- Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #6 01 April
by Brenda Brewer April 2, 2015

April 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT WP1 Meeting #6 call on 01 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894983 Action Items * Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call * Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls Notes CCWG-ACCT WP1 CALL #6 Wednesday 1 April 2015, 21:00- 22:30 UTC 1. Agenda review. None 2. Work Plan for the next sprint. Workplan for the "short sprint". Attempt to finish work as a complete proposal by 20 April. This will allow the CCWG to carryout a double reading of the proposal. Can expect additional calls to be added to WP1's agenda of meetings. Propose calls on the 8th and 10th April First set of work on powers, earlier work and new text to be drawn together over the weekend. Sections 6.5 and 6.6, too early for mechanisms, need legal advice. Activity on the AoC also moved off the schedule, for the time being leave the mechanisms to later. Some uncertainty of the overall workplan, and need adapt as work changes from discussions on the CCWG calls Finalize a draft close of play Monday 6th and discussion on 8th Keith Drazek and Robin Gross volunteered for review of text Difficult to know how legal advice will take some of WP1 proposals 3. Community powers mechanism Legal call -- 2nd call today was primarily procedural. No discussion of the arrangements, lawyers are likely say all are possible, but suggest working together with the lawyers to decide which is closest to ICANN's way of working and culture. Lawyers may join some working party calls. Sidley to coordinate between the counsels. Both will voice their expertise. The work parties are the clients in this arrangement. WP1 will invite the lawyer(s) on the calls to thrash out issues. Three classes of mechanisms: * group of people organized within the bylaws * a group organized with CA laws as member or delegate * a group of processes and flows Jordan: preference for a mechanism like the community council? Two points of view expressed: the group needs legal advice before drafting text, and, that the group should move forward in parallel and decide what we want rather than wait for the lawyers. Also noted that it's chicken and egg. Would be good to have something to put in front of the lawyers, but not going to fine detail. A balance needed. Powers set out in the 1st draft. Then invite the lawyers to the 8 April call for them to advise. Continue drafting based on that outcome. 1st draft, will not address mechanics don't have enough time to come to consensus, to have a lawyer on the 8 April call and the first item to be addressed will be mechanisms Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call 4. Stress test 18 paper: GAC operating procedures and consensus advice. "GAC advice that is supported by consensus" co-chairs have asked for feedback from the GAC, and individual responses from Thomas Schnieder, Denmark, Spain, USG. Jordan: suggests that this is a useful clarification to put in place, No other SO/AC can change their internal procedures and affect their influence on ICANN policy. Comfortable with the proposal. Greg: classic stress test. Doesn't affect the GAC's processes or ability to contribute collectively or as individual governments. As the bylaws are currently drafted it presupposes that GAC advice will be made on consensus. Not about the GAC per se. Comfortable that when the Board has to do reconciliation advice it is based on actual GAC consensus. 5. Individual Board Member Recall Individual board member recall. First draft was on recalling both the whole board and individual directors. If the only way to deal with a problem director is to remove the whole board then that isn't an effective accountability mechanism. And WP1 considers this issue in WS1. For SO/AC need to develop a mechanism for the appointing bodies. More complicated is how to deal with NomCom appointees. Problems with using the NomCom to perform the recall, not what it was created and designed for. Could ask the lawyers As NomCom appointees are there for the community as whole, then some recall might be based on some super-majority rule of the community mechanism. Not removed en masse, but likely singly (they don't act collectively, so why remove collectively?) * individual removal important * individual removal of any type of director (except CEO) * no consensus on removal of nomcom appointees, we don't know how to * approaching consensus on recommending that appointing organizations removing their director(s) (noting complexity of GNSO and house arrangement) 6. AOC reviews update Section 8b on jurisdiction and whether it would be brought into the bylaws has been discussed. Some sections might be left in the AoC. Suggest CCWG consensus needed on how to deal with this issue. 7. Next Calls Meetings April 8, 10, 13. Wed 8 April 21:00 UTC, 2 hours (with lawyers) April, Fri 10 (early UTC) and 13 (late UTC) - doodle poll on the best time. April 10 and 13, 90 minutes duration Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls 8. AoB Other groups contemplating bylaws changes the same issues. May need to reconcile. Future topic whether recommending removal of the AoC and inclusion on the bylaws or keeping it as a separate mechanism in some form Action: Jordan Carter to write to lawyers to invite to 8 April WP1 call Action: staff to check with Jordan about times of April 10 and 13 calls END

