- Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposal for how community could be delegated to make some decisions
by Robin Gross Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

To flesh this proposal out a bit further: The "Community" could overturn a board decision on a limited number of key issues via an ombudsman mediated process in which a decision could be rendered via the "Community". Each individual component of the Community (for example, GAC, GNSO, AT-Large, CCNSO, etc.) would have a proportional weight in the over-all decision of the Community. Currently, each of these individual components already has internal mechanisms in place to make decisions (take policy positions, elections, etc.) through which the decision of the Community is actually rendered. This way, we don't need to create a new super-structure to be "Representational". We can do away with that additional layer entirely - creating the "super board" because decisions can be made in the individual component's internal mechanisms. This would be a much more bottom-up method of reaching a "Decision of the Community" regarding a particular board decision. The ombudsman could act as the facilitator of this process: put the issue to vote, collect and tally the votes of the individual components to render the "Decision of the Community". The board would then be required to adopt this Decision of the Community unless it voted (unanimous or super-majority) to not adopt the Decision of the Community, which could be stipulated to in bylaws. The board would retain ultimate decisional authority as required by Cal Corp law, but it would be very difficult for it to ignore the bottom-up Decision of the Community. Coupled with a mechanism to recall recalcitrant board members, this overall model could solve many of our problems and remake ICANN in a more bottom-up fashion without too much structural redesign. Thoughts? Thanks, Robin On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, David Post wrote: > > With the caveat that I know next-to-nothing specifically about CA non-profit corporation law, it certainly looks to me like Robin's idea fits quite comfortably within the statute. The Board delegates a decision-making function to some other body, as it is allowed to do; it agrees to abide by the decision of that other body, subject to its "ultimate authority" to change its mind and decide NOT to abide by a decision of that other body; but it can only do that by a supermajority, or even a unanimous, vote at the time. It seems to me that gives the Board (as a whole) the "ultimate direction" of corporation - it does get the "final say" - but it also gives the body to which the Board has delegated decision-making power real "teeth" (because the supermajority or unanimity required to overturn its decision will be very difficult to achieve) - > > David > > ******************************* > David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation > blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post > book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com > ******************************* > > > > At 10:45 AM 1/20/2015, Robin Gross wrote: >> CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION >> >> Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp: >> >> >> >> 5210. Each corporation shall have a board of directors. >> Subject to >> the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or >> bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members >> (Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the >> activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all >> corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the >> board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the >> corporation to any person or persons, management company, or >> committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs >> of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be >> exercised under the ultimate direction of the >> board. >> >> >> 2 part solution proposal: >> >> 1. So the board may be able to delegate some of these management activities to "the community" - and reserves its ultimate direction to be able to over-turn such a decision by full negative consensus. {i.e. every board member is against it). The board would have to put this restriction on itself in bylaws: the requirement for all board members to vote against a community decision in order to over turn it. >> >> 2. If we then added the ability to remove board members, this mechanism might be able to provide the kind of oversight and control the community is looking for without creating super-boards, membership orgs, and still complies with California Corporation law about board retaining ultimate control. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

10 11

[CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
by Jordan Carter Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Hi all I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability. The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised. At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws). There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on. A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner. Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with. In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made: a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user. If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too. 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.*

19 30

Update on definitions & scoping document
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear Colleagues, FYI, as discussed in Frankfurt, the document on definitions & scoping has been updated, and circulated for Advice to the group of Advisors. You can find the latest version in the drafts section of our wiki, which has recently benefited from a new layout thanks to Grace and Alice. Please note that the redline version includes mentions of edits as well as the origin of edits. Many thanks to all contributors. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountab… As soon as we receive feedback from the Advisors, we will share it to the group. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

