- Accountability-Cross-Community

Some comments
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, After today's sessions, and since I'm not a native english speaker, I would like to reiterate in written some of the points I made so that they are clear for everyone:. See you tomorrow -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 1 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 1 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+1 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items Action: Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources: to review document with a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes ** (action) There are outstanding issues on individual values and missions mentioned on the list still need to be addressed Notes DAY 1: Monday, 23 March 09:00-10:30 EET, Meeting Room #25 * Roll Call & Introduction * Erika Mann, Chris Disspain not in AC room. * Thanks from chairs to colleagues for the work achieved since Frankfurt and the work achieved and achieved on time. * As we develop our proposals please voice your doubts. But avoid interventions that just agree with the past speakers (+1 on the chat.) * Focus on agreement and disagreement and improving shared understanding Working methods: * Use the room to raise hand to speak (and lower when spoken) * Use the tools to show agreement. * Use the "agree" tool to indicate agreement, we are not deciding here. We will follow rule of not deciding at the same meeting. * Focus of the meeting will be Work Stream 1. Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details. * Quality proposals: may adjust the level of details; focus on principles, then requirements, then the full details. Start with what we know: the existing mechanisms within ICANN we are all familiar with. The legal advice we have received so far. Focus on WS1. * Quality first and details second. Approval of agenda * broad issues on day 1, and time on day two to return to unfinished, under-addressed issues. * And discuss timeline, public comments, communication from the meeting. * Agenda accepted. Issue 1. Mission, vision & value statement Four building blocks: * Empowered community (people) * Board (Executive) * Principles (Constitution) * Independent Review Mechanisms (Judiciary) Appeals testing again the principles to see of something has gone off track. Our principles underpin all our work for the next two days. Suggestion to take a broader view of the organization, not a single focus on the board. Looking at all areas of the organization. Mission statement in the bylaws that talks of coordination of unique identifiers. Specification 1 - is what's in the registry and register agreements. What is fair game ICANN can develop and impose a range of topics on contracted parties. Q. operators of new gTLD - why singled out? A. taken from spec 1 of the new registry agreement Current mission statement talks of coord at the overall level of unique identifiers and technical functions. These are preserved in the proposed documents, but include specification 1. Same language about dIP addresses and protocols but more detail when comes to domain names Concrete about what ICANN is not about: ICANN is not about regulating content. And what the mission is not about can be added as we discuss. 11 core values in the bylaws and 1 overarching value. We will not give each the same value and weight so as not to defuse what the core issue are. Divided as two: (1) "commitments" how ICANN is supposed to perform it's job These are absolute commitments ICANN makes to the community and the community makes to each other. Some values so important, when balanced they should be balance if particular way. in a "Substantial and Compelling Reason in the Public Interest", narrowly tailored and no broader than to achieve the goal. Need to capture all the core values: are the categorized appropriately as those requiring the high standard and those lesser. Noted that this is an evolution of the mission, reflecting recent developments. Concern/doubt about the categorizing as higher/less values. Some new distinction may be helpful. Transparency and how clear these changes may be. These are very basis aspects of ICANN. Any change even to nuance, takes a great deal of explanation. Such specific changes. In public comment will need to be clearly explained. Concern that this is creating a new ICANN. Consider that the changes could be made overtime, rather than making them proposals for the end of June 2015. Suggested the balancing language proposed protects the commitments more that the current bylaws language. Necessary now as WS1 track, as these are fundamental changes that underpin other proposals from the group. The proposals are generally not new, consolidating agreed positions from other ICANN sources. These provide objective standards to point to for the processes of review and redress, Explicit exclusions: invites grey areas. Internet community: make some link to the stakeholders already defined as the community it. Public Interest is not defined. Constitution references market mechanism, which is unusual. Constitutions often have a reference to justice, e.g. human rights, and closest the proposal comes is for respect diversity Action: Becky's group to provide a robust rational for the changes and the explanation of sources: to review document with a redline version vs existing bylaws and explain rationale / origin of suggested changes ** (action) There are outstanding issues on individual values and missions mentioned on the list still need to be addressed ICANN determination of the public interest was the outcome of the ICANN process wherein we discussed the various perspectives on the global pubic interest and came to ICANN consensus on what it meant to us at this point in time END Session 1

