- Accountability-Cross-Community

Last day to RSVP! 44 confirmed!
by Grace Abuhamad March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Today is the last day to register for the F2F meeting in Istanbul. If you are planning to attend, even if your plans are tentative, please let us know. There are 44 confirmed to date (see below for more information). Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees The CCWG-Accountability will hold a face-to-face meeting in March 2015 to align with its deliverables. Dates: 23-24 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * Approved arrival is Sunday 22 March with departure on Wednesday 25 March. * ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> and the three liaisons in the CCWG: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek, who are the ICG-designated liaisons, and Avri Doria, who is the ATRT Expert. While these three liaisons are participants, they play an essential role in the work of the CCWG, representing related processes that affect, and will be affected, by the output of the CCWG. * The meeting is open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is Monday, 2 March. * Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. * The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed Members 1. Olga Cavalli (GAC) 2. James Bladel (GNSO) 3. León Sanchez (ALAC) 4. Sébastien Bachollet (ALAC) 5. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC) 6. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 7. Samantha Eisner (Staff Representative) 8. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) 9. Giovanni Seppia (ccNSO) 10. Alan Greenberg (ALAC) 11. Pär Brumark (GAC) 12. Alice Munyua (GAC) 13. Steve Del Bianco (GNSO) 14. Becky Burr (GNSO) 15. Thomas Rickert (GNSO) 16. Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) 17. Robin Gross (GNSO) 18. 19. Izumi Okutani (ASO) 20. Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO) 21. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 22. Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 23. Jorge Villa (ASO) 24. Suzanne Radell (GAC) 25. Fiona Asonga (ASO) Bruce Tonkin (Board Liaison) sends his apologies for the meeting. Participants/Observers 1. Sabine Meyer (participant) 2. Hubert Schoettner (participant) 3. Greg Shatan (participant) 4. Chris Disspain (participant) 5. Markus Kummer (participant) 6. Kavouss Arasteh (ICG liaison) 7. Vika Mpisane (participant) 8. Avri Doria (ATRT expert) 9. 10. Finn Petersen (participant) 11. Martin Boyle (participant) 12. Keith Drazek (ICG liaison) 13. Matthew Shears (participant) 14. Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva (participant) 15. Malcolm Hutty (participant) 16. 17. Paul Rosenzweig (participant) – tentative 18. Jonathan Zuck (participant) 19. Rafael Perez Galindo (participant) – tentative 20. Chris LaHatte (participant) – tentative Advisors 1. Jan Scholte 2. Lee Bygrave From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:50 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] F2F: Current List of Attendees Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees The CCWG-Accountability will hold a face-to-face meeting in March 2015 to align with its deliverables. Dates: 23-24 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * Approved arrival is Sunday 22 March with departure on Wednesday 25 March. * ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> and the three liaisons in the CCWG: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek, who are the ICG-designated liaisons, and Avri Doria, who is the ATRT Expert. While these three liaisons are participants, they play an essential role in the work of the CCWG, representing related processes that affect, and will be affected, by the output of the CCWG. * The meeting is open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is Monday, 2 March. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. * The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed Members 1. Olga Cavalli (GAC) 2. James Bladel (GNSO) 3. León Sanchez (ALAC) 4. Sébastien Bachollet (ALAC) 5. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC) 6. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 7. Samantha Eisner (Staff Representative) 8. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) 9. Alan Greenberg (ALAC) 10. Pär Brumark (GAC) 11. Alice Munyua (GAC) 12. Steve Del Bianco (GNSO) 13. Becky Burr (GNSO) 14. Thomas Rickert (GNSO) 15. Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) 16. Robin Gross (GNSO) 17. 18. Izumi Okutani (ASO) 19. Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO) 20. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 21. Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 22. Jorge Villa (ASO) Participants/Observers 1. Sabine Meyer (participant) 2. Hubert Schoettner (participant) 3. Greg Shatan (participant) 4. Chris Disspain (participant) 5. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (participant) 6. Erika Mann (participant) 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim (participant) 8. Markus Kummer (participant) 9. Kavouss Arasteh (ICG liaison) 10. Vika Mpisane (participant) 11. Avri Doria (ATRT expert) 12. 13. Thomas Schneider (participant) 14. 15. Finn Petersen (participant) 16. Martin Boyle (participant) 17. Keith Drazek (ICG liaison) Advisors 1. Jan Scholte If you have any questions, please let staff know. --Grace