*Please note that the CCWG-Board session is not yet listed. This session is being confirmed. We'll add an addendum when the session is confirmed and on public schedule. To view the original announcement, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb 243d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=linkedin&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-2015-01-26-en&title=Joint%20CWG-Stewardship%20%26%2 0CCWG-Accountability%20Chairs%27%20Statement%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89/-/-/54c6befc73130645/2&frommenu=1&uid=54c6befc7176ac61&ct=1&tt=0&cap tcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-us&s=sinaweibo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fannouncement-2015-01-26-en&title=Joint%20CWG-Stewardship%20%26%2 0CCWG-Accountability%20Chairs%27%20Statement%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89/-/-/54c6befc73130645/3&frommenu=1&uid=54c6befc30ef4f9c&ct=1&tt=0&cap tcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IA NA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez, & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> As both Cross Community Working Groups prepare for community engagement and work sessions at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability would like to recognize the interdependence and connected nature of the work of their respective groups, as set out by the ICANN processes1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#foot1> and further reinforced by each working group's Charter.2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#foot2> Following the ICANN 51 Meeting in Los Angeles, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs and the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability Charter Drafting Team started to hold update and coordination calls, a practical and early recognition of the requirement for active collaboration on their respective work efforts. These weekly interchanges and updates are ongoing and serve to keep each other informed about questions and issues arising from their respective working groups. Moving forward, the Chairs commit to continue to actively work together, and synchronize insofar as possible, on timelines and milestones, especially where there are accountability mechanisms that may be relevant for both groups. To assist in broader community understanding of the interdependencies of the parts of Work Stream 1 that relates to the CWG, a schematic illustration of the dynamics between the two working groups is available in a flowchart <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Link%20with%20CCW G%20Accountability%20-%20updated%2026%20January%202015.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 154 KB]. Work in Progress The CCWG-Accountability has just concluded a two-day meeting <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en> in Frankfurt, Germany (19-20 January), during which they discussed their Work Stream 1 requirements, with initial input from the CWG-Stewardship on accountability dependencies. Both working groups are expected to continue this dialogue as work progresses. The CWG-Stewardship, following an intensive work weekend <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en> on 10-11 January, is in the process of reviewing its timeline for submission of a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). A vital part of this endeavor is the seeking of legal advice on questions related to the viability of key elements of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. As the CCWG-Accountability also moves forward to seek legal advice, the Chairs will inform each other of the process used and advice received, so as to further ensure efficient synchronization in light of dependent and compressed timeframe. ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (9-13 February 2015) The Chairs intend to all be present at both CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability related sessions during the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> , including the ICG-organized events. This will reinforce the working groups' commitment to a productive meeting, advancing discussions and improving collaboration. Below is a compiled list of engagement sessions and working sessions that are relevant to both processes: *All times in local time (UTC +8) IANA Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountabilit y> Olivia Meeting Room Sunday, 8 February 17:30-19:00 Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship> Padang/Canning Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 10:30-13:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 16:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 9:45-11:15 CWG-Stewardship Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 17:15-19:15 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 07:00-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 10:30-11:45 The full schedule for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore is available here <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full> . 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#note1> On 6 June 2014, ICANN, in its role as facilitator, published a community-driven process for the IANAStewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en> . Community discussions on the IANA Stewardship Transition led to the development of an additional process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en> , which was published on 10 October. 2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en#note2> The CWG-Stewardship Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/2grxAg> was circulated for adoption on 14 August 2014. The CCWG-Accountability Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> was circulated for adoption on 3 November 2014.

2 1

Fwd:.. Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement
by Jordan Carter Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

I didn't see if this was circulated on the list... Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: 27 January 2015 at 14:47 Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement To: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-26-en ------------------------------ Joint CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability Chairs' Statement 26 January 2015 Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson - CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez, & Mathieu Weill - CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…> As both Cross Community Working Groups prepare for community engagement and work sessions at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability would like to recognize the interdependence and connected nature of the work of their respective groups, as set out by the ICANN processes1 <#14b2912228a346c4_foot1> and further reinforced by each working group's Charter.2 <#14b2912228a346c4_foot2> Following the ICANN 51 Meeting in Los Angeles, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs and the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability Charter Drafting Team started to hold update and coordination calls, a practical and early recognition of the requirement for active collaboration on their respective work efforts. These weekly interchanges and updates are ongoing and serve to keep each other informed about questions and issues arising from their respective working groups. Moving forward, the Chairs commit to continue to actively work together, and synchronize insofar as possible, on timelines and milestones, especially where there are accountability mechanisms that may be relevant for both groups. To assist in broader community understanding of the interdependencies of the parts of Work Stream 1 that relates to the CWG, a schematic illustration of the dynamics between the two working groups is available in a flowchart <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Link%20with%20CCW…> [PDF, 154 KB]. Work in Progress The CCWG-Accountability has just concluded a two-day meeting <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en> in Frankfurt, Germany (19-20 January), during which they discussed their Work Stream 1 requirements, with initial input from the CWG-Stewardship on accountability dependencies. Both working groups are expected to continue this dialogue as work progresses. The CWG-Stewardship, following an intensive work weekend <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en> on 10-11 January, is in the process of reviewing its timeline for submission of a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). A vital part of this endeavor is the seeking of legal advice on questions related to the viability of key elements of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. As the CCWG-Accountability also moves forward to seek legal advice, the Chairs will inform each other of the process used and advice received, so as to further ensure efficient synchronization in light of dependent and compressed timeframe. ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (9-13 February 2015) The Chairs intend to all be present at both CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability related sessions during the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/>, including the ICG-organized events. This will reinforce the working groups' commitment to a productive meeting, advancing discussions and improving collaboration. Below is a compiled list of engagement sessions and working sessions that are relevant to both processes: **All times in local time (UTC +8)* IANA Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability> Olivia Meeting Room Sunday, 8 February 17:30-19:00 Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship> Padang/Canning Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 10:30-13:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Monday, 9 February 16:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 9:45-11:15 CWG-Stewardship Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Wednesday, 11 February 17:15-19:15 CCWG-Accountability Working Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 07:00-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> Padang Meeting Room Thursday, 12 February 10:30-11:45 The full schedule for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore is available here <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full>. ------------------------------ 1 <#14b2912228a346c4_note1> On 6 June 2014, ICANN, in its role as facilitator, published a community-driven process for the IANA Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>. Community discussions on the IANA Stewardship Transition led to the development of an additional process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en>, which was published on 10 October. 2 <#14b2912228a346c4_note2> The CWG-Stewardship Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/2grxAg> was circulated for adoption on 14 August 2014. The CCWG-Accountability Charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> was circulated for adoption on 3 November 2014. -- 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