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 2 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 2 on 23 March are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+2 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils Notes DAY 1: Monday, 23 March, 11:00 - 13:00 EET, Meeting Room #25 Session2. * Mission, vision & value statement (cont. from Session 1) Distinction between the two sets of principles in the document. Direction is good, but takes time to take people along. Consider a longer timeline for explanation to ensure understanding an buy-in. That these changes are committed to. How was the division of values made, and why something became a lesser value. Perhaps that some have a higher priority and some are raised up rather than suggesting others are "second class". In timetable discussion, then how these items are implemented is something to be considered there as perhaps extended. There may be abuse uses of review and redress that block the process. Some principles seem derivative. But some discomfort esp when seeing issues in the top list when there's a derivative in the second. Potential for confusion when a top list issue may trump those below, and how to deal with this. Approach may be to remove some of the more amorphous values. Would all values move to the upper value, and ICANN stringent review. Or lower standard where ICANN board and staff get greater difference? Up or down straw poll: To keep the two set approach, at proposed in the document please say agree in the AC room. Significant support to continue with approach of the document. * Community empowerment Mechanisms and Powers. Mechanisms are the Vehicle for powers: * permanent CCWG, and would need to be addressed in the ICANN bylaws as not permanent and lacks * community council. Who should be represented and with what weight should they be represented. * supervisory board. defined as a European model. Has reserve powers sits alongside the ICANN board * member based, with the members with powers in the bylaws * delegates, a subset of the members, but with a sub-set of the members. Both these set-up under California law. Choosing between them will require some answers from the legal advisors Current structures of SO/AC holding the new powers. Making decisions individually Community Veto, specifies powers No preference as yet until seen legal advice. Simple and straight forward. Might need different mechanisms for different powers. Difference between permanent CCWG and Community Council, apart from the label, there is no functional difference. CCWG by design are not permanent, so this would require changes to be made. The Community Council also includes the possibility of other members from the ICNAN ecosystem Avoid complexity. And be careful of how some of the strong mechanisms are exercised. What is the liability of these entities and their membership? Simplicity to run and maintain Liability comes with taking on power - legal advice and consideration of insurance as ICANN already uses New mechanism Sebastian identified and ask to please complete a template Action: Sebastien Bachollet to create reference to Council of Councils Powers, esp in WS1 must take primacy over the options for mechanisms. example powers: 1C. Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget If the budget is not acceptable it can be forced back to the board, A check and balance, not triggered. Would cause board to review, changes or better explain why. Hi threshold. Straw poll: Should votes be mandated or not The community council may need people with expertise on different issues, suggests the membership might not be fixed. The budget process has taken long evolution, and this process should be baked-in, rather than come at the end of the budget development. Response: but not intended as a type working group they already exist, but a general assembly that reviews final decisions. Use of the term "consensus", different definitions within ICANN. Point is a more direct accountability response. Lack of risk in the template. once there is an understanding of the risk factor then might introduce this proposal. The community should have the ability to shape ICANN'S Discussion has described mandated and non-mandated decisions. The template talks if personal decisions and mandated, this is different. Super-majority in the template to ensure individual constituencies do not over influence the decision. The proposed structure needs protection against capture. Agreement on points, AC room poll The budget question shall not be resolved by means consensus by voting. If agree if it should be by vote then mark as agree If by consensus then mark disagree. END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 3 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 3 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+3 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items ACTION ITEM - Comparison table for the power ACTION ITEM - Read CWG letter to set the scene. Notes WP1.A Block Changes to ICANN Bylaws Jordan Carter - WP 1 rapporteur walked the CCWG through 1.A Block changes to ICANN's Bylaws. feedback included: - Suggestion to separate Bylaws changes -------> suggested by Board or Bylaws changes that went through bottom-up process. - Circumstances for community veto should be described. - Suggestion to use "considerations for community voting: language - Ultimate resort of blocking would be a positive way to strengthen - For budget, we have a public comment process but it is not in bylaws. - We had experience with Bylaws changes - change of standard of work independent review. This is a valid remedy. How would initiate idea of Bylaws change would