- Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Please join sub groups!
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 17, 2014

Dec. 17, 2014

All, please do join one or more sub groups. I am sure that oyu have ideas for the various areas of work. Please do share these ideas and your input with the whole group. We really need to get things going and your thoughts are more than welcome. Thanks and kind regards, Mathieu, Alan and Thomas

5 8

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

Dec. 17, 2014

Dear all, Here is the current list of volunteers for each of the four work areas. Please sign up if you are able and interested. Work Area 1: Existing Accountability Mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 Recommendations) Coordinators/Rapporteurs: David Maher / Samantha Eisner Volunteers: * Robin Gross 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 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 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: Link: https://community.icann.org/x/aIMQAw Mailing List Address: ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/

20 23

[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Hello Kavouss, >> In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case. From my understanding there are two separate but related activities. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is developing a proposal to send to NTIA for the IANA transition. This proposal could incorporate the output of this Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The ICANN Board's liaison on the ICG - Kuo Wei Wu - has conveyed to that group that the Board will send the report onto the NTIA without making any changes. The Board will send an accompanying letter which will either endorse the report, or it will express concerns that will already have been shared with the ICG through the various opportunities for public comment and dialogue. This Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is developing recommendations for improvements of ICANN's accountability. These improvements can be made irrespective of whether the NTIA chooses to change its role with respect to the IANA function. The Board of ICANN is committed to making continuous improvements in its accountability mechanisms. The ICANN bylaws are clear on how the Board will approve policy recommendations from the supporting organisations (GNSO, ASO and ccNSO), but there is no explicit material in the bylaws for how the Board will process recommendations directly from a cross-community working group. The Board resolution passed in Los Angeles (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) was intended to set clear expectations for how the recommendations would be treated. The assumption is that the Board will approve the recommendations from this group, and implement those recommendations. If the Board feels that it would not be in the public interest to implement a particular recommendation it has set out a process for working with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability to resolve the matter. The Board will not make any changes to a recommendation or report from this group. It is up to the CCWG to make or change any of its recommendations. Separately, I expect that the NTIA could make the ICANN Board's approval and implementation of improved accountability mechanisms proposed by this group as a pre-condition to any transition. I hope that helps. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

14 21

[CCWG-Accountability] Proposed Agenda for Call on 16 December at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for the call tomorrow 16 December at 11:00 UTC: **Please note that the Chairs have decided to open to Adobe Connect room to any silent observers, including the observers on this mailing list. There will no longer be an audio-only stream for observers. You are welcome to share the Adobe Connect link, but please remind your colleagues that should they intend to actively participate in CCWG-Accountability calls, that they should join the CCWG-Accountability** Adobe Connect Link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ > > > 1. Welcome & Roll Call > 2. Membership Updates (including Advisors) > 3. Coordination between CWG and ICG > 4. Interaction with ICANN Board > 5. Work Area Updates > · WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner > > · WA2 Steve DelBianco > > · WA3 (coordinator TBD) > > · WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams > > 6. Draft Work Plan: Steps and Milestones (PDF attached) > 7. Upcoming Meetings Logistics > · Tuesday 23 December at 06:00 08:00 UTC > > · Tuesday 30 December 19:00 21:00 UTC > > · Tuesday 6 January 12:00 14:00 UTC > > · Tuesday 13 January 06:00 08:00 UTC > > · Face to Face Meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 January 2015 > > · Tuesday 27 January 19:00 21:00 UTC > > · Tuesday 3 January 12:00 14:00 UTC > > · Working Sessions at ICANN52 (TBC) > > 8. AOB

5 5

[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

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

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Statistics on Diversity in the CCWG-Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear all, Staff has compiled some initial statistics on the diversity of the CCWG-Accountability that the Chairs have asked us to share below: This information will also be regularly updated on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/IoMHAw There are currently 150 people in the CCWG-Accountability. 26 Members | 124 Participants and 30 Mailing List Observers Of the 150 CCWG-Accountability members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: * 40 (not specified) * 34 North America * 33 Europe * 23 Asia/Asia Pacific * 12 Africa * 7 Latin America Of the 150 CCWG-Accountability members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: * 58 (no affiliation) * 35 GNSO * 21 GAC * 18 At-Large * 11 ccNSO/ccTLD * 4 ASO In addition, there is one ICANN Board Liaison and one ICANN Staff Representative. Also, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two groups.

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] Initial draft for overall steps
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 15, 2014

Dec. 15, 2014

Dear colleagues, In support of our discussions for our meeting Tue 16th 11.00 UTC, please find attached a proposal highlighting significant steps and milestones for our group, for discussion. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL Co-chair Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability
by Kavouss Arasteh Dec. 14, 2014

Dec. 14, 2014

Dear All, In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case. I am worried about that. I mentioned that in virtual meeting to all CCWG Regards Kavouss 2014-12-14 17:49 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: > > Wolf-Ulrich, > > > > I totally agree with you that this will have to be discussed. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:20 AM > *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith > *Cc:* ICG; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the > CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to > the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. > > > > The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make > reference that > > << > > Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., > implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within > the scope of the CWG-Stewardship > > >> > > What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of > CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability > that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA > Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled > for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from > CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. > > > > I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may > be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various > groups’ leaderships. > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM > > *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> > > *Cc:* accountability-ccg-members(a)icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup(a)icann.org ; > ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > Alissa, > > Thank you very much for your message. > > I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair > make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it > clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as > ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should > meet and match with time lines that ICG established. > > What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action > being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall > accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG > workstream 1. > > Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON > NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. > > tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed > down to collection of information from the past expereince and not > addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA > transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder > which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism > of ICANN . > > We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To > which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet > clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A > WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and > reality. > > By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR > cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request > > tks > > Kavouss > > > > > > > > 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: > > I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in > the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I > will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from > the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on > behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate > actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. > There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > > > As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to > participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG > liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its > representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the > other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it > clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf > of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information > from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s > representation in the CCWG. > > > > As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting > transcript: > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) > the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information > back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the > transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we > think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not > been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had > good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on > our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to > specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. > > > > If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or > rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison > will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. > > > > Best, > > Alissa > > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people > wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most > crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . > > However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am > not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter > to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively > participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest > ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical > dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew > ). > > This is not fair nor acceptable > > I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple > communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. > > We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle > in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not > actively contribute > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability
by WUKnoben Dec. 14, 2014

Dec. 14, 2014

I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make reference that << Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of the CWG-Stewardship >> What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various groups’ leaderships. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: accountability-ccg-members(a)icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup(a)icann.org ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability Alissa, Thank you very much for your message. I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should meet and match with time lines that ICG established. What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG workstream 1. Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed down to collection of information from the past expereince and not addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism of ICANN . We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and reality. By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request tks Kavouss 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: Hi Kavouss, As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s representation in the CCWG. As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting transcript: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. Best, Alissa On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] please post my eamil
by Pamela Covington Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Please add me to the posting list: pamcov12(a)gmail.com Thank you, Pamela Covington

2 1