- Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Suzanne Radell Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Thank you, Tijani, for flagging this issue. My notes from Frankfurt also reflect that the issue was raised but not agreed, suggesting that the "Problem Definition" characterization should still stand. Regards, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA [tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:09 PM To: 'Robin Gross' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ [cid:~WRD000.jpg]<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. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] <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.

2 1

Current list of Consensus Policies that must be complied with by gTLD registries and registrars
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en ICANN's agreements with accredited registrars and with gTLD registry operators require compliance with various specifically stated procedures and also with "consensus policies." Sponsors and registry operators of sponsored TLDs may be required to comply with consensus policies in some instances. The following policies are specifically identified as having been adopted as consensus policies by the ICANN Board of Directors as of the dates shown below. * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (adopted by ICANN Board 26 August 1999; form of implementation documents approved 24 October 1999). * Whois Data Reminder Policy (adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 16 June 2003). * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (effective 1 June 2012). * Whois Marketing Restriction Policy (effective on 12 November 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 12 August 2004). * Restored Names Accuracy Policy (effective on 12 November 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 27 March 2003; implementation documents issued 12 August 2004). * Expired Domain Deletion Policy (effective on 21 December 2004, adopted by ICANN Board 31 October 2003; implementation documents issued 21 September 2004). * Registry Services Evaluation Policy (effective on 15 August 2006, adopted by ICANN Board 8 November 2005; implementation documents posted 25 July 2006) * AGP Limits Policy (effective on 1 April 2009, adopted by ICANN Board on 26 June 2008; implementation documents posted 17 December 2008) * Expired Registration Recovery Policy (effective 31 August 2013, adopted by ICANN Board on 28 October 2011; implementation documents posted 28 February 2013) * Additional Whois Information Policy (effective date to be announced), adopted by ICANN Board 6 May 2012; implementation documents posted 2 July 2014)

1 0

Current "picket fence" defined in the current new gTLD registry agreement
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

For information – here is the current “picket fence” restrictions around Consensus Policies as defined in the latest new gTLD registry agreement: From Specification 1: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved… 1. Consensus Policies. 1.1. “Consensus Policies” are those policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 1.2 of this Specification. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws may be revised from time to time in accordance with the process set forth therein. 1.2. Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: 1.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, security and/or stability of the Internet or Domain Name System (“DNS”); 1.2.2 functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services; 1.2.3 Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; 1.2.4 registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; 1.2.5 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names); or 1.2.6 restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. 1.3. Such categories of issues referred to in Section 1.2 of this Specification shall include, without limitation: 1.3.1 principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g., first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration); 1.3.2 prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars; 1.3.3 reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); and 1.3.4 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning domain name registrations; and procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD affected by such a suspension or termination. 1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: 1.4.1 prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; 1.4.2 modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or termination of the Registry Agreement; 1.4.3 modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies; 1.4.4 modify the provisions in the registry agreement regarding fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN; or 1.4.5 modify ICANN’s obligations to ensure equitable treatment of registry operators and act in an open and transparent manner.