need to be defined. - Supermajority vs. majority - need to define this. - Need to be very clear on percentages (e.g. GAC MO) - No feedback received from members on feasibility - What happens if a group sits out voting? Endangers supermajority. - GAC is undergoing revision of operating principles - that may include right to vote - vote should be involved in these decisions whatever way is felt appropriate - Consensus call on power - Voting threshold, quota should be clarified - Should mission creep contingency be factored into this conversation? - Questions of how independent panel would this. - Do we want to prohibit changing mission? For each Bylaw lay out what requirements are needed for change ACTION ITEM - Comparison table for the power WP1-7A Removing the ICANN Board of Directors Jordan Carter - WP 1 rapporteur walked the CCWG through 7A Removing the ICANN Board of Directors. Feedback includes: - Did you consider rather than having committee using SO/ACs - having bylaws mandate each SO/AC needs to go through process. There would be a cross community discussion but that vote would occur in each SO or AC. - Who makes the Committee? - What is the minimum Board size and composition required under California law. - Should Board who served on spilled Board be ineligible? - Variations for how this power might work: 1) last resort mechanism, stability is of high priority, broad community support (# of So/Acs) needed and last resort potentially a document such as AoC; 2) high threshold but by setting lower threshold for starting conversation but discussion would happen within community council rather than before you get there. A substantial element of community would have venue to go to to place grievance (forum.) 3) based on idea of Board serves several communities and must command confidence of each community it serves (-vote of no-confidence). What kind of power do we want and when would we want to use it (under realistic circumstances. - Objective decisions - Back-up solution needed - interim Board - Theses decisions must engage SO/ACs directly - Supervisory Board is in place which would fill management function - not in our case - liability risks are involved. - Issue of whether SO/ACs have to vote: no difference if conveyed through member. Moral authority of community needs to be acting - Caretaker board to step in - you cannot have objective reasons - Strawman 2 requires a lot of work - 2 constituencies in GNSO - 3 regions in ccNSO does not mean anything - Strawman 3 is unacceptable - Community council needs to vote on it in the end. Supermajority vote needed in the end - Forget about petition - Remove 2 and 3 - Decisions be made in SO/ACs is a sensible suggestion - Both sides of SO/ACs should have voice in it --> 2 and 1 combo - Objective criteria can be defined. - Two elements of Sidley letter to CWG meeting: 1) powers commonly given to members are removing directors without cause --> no need to delineate standards of removal; 2) removing IANA functions from ICANN - nuclear option - is one way of discipline but ultimate nuclear action is for stakeholders to select other Directors ACTION ITEM - Read CWG letter to set the scene. - Who can trigger process, what is the threshold? - Level of petition matters. motion of no-confidence is very disruptive. Not indifferent to have a high or low level of threshold. Need to take into account extreme perception it gives. High level of threshold is needed to avoid giving impression ICANN is in crisis mode Conclusion - No objection to dropping # 3 - Merge dropping # 1 and # 2 - High threshold for no confidence - More support for subjective criteria (incl. objective criterai Community Veto - Wish to keep veto process - Call for flexibility - Multitude of mechanisms created - concerns - Community empowerment of Frankfurt meeting was that this apply to limited set of issues - not a provision for WP1 to work on generic mechanism - Did we want to limit community veto mechanism? - Multitude of mechanisms would be merged - Budget/strat plan should be WS1 because allocation of resources is a way for ICANN to go outside its mission. Community should be empowered to check if that happened. Out of touch with community expectation - Put process to place that is community consultation mechanism that would become part of mandate process to be use including a process for community veto. That would give option to work within timeline. It has to be realistic for it to work. - Get a timeline and determine what needs to be slot it - Blco mechanism has a designed characteristic that it does not delay process. - Concept of budget expenses - formulating directions - WS2 aspirational moves to improve processes - delineate WS1 and WS2 Community Empowerment Recap Override decisions All of them need to take into account continuity impact Voting is involved and needs to be transparent Need work on supermajority, how manage abstentions etc Votes would not directed by SO/ACs Reducing to to 1 mechanism Thresholds will need to be simplified/harmonized - Different rules for voting of different processes - SO/ACs vote Community Council Community Council - which groups do we think should be represented and how are the powers balanced? CCWG Threshold - Discussions needed on who we think should be on it or not - needs to be based on facts rather than thoughts. - Dangerous to differentiate between SO/ACs suggestion of a opt-out - observers/liaisons. SO/ACs should be represented - Opt out for ACs - Any member of community needs to be represented - everyone is represented - Inclusiveness is important - We need to make sure we are enabling outsiders - external stakeholders need to be given opportunity to appeal