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Bruce, I have several problems with your rationale. First, decisison of the ICANN Board which hinge on how a particular (or even two) Board Members vote are few and far between, so the concept of an AC/SO turfing their Board member(s) because they did n't get something is rather hypothetical. Moreover, at least in the case, of travel budget requests, I didn't think that the Board voted on items at that level (perhaps if they did some of our requests would be looked at more kindly!). But on a higher level, do you really think that this kind of action would happen? I cannot imagine the GNSO doing something of that sort when you were Chair, nor in any time since. Nor do I think that ANY of the groups that appoint Board members would. If a Board member selected by an AC or SO is really and consistently acting in a way that the AC/SO does not appropriate, they certainly would not have selected them if they could have foreseen it, so why should they not be able to rectify the situation. Some political jurisdiction allow that with their duly elected appointees, so why not here. Although I see the attraction in having a formal set of standards to identify the more egregious sins, I believe that in reality, in the very few cases where either the Board itself or an AC/SO would be likely to recall, the reasons may well be outside of that class of problem. Alan At 28/02/2015 08:01 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello Roelof, > > > >> - Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest > rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. > Consider community capture (especially a segment of community). > >My comment on the call was about a concern that allowing segments of >the community to recall "their" Board member may move away from the >objective of ensuring that Board members primarily focus on the >global public interest in their decision making. > >I noted that under law the directors of ICANN owe a fiduciary >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary) duty to the organization, >but I also noted that the organization was established to act in the >global public interest. When new Board members join the Board we >make clear that they have a fiduciary duty under law and must >understand the organization's financials etc, but we also make clear >that they need to act on behalf of the community as a whole, not >just the part of the community that appointed the director/s. > >The Board currently does have the power to remove a director with a >3/4 majority vote. In practice the Board sets clear expectations >for the conduct of directors through its code of >conduct: >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/code-of-conduct-2012-05-15-en >. Also Board members must annually certify that they have read >this code, and acknowledge in writing that they understand >it. The code notes that "Board Members should not be, or appear >to be, subject to influences, interests or relationships that >conflict with the interests of ICANN or ICANN's ability to operate >for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole." > > Under the enforcement of the code of conduct - it notes that > "Serious breaches of this Code may be cause for dismissal of the > Board Member committing the infraction in accordance with ICANN's > Bylaws and applicable law." > > >I don't have a problem in principle with a segment of the ICANN >community that appoints a director having the ability to recall that >director, but would prefer that they use the same standard -ie the >Board Directors' Code of Conduct. I also don't have a problem >with the Board having the same restriction in the bylaws. > >I think we need to avoid situations where one part of the community >withdraws a Board member because a Board decision was not >particularly favourable to their part of the community - even though >the decision is in the global public interest. e.g. If one group >didn't get their budget request for travel approved, or one group >didn't like an increase in registry or registrar fees in a >particular year. This has the risk of making the board behave in a >political manner rather than focussing on the global public >interest. The Board meets with each stakeholder group at ICANN >and that is the forum where each stakeholder group can put their >case for a particular decision. Generally Board members appointed >by a particular part of a community listen to all the parts of the >community and make a decision in the interests of the community as a >whole, and don't play an active role on the Board pushing the agenda >of their part of the community. Board members from a particular par > t of the community do however help explain to other Board > members the nuances of the concerns from their part of the > community where that is not clear. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

11 18

Recall of Board members
by Chris LaHatte March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

