- Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #11 9 February/Singapore
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #11 call on 09 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52233184 Action Items 1. Work Party 1 and Work Party 2 rapporteurs to work on a proposal, in coordination with the WPs, on potential consolidation of streams or clarifications of work. 2. Legal sub-group to follow-up with legal counsel (JD) on there. 3. The Board Governance Committee is interested to know from CCWG if it is considering significant changes to the IRP and use of the panel, and it worth continuing down the path of creating a permanent panel. Notes 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI * No participants on the call 2. Interactions with CWG - update by Lise & Jonathan * A discussion document and slides available from the CWG Stewardship wiki: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404 * Focus on RfP3 which is the post transition work. With the goal of producing one model. * The goal is for the needs of the CWG in terms of accountability mechanisms are known to the CCWG * CWG asked questions on five issues: (1) Budget Accountability and Transparency. (2) Accountability for (re)delegations (3) Independent Review of Board Actions (4) Independent Appeals Panel (5) Control over ICANN Board decisions. Budget: * IANA costs are difficult to understand, including the ICANN overhead and how much is spent on serving other communities. * Reply to CWG of Jan 28 available on the CCWG wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Acco… > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Acco… Accountability for (re)delegations * Revised email of Feb 3. <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/…> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/… * CWG: response appears to meet the need. Independent Review of Board Actions * The CCWG response is in tune with the CWG needs and approach. * CCWG expects to provide some independent review mechanisms. Would be helpful standard of expect behavior in beginning an appeals process. * CWG to be specific and detailed. * Examples: service level agreements not being fulfilled. Keeping to procedure. 3 Legal advice update * CCWG meeting in Frankfurt developed some initial framing questions. Response from Jones Day. Not, to be seen as the external legal advice the group will seek, but informal to help the CCW G legal sub-group develop the scoping document for external advice. * Jones Day response available from the CCWG mail archive <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/…> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/… * CWG legal scoping document: * Type of counsel and type of legal expertise to respond to the types of questions arising from the CWG proposal. * Tight timeline - develop scoping document/questions by the end of February, and it is hoped the CCWG will be able to use the same firm as CWG, also end February. With expectation for response by the end of March, at the latest. * Noted that there was no disagreement to engaging with the same firm for external legal advice as CWG. * ICANN is committed to support the CCWG and will support outside expert legal advice. The engagement should be managed in a cost efficient way. 4 Update WP1 - Jordan Carter * Scope powers and mechanisms * Powers: the things the community should be able to do. * Mechanisms: ways to exercise those powers 5. Update WP2 - Becky Burr * Standard for review, redress and empowerment 1. An articulation of ICANN's mission that is actionable 2. Present and consider ICANN core values 3. Mandates: nondiscriminatory treatment, transparency, operational excellence, fiscal responsibility, avoid capture * To develop a clearly articulated standard against which ICANN's behavior can be evaluated. And the start of a roadmap to the bylaws changes that may be needed. * Suggested that the review and redress group would look at existing mechanisms and the empowerment group to look at new mechanisms. * Frankfurt Mindmap: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requi…> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Mindmap_WS1_Requi… 6. Update WP Stress tests * Rolled up the inventory of stress tests to a consolidated group to be applied to mechanisms proposed. * This exercise will be undertaken for all 25 stress tests. * examples: The consequences of canceling the AoC, including the conduct of community reviews: community mechanisms to challenge to a board decision bring the AoC into the bylaws board attempt to remove the AoC from the bylaws: community veto of bylaws change Directly related to the transition * Financial Crisis or Insolvency * Domain industry financial crisis, reduced revenues, threaten ICANN's ability to operate. Not directly related to the transition. Board and management could make dramatic cuts, but the community has no opportunity to comment and react. * A reserve fund could be used for some period of time. Community veto, community challenge to Board's decision. Some helpful existing and proposed mechanisms. But they do not go far enough. END

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document
by Samantha Eisner Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