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Legal Subteam - 01 April 20:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam #9 call on 01 April at 20:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895323 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision. ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. Notes These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards> http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards CCWG-ACCT LEGAL SUBTEAM CALL #9 Working with counsel Channeling questions raised in a memorandum has been successful so far but need to provide additional detail and context to lawyers. Suggestion to assign Sidley & Austin as lead - their involvement in CWG work would allow for holistic view. If we ask for one voice, we will minimize input but will make coordination easier. Hybrid: Sidley & Austin to lead - and ask Adler & Colvin's views on specific matters. Suggestion to give law firms flexibility to present to legal subteam. Suggestion to have S&A (Holly) coordinate legal advice but would be helpful to know where there is a dissenting view. Second law firm could confirm or raise other point of view. CONCLUSION: Have S&A lead "the coordinating firm" - unify voice of lawyers - state when dissenting views and elaborate on rationale for legal subteam consideration. ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision. Dealing with Questions - Gather questions and compile them into a single document (legal scoping document). - Lawyers should not be answering questions outside of memorandum but should be aware of these questions. -#1 priority is to work with WPs to ensure we are putting a legally viable proposal together (having measures pros & cons)/ - Concrete suggestions, mechanisms and associated structures need to be submitted to legal advisors: if adjustments are needed, how long it would take etc/ ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. - Lawyers to join WP, CCWG calls as deemed appropriate. - Rapporteurs to flag issues for lawyers. Timeline Legal input - mid Feb->mid-Sept. CONCLUSIONS - Inform Sidley & Austin of coordinating firm role. - We will compile, prioritize and classify questions, building a contextual document. - We will be focusing on WP's work - templates will be circulated to lawyers. - Coordinate with WPs to ensure on right track.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Legal Subteam - 01 April
by Brenda Brewer April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam call on 01 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894270 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Call duration to be adjusted -> 120 min - 1 hour (15:00-16:00 UTC) subteam members - 1h (16:00-17:00 UTC) lawyers ACTION ITEM Circulate templates of mechanisms to lawyers ACTION ITEM - Circulate jurisdiction paper for information ACTION ITEM: Schedule a legal subteam call for 1 April - 20:00-21:00 UTC Notes These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript Methodology S&A suggestions: context important for ability to do research. Mechanism for community to agree on questions and consolidate them would be useful. Helpful to have process where law firms coordinate for overlapping questions for efficiency purposes. --> Memorandums will be filed on the wiki --> Legal executive subteam to ensure there is no duplication --> Coordination between law firms is desirable --> Suggestion to add section in legal scoping document to record questions --> Legal executive team to set order in questions --> Q&A exercise or holistic structure? --> Timeline to be considered --> Context to be provided --> Consider triage to ensure efficiency CONCLUSION: methods have been established (see wiki). All questions will be assigned to lawyers through memorandums. No need to address questions outside memorandum. Legal subteam should consider 120-minute calls. Scoping document will be the main document of reference - all questions assigned to lawyers will be inserted into legal scoping document for records. Questions will be posted on wiki page. Clarify questions prior to responding. ACTION ITEM: Call duration to be adjusted -> 120 min - 1 hour (15:00-16:00 UTC) subteam members - 1h (16:00-17:00 UTC) lawyers --- Review of Community Empowerment We are looking for advice on our proposals (legally viable or not), not for a redesign. Need to know what structural changes are needed - if any - to implement powers and mechanisms we want in place. Outline next steps to meet goals: 1) Subteam to review documents from A&C - S&A 2) Ask how we may operationalize ACTION ITEM Circulate templates of mechanisms to lawyers Request to prioritize and narrow down areas to explore. Board removal Budget approval Bylaws approval Golden Bylaws Independent Review Panel Reconsideration Process Jurisdiction - Would help to focus on California law and avoid looking across globe. - Jurisdiction refers to HQs. - No political discussion - focusing on legal advice instead. --> Jurisdiction will be addressed in WS2, as needed ACTION ITEM - Circulate jurisdiction paper for information Liability Supervisory Board: what would it entail in terms of liability? Input would be welcome. Lawyers to look at templates we are discussing so as to identify any issues we would be facing. Legal subteam to sort out point of orders on list. How do we may independent review panel binding? Framework around fundamental bylaws ACTION ITEM: Schedule a legal subteam call for 1 April - 20:00-21:00 UTC

1 0

Legal sub-team last minute call today
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear all, On the legal sub-team call today we identified the need for a second call today to help us move forward in how we will continue to work with the law firms and the way in which we will be assigning priorities for them to address. This call is scheduled for today at 20:00 UTC. As always, everyone is welcome to join. The proposed agenda is: 1. Working with counsel: 2. Dealing with questions; and 3. Considering holistic approach. 4. Timeline Best regards, León

1 0

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Response to Legal Sub-Team questions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding the preliminary responses provided by Sidley Austin to the first round of questions submitted to them. I suggest you review them as input from all will be considered and is important for our steps forward. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com> > Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 27 de marzo de 2015 16:46:56 GMT-6 > Cc: "Huston, Peter K." <phuston(a)sidley.com>, "Schramm, Dorothee" <dschramm(a)sidley.com> > Asunto: [Acct-Legal] Response to Legal Sub-Team questions > > > Attached are our preliminary responses to the questions directed to Sidley Austin by the Legal Sub-Team. Please note that we shared responses with Adler and Colvin for comment, as agreed at the Legal Sub-Team meeting in Istanbul. We look forward to discussing the various options with the Legal Sub-Team. > HOLLY GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> > MICHAEL CLARK > Partner > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.312.853.2173 > mclark(a)sidley.com <mailto:mclark@sidley.com> > > <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5>

