- Accountability-Cross-Community

Of interest to the group
by Paul Rosenzweig March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

European views on the US ICANN politics: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/mobile-world-congress/us-election-could-tri gger-battle-over-internet-governance-312626?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/mobile-world-congress/us-election-could-tr igger-battle-over-internet-governance-312626?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter& utm_campaign=71cd705bd7-newsletter_infosociety&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b ab5f0ea4e-71cd705bd7-245732053> &utm_campaign=71cd705bd7-newsletter_infosociety&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ bab5f0ea4e-71cd705bd7-245732053 P Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 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 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>

1 0

Draft legal questions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

Dear all, In the following link you will find the first draft set of questions developed by the legal sub-team for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xi-hs-i5z0XSicHxMjJlLiQ4xhFo1_IOQnEMXDp… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xi-hs-i5z0XSicHxMjJlLiQ4xhFo1_IOQnEMXDp…> Please keep in mind that this is work in progress and the list of questions is not a closed list but rather a list subject to add questions that are still missing. Robin Gross is in the process of drafting a framing letter that will provide context to the external lawyers as to where we are at now and our aims. The document is enabled so anyone with the link may comment but not edit. Please add any suggested edits as comments so they can be merged after review by the legal sub-team. I am also attaching a PDF version of the document for your convenience. Best regards, León

11 13

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #3 4 March
by Brenda Brewer March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #3 - 04 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889993 Action Items ACTION ITEM Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman ACTION ITEM Kavouss to circulate note on .xxx ACTION ITEM - Send Steve, Fiona, Matthew your comments. ACTION ITEM: Jordan to restructure two mechanisms (WS 1/WS2), to add in the alternate suggestion ACTION ITEM - To follow up with Keith Drazek ACTION ITEM: Additional volunteers needed on community veto ACTION ITEM: Circulate templates by end of this week preferably Notes * WP1 rapporteur - Jordan Carter - walked the WP through the agenda, provided an outline of CCWG discussions held on 5 March and flagged that Rapporteurs will have a meeting with the Co-Chairs on 6 March to discuss shape of output. Feedback: - Are we addressing <http://booking.com/> booking.com -> WP2 - Consider addressing implementation (timeline etc) Affirmation of Commitments and Related Reviews Steve del Bianco walked the WP through 2A,B,C,D,E draft <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%… nisms%20%5BSteve%20v4%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425370283000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%… isms%20%5BSteve%20v4%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425370283000&api=v2 Feedback: - Other AoC elements should be included in the Bylaws -> 3, 4, 7, 8 are worth considering. Work is underway. Comments are welcome. - Effectiveness of GAC should not be reviewed. We should not be putting doubt on effectiveness of doubt. Suggestion to remove "and effectiveness" --> This is verbatim from AoC -->Do other reviews in bylaws include effectiveness? If so, we should keep it. - How do we guarantee implementation? --> Obligation from Board to take action.- do we want stronger language? --> Proposed language: 1) consider approval and begin implementation; 2) required action ACTION ITEM Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman - Specify which supermajority we are choosing --> we will need to determine whether 3/4 or 4/5. Supermajority should be in brackets - Concerns about courses of action/modalities ACTION ITEM Kavouss to circulate note on .xxx - TImeline needs to be revisited to allow for implementation - Output of CCTRT should be considered in design of susbequent rounds - Suggestion to delete WHOIS review and combine with CCTRT - Empower the community by allowing the community a process to introduce different types of reviews ACTION ITEM - Send Steve, Fiona, Matthew your comments. Removing ICANN Board Directors Jordan Carter walked the WP 1 through draft <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%20… P1%207A%20-%20Removing%20ICANN%20Directors.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285656000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%20… 1%207A%20-%20Removing%20ICANN%20Directors.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285656000&api=v2 Feedback: - Both options (removing of whole Board and removing individual Board members) should remain but criteria should be different. Quid of nterim? - Both should remain - separation between WSs is not obvious. Need to change the appointment rules: every appointment should be 2 persons: 1 acting and 1 back-up (if removed etc) i.e. alternates. - For individual removal, should it be community mechanism or individual SO/AC mechanism? --> Removal of individual Board member could be done by community but with consent of SO/AC - All gravitate to idea of spilling Board: should that be a necessary condition of transition? Strickling says it s a missing component. Write up with assumption it will never be used - Focus exclusively on mechanism called spill the Board and a second mechanism to recall one or several Board mechanism. Recommendation to make it done by splitting these two mechanisms - one WS1, one WS2 - Giving community opportunity to micromanage ACTION ITEM: Jordan to restructure two mechanisms (WS 1/WS2), to add in the alternate suggestion Work status The CCWG reviewed the work status matrix <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIrzK3mlGBbIHtdZDoAt_9Y__aPYXAH_d-OIbkg…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIrzK3mlGBbIHtdZDoAt_9Y__aPYXAH_d-OIbkg… - Prevent ICANN from Imposing obligations: ACTION ITEM - To follow up with Keith Drazek - Call for volunteers to work on Board action on bottom-up recommendations - Volunteers: Steve del Bianco, Jeff Neuman - Roelof Meijer and Edward Morris volunteered to work on statutory delegates/members. - Jordan Carter volunteered to work on permanent CCWG - Volunteers are needed ACTION ITEM: Additional volunteers needed on community veto ACTION ITEM: Circulate templates by end of this week preferably A.O.B The WP discussed the Istanbul WP prep meeting. Ensure WP1 does not conflict with WP2. Next Meeting will be Wednesday, 11 March

