- Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 30 December
by Brenda Brewer Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

Dear all, The notes, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #4) call on 30 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414982 The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION -- WA1: David/WA1 to include Tijani's comments * ACTION -- WA2: Avri to send ATRT items to WS2 * COMPLETE: Staff to verify that Avri is added to WA2 mailing list * COMPLETE: Staff to assist with making sure documents are posted in a way that is more easily accessible * ACTION: Recap of definitions of WS1/WS2 for mailing list and discussion next week. * ACTION: "committed to" definifition. Staff to identify a list of options for "committed to" and share on the list * ACTION: Staff to take on Athina's suggestion to clarify the process and the time needed for changes to accountability mechanisms (such as the Bylaws). * ACTION: Chairs to work with Bruce Tonkin regarding Singapore * ACTION: Co-chairs will confirm with ICG that there is a shared understanding. * ACTION -- WA4: provide initial list before next meeting * ACTION: to circulate with the notes potential outcomes for the Frankfurt meeting for comments and preparation of the meeting. The next call is on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 12:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best, Brenda

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by DAVID JOHNSON Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke inconsistent terms in current contracts. drj

4 6

[CCWG-Accountability] FW: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Carl Schonander Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

Steve et all: First, of course like others I need to thank Steve for compiling this chart. So thanks! I know this is a lot of work. I agree with the divisions into WS1 and WS2. I also tend to agree with Paul that we ought to be able (and should) to reduce the number of items on this chart, but this is probably not the time to do that. To me, the critical thing to be able to do is to be able to recall one or more Board members, review every decision, and approve the budget. It seems to me that the definition of the "community" (the ultimate oversight authority) is probably fine, but I wonder how this "community" will arrive at decisions. Again, something not to be decided at this time. There seems to be a choice ("alt.") between the community's ability to review every decision or refer decisions to an independent review panel. If we do have to make a choice, even though SIIA suggested the independent review panel option, SIIA can go with the community review if that is what most members of the BC prefer. With respect to changing the standard for affirmation reviews, SIIA strongly opposes changing the standard from "in the public interest." The public interest is broader than human rights and Internet freedoms. The public interest includes, for instance, the framework needed to make the Internet a commercially viable platform for all legitimate businesses - that is not really a human right or Internet Freedom. I notice the SIIA proposal to severely limit the ICANN's ability to deny a disclosure request has not been placed in WS1 or WS2. Maybe that is because there are a lot of good transparency proposals in the chart. If people feel this proposal is redundant, it can go. Thanks again. I wish everybody Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! Carl PS: Steve if this mail needs to go to others - please feel free to forward. ________________________________________ From: Carl Schonander Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:33 PM To: CSchonander(a)gmail.com Subject: Fwd: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Cc: "ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>> Subject: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 To: members of CCWG and Work Area 2, After our last call on 16-Dec, the chairs tasked the entire CCWG with this action: 3. ACTION review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list. With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. The chairs also recommended next steps for our Work Area 2, after our inventory is complete. (see bottom of this email) As rapporteur for Work Area 2, I reviewed emails since 16-Dec (see email archives<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/2014-December/date.html> for Work Area 2 and for entire CCWG<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/…>). Most of the correspondence was about Public Interest and International Law, but I found notes relevant to Work Area 2 from Kavouss Arasteh, Alain Bidron, Google, Paul Rosenzweig, and Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez. For your review, I attach an updated drafted with these changes: - added a footnote to page 1 citing how Member oversight is enabled by California Law and by ICANN Articles of incorporation, and noted that ICANN’s present bylaws would have to be changed to recognize Members. - I did not delete any items at this point, but for items where opposition has been noted, you will see under the Support column, [opposition noted] - Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the rationale for work stream designations. These appear in the headers of the table and are shown below: Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these Bylaws changes. 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the change. [I folded the Transparency items into this category] Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s call. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 12/18/14, 3:10 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: B. WA 2 With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following: * Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory). * Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter. Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations. As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations: Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to: * What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause? * What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? * What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after. * If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to: * What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented? * How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to: * What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role? * What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms? * What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed? * If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date? *