1 0

Fwd: Agenda Notes and Papers for CCWG-ACCT WP1 Meeting #1
by Jordan Carter Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Forwarded for the CCWG's info, without attachments. This meeting is at 2100-2230 UTC on Wed 18 Feb. Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 18 February 2015 at 21:43 Subject: Agenda Notes and Papers for CCWG-ACCT WP1 Meeting #1 To: wp1(a)icann.org Hi all There are now some papers to review, both attached in .docx and .pdf format and available as google docs. The agenda is the same as the draft previously circulated, and the below version includes some annotations to help understand the items/issues in advance: *1. Scope of this Working Party, WP1* This WP was initially called Community Empowerment. The face to ace meeting at ICANN Singapore last week led to a suggestion we be the "non-Triggered" Working Party. This would see us dealing with things that are powers or mechanisms for the ICANN community that form part of regular planned processes (e.g. approving or rejecting budgets). Becky's WP2 would deal with mechanisms that were "triggered" by some event e.g. a petition to remove a Board member. It will help to *review* our "Scope Mechanisms Powers" paper which is available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1- 17DuxWJJuUk6QAelcz7X4L3KiyQ2XcEqapHVj9ir38/edit?usp=sharing - this has been *updated* with unique labels for each element of work and an additional power suggestion as circulated by Steve DelBianco this week. *2. Work Plan and Working Methods* This doc is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v… and is also attached. We need to agree our plan and methods, which can be as set out, as amended by us on the call, or done entirely differently as agreed on the call. *We will need volunteers* to help generate content and to edit content. Add your name as a comment in the Google doc, preferably. *3. Scope Powers and Mechanisms* The Working Party hasn't actually met and discussed this paper. It is up for discussion, changing, shaping, etc. We should adopt it as an agreed Working Document. *4. Volunteers* This is the chance to volunteer as a Drafter or an Editor, as outlined in the Work Plan and Working Methods document. *5. Any Other Business* Look forward to speaking with you soon! cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*

1 0

Thinking ahead - overcoming the legal obstacles to accountability
by Kieren McCarthy Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Hello all, There have been no less than seven previous attempts to introduce real accountability at ICANN. They have all failed to achieve a fundamental goal: override or impact ICANN corporate (under whatever circumstances). In the specific cases where the override recommendations have been explicit, they have been undermined at the last step by ICANN internal legal advice. This group has, to some degree, learned from the past by deciding that it needs to get independent legal advice for its recommendations as part of the process. Even more usefully, ICANN's legal team has been prompted into providing its own legal analysis so we know what its position is ahead of time. Aside from the fact that I think allowing ICANN to pay for the external independent legal advice is foolish in the extreme, I see two fundamental issues for this group to discuss and reach agreement on if this process is to have the desired end result. And they are: 1. What happens if/when the independent legal advice say a particular mechanism is perfectly legal but ICANN's internal legal advice say it isn't? What will Board members do? How do we ensure this discussion happens publicly and with plenty of time remaining? I think we should ask Board members now what they would do. Would they be willing to override internal legal advice, and under what circumstances? Will they commit to some kind of binding arbitration in the event that the two legal advices conflict in fundamentally important ways? This is an almost inevitable scenario so let's get ahead of it now and make reasoned decisions before the pressure and politics come into play. Plan ahead. 2. A fundamentally piece of the accountability mechanisms that are likely to be recommended includes making ICANN a member organization of some type. We have Jones Day on record as saying that don't think California law allows anyone but the Board to make final decisions (in fact, they don't actually say that if you read it carefully because they know it's not true). What we don't have is Jones Day/ICANN on record talking about the other legal get-out clause they have used in the past when it comes to accountability: anti-trust law. ICANN's particular interpretation of anti-trust law has been pulled out as a final defense multiple times but I haven't seen it yet in this latest round of accountability discussions, so it is more than possible that it is holding back that particular defense now that the "California law corporate code" genie is out of the bottle. I can easily see a scenario where we all agree that it is possible to make these changes under California corporate law and then agree to hand over IANA to ICANN only to find that the Board discovers at the last minute that they also violate anti-trust law and so, regretfully, cannot be implemented. So I would ask this group to try to get ICANN's formal position on anti-trust law with respect to possible changes and also get independent legal advice on that aspect too. I would also recommend that people go through previous failures to introduce recommendations and try to find what the legal justifications were that prevented them from being implemented. And then do the same pre-emptive work so we don't end up repeating history. Hope this is useful. Kieren

9 14

CCWG Project Plan History & Timelines
by Berry Cobb Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