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
by Jordan Carter March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Dear Accountability colleagues Some sections of this paper draft being discussed in the CWG are worth noting, specifically the accountability ones. Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Martin Boyle* <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk> Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2015 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Colleagues, My apologies, but following the Christmas break I failed to progress this discussion. I now attach a revised draft, still with a major outstanding issue in g. (page 2). There are two variants for g.ii. One simply reduces the previous paragraph to read "For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty;" at the request of the GAC. The other is more closely based on, but shortens, the previous text: "For ccTLDs, policy decisions may be made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards. Post transition of the IANA function nothing will be done by ICANN/IANA to impact the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and gTLD Registries." The draft contains a number of marked up edits from previous discussions that seem to have general agreement. For the text redlines: 1. I have deleted the section heading "Introduction": there are no other section headings, so this appears to be superfluous. 2. Principles b. and c. (previously sub-clauses to the heading on security, stability and resilience) are now stand-alone at the request of the GAC. 3. Accountability & transparency (e.): a. Paragraph i: two edits that appear to have general agreement. b. Paragraph ii: a new edit to correct the text. The new version amends the text to reflect the sub-heading. The old version put it the other way around. c. Paragraph iv: Footnote on capture added as requested courtesy of Alan Greenberg & Milton Mueller. d. Paragraph vi: While I think we all agree on the need for some form of appeals process, there is still some debate as to where that should lie. So for example, the appeals process might well not be designed by the CWG and might be the responsibility of the CCWG. For ccTLDs, it might mean that a third party might have a say over a national decision on a ccTLD. I flag this in case further thought is needed in the light of discussion over the last few days. 4. Service levels (f.): a. Paragraph ii: I think the majority view is that automation should only be for routine functions (and not for controversial or subjective decisions such as on redelegations). b. Paragraph iii: Previously a stand-alone point. 5. Policy based (g): other than some minor editing, there are two alternatives for g.ii. as noted above. I would note that there was no support in our last discussion to retain g.vi. (require bottom-up modalities) as this is treated elsewhere (in particular in the chapeau text to g.). 6. Diversity of customers (h.): some (I hope) minor and uncontroversial edits in the chapeau and in i. and ii. The text in paragraph iii was generally agreed. 7. Separability: modifications to i.i. and i.iii generally agreed in the last discussion. 8. Multi-stakeholder principle paragraph j: generally agreed in the last discussion subject to concerns about wording (the previous text appeared to recommend direct involvement in the management of the IANA function). -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