2 1

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

Dear Tijani, Many thanks for your detailed input. Your point regarding the formalities to engage with Advisors is well noted. The intent is only to formalize the process by which the CCWG formally requests Advice on a certain matter, but by all means Advisors are Participants to the group and that should not restrict interactions with them. We are trying to engage with Advisors to get their feedback on the topic as well, and a revised version will be presented for approval when that is completed. I'll make sure this point is conveyed to them. Talk to you later I hope, Mathieu Le 30/12/2014 15:18, Tijani BEN JEMAA a écrit : > > Dear all, > > First of all, I apologize again for being prevented from attending the > last call. It was out of my control. > > I received the call output sent by grace and listened to the adobe > recording. > > ·There was a deep silence during the period of report from Avri (WA 3) > and Eric (WA 4) on the adobe recording. There is nothing related to > those 2 work areas on the wiki. > > oWhy the voice was removed on the adobe recording? Was it intended? > > oWhy WA 3 and 4 didn’t have material on the wiki as it was for WA 1 and 2? > > I found the rules for engagement with advisors pretty good, except > that I find the procedure described in Page 3 of the presentation too > formal. My understanding is that those advisors will integrate the > CCWG and attend all meetings where everything is recorded. So why we > need a so formal procedure for asking for advise and why we need a > point of contact for clarification, etc. It gives me the impression > that they will be in a closed office, and we deal with them through > interfaces. > > _Work Area 1_: the table is exhaustive; nevertheless, I have the > following remarks: > > ·Advisory Mechanism: > > oSSAC: How can the ICANN community accountable to SSAC? > > oRSSAC: same remark: how can the ICANN Community to RSSAC? > > ·Contractual requirements: > > oRegistry & registrar agreements: I believe that the > registries/registrars are accountable to ICANN (add ICANN to the > column “to whom”) > > ·I agree with Bladel that a column should be added where we > indicate whether each existing mechanism is worth keeping or not in future? > > _Work Area 2_: > > ·While I am a strong supporter of human rights, I want it to be > Chrystal clear that any aspect of human right related to the Internet > content can not apply here because ICANN is not about content at all. > All other human rights that are not related to content can be included > in the public interest in my PoV. That’s why I don’t agree on > replacing “in the public interest” by for protection and advance of > human rights and Internet Freedoms”. > > ·The Ombudsman is an internal trusted intermediary and all his work > should remain internal. > > ·Why ICANN should remain subject to US Law? > > ·I don’t know who is transparency International, and if they are so > exceptional in auditing, why they don’t do so for the other ICANN > components such as the Board? > > Those are few remarks. I would like to thank the Working Areas 1 & 2 > leaders for the wonderful work they did. > > See you today on the call > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part > de* Grace Abuhamad > *Envoyé :* mercredi 24 décembre 2014 12:55 > *À :* Accountability Cross Community > *Cc :* Brenda Brewer > *Objet :* [CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on > 23 December > > Dear all, > > The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability > (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: > https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw. The documents presented are also > uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your > convenience. > > Also, here is a summary of the action items: > > * *ACTION:* contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI > * *ACTION - WA1:* DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion > * *ACTION - > WA2:* Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 > * *ACTION - > WA2:* Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. > * *ACTION - WA4:* Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page > * *ACTION - > WA4:* All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. > * *ACTION:* Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline > > The next call is on *Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC*. For a full > list of upcoming meetings, please see: > https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings > > Best, > > Grace > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel > malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! > <http://www.avast.com/> est active. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Notes & Action Items from CCWG Call on 23 December
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

Dear all, The notes, transcripts, and recordings for the CCWG-Accountability (Meeting #3) call on 23 December are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/O4cQAw. The documents presented are also uploaded on the Wiki but I have reattached them here for your convenience. Also, here is a summary of the action items: * ACTION: contact Grace if you still have not received an account or uploaded your SOI * ACTION - WA1: DIDP to be added to table per Doria's suggestion * ACTION - WA2: Doria to cross check the document and add recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2 * ACTION - WA2: Add a column to flag what has been requested by other communities and specifically the 3 items that were requested by the CWG. * ACTION - WA4: Staff to post comments of EBW and JB to Wiki page * ACTION - WA4: All should provide input in contingencies so they can be considered. * ACTION: Staff to prepare a more detailed timeline The next call is on Tuesday 30 December at 19:00 UTC. For a full list of upcoming meetings, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Best, Grace

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Dec. 30, 2014

Dec. 30, 2014

> > Contract between whom and whom? > > Works almost anywhere else... > > ...in the World > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > >> On Dec 29, 2014, at 15:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org> wrote: >> >> Of course, the use of a contract is a bit of a blunt instrument of accountability absent some structure for transactional checks and balances. Let’s not miss the opportunity to replace it with something more operational while we’re at it. >> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:37 AM >> To: avri >> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 >> >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 29 Dec 2014 06:43, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > And that presupposes that the CSG-Stewardship WG won't stick with the principle of separability in its recommended solution. >> > >> > If it does stick with separability then a contractual relationship remains as an ongoing leverage point. In terms of CWG-Stewardship work, Contract Co holding the contract, still appears to be quite active as a proposal. >> > >> While I won't attempt start discussing contract co approach in details here, I will just say that since we are speaking of ICANN accountability, then it becomes a thing of relevance to discuss the accountability aspect of contract co (if this cwg is considering it as an option). >> >> > Perhaps we need to look at the WS1 list in terms of the binary discriminant: is there an ongoing contractual relationship with an eternal entity or not. I expect the WS1 list will vary based on which of these is being considered. >> > >> Well if we have the time for this, that's fine. However, while asking that question, let's also be sure to review the characteristics of the current external entity in considering a replacement (which is where accountability of such entity comes in the picture) >> >> Regards >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > On 28-Dec-14 22:57, Jonathan Zuck wrote: >> >> >> >> Of course, in so much as the transition represents a loss of leverage, WS1 needs to sufficiently replace it. It’s not really about the IANA transition itself so much as the elimination of the contractual relationship. I agree with Alan that we need to be disciplined about what to include in WS1 to ensure that we come away with the leverage to accomplish WS2. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >> >> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:35 PM >> >> To: Steve DelBianco; Accountability CCWG >> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition (even if the IANA transition was directly to ICANN without the intervening Contract Co.) >> >> >> >> Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition. >> >> >> >> I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these accepted if done in association with WS1, but if we make our WS1 task too all-inclusive, it may not get done at all. >> >> >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays. Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes: >> >>> >> >>> CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1. These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties. Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions. In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it. >> >>> >> >>> Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes. >> >>> >> >>> Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.â€ Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: â€œfound by the community" >> >>> >> >>> Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2. >> >>> >> >>> Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and â€˜Contract Co.â€™ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments >> >>> >> >>> Carlos GutiÃ©rrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2 >> >>> >> >>> Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Look forward to discussing on our next call. >> >>> >> >>> — >> >>> < >> >>> Steve DelBianco >> >>> Executive Director >> >>> NetChoice >> >>> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org >> >>> +1.202.420.7482 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 8