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT F2F Day 1 Session 4 | 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Face to Face DAY 1 Session 4 on 23 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+4 These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Action Items ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism Notes NOTES: Day 1 Session 4 Community Council - Composition of community council: comments on NRO and ASO being same but that is not the case. NRO is 5 RIRs and ASO is a representation of community - All constituencies within ICANN should be engaged in this body to which ICANN Board is accountable. This presents key question for role of Governments. Would governments be able to contribute to votes that underpin decisions? It is a migration from advisory to operational. Modalities of votes - would we in place of voting contribution be advisory? Obvious option for GAC to consider. Would want a formal liaison functionality in respect to council. Modalities will need to be looked at. - Anybody that has power to exercise this must be in a position to do so. - It is important to have group large enough for representation but consider efficiency: 1 instead of 2 or 3 - anyone that is a stakeholder should have legitimate representation body - it is arbitrary whether happen to advise, vote or develop policy - Work of ICANN to both develop and execute. there are dramatically different groups in GNSO. Should not restrict to SO/AC - - Equal representation needed - Need to discuss question of who gets the power -Constituency process to ensure representative is bringing in position well supported by community. Suppot IAB, NRO etc - as many different views as possible needed. We wont be increasing accountability if decreasing number of communities participating in process - With 2 people form organization, not representing diversity - Presence, input and making decision is different. ACTION ITEM - Refine proposal - put together on basis of stakeholder Independent Review Panel Is the a new process or enhancement? Is it a panel? Standing/non standing? Binding? Becky Burr walked the group through independent Review Panel template with a note that current process is inaccessible. Inconsistent decisions - no avenue for community to expression views. Objective: develop internal consistency. There is strong support in community in making decisions binding but in what manner? To what extent? Triggered/non-triggered: group in community. Board could follow procedure to challenge or overturn this. This process is designed to be flexible and could be used by others part of community. Substantive and procedural standards. Have recommended a standing panel of 15 (geographic diversity, maps different legal regimes) including fixed terms, prohibitions on post term appointments. Election, appointment process (variations). They could be recalled for specific cause - how removal would be initiated -> WP1 mechanisms could be used to provide that evolution. ICANN would bear costs of maintaining panelists (allocation of costs associated with proceeding, loser pay system). This would be included in bylaws as golden bylaw. Evolution of IRP, not creating a new body. CEP is a parcel of what needs to be fixed. Feedback included: - This increases access because more accessible and affordable. Experts are experienced. Work faster - Artificial surge in number of IRPs due to new gTLD program. Even if extending scope, waste of resources of time. 5 instead of 15. Rules and procedures have to be easily understood. Panel members who are able to steer things through need to be selected - without being capture by lawyers. Avoid getting process that is too legalistic because it will inaccessible. intervenor process; add couple of lines on parties invited to be heard. - Potential areas where this could off the rails. Standing: any decision. Binding nature of IRP is important but careful when concerns commercial. Don't want to poison innovation that drives this industry. - Quality of decision-making of panelists - to what extent will we ensure consistency in decision-making. To what extent is precedent documented? Traditional rule of law needs to be taken into consideration - documentation of decision-making. To what extent allowing for minority opinion to be expressed. Compromise agreement needed - Redress against panel is offtrack - doesn't follow process which creates delays. What impact delays having in community in terms of services. Affecting creation or support. Issue of accessibility and stressing importance of regular updates regarding particularly other affected parties. Simplify process to ensure it is understandable - Depending on powers of IRP, could make it mandatory to have panel size for envisionned outcome. Summary proceeding: preliminary injunction type or fast track. Suggestion to have expert in area do implementation as we do with legal advice, respecting prescribed principles. - Procedures for dealing with requests that have already been dealt with or - Possibility of response into RfP - clear about what actions are per panel. - not equitable to have binding decision on ICANN but not on applicant - Ongoing retainer for ability but paying for actual work. - Over time believe this will reduce the need to use it. - Call for consensus on IRP being in WS1. Implementation challenges are really high - How can it be binding? under what structure? - Proposals says standing panel members are nominated by Board and need to be confirmed by community - should we point community to mechanism discussed earlier? yes - Existing stress tests cover risks on party implications and unintended consequences. ACTION ITEM: Investigate stress test for mechanism - Beyond mission and values, there might be need for standing review to include contract dispute, also mention of applicable laws. - Stress test will define how much implementation will be needed. - Stress test #13 - - Standard would need be written by ccNSO (stress test #21 CONCLUSION DAY 1 We have confirmed WS1 proposals we have been working on - still working on principles, independent panels - in a process that is not reinventing itself. Starting to see more clearly mechanisms for foundation boxes. While still lot of details to work out, aiming for quality proposals but level of details can be margin maneuver to make progress on regular cycles. Discussions tomorrow - AoC, jurisdictions, value in discussing reconsideration process. Synch with rapporteurs to identify needs - timeline & next steps (how do we organize for public comment, level of detail - need for greater clarity)