1 0

Agenda for Call #3 WP1 - 21h UTC on Wed 4 March
by Jordan Carter March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Hi all Here is my proposed agenda for the call on 4 March at 21-22.30h UTC. This is based on what was stepped out in our Work Plan (at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v… ) There's a lot to cover so apologies in advance if we can't discuss everything in as much depth as people would necessarily like. *1. Review of Agenda* *2. Report back from CCWG meeting* a) Outputs for the Face to Face - what do *we* in WP1 think we need to produce? *3. Discussion of Work Items* a) AOC in the bylaws - three more reviews (Steve) b) Removal of ICANN director/s (Jordan) c) GAC consensus issue (Jordan) d) any other Work Items ready for discussion *4. Next steps in our work* a) Checking in on progress with Work Items not yet discussed (the progress is mostly up to date in this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIrzK3mlGBbIHtdZDoAt_9Y__aPYXAH_d-OIbkg… ) b) Checking in on exchange of items with WP2 c) Volunteers for Mechanisms focus - who can volunteer for some focused work on mechanisms in the next few days? *5. Next Meetings* a) Should we schedule a meeting for Wed 11th March at 21h UTC? (I think we will need it.) b) Discussion on need for a meeting/s between 11 March and Face to Face (including Sun 22nd in Istanbul) *6. Any Other Business* Many thanks, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Party1] template - removal of ICANN directors - draft 1
by Roelof Meijer March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear Kavouss, I agree with you, and I think with most if not all, that it would be silly (and very counterproductive) to recall the whole board if one or two (a few) of its members of it are underperforming. First of all, there would be a „safety catch”: there would never be a supermajority for such a proposal (to recall the whole board just for one or a few poor performers). And rightly so, because one or two underperforming members would hardly in any significant way prevent the proper functioning of the board as a whole. The point I tried to make in today’s call, is that the board itself presently has the power to dismiss one or more of its members. It seems nobody can recall the board ever using that power. Very likely they never have. Very likely too, they have threatened a former member or two to do so if they would stand for reelection/reappointment after their first term or not quit by themselves.. So if the board feels (or the community convinces them) that one or more under performers actually are preventing the board from properly functioning, they would surely (especially with the option looming of the whole board being recalled by the community) dismiss the underperformers. In the unthinkable situation that 1) a single or multiple board member(s) perform so poorly that the board as a whole can no longer function properly 2) the board fails to recognize that and/or fails to take action 3) the community recognizes that and stands ready to spill the whole board with a supermajority vote: a recall of the entire board is wholly justified in my opinion, as the board’s inaction indicates bad performance of the majority of the board. Best, Roelof From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 17:27 To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Cc: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>, "wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Party1] template - removal of ICANN directors - draft 1 Dear All, It is an interesting subject. This is the second time that I have noted that people are just for recalling the entire Board even if every one except one or two members fail to discharge their responsibilities. Unless specifically stipulated in the Bylaw that the entire Board is collectively responsible for their collegial Performance and also responsible for individual actions one can not recall the whole Board if only one member fails to act properly Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 3 Mar 2015, at 13:09, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Dear Robin, I am not too comfortable with the distinction you seem to make between noncom appointees on the board („representing the entire community in the first instance”) and members elected from SO’s and AC’s (other). We assessed that all board members first of all serve the public interest and secondly ICANN the corporation. So if in the end, the options will be to recall the board or part thereof, in my opinion the process for all board members should be the same. (However, as I stated before, I am in favor of the options being recalling the whole board on not recalling the board). That said, what kind of process do you envisage for „NomCom appointees should be recalled by the entire community”? Cheers, Roelof From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: maandag 2 maart 2015 21:03 To: "wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Party1] template - removal of ICANN directors - draft 1 I think the community would want other options than only via a representative vote to spill the board. My own community would want a more directly democratic or bottom-up approach, i.e., our members would vote for themselves (rather than through a representative vote) for NCSG's vote in the question of whether to spill the board. NomCom appointees should be recalled by the entire community since that is who they should be representative of in the first instance. Thanks, Robin On Mar 1, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: Just did a quick review of the inventory of accountability suggestions over last several months. All commenters talked about removing all directors, or as we say, ‘spill the board’. Only two mentioned ‘one or all’ directors. I think we are far better focusing on a mechanisms that lets a supermajority of Community representatives vote to spill the entire board. I’d even say it should be a 3/4 supermajority. From: Matthew Shears Date: Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:33 PM To: Jordan Carter, "wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Party1] template - removal of ICANN directors - draft 1 Hi Jordan Just wondering w/r/t this: the decision would have to arise out of democratic decisions of various SOs/ACs What about those Directors who are selected by the NomCom (not selected by any particular community)? Would it make any difference? Matthew On 2/28/2015 8:43 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: Dear WP1 members I've had a go at item 7a in our work listing, the mechanism of removing ICANN directors. Attached is my first draft of that paper for your review and comment. I've kept it pretty simple, with the power basically being given to whatever mechanism we design to represent "the community". ICANN staff, could you turn this into a Google doc, and post on the Wiki? Thanks all, look forward to your thoughts. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1(a)icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1(a)icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1(a)icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #15 03 March