[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

To: members of CCWG and Work Area 2, After our last call on 16-Dec, the chairs tasked the entire CCWG with this action: 3. ACTION review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list. With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. The chairs also recommended next steps for our Work Area 2, after our inventory is complete. (see bottom of this email) As rapporteur for Work Area 2, I reviewed emails since 16-Dec (see email archives<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/2014-December/date.html> for Work Area 2 and for entire CCWG<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/…>). Most of the correspondence was about Public Interest and International Law, but I found notes relevant to Work Area 2 from Kavouss Arasteh, Alain Bidron, Google, Paul Rosenzweig, and Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez. For your review, I attach an updated drafted with these changes: - added a footnote to page 1 citing how Member oversight is enabled by California Law and by ICANN Articles of incorporation, and noted that ICANN’s present bylaws would have to be changed to recognize Members. - I did not delete any items at this point, but for items where opposition has been noted, you will see under the Support column, [opposition noted] - Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the rationale for work stream designations. These appear in the headers of the table and are shown below: Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these Bylaws changes. 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the change. [I folded the Transparency items into this category] Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s call. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 12/18/14, 3:10 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: B. WA 2 With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following: * Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory). * Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter. Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations. As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations: Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to: * What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause? * What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? * What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after. * If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to: * What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented? * How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to: * What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role? * What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms? * What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed? * If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date? *

6 8

[CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

This pertains to our discussion yesterday about a permanent, cross-community ‘Membership’ group to hold ICANN board and management accountable to the community. It was described this way in draft3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…> for work area 2: Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent cross-community representative structure (all ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to: Appoint members of Affirmation review teams Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute (option to use independent panel) Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval Approve annual proposed ICANN budget Recall one or all ICANN Board members One of the groups proposing<http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/> a community of stakeholders as ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl…> in a Washington paper today. Daniel Castro of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote: California state law applies since ICANN is a registered nonprofit corporation in the state. As such, California law allows nonprofit organizations to have statutory members. Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an effective check on the ICANN board's power is to create statutory members of ICANN with extensive authority over the board. This authority could include removing board members, overturning board decisions, etc. The statutory members would likely include the chairs of the various ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory committees," such as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) responsible for IP address policy and the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing the country code top-level domains. To ensure that the statutory members do not hold too much sway, their actions could be limited to situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus). We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to enable this modification to ICANN’s bylaws in conformance with California law. Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

13 15

[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 23 December at 06:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Please find below a message from the co-chairs: All, Please find below the agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 23 Decemeber at 06:00 UTC. Please note that we are planning to use this more or less as a standard agenda for the upcoming calls. Also, may we kindly remind you that we are seeking to confirm the following documents as completed (until such time we choose to reopen the discussion or alter the documents). 1. Inventory of existing accountability mechanisms (WA 1) <https://community.icann.org/x/OYUQAw> 2. List of items from public comments <https://community.icann.org/x/N4UQAw> (only the list, not the rationale and categorization, which is currently worked on) (WA 2) We expect you to have read the documents and be ready to make yourself heard in case you have additions or other changes to make. Please note this is not a formal consensus call, but we are testing the waters if the group is in broad agreement with the documents so we an consider these topics closed (for the time being) and use those as work products to base our work on. Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert Co-Chairs of the CCWG Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statement of Interest 2. Membership Updates (including Advisors) 3. Discussion regarding interactions with Advisors (review PDF attached) 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Work Area Updates * WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner * WA2 Steve DelBianco * WA3 Avri Doria * WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams 6. Draft Work Plan: Steps and Milestones (review PDF attached) 7. AOB 8. Closing Remarks

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Castro, Daniel Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Steve/All, Great work compiling these items. As part of the list of mechanisms, I'd like to propose for consideration adding "Establish an open data policy and develop an open data action plan" as part of the efforts to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability (WS2). There has been a growing movement to adopt open data among nations (see G8 Open Data Charter), non-governmental organizations (World Bank, UN, etc.), and nonprofits/universities. This takes freedom of information policies to the next level by establishing an "open by default" rule for an organization (rather than requiring individuals to request information). Developing an open data action plan for ICANN, could allow stakeholders the ability to prioritize high-value data sets for