Proposed Agenda for CCWG-Accountability Call on 27 January at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 26, 2015

Jan. 26, 2015

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for our call tomorrow: 1. Welcome & Roll Call - update SOI 2. CWG update & joint statement 3. WS1 requirements : organising further work 4. Contingencies : organising further work (inc. feedback from Board committee) 5. Timeline update 6. Outreach plan for Singapore 7. AOB 8. Closing remarks Best, Grace

2 1

recent communication on the list
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 26, 2015

Jan. 26, 2015

All, when thinking about an appropriate response to the communication on the list over the last 48 hours, I was thinking of counting the e-mails that were focused on tasks our group is chartered with versus those dealing with interpersonal issues. I have abandoned this idea as I was afraid the result might be too disappointing. We should take pride in the strength of this group, which has had very good and fruitful discussions and has made great progress so far. These results could only be achieved because our group is diverse and truly multi-stakeholder. We have different geographic, cultural, linguistic and professional backgrounds and different approaches and personalities. This makes the model we all support so unique and powerful. At the same time, we have different characters, different goals, different use of language and different working methods, which can be demanding and requires us all to be patient and sympathetic at times. Let us all try to be constructive in our discussions. We do not have to agree on everything, but we should treat each other respectfully and focus on the substance, rather than trying to campaign against each other. We will discuss these matters and the various cases amongst the co-chairs during our next call tomorrow, but please do not expect public responses. In the meantime I would like to remind everyone that I sent a note to the list on the 16th, which is still valid and from which I quote: *** We do not think that a public mailing list is the right forum issue nor to respond to the complaints. Complaints, if any, should be addressed to us offlist to allow us to deal with them appropriately. "At the same time, we would like to encourage the whole group to focus on the plethora of questions we have to work on and thank Roelof for reminding us of the wise encouragement to be conservative in what we send and liberal in what we receive." *** Let us not allow that our and the wider community’s attention is distracted from the good work we are doing. Thank you, Thomas Rickert

6 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Membership thoughts
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 25, 2015

Jan. 25, 2015

Hello Greg, >> Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC. The external entities could then be members of ICANN. My understanding also is that to be "members" the organizations would need to be legal entities. In a few of the examples given in this thread, the "coordinating" organizations are not yet established as legal entities. For example, the Number Resource Organization ( https://www.nro.net/) is a coordinating body for the 5 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). These five RIRs are legal entities - so it may make more sense for them to be the "members" of ICANN. My understanding is that groups like the Registrar constituency, and the registrar stakeholder group (http://www.icannregistrars.org/ ) are deliberately not established as legal entities, or as trade associations. They are coordinating groups - but any legal agreements etc are always between individual registrars as legal entities and ICANN. Recently a domain name industry association was established - I assume this is a legal entity (http://www.thedna.org/ ). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

11 20

Links to Chairs' Statement
by Alice Jansen Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Dear all, This is to inform you that the Chairs' statement can be found on the ICANN website at - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-23-en - as well as on your wiki at - https://community.icann.org/x/KpkQAw. Thank you, Best regards Alice

1 0

Flowchart link between CWG-IANA and CWG-Accountability
by Marika Konings Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the revised version of the flowchart that has been developed by the CWG-IANA to depict the anticipated linkage with the CCWG-Accountability work stream 1 activities. Best regards, Marika

1 0