by Brenda Brewer March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #15 call on 03 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889640 Action Items Action (co-chair) Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal Action to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report. Notes CCWG - Call # 15 - 3 March 2015 This call is being recorded. Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 1. Welcome, roll-call & SOI Becky Burr and Barrack Otieno call only 2. Activity reports WP2 * followed the triggered and un-triggered format, and this demarkation broadly work On 2 calls and coordination with Jordan WP1, moved work on ICANN limited scope to WP2. * Tasks between there 2 groups compared and allocated. * Document transparency, all are part of WP1 * WP2 includes modifications, enhancements, review of exist triggered mechanisms. * These include Ombudsman, reconsideration independent review and suggestions from the community related to these. * Plus covers the compact with the community and statement of ICANN's mission and standards to carrot mission, as discussed in Singapore. * Holding weekly meetings, planning sub-group calls, and possibly a meeting on Sunday afternoon in Istanbul to prepare for the week.. * WP2 will enhance existing mechanisms, ensure that the Board can be held to its bylaws, prevent mission creep etc. * Question: When do we ask for reconsideration, what do we mean by redress, and need to agree on a definition of "community". * Definitions will be in the final report, build on initial discussions in Frankfurt * There are attempts to define "community" in the scoping document: communities are being discussed in respect at standing, and other with decisions making power. * WP2 proposing 5 new sub-groups. Work of the groups will be on the WIKI, and referred to in transcripts and notes of WP2 calls * Light-weight structures might be preferred. WP1 * Weekly meetings. Discussions about, removal of directors and defining GAC consensus. Draft templates available for most, where not they are topics transferred to WP2 or in progress. * Looking at mechanisms that make these powers work: issue of statutory members, members, supervisory board etc are the right way to make the powers work being discussed. * Example: removal of directors (note yet discussed by the working group) * Any number or all Directors might be removed. * Assumption controlling is whatever is recommended in terms of CCWG * A new mechanism * The effect of a director being removed. * Standard of the decision, objective standards are often not specified. Suggestion should follow same standards as the ICANN Board currently has to remove a Director. * Do not expect resolution before F2F * Contributes to all accountability dimensions, makes the Director more aware of all accountability mechanisms and contingencies. * A director appointed by a particular community, should that electing entity be the only one able to remove the director? Or removal by others with the support or no objection by that SO/AC * NomCom appointed directors, may require a modifies process Action (co-chair): Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal * What infringement might trigger the process? That this is a measure of last resort * With each power there will be different triggers. Suggest powers should be attached to existing mechanisms, or one shared new group. * Initial proposal was to spill the entire board. Extreme and very difficult to trigger. Threat of use, presence enough Now making a simple concept complex, picking off single directors, objective standards of the community rather than super-majority. * WP1 will distinguish between pilling the board and powers if the individual SO/AC. Need to have graduated scale, or risk the only option is to escalate to the higher standard. * Notion of the "big stick" for WS1 topics. Recall of whole board is that big stick. removal of individual directors left as WS2. * GAC advice and how the bylaws require the Board to consider this advice. * GAC set out its own operating principles., is able to lower or raise the threshold for advice. * Suggestion of the current wording of GAC principles about consensus advice, that it is that consensus advice that triggers this reconciliation by the Board. If the GAC then changes its standard of advice, how that advice is considered by the board is a matter for the community. Codifies the status quo in the ICANN bylaws. Stress Test WP * Stress test 1 and 2, combined. * Note: intention to apply a test against a package of proposed accountability measures, so premature to apply, but is proving useful to apply to these drafts. * 1 and 2: IANA root zone change authority/delegation authority fails to function. Need to engage with the CWG. Action: to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs. * Test 24. Mission creep, CEO expands or extends ICANN's mission, lacking community consensus * Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. * Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. If in strategic plan or budget then community non-binding comment, and CA AG has authority if an organization acts outside its mission. What powers doe the CA AG have? * \Under a majority or supermajority, the community might block the budget. Mid-year, if the the community power to veto a Board decision. Or triggering an independent review, but to what standard. Collectively the proposed mechanisms seem adequate. * Is the golden bylaw is addressed by WP2 in mission and standards * Test 15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation in response to litigation. * community standing to veto a board decision could prevent the board on moving. AoC in the bylaws would mean ICANN is subject to legal action by another party. Seems adequate protection against the contingency Legal Subteam * Legal scoping document, working through a number of drafts. Expect to narrow the issues and questions down by the end of the week. * Particularly aware of issues of interest to the ccTLD community * External law firm, prep calls with a short list of firms, two more interviews this week * Anti-trust issues will be considered in the scoping document. * Jurisdiction: expect further discussion with Advisors Timeline * Working towards f2f in Istanbul and readiness of the draft for public comment on April 6. * What is the structure of the F2F Istanbul, so we can play the work of the subgroups. Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report.. Documents Presented WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 Timeline - http://tinyurl.com/kd2u3b7