3 2

Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Preliminary Responses to Legal Sub-team Questions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding the preliminary responses provided by Adler & Colvin to the first round of questions submitted to them. I suggest you review them as input from all will be considered and is important for our steps forward. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Steven Chiodini <schiodini(a)adlercolvin.com> > Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 27 de marzo de 2015 21:22:43 GMT-6 > Cc: "Huston, Peter K." <phuston(a)sidley.com>, "Schramm, Dorothee" <dschramm(a)sidley.com>, Emily Chan <echan(a)adlercolvin.com> > Asunto: [Acct-Legal] Preliminary Responses to Legal Sub-team Questions > > We are pleased to attach our preliminary responses to the questions sent to us by the Legal Sub-team earlier this week. We look forward to discussing them with you. > > Have a very nice weekend, > > Greg Colvin > Rosemary Fei > Stephanie Petit > Steven Chiodini > > > > ===== > > Please be aware that this email is intended to provide a short response to the questions posed, without the benefit of legal research. If you would like a more thoroughly considered and researched response, please let us know. > ===== > > Steven Chiodini > Adler & Colvin > 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > Tel: 415-421-7555 > Fax: 415-421-0712 > email: schiodini(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:schiodini@adlercolvin.com> > www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com/> > The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at schiodini(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:schiodini@adlercolvin.com>, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5>

3 2

Formal OBJECTION to the Interaction with the 2 Law Firms
by Dr Eberhard Lisse March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, it is UNACCEPTABLE to me that we invite someone having written a comprehensive report or document circulated to the list who then rushes through their paper and any discussion thereof is prohibited. I personally am offended by my time being wasted like this but substantively, I will not agree with subjecting the content of our deliberation or the result thereof to time constraints of any kind, be it in a call or deadlines for submission to NTIA. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Legal Sub Team Mailing List
by Dr Eberhard Lisse March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Staff, please subscribe me in read-only (aka Lurker Mode) mode to the Legal Sub Team Mailing list. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

4 3

AGENDA - Call #18
by Alice Jansen March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #18<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893477> - Tuesday, 31 March - 06:00-08:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>): 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 2. Confirm conclusions from Istanbul * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> fundamental Bylaws * Jurisdiction approach * Legal Subteam<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> working methods & input received * WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> community mechanism * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> mission & core values, reconsideration process * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> progress and planning 3. Timeline * Buenos Aires 4 Engagement 5. AOB Thanks, Best regards Alice

3 4

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT WP2 Meeting #4 30 MARCH
by Brenda Brewer March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #4 - 30 March will be available <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894975> here. Action Items ACTION: Malcolm to revise text, based on gathering like issues together. With clarity on what is/is not being changed Notes: WP-2 Compactmission Discussion on IRP and Mission/Core Values issues post Istanbul Meeting - 30 March This call will be recorded Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. NOTES: Roll call: all present in the AC room Mission and Core Values from Istanbul. Updated text and accepted suggestions regarding formatting and proposed changed Proposed language: new, is in red text. With notes and comment in the right column. As the process moves on, suggested that this column can be used to consider questions for the Public Comment/ Need to add the roles of names, numbers, protocols and port parameters and evolution of the DNS root/ To provide more specificity, added new language around names RIR/IETF may have specific language they wish to use to describe their role. Language new from Istanbul on limiting ICANN mission. The right column includes relevant language from the AoC and from the new gTLD agreement (Spec 1) Group should consider how Spec 1 becomes durable. Coordination of administration. Coordination of operation. Coordination of policy development and implementation If someone were to make a challenge that some activity were outside the text, could the challenge be easily upheld? Theoretical stress tests: Some of what ICANN does in administering community consensus might be considered as regulating content (e.g. the new gTLD app guidebook). Need to take care that new "rules" do not prevent desirable actions. Theoretical stress tests: Time zone database. Does it fit under protocol parameters? But it does not fit under the current contract. Endorsement of least the change principle. Future rationalization may be needed. IETF discussion about use of TLDs for other uses. ICANN not exclusive, and this needs to be reflected. There is language that may address these concerns. AoC for WHOIS - language in AoC broken from the beginning and would not wish to see it extended, but revised. Revision should take place outside of the transition process. Reconciliation - fundamental commitments and core values, or between core values. It has to meet a high bar of public interest goals, and be narrowly tailored and necessary. CCWG conference call - for consultation and to raise questions. Fundamental Rights. Bylaws provisions that talk if 11 core values. The mission describes what ICANN does. The fundamental rights talk about how ICANN accomplishes its mission. Core values 8 and section 3 of the bylaws mention non-discriminatory treatment. Changes made reflect Istanbul discussion, the sources of language being proposed will be noted. References in the right column where these are picked up in the AoC. Also discussion about ICANN's competition mission: two ways to look at this, as affirmatively of promoting competition, or acting in ways that does not impede competition. Para 6. While remaining rooted in the private sector... taking into account govt advice, etc A discussion about how the group feels about this issue. How to continue to treat GAC advice, when it may conflict with core values. Consideration needed of reconciling GAC advice which is inconsistent with ICANN's own bylaws. In the explanatory language, note that the policies are under review END

1 0