To add to the complexity, as the Ombudsman I have no jurisdiction on issues in relation to membership of the Board-See Bylaw V Section 3 (2) which says-" the Ombudsman shall have no authority to act in any way with respect to internal administrative matters, personnel matters, issues relating to membership on the Board.". So the original intent of the bylaws, as cited by Bruce Tonkin (with whom I agree on this issue) was to protect the directors from possible political action. By insulating the board in membership issues from the Ombudsman investigation process does this prevent for example me investigating diversity issues, which are a membership issue? Would I have a role if the community wanted a board member investigated for issues or decisions? I have had a small number of complaints about board members over the years. Is this something the community wants me to continue? I am anxious to ensure any changes to my mandate do have community support. Regards Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog <https://omblog.icann.org/> https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage <http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman> http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February
by Brenda Brewer March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #14 call on 24 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889476 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 Notes 1. Statement of interest to be uploaded/updated - contact staff if help needed 2. Activity report from Work Parties WP 1 - WP1 has developed a draft work plan, has agreed on working methods, is working with an aggressive deadline and plans to deliver WP output by March 11. - Volunteers are developing templates for each power and mechanism. Current gaps will be picked up. Editors will review content. - Triggered and non triggered categorization has been applied to items in paper, resulting in an initial allocation between two Working parties. WP1 is awaiting WP2 feedback to allocate tasks. - WP1 has structured mechanisms around powers and finds the accountability mechanism template challenging in some ways: some questions are more relevant to mechanisms and vice-versa. It envisions to produce recommendations on how to improve it. It was commented that questions would not have same relevance to both categorizations and will be reviewed and addressed as progress is made. - It was observed that a mechanism gives structure to power and there is need for a procedure and vehicle to support the power. Threshold (consensus/full consensus) also comes into play. - The recommendation is to commence with the analysis of powers and to attach them with mechanisms. - The WP1 walked the CCWG through proposed Bylaws additions on amending ICANN Bylaws to incorporate AOC reviews. The text is merged with periodic structural reviews text that currently exists in Bylaws. Edits to the AoC review process were also suggested. Feedback to suggestions included: should Bylaws give a prescriptive headcount? Stakeholder Groups being subordinates to a structure, is it really necessary to include them? ; It is important to reflect diversity and balance; While support for selections made by SO/ACs, lack of diversity was flagged as a downside and an aspect that could be preserved through selectors; Specifics may change in the future. With the objective of stable Bylaws, consider high level principles that can be included in the Bylaws instead, along with a reference to an external document where specifics would be given. In this approach a very high threshold on ability to change that document would be added; A Bylaws categorization was proposed: 1) fundamental and constitutional provisions (stable); 2 functional and operation (less stable); 3) rules relations to elections etc; consider more lengthy timelines. - No decision will be made on the call. --- WP2 - WP2 has produced a revised scoping document to reflect changes and results of WP 1 work on triggered and non-triggered. Scoping documents for WP1 and WP2 are harmonized. - Close coordination with WP 1 is needed. - A work plan and working methods (based on WP1 modus operandi) has been circulated. Standards of work will be discussed. - WP2 plans to have a document available by face-to-face meeting (17 March tentatively) --- ST-WP - ST-WP wrapped up presentation of stress test 18 (If GAC changes operating procedures from consensus to majority voting). A contributor suggested looking into the preliminary injunction (IRP) regarding delegation of Persian and noted absence of GAC advice and a group of GAC members invoking IRP. Objections were raised by another contributor i.e. outside CCWG mandate and references made to the South Africa communiqué. ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline - ST-WP walked the group through stress test 17 (ICANN adds a new TLD in spite of SSR concerns). Feedback included: What is our definition of success within context of stress tests?; Stress tests are going to be measures of degrees -t say yes/no answers will be rare. - No decision will be made on the call. ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 3. Legal Subteam Update - Questions have been suggested and the Subteam is awaiting questions from WP1 and WP2. - Robin is working on framing questions into a letter that can be delivered to law firm that will be selected. Background and context will be included. - Call with final list of law firms will be held. Update on final candidate that will be put forward for hiring by ICANN will be shared asap. - Questions are divided into 3 categories: 1) corporate governance; 2)jurisdictional matters; 3) protection of ICANN, antitrust and other law suits. - Given concerns about ccTLD delegation and redelegations remedies (e.g. dispute resolution), feedback is needed. - Feedback included: formulate questions to be list of powers and ask for mechanisms that can accomplish powers as opposed to putting mechanisms up; frame questions using how to trigger response (as opposed to yes/no); lawyers need to know what our requirements are so that can advise what empowerment can be implemented. In context of jurisdictional: global survey of jurisdiction can take ages and cost a fortune; changing jurisdiction will make transition impossible: the group needs to decide if these questions are for WS1; Keep jurisdictional issues open: are there any arbitration or international panel can go to for jurisdictional issues, is there a way to get step into resolution with something simpler to begin with; Jurisdiction might be too complicated, keep it simple (recall Board, Independent Appeals mechanism etc). ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 4. F2F meeting - Confirmed for 23-24 March 2015 at Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center. - Agenda will be circulated in time. - Discussing May F2F meeting in coordination with CWG-stewardship leadership. 5. A.O.B The CCWG discussed removal of individual Board members with a note that architecture needs to be revisited if allowing for entire Board or individual Board. Feedback includes: - Current Bylaws allow that Board can dismiss individual board members if CoI. Individual removal might lead to unhealthy environment, create a witch hunt. - Be careful to not penalize whole group if one group is concerned. - Spilling of Board is a nuclear option and disruptive step. We are seeking incremental, implementable ways to challenge Board decision. The community does not have anybody that represents their interest. We need ability to override and challenge decision. - Board members are appointed because they share a mindset if not in line with mindset, should be able to remove this Board member. There is also the case of NomCom appointed members: ability to remove them is needed. Significant consensus among SO/ACs would be needed the member would be removed for serious reasons. On the other hand, removal of entire Board is a whole set of issues (interim etc). - A mechanism is needed for the three above: spilling entire board is not disruptive as long as there is a defined method; spilling an individual Board members is a SG/C decision, not a community decision to make. Recall mechanism within process defined for NomCom would take a lot more time. Vote of non-confidence on the Board or all the other need to be in WS1. - Predictability and stability is important: recall of Board members will undermine predictability/stability. Consider reducing term and don't reelect. - Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community). - We should not allow community removal of one Board member in particular must come from the concerned community.

