- Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG working session, Thursday 07:00 to 10:00 SGT
by Adam Peake Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hi everyone, As I mentioned during yesterday's session, the CCWG working session on Thursday, 7am, is in the Padang room. Later on Thursday Padang will be used for the pubic forum when it will be arranged theatre style. For our session we will have desks for about 100 people. Desks with mics and power. These are intended for you as member/participants, but it will be difficult to enforce any seating rule. We will have tea/coffee and some croissants, muffins etc. I hope enough to see you through the 3 hours. Best, Adam

1 0

Report on Legal sub-team meeting
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear all, A group of CCWG members today met with Jones Day attorney Kevin Espinola along with some ICANN staff to discuss the memo from Jones Day circulated earlier this week. The discussion explored the issues in the memo, and in particular explored the possibilities around the removal of Board members and available mechanisms for challenging board decisions, which were described as indeed being possible. It's clear there is more exploration to be done and the accumulation of questions for independent legal advise to the CCWG continues. Today's discussion was useful and painted a more optimistic picture of options for ICANN accountability than a quick read of the memo might indicate. We will continue to report on our work on a regular basis. Best regards, León

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] Fwd: [Cctldworld] Unlocking the IANA debate.....
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Same applies to CCWG-Accountability in my view. el On 2015-02-09 23:38 , Jordan Carter wrote: > this may be of use tomorrow, > > Jordan > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Paul M Kane* <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk <mailto:Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk>> > Date: Monday, 9 February 2015 > Subject: [iana] [Cctldworld] Unlocking the IANA debate..... > To: cctldworld(a)icann.org <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org> > > > > The CWG debate seems to be getting bogged down with internal/external. > > May I suggest we stand back for a moment and ask some fundamental > questions that > may assist unlock the debate and identify we as ccTLD Registries want - > please > see attached. > > Best > > Paul > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Bounced. S here it is again. el On 2015-02-10 09:45 , cctldcommunity-owner(a)cctld-managers.org wrote: > You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has > been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are > being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at > cctldcommunity-owner(a)cctld-managers.org. > > > Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day.eml > > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day > From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors(a)omadhina.net> > Date: 2015-02-10, 09:38 > > To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > CC: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net>, "ccnso-members(a)icann.org" > <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > > > Phil, Kieran, all, > > Lawyers are expected and paid to defend the interests of their > client to the utmost best of their abilities. It does not matter if > they disagree with their clients, even in criminal cases, when they > *KNOW* the client is guilty they *HAVE* to do their best or can be > disbarred. > > In Commonwealth English this is referred to as "taking > instructions". > > > So, in this context you just have to take Jones Day's "opinion" (who > from my reading of papers they have filed for ICANN in various > cases, have a *VERY* cushy gig) with a grain of salt. > > Read their "opinion" keeping in mind that this is ICANN's opinion of > the legal situation, not the legal situation per se. > > I would see this as an opportunity rather than an issue. > > el > > On 2015-02-10 09:20 , Jordan Carter wrote: >> > Kieran, all: >> > >> > Do you think the payment issue outranks the fact that this CCWG's >> > team doing legal will be the effective client? That is, do you >> > think the CCWG can rely on advice that it briefs out and manages >> > the relationships for, regardless of who ends up paying the bill? >> > >> > I am not a lawyer but your last point seems important to me. >> > >> > best, Jordan >> > >> > On 10 February 2015 at 02:25, Kieren McCarthy >> > <kieren(a)kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I can't for the life of me understand why this group is >> > prepared to accept ICANN paying for external legal advice on a >> > topic of the highest possible interest to ICANN. >> > >> > Considering the importance of this topic, I am pretty sure >> > that the various internet organizations who depend so heavily >> > on ICANN would be willing to pay into a fund to cover >> > independent legal advice. >> > >> > I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted >> > to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all >> > approaches and conversations with third parties in order to >> > limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing. >> > >> > >> > >> > Kieren >> > > [...] >

2 1

Proposal for a Community Veto Process on Key Board Decisions via Bylaws Amendment
by Robin Gross Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

Steve, Jordan, all, As promised on this morning's call, below is a further elaboration of the community empowerment proposal to amend the bylaws to create a community veto process. Thank you in advance for including this proposal along with the other suggestions for community empowerment mechanisms in the group inventory for further consideration. Best, Robin Community Veto Process on Key Board Decisions via Bylaws Amendment Amend the existing corporate bylaws (and /or articles of incorporation) to create a new mechanism that empowers the Community to overturn board decisions on a limited number of specific, enumerated issues and also to recall nonperforming board members. This community veto process would be fashioned such that a decision to over-rule the board is determined via aggregation of decisions of the existing ICANN community structures. Each individual component of the relevant Community (for example, GAC, GNSO, At-Large, CCNSO, etc.) would have a proportional share in the over-all Decision of the Community (to veto or not to veto the board). Each of these individual structures already has internal mechanisms to make decisions through which the larger Decision of the Community could ultimately be determined. We must scope what specific enumerated decisions can trigger such a community veto process (ex: the list developed in Frankfurt) and also a specific mechanism for triggering the veto process (ex: complaint supported by relevant 2 community components). The ombudsman (or neutral 3rd-party) could act as the facilitator of this community veto process in a purely administrative role: accept the matter for review, call the question to community vote, and collect the decisions of the individual components to reach the overall Decision of the Community (to veto or not to veto). The board would then be required to adopt this Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or super-majority) to reject the Decision of the Community that was reached via this process and which would be stipulated to in bylaws and/or articles of incorporation. Coupled with another bylaws revision providing for the ability of the community to recall recalcitrant board members, it would be difficult for the board to disregard the bottom-up Decision of the Community on a few specific matters. Larry Strickling's speech last week hinted that an ability to recall board members would be part of the solution NTIA is looking for in the transition. Under this community veto model, the board would still maintain the requisite ultimate direction and control that is required by California corporations law (§5210), but we could significantly empower the community by creating a veto process with teeth behind it. Amending the bylaws allows us to create the ability to overturn board decisions and thus empower the community without the need to create complicated new membership organizations or super-structures to be representational of the community. Creating a community veto process is a simpler and lighter approach to achieving the same community powers and would use the existing organizational structure. This would be a more bottom-up method of reaching a decision of the community to overturn a particular board decision and it wouldn't require a radical remaking of ICANN's organizational and legal structure, but rather, a couple key bylaws amendments. The creation of this community veto process is not without challenges, but I think most concerns can be addressed as we hammer it out and further develop the community veto model as a possibility to consider for empowering the community with respect to key board decisions.