1 0

Call for requirement on the issue of jurisdiction
by Mathieu Weill March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear Colleagues, During our call yesterday we decided to engage with you to gather input on a requirement based approach to the issue of jurisdiction which has been raised. So far this issue has been raised when discussing some of the stress tests, the incorporation of the AoC into the Bylaws, as well as in generic discussions. What we are looking for to ensure we keep our discussion at the level of accountability and root it into stakeholder expectations, are descriptions of accountability requirements that lead you (or some of you) to raise the question of jurisdiction. Topics such as applicable jurisdiction of Icann contracts have been raised so far for instance. Thank you in advance for contributing to shaping this important aspect of our work. responses are expected before March 20th so that we can organize work in Istanbul. Best -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

8 12

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Hi all, > >On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant >interest in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions. > >However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest >of the multistakeholder community in the CSC. I don't think this is >what the NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key >Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder >community." A customer only CSC with no other organized oversight >body sounds like a registries paradise, but not a multistakeholder reality. > > > >I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a >customer committee for the customers, that body isn't the >multistakeholder oversight body. It can't function as such. > >If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer >representation, multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it >is not going to be able to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion. > >cheers >Jordan I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the Accountability mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS component for transparency and the ability to raise red flags does not change the overall nature of the body. Alan

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WG: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul
by Adam Peake March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hi Thomas, Your letter now on the website https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Correspondence Apologies for the delay. Best, Adam From: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM To: "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: WG: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul Hi to you all i have not seen the document distributed to the CCWG and put up on the CCWG website. Thank you for doing this as soon as possible. Best regards Thomas Von: Schneider Thomas BAKOM Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 07:58 An: rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx Cc: Adam Peake; Grace Abuhamad; 'Alice Jansen'; gac(a)icann.org Betreff: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul Dear Co-chairs of the CCWG Attached you find a contribution from the GAC to this week¹s CCWG-Accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul. Given the short time to work on this since the ICANN Singapore meeting, this is a text to be seen as GAC consensus based on a best effort consultation. Individual GAC members will bring in additional views into the CCWG¹s work. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

1 0

Fwd: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached GAC’s contribution the the F2F meeting in Istanbul. Staff, could you please have the document placed in the wiki? Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> > Para: <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Cc: <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, <gac(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Contribution from the GAC into the CCWG F2F meeting in Istanbul > Fecha: 23 de marzo de 2015 8:57:49 GMT+2 > > Dear Co-chairs of the CCWG > > Attached you find a contribution from the GAC to this week’s CCWG-Accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul. > > Given the short time to work on this since the ICANN Singapore meeting, this is a text to be seen as GAC consensus based on a best effort consultation. > > Individual GAC members will bring in additional views into the CCWG’s work. > > Best regards > > Thomas > > > > Thomas Schneider > Chair > ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) > >

2 3

Engaging the community - some thoughts
by Arun Sukumar March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

I understand the CCWG has identified who the community is based on who will be "directly" or "indirectly" affected by ICANN's actions, but most of the proposals, if not all of them, tabled today - be it on community empowerment, powers to remove the Board, etc -- seem too focused on static ICANN constituencies. This is fine if the CCWG feels it is not within the group's remit to think beyond the SO/ACs of ICANN. Personally, I think any exercise to enhance the Corporation's accountability should consider the audience it will cater to in the future. It is not enough that "business" or "at large" or "non-commercial users" are labelled so as ICANN constituencies. Where is the discussion in the CCWG on the concerns of representation within them - based on gender, age, geographical representation, nature of internet access? The most appropriate policy intervention that the CCWG can make in this regard to draft an expansive Mission Statement and Core Values. Yet, we seem happy to confine its vision to conform to ICANN Bylaws (which, wearing my lawyer's hat is difficult to understand given the preamble is always more expansive than the operational statute). I raise this only because the question of ICANN accountability is not a technocratic/legal exercise alone. The issue of accountability was brought to the table only later in 2014, although the NTIA did not feel it necessary to include it in its original announcement. A political opening, therefore, requires, I hesitate to add, an equally sensitive response. Otherwise, the accountability working group's output will be seen as moving far too little in this direction. cheers arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272

2 1