6 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

The issues that the CCWG is dealing with may be broader, and our definitions of capture are broader as well, The direct point of this email thread is more specific: what type of capture is the U.S. Senator referring to, which Commerce Secretary Pritzker then also refers to? For better or worse, I think they are referring to the risk of capture by certain foreign governments the U.S. views as antithetical to a free and open Internet -- hence the term "hostile takeover" is used. I think some leading suspects are named in the transcript. Some Senators at least will be looking to see how we've solved that particular problem. On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > I agree with the 2 remarks of Chris: The risk of capture comes from any > government or intergovernmental organization, as well as any other group. > > CCWG is about defining mechanisms of accountability of ICANN to its > community, and we have defined 4 accountability purposes: > > · Comply with its own rules and processes > > · Comply with applicable legislation, in jurisdictions where it > operates > > · Achieve certain levels of performance as well as security > > · Ensure decisions are for benefit of the public, not just for a > particular set of stakeholders > > The 4th purpose is to avoid any capture from any party. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > *De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');>] > *De la part de* Chris Disspain > *Envoyé :* dimanche 1 mars 2015 00:20 > *À :* Greg Shatan > *Cc :* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org');> > *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget > for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in > Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by > the NTIA. > > > > Can we first get clear what the issue actually is. > > > > I assume it is NOT ‘capture of ICANN by *foreign* governments in the long > term’ is it? > > > > Is it capture by governments generally? Or is it capture by any group? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:37 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > > All: > > Here's an email that I recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun > Ojedeji noted the Senator's concern with the possible capture of ICANN by > foreign governments in the long term, and that a key goal of the transition > must be protecting ICANN from any possible capture as it continue to > operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs > to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately > considered by the NTIA. > > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>> > Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM > Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: > Testimony on IANA Transition > To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org');>" < > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org');>> > > > All: > > The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget > (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and > I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers > relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. The full transcript may be > found at: > > http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument… > > (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather > forecasting than on IANA) > > > > Greg > > SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND > BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT > > February 26, 2015 Thursday > > EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 > > TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING > > LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. > > COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, > JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES > > SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN > > WITNESSES: > > SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN > > WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE > > > > … > > > > SHELBY: Senator Langford. > > > > LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. > > > > PRITZKER: Thank you. > > > > LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk > a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and > DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk > about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. > > > > The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It > says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies > positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political > challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell > me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has > spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're > talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy > objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of > our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. > > > > PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the > internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a > multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the > leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. > > > > LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the > why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. > > > > PRITZKER: Why? > > > > LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a > problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American > stewardship from the internet? > > > > PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship > of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA > transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our > position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can > ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be > jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in > the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and > it remains that the internet will remain free and open. > > > > The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the > global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign > governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and > create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the > internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel > we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. > And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the > appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a > government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be > able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see > for the internet. > > > > LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the > first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what > happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I > just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. > > > > PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the > criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how > they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there > cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. > > > > LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. > > > > … > > > > KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, > which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web > domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the > company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain > by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. > > > > This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was > playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small > community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly > very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away > from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to > make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will > have adopted some core key principles about protection from government > capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is > something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a > resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there > is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of > whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there > was any movement towards it. > > > > PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at > the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides > for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that > ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that > it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs > of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a > free and open internet. All of those are priorities. > > > > We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very > carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can > make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also > proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that > there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. > > > > Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC > All Rights Reserved > CQ Transcriptions > > > > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan(a)lawabel.com');>* > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>* > > *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > ------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est > active. > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