11 24

Agenda item on Scheduling
by Jordan Carter Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

Dear co-chairs, I would like to request that we have enough time to discuss this week (and preferably in tomorrow's session, if we can) the schedule of work for this CCWG, and the scheduling links with the CWG and the ICG. I am sure it will be on the agenda, but I think it is very important for the whole ICANN community that by the end of this week in Singapore, we understand the viability or otherwise of the timetable. My initial thought is that we might be able to get *our* work done by June and in time for discussion at BA, but that the integration of this work with the CWG given their conditionality around accountability for the IANA functions indicated to us, is just simply going to be impossible to manage in the "best case". If we can end up with a "central case" then that will give the ICG time to review and rebuild its own schedule. If that schedule is longer, it might have the added benefit of reducing the head-long rush and the risk of exhaustion for those parts of the community taking part in this process. Looking forward to the conversation! bests, 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.*

7 8

Stress Tests for discussion on today's agenda
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

This item is coming up on our agenda today for the Working Session The full list of Stress Tests is here<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…>. (scroll down on the page) In the attachment, we apply several stress tests to existing and proposed accountability measures. Steve and Cheryl

1 0

Fwd: CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies
by Thomas Rickert Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

All, please find below our latest note to the CWG Co-Chairs. Thomas Rickert > > Dear Lise and Jonathan, > > Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January. It was > helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided > of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was > informative and showed we are working in the same direction. > > We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship > accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that > discussion follows. You can also find details of the sessions, including > staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki at > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500> > and at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+%234+--+Action+it… <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+#4+--+Action+item…>. > > We first presented your letter to the group and then, at the end of the meeting, came back to that point and discussed our response. > > > • Budget Accountability and Transparency > While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with > regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically > address the IANA budget at a level of detail the CWG is likely to ask for. Therefore, we encourage the CWG to recommend > measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget and we will > support requests for increased transparency. > > • Accountability for (re)delegations > As you can see from the transcript, the CCWG has extensively discussed this point, particularly to ensure the demarcation between the remits of the CCWG and the CWG is well understood. This relates especially to the sensitivities of ccTLD Registries related to (re)delegations and we would like to stress that we understand that the role of the ICANN Board with respect to (re)delegations should not go beyond its current role. Also, there is no intention by the CCWG to give an accountability mechanism decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs. > > Notwithstanding the above and to the extent that the Board may take future decisions in this area, the CCWG intends to recommend accountability mechanisms that will be relevant. > In any event, we expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration process for Board as well as management/staff decisions. > > > • Independent Review of Board Actions > CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the > independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very > much in tune with CWG approach. > > > • Independent Appeals Panel > We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we > aligned in our thinking/approach, but the CCWG is cognizant of the fact that the CWG might need to explore its own mechanisms . > > > • Control over ICANN Board decisions. > When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had > not had chance to review before the meeting. The CCWG is now considering > options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions. We are very > aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature > of the ICANN policy decision-making process. Community oversight of Board > decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific > decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to > make a decision in the case of inaction. > > > This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the > coming weeks. > > Kind regards, > Mathieu Weill, León Sánchez, Thomas Rickert

2 1

Revised agenda - Meeting #11
by Alice Jansen Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of your meeting #11, please find attached a revised agenda. Thanks Best regards Alice

2 1

AGENDA & DOCS - Meeting #11 - Mon, 9 Feb (ICANN 52)
by Alice Jansen Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

Hi everyone, In preparation for your meeting # 11 (ICANN 52) - Mon, 9 Feb - 16:45 to 19:45 SGT/08:45-11:45 UTC - please find below a proposed agenda. Documents/links are included (note: the attached engagement slide-deck is a revised version). Thanks Best regards Alice --- AGENDA 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI 2. Interactions with CWG - update by Lise & Jonathan - analysis of discussion document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc…> & further cooperation 3. Legal advice update - input from Jones Day<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52233300/Accountability%20…> (Kevin Espinola) 4. Update WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> - Jordan 5. Update WP2 - Becky 6. Update WP Stress tests<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> - presentation of 2-3 stress tests for illustration 7. Community engagement - engagement session logistics - other engagement ongoing during ICANN52 8. AOB => Support staffing update by Theresa 9. Closing remarks

3 3