In terms of monetary awards, David, is this a suggestion to reform the IRP to include monetary awards (aside from costs/fees currently allowed?). This would be inherently tied to any expansions of the types of relief that an independent panel could provide (e.g., are they declaring that there was an issue with the decision, or directing a different outcome, etc.) Sam From: <Burr>, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:56 PM To: David McAuley <dmcauley(a)verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document Thanks David, this is helpful. I'm not opposed to binding, just not convinced it is absolutely required J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <McAuley>, David <dmcauley(a)verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document Thanks Becky, Given the fluidity of the situation, I am responding in my personal capacity in order to reply somewhat timely, not having yet had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues. Concerning substantive and procedural requirements near the top of the document, I would say that with respect to the IRP and to some extent Reconsideration Requests (RRs) it would be good to add consideration of: · Monetary award limitations (e.g., a prohibition on any money damages other than direct damages); · Some limited discovery rights (beyond the present ICANN document review policy) to interview witnesses and review documents; and · The precedential nature, or not, of IRP decisions (maybe including on RRs as well as IRPs). The one substantive thing I would like to comment on concerns the word "binding." It seems from our conversation yesterday that you might have a concern with the notion of binding independent review power. I remain of the view that the IRP (or some reviewing body) must have the power to take a decision that has teeth. At the end of the day, we are looking for a check on ICANN given the absence of NTIA. It seems clear that some entity other than ICANN should have the final (well defined and limited) power to act as a backstop. David McAuley From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:55 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

2 2

AGENDA - Meeting # 12 - 12 Feb 15
by Alice Jansen Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Hi everyone, In preparation for your meeting # 12 - Thursday, 12 February at 23:00 (11/02) - 02:00 UTC // 07:00-10:00 SGT - please find below the proposed meeting agenda: Proposed agenda 1. Welcome, roll call & SOI 2. Input received during the week - Engagement session - Other sessions 3. WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…> / WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress> way forward 4. Legal group<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> update 5. WP-ST<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…> progress - review of the 5 stress test examples 6. Timeline<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/ICG-CWG-CCWG_time…> 7. Next steps - F2F - Communication 8. AOB 9. Closing remarks The meeting will take place in the Padang meeting room. Breakfast will be served. The link to the virtual meeting room is as follows: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/sin52-padang Kindly refer to the calendar invite for call details. Language services are also available - see here<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> for details. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

ccNSO session feedback on Accountability
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of tomorrow's meeting, here are a few items that were discussed during the session held today in the ccNSO. During the meeting tomorrow, we will ask the respective SO/AC to share a few items of their respective group's feedback as well. For the ccNSO, a few items : - there was concern expressed that our group would add additional layers, highlighting that evil would be in the details in that regard. - the risk of creating a bureaucracy that would paralyze Icann was mentioned - there was discussion regarding a contingency case where Icann would redelegate a ccTLD outside of policy. - some discussion took place regarding coordination with the CWG - one of the panel members (which was comprised of the ccNSO members) expressed his view that the group was getting in the wrong direction, lost into details, and should simply stop and reconsider the approach. The ccNSO members of the CCWG clarified how these items were taken on board, and indicated these items would be relayed to the whole group. Thanks to my fellow ccNSO members for their participation, as well as to Becky who kindly agreed to moderate the panel. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document
by Burr, Becky Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

2 2

Ombudsman and Stream 2
by Avri Doria Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hi, I just want to put in a place holder for discussion of the role of the Ombudsman in the accountability chain. ATRT2, recommended that the Board look at his function and reconsider whether it "needs to be expanded or otherwise revised". And by presumption, anything the Board needs to look at, we need to look at. The Ombudsman is one of the critical providers of ICANN accountability and the transparency needed for accountability and we need to make sure the role fits well in whatever new processes we recommend. This is especailly important in considering the function's independence: how is that guaranteed and how best can it be utilized. avri