1 0

Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

All: Here's an email that I recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun Ojedeji noted the Senator's concern with the possible capture of ICANN by foreign governments in the long term, and that a key goal of the transition must be protecting ICANN from any possible capture as it continue to operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by the NTIA. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> All: The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. The full transcript may be found at: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument… (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather forecasting than on IANA) Greg SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT February 26, 2015 Thursday EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE … SHELBY: Senator Langford. LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. PRITZKER: Thank you. LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. PRITZKER: Why? LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American stewardship from the internet? PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and it remains that the internet will remain free and open. The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see for the internet. LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. … KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will have adopted some core key principles about protection from government capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there was any movement towards it. PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a free and open internet. All of those are priorities. We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC All Rights Reserved CQ Transcriptions -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

4 3

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP2 Meeting #1 27 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #1 - 27 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890535 Action (all): Volunteer for subteams. And volunteers to lead! Notes WP2 Call #1 - 27 February 2015 This call is being recorded WP2 documents can be found at: <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+Draft+Documents * In this draft, have takem out things that belong in WP1 and focused on things that are in our remit. * We are looking at mechanisms that are "triggered," not standing mechanisms * We have a list of principles out of Frankfurt --> no comment * Next, is inventory of suggestions (WA1 and WA2 product) * "Changes to Bylaws and Articles" as well as "Mechanism for review of Board or management in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles" could be issues for WP1 but we'll keep for now and make sure to coordinate on work Working Methodology Create different groups * Ombudsman Chris LaHatte Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader * Reconsideration Chris LaHatte David McAuley Robin Gross Need: leader * Independent Review Paul Rosenzweig David McAuley Jonathan Zuck Robin Gross Chris LaHatte Need: leader * New Mechanisms Robin Gross Need: more volunteers Need: leader * Standards Robin Gross Paul Rosenzweig Need: leader Volunteers are welcome to work on more than one Ombudsman (Chris) would like to be involved with group working on Ombudsman so that responsilibitiles and abilities of the role are clear Concern about how standards review fits in "triggered" Need for a standard by which to evaluate community empowerment over a Board decision Remember that these issues are cross-cutting --> Get the first bit of work done and then return to the cross-cutting issues Action (all): Volunteer for subteams. And volunteer to lead! 4 more meetings between now and Istanbul Thursday was the day that seems to accommodate most people's schedule (starting time and 8 hour rotation until we get to IST) Monday call is a duplicate call, so there is no need to attend if you were able to make this call