2 1

Other forms of Accountability?
by Jeff Neuman March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN. Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_brea… Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

8 12

AGENDA - Meeting #15
by Alice Jansen March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #1<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889640>5<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889640> - Tuesday, 3 March - 12:00-14:00 UTC: -- 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 2. Activity reports WP 1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…> WP 2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress> ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…> Legal Subteam<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> 3. Timeline 4. A.O.B 5. Next steps & Closing Remarks -- Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP2 Meeting #2 02 March
by Brenda Brewer March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #2 - 02 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890537 Action Items Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions Notes This call is being recorded Link to WP2 wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents Istanbul: Looking into a meeting on Sunday, 22 March - 5 work items were identified on Friday (refer to <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Principles%20For%… 2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285125000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Principles%20For%… .pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425285125000&api=v2): 1 Contact with community on ICANN mission, core values 2 Refinement, improvement to ombudsman function 3 Refinement, improvement to reconsideration process 4 Refinement, improvement to independent review process 5 New Mechanisms Jordan and Becky have compared notes and decided new mechanisms should be moved over to WP1 Feedback: Principles for our Work: - No comments Work Item 1: - What do we mean by community? Definition needed. Suggestion to incorporate communities identified by ICG - Do you refer to mission understood to be Bylaws - have you considered AoC integrated in Bylaws? --> For volunteers to explore Is ICANN's mission other than technical? Define technical. --> Technical used to essentially limit role to reasonably necessary tasks needed to achieve coordination - How do we contact community? Would there be designated people? --> this goes hand in hand with what is the community Work Item 2: - Conflict between empowering community and giving powerful role to ombudsman - ombudsman would be a vector, not empowering. Do we need an ombudsman if we are empowering community? - Ombudsman connected with community through triggered/non-triggered Work Item 3 Work Item 4 - Suggestion to combine 3 and 4 --> Reconsider - change mind whereas independent review - assessment whether consistent with mission and core values. - First review then reconsideration - Reconsideration is made to BGC whereas independent review is more heavy-weight process involding outside arbitral body (time consuming, resources) - these are two different recourse mechanisms. Reconsideration is first step on road. Work Item 5 -- Times for regular calls will be circulated for reports on progress -- IAP-IRP CWG did ask the CCWG whether would have independent appeal mechanism for purpose of challenging delegation, redelegtions. CCWG responded we would have independent review mechanisms that might be usable by affected community but noted that some parts of community (e.g. ccNSO) feel strongly that it is their job to design any independent appeal mechanism. We might be providing tool they could use. Our task is to suggest IRP to create standards for ordinary policy issues. IRP could be used for IAP process but defining IAP standards is not within CCWG work. IAP was designed for only IANA related matters - it could be a subset of matters IRP currently takes on. ACTION ITEM: Becky to circulate revised chart to reflect discussions Volunteers Compact with Community David Post Alain Bidron David Maher Ombudsman Chris LaHatte Robin Gross Edward Morris Need: leader Reconsideration Chris LaHatte David McAuley Robin Gross Edward Morris Need: leader Independent Review Paul Rosenzweig David McAuley Jonathan Zuck Robin Gross Chris LaHatte David Post Greg Shatan David Maher Need: leader New Mechanisms Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader Standards Robin Gross Paul Rosenzweig Need: leader

1 0