to do things in the same manner, but that the various options should be open to all stakeholders on an overall equal footing. I do not believe that all stakeholders have the same roles and responsibilities in each phase of every operation. But in the overall process there needs to be a balanced and equal footing. This is a goal in my view in all Internet Governance (IG) mechanisms. ICANN is an organization that is closer to doing this in a open and equal footing manner than most organizations in IG. I think that it is is important in this Accountabilty work to be clear about that continuing goal. I do not, however, wish to accidentally fall into the pattern where there is parity between 2 stakeholder grouping: private and public. Rather we need the full multistakeholder mix. I think we should mention neither public nor private and just mention the diversity of stakeholder groups involved in ICANN. The word multistakeholder should be sufficient. avri On 02-May-15 10:06, Olga Cavalli wrote: Dear all, thanks for the draft. I support Kavouss comments and suggested edits. Regards Olga 2015-05-02 4:35 GMT-03:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: IMPORTANT AND URGENT Dear co-chairs, Thank you very much for your enormous and tireless efforts to put this doc. for final comments I have had many comments but I could not finish the edits till now. I therefore do not wish to delay the work. However, I have one VERY IMPORTANT edit that I raised it in my last e-mail. That edit is relating to a reference to ICANN or Internet Process as being «private led multistakeholder" organization or process. This is a mistake. a big mistake. There is no such preference to one category of stakeholder over other categories of stakeholder (private or public) . I raised this matter at one of our call and asked for deletion of that term. All stakeholder, irrespective being private, public, and etc. SHALL be treated equally. This issue was raised at various occasions by NTIA indicating / emphasizing that no single category of the stakeholder should benefit from preference over other categories of stakeholders .This term was used at very early stage of the introduction of the ICANN into the business. Over the time when we discussed that the process should be inclusive, democratic, then it was agreed by everybody that no category of the stakeholder should have any preference, what so ever, or should have a preferred treatment over other categories of the stakeholders. In view of the above, I urge you to kindly correct such a big mistake which if it is not corrected would put us in a very delicate situation that we did not respect impartiality and neutrality in treating various categories of the stakeholders. There are 4 or 5 times that such a reference to »private led multistakeholder are referred to in the doc. Pls kindly make a simple «find" check and delete all that. Term in other part of doc. whenever, so as reference is maded to multistakeholder there is no such an incorrect and discriminative preference. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 9:01 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, I have not finish edits .I am on page 50. However, in view of time time constrain, I have an important edit that is attached. The same edit should be carried forward elsewhere throughout the entire document . please then search for " private sector led " and DELETE THAT . I mentioned in one of the call .See Attached doc. Regards 2015-05-02 3:34 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>: Thanks Grace. Dear CCWG, Attached please find some proposed edits for consideration. Best, Sam From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Hi all, Just a reminder than edits, comments are due in approximately 3h. Thank you to those who sent edits earlier today. If you must send late edits, please send a note to the Chairs with staff in copy to give us notice that your comments will be delayed. Best to stick to the deadline, but we know everyone is working hard to get this draft report ready, and we'd rather get your comments than not at all. Have a good weekend, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, We sent the V10 draft report earlier today (in UTC) but have been notified that, in some cases, the files are too large to download from the email attachments. As a reminder, the draft (redline and clean versions) are posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. Looking forward to receiving your comments and edits, Grace From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC Dear all, Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). Version 10 incorporates the following: * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list bySaturday 2 May 01:00 UTC(24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. Almost there! - Grace _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Edward Morris May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

Hi, I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability. Best, Ed Morris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

17 21