1 0

F2F: Current List of Attendees
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees The CCWG-Accountability will hold a face-to-face meeting in March 2015 to align with its deliverables. Dates: 23-24 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * Approved arrival is Sunday 22 March with departure on Wednesday 25 March. * ICANN will offer travel support to the CCWG-Accountability members <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968> and the three liaisons in the CCWG: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek, who are the ICG-designated liaisons, and Avri Doria, who is the ATRT Expert. While these three liaisons are participants, they play an essential role in the work of the CCWG, representing related processes that affect, and will be affected, by the output of the CCWG. * The meeting is open to anyone in the CCWG-Accountability (participants and mailing list observers) who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of all in-person attendance is Monday, 2 March. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * Advisors are also eligible for ICANN funding should they attend the meeting. * The meeting will be live through Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG-Accountability meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. In-Person Attendees: listed in order confirmed Members 1. Olga Cavalli (GAC) 2. James Bladel (GNSO) 3. León Sanchez (ALAC) 4. Sébastien Bachollet (ALAC) 5. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC) 6. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 7. Samantha Eisner (Staff Representative) 8. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO) 9. Alan Greenberg (ALAC) 10. Pär Brumark (GAC) 11. Alice Munyua (GAC) 12. Steve Del Bianco (GNSO) 13. Becky Burr (GNSO) 14. Thomas Rickert (GNSO) 15. Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) 16. Robin Gross (GNSO) 17. 18. Izumi Okutani (ASO) 19. Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO) 20. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 21. Athina Fragkouli (ASO) 22. Jorge Villa (ASO) Participants/Observers 1. Sabine Meyer (participant) 2. Hubert Schoettner (participant) 3. Greg Shatan (participant) 4. Chris Disspain (participant) 5. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (participant) 6. Erika Mann (participant) 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim (participant) 8. Markus Kummer (participant) 9. Kavouss Arasteh (ICG liaison) 10. Vika Mpisane (participant) 11. Avri Doria (ATRT expert) 12. 13. Thomas Schneider (participant) 14. 15. Finn Petersen (participant) 16. Martin Boyle (participant) 17. Keith Drazek (ICG liaison) Advisors 1. Jan Scholte If you have any questions, please let staff know. --Grace

1 0

Yesterday's Senate Hearing on the IANA Transition
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

For those interested, an archived webcast of the entire hearing may be viewed here: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9> &ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9 The entire event runs a bit more than 2 hours. Cheers Paul 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

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #2 25 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP1 Meeting #2 - 25 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889694 Notes 1. Report of activities given on CCWG call - Roelof and Steve walked CCWG through the work conducted. Feedback on AoC reviews merged into Bylaws: - Balance (gender and geographic) and diversity baked into Bylaws - Headcount but believe It should not be limited to one per SO/AC - Sam and Sebastien recommended separate document - Kavouss suggested division of Bylaw -> Concerns about complications this might create. -- Removing Selectors from review process is a sticky point. Need to be prescriptive about Review Team composition to preserve balance and diversity - More robust description of composition is needed. Everyone should have opportunity to participate in these RTs. Agreement that it is not simple a copy and paste - refinement is needed. -- Restructuring Bylaws is a far bigger task - Need to open it up to SGs for diversity -- Issues of representation are complex - GNSO is a mini multistakeholder group -- CCWG Meeting confirmed for 23-24 March to be held in Istanbul - rapporteurs will help design agenda 2. Review of Drafts Section 2 - Non-Triggered Accountability Mechanisms with regard to the AoC and related reviews Note on ATRT review: provision added on termination of review (as deemed necessary), access to documentation, frequency of reviews (5 years as opposed to 3 years) -- Concerns about termination - potential loophole? It is counter to what we are trying to achieve. -- Objective is to empower community -- Note on SSR review: Similar to ATRT - Chair of Board not a member. -- Consider AoC as a whole into account (public interest etc) Note that in Senate Hearing, ICANN CEO said ICANN jurisdiction must remain in the USA. --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template Section 1.A Black Changes to ICANN's Bylaws Questions need our attention Belief that geographical and gender diversity not something we should go explicitly after - not necessary to go into Bylaws - others disagree. Feedback on composition needed. --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template for Section 1.B Board or Management Action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation --- Roelof walked WP1 through his template for Section 1 C Block adoption by ICANN Board of strategic plan or budget Independent review needs to have a standard of review - this mechanism is a veto for budget/strat plan - this demands a super majority rather than a simple majority. It would be extraordinary to block budget. Clarify that independent advice from expert. We would lose multistakeholderism if allow simple majorities - should avoid them unless there is a very good reason. Roelof will change language of draft to super majority. --- Volunteers Wp1-3A - Jordan ACTION ITEM: Jordan will contact Keith Drazek to get update on 5 Wp1-6 - no need to focus on this now (WS) -- A.O.B - Wp2 will have a meeting prior to CCWG meeting in Istanbul on 22 March Potential WP 1 dinner on 22 March - Senate Hearing - recording to be shared - comments invited.

1 0