CCWG, For the links below you will find the areas of the CCWG Wiki where versions of the CCWG Project Plan and CCWG Visual Timelines are stored. Project plans will be updated on a weekly basis and the timelines provide a simplified version of the project plan Gantt chart. CCWG Project Plans: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Project+Plans CCWG Timelines: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountabi lity **Refer to row 2 for Timeline history. The most recent will be listed at the top of the cell. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Robin Gross Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Dear Adam, > > I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. > > Tijani > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake > Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 > À : Accountability Cross Community > Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 > > Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #13 17 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #13 call on 17 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889460 ACTION ITEMS Action: CCWG colleagues to provide feedback on the template, and on processes for further work and our standardized approach. Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr) Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk? NOTES 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI Cheryl Langdon Orr on the audio bridge 2. WP1 &WP2 Jordan Carter and Becky Burr Recognized the need to ensure clear demarcation between WP1 and WP2 and structuring of their work. Proposing accountability and escalation mechanisms and how those could be achieved. These accountability mechanisms would be triggered and non-triggered. There are things that happen as part of ICANN's normal process (non-triggered , e.g. budget processes) and those that get triggered by an action or lack of an action by ICANN. Building into the process the opportunity to re-adjust as required. Close coordination between the two groups including on deadlines. And will provide a full list of these powers and mechanisms. "Volunteers" any member and participant may join, observers status remains unaltered (note, observers can change their status) - Accountability mechanism template: Template to set out the basic parameters for accountability mechanisms. Action: request feedback from colleagues on the template and our processes for further work and our standardized approach. Not a one size fits all decision-making body, needs to be able to reflect different interests and balance of skills, regional diversity, gender. In some situations might be people from the community. Other cases complete independence might be desirable in the decision making body. What are the voting mechanisms for this decision making body/bodies? How are the decisions makers themselves accountable? The chairs will suggest a test case with the group to see how the process works, adjust if necessary. Caution against using the term "CCWG" for the entity, a pre-defined term. Solution needs to be simple, easily understandable and usable by the community. The division between community powers and mechanism is intended to enable this. Description of what the power is needs careful identification. Simple outcome, but complicated work to get to the solution. Jordan: suggest closing the documents in 4 weeks. By face to face mtg, expect to see a set of templates, on triggered and non-triggered mechanisms. 3. WP-ST (Cheryl Langdon Orr & Steve DelBianco) Consolidated inventory of 25 contingencies are being stress tested against the consistent methodology, review of progress and continued examples from those presented in Singapore. Call for comments on: 14, Termination of AoC? None 16. ICANN participation in programs beyond technical mandate? None 22. Failure to comply with bylaws or refusal to accept a decisions of a redress mechanism (remedy, threat of board recall). First reading, carry over to CCWG call #14. Note, the proposed measures are still highly provisional. Example, stress test 18. GAC advice to the ICANN Board. Changes in GAC voting processes. Suggestion that if GAC moved to majority voting, this would not carry the deference of consensus. Suggests a risk capture of ICANN processes by a single stakeholder. Action: Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr) Stress test 19. Redelegation of gTLD, with the action challenged in court by the registry. Which instruction does the root zone maintainer follow, IANA/ICANN process or court? Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk? How does recognition of national governments help provide ICANN with broad protections? 4. Timeline (inc. F2F) F2F 23-24 March, details by the end of this week. At the close of f2f meeting, there are 12 working days in which to ready the document for public comment. Public comment of 30 days. 2 weeks to respond and submit a final document to the Chartering Organizations for their comment for 21 days. Submit to the Board prior to ICANN 53. CCWG 23-24. CWG-Stewardship to meet at the same location on March 26-27, with 25th for coordination between the chairs. Less than 5 weeks to the F2F and need to complete work in a very short timeframe. 5. Update on definitions & scoping document (after feedback from Advisors) A new version reflecting comment from the external advisors and CCWG colleagues will be distributed this week. Jan Scholte suggested looking at the accountability of accountability mechanisms themselves (will the new layers be accountable). He will provide best practice. 6. AOB None. 7. Concluding remarks END

1 0

CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Adam Peake Feb. 16, 2015

Feb. 16, 2015

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
by Adam Peake Feb. 16, 2015

Feb. 16, 2015

PDF attached. Adam -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 2:45 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 >Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors >last week. > >Best, > >Adam > > > >

1 0