4 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked?
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear Professor Mueller, you probably neglected to consider that you performed in front of a witness. I am absolutely certain that I did not demand your use of uncouth language. I am, however, happy to agree that your conduct was absurd. Your suggestion that "interested" individuals may contact you privately is understood by me like your initial outrage that you prefer to do this behind the backs of the individuals concerned. Never mind that you specifically permitted me to forward, as per your below fullquote. All in all, even pretty lame. I really had expected more. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Feb 11, 2015, at 09:56, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > > Dear Dr. Lisse > I am sorry that you feel the need to make a public issue out of an absurd personal spat that you instigated. But if you are going to do that you do need to tell the truth. > > I refuse to pollute lists with serious governance purposes with these kinds of exchanges. If anyone is interested in knowing more about what happened they can email me privately. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.NA] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:59 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: ccnso-members(a)icann.org; cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; >> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; Lisse Eberhard >> Subject: Re: Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked? >> >> Dear Professor Mueller, >> >> thank you very much for accosting me this morning while I was sitting at a >> the table in the restaurant conducting a business breakfast. >> >> I wish to record, that you refused to leave when asked politely and referred >> to me and I quote: "asshole". In front of a witness, I might add. >> >> Since I am partial to concise language on occasion I will not take the matter >> any further. Even though in Singapore they might still have the Crimen >> Injuria still on the books as we have in Namibia. >> >> However, I am not convinced that an authority of your stature involved in the >> ICG should resort to such language and tactics. >> >> I wish however to thank you for the below permission to post the previous >> correspondence to the lists so that this gets put into the proper context. >> >> greetings, el (Asshole) >> >>> On 2015-02-10 18:19 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Dear Dr. Lisse, >>> >>> Yes, you can forward this: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Dr. Lisse, I appreciate your concern. Apparently, it was >>> actually SGdickinson’s Twitter account that was hacked, she tweeted >>> that Disspain said "CCs in danger of losing all ccnso has fought for" >>> >>> And “can’t believe we might agree to new body that means CC's have to >>> go through [creation of CCNSO] again” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:48 AM >>> *To:* Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard >>> *Subject:* Re: Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked? >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Professor Mueller, >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't use Twitter because of the noise to content ratio, but if it >>> was you who called someone a lyer behind his back who I can not recall >>> in the 15 years I know him having lied even once, it is most >>> definitively out of order. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you had had the courage to stand up there and then and say it to >>> his face so he could respond I would have no onjections. As you may >>> know I am partial to concise language myself. >>> >>> >>> >>> Or were you not even there and this is what they call a retweet or >>> whatever spreading uncorroborated second hand information is called >>> these days? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> May I have your permission to post this to the two lists I cced this, >>> to which you perhaps may not be able to post to, and I will ensure >>> that you get copies of everything and will post your responses >>> uncommented. >>> >>> >>> >>> greetings, el >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 17:07, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu >>> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Dr. Lisse, I appreciate your concern. Apparently, it >>> was actually SGdickinson’s Twitter account that was hacked, >>> se tweeted that Disspain said "CCs in danger of losing all >>> ccnso has fought for" >>> >>> And “cant believe we might agree to new body that means CC's >>> have to go through creation of CCNSO again” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:58 AM >>> *To:* Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc:* ccNSO Members; cctldworld(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>; ccTLD Community List; Chris Disspain; >>> Lisse Eberhard >>> *Subject:* Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked? >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Professor Mueller, >>> >>> >>> >>> it apears someone hacked your Twitter account and posted the >>> below outrageosity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please alert Twitter securitysi they can trace the culprit and >>> restore your security. >>> >>> >>> >>> greetings, el >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >>> >>> >>> >>> [...] >>> Just tweeted >>> >>> >>> Milton Mueller @miltonmueller >>> ICANN Board member Disspain is lying to ccTLD operators, saying >>> an external IANA solution threatens the existence of ccNSO >>> #ICANN52 >>> >>> [...] >>>

5 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked?
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear Professor Mueller, thank you very much for accosting me this morning while I was sitting at a the table in the restaurant conducting a business breakfast. I wish to record, that you refused to leave when asked politely and referred to me and I quote: "asshole". In front of a witness, I might add. Since I am partial to concise language on occasion I will not take the matter any further. Even though in Singapore they might still have the Crimen Injuria still on the books as we have in Namibia. However, I am not convinced that an authority of your stature involved in the ICG should resort to such language and tactics. I wish however to thank you for the below permission to post the previous correspondence to the lists so that this gets put into the proper context. greetings, el (Asshole) On 2015-02-10 18:19 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear Dr. Lisse, > > Yes, you can forward this: > > > > Thanks, Dr. Lisse, I appreciate your concern. Apparently, it was > actually SGdickinson’s Twitter account that was hacked, she > tweeted that Disspain said "CCs in danger of losing all ccnso has > fought for" > > And “can’t believe we might agree to new body that means CC's > have to go through [creation of CCNSO] again” > > > > > > > > *From:*Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:48 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard > *Subject:* Re: Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked? > > > > Dear Professor Mueller, > > > > I don't use Twitter because of the noise to content ratio, but if > it was you who called someone a lyer behind his back who I can not > recall in the 15 years I know him having lied even once, it is > most definitively out of order. > > > > If you had had the courage to stand up there and then and say it > to his face so he could respond I would have no onjections. As > you may know I am partial to concise language myself. > > > > Or were you not even there and this is what they call a retweet or > whatever spreading uncorroborated second hand information is > called these days? > > > > > > May I have your permission to post this to the two lists I cced > this, to which you perhaps may not be able to post to, and I will > ensure that you get copies of everything and will post your > responses uncommented. > > > > greetings, el > > -- > > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > > > > On Feb 10, 2015, at 17:07, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu > <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: > > Thanks, Dr. Lisse, I appreciate your concern. Apparently, it > was actually SGdickinson’s Twitter account that was hacked, > se tweeted that Disspain said "CCs in danger of losing all > ccnso has fought for" > > And “cant believe we might agree to new body that means CC's > have to go through creation of CCNSO again” > > > > > > > > > > *From:*Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:58 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* ccNSO Members; cctldworld(a)icann.org > <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>; ccTLD Community List; Chris Disspain; > Lisse Eberhard > *Subject:* Milton Mueller's Twitter Account hacked? > > > > Dear Professor Mueller, > > > > it apears someone hacked your Twitter account and posted the > below outrageosity. > > > > Please alert Twitter securitysi they can trace the culprit and > restore your security. > > > > greetings, el > > -- > > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > > > [...] > Just tweeted > > > Milton Mueller @miltonmueller > ICANN Board member Disspain is lying to ccTLD operators, saying > an external IANA solution threatens the existence of ccNSO #ICANN52 > > [...] >

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session 10 - 03 February
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session 10 call on 03 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415000 Action Items - Upload/update your SOI using the wiki - Encourage your communities to attend the engagement session - Staff to post updated list of sessions on wiki - Rapporteurs to confirm availability to join Chairs during engagement session - Staff to assemble number of sessions where engagement with communities will take place - Working Parties to send meeting requirements (if any) as soon as possible - Co-chairs to ask for Board expectations and to coordinate with Bruce Tonkin (Board liaison) - Circulate proposed agenda to list - Read compilation of documents/information in preparation for Singapore sessions and identify any gaps - Robin to send synopsis of a Bylaws mechanism - WP2 is trying to organize its first call/meeting - a doodle poll will be circulated. - ST-WP to provide draft examples in anticipation of Singapore discussions to understand what is meant by stress tests and collect feedback - Be prepared for Singapore (agenda, invitations) - Read all documents - Keep respective groups informed of progress - Continue debates on mailing list Notes 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI - SOIs are still missing. Action item: - Upload/update your SOI using the wiki 2. Update from interactions with CWG - Response to CWG has been circulated. CCWG is now expecting feedback. - CCWG-CWG leadership discussed how the groups may align thinking in terms of timeline, overall plan. - CWG will issue a progress report in anticipation of Singapore 3. Preparing Singapore a. Reminder of sessions / logistics - Remote participation is available for all sessions - Rapporteurs: join Co-chairs on stage during engagement session - Thursday session will be also used to recap various messages received during week Action Items: - Encourage your communities to attend the engagement session - Staff to post updated list of sessions on wiki - Rapporteurs to confirm availability to join Chairs during engagement session - Staff to assemble number of sessions where engagement with communities will take place - Working Parties to send meeting requirements (if any) as soon as possible b. Agenda /topics for Board meeting - Topics for session with Board include: timeline; how CCWG proposal will be handled, any anticipated reasons why a proposal/part of a proposal might be refused, and the anticipated process following any such refusal; update on two WPs (communication empowerment - Review & Redress) - Meeting with the Board will be posted on the meeting schedule along with remote participation details. Action Item: - Co-chairs to ask for Board expectations and to coordinate with Bruce Tonkin (Board liaison) - Circulate proposed agenda to list c. Review of engagement material provided before meeting Action Item: - Read compilation of documents/information in preparation for Singapore sessions and identify any gaps 4. Update WP1/WP2 a. By rapporteurs - WP1 has begun analyzing the mindmap and collecting requirements of inventory against identified mindmap requirements. - 4 suggestions for structures that would empower the community were catalogued: 1) ad hoc SO/AC; 2) permanent community WG; 3) statutory members; 4)Supervisory Board - Initial draft will be shared in advance of Singapore - The WP is looking into scheduling a call to discuss modus operandi and establish a calendar of work. The WP indicated that an end date on WP work would be useful. End of March 2015 was flagged as the expected delivery date. Action item: - Robin to send synopsis of a Bylaws mechanism - WP2 is trying to organize its first call/meeting - a doodle poll will be circulated. b. Update stress test WP - The wiki page captures the 25 contingencies merged into 5 different groups. A table serves to track where contingencies are. ST-WP will potentially hold a meeting in Singapore. - Proposal to run stress tests against mechanisms - determine whether prevent consequences of stress test or mitigate/react c. Ideally, discussion around first set of answers to the contingency questions - Proposal is to start with stress tests and determine how the existing mechanism reacts and how envisioned mechanism would react. - Suggestions of a gap analysis approach and an Exist & sufficient - Exist & insufficient approach were made. Action Item: - ST-WP to provide draft examples in anticipation of Singapore discussions to understand what is meant by stress tests and collect feedback 5. Legal advice update - The task force has started building questions that should be asked to legal experts and awaiting questions from working parties. - A shortlist was requested from CWG (awaiting reply); the group is coordinating with CWG on California law restrictions. - Outcome will be shared with the group as soon as received. -The CCWG welcomed advisor Lee Bygrave. 6. A.O.B The following desired outcomes for Singapore were identified: * Share advancement of work (WPs, requirements, contingencies * Ensure we receive feedback from community, assess, adjust (as needed) * Ensure timelines are appropriately synchronized (including with ICANN Board) * Make substantive progress during two work sessions * Ensure we are aligned with community's thinking 7. Closing Remarks Action Items: - Be prepared for Singapore (agenda, invitations) - Read all documents - Keep respective groups informed of progress - Continue debates on mailing list

2 1

Responses to questions from Jones Day
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the responses from Jones Day for questions prepared by Kevin Espinola. I would like to ask you to please review the document so we can further discuss it in our session tomorrow. I would also like to remind the group that this is a first step which runs parallel to what the legal sub-team is doing in coordination with the CWG “legal client”. The aim is to have this responses reviewed by the legal sub-team as well as by the larger CCWG so we can determine how to better validate this responses with the external legal advisors when we engage with said external advice. I look forward to a fruitful session with all of you. Best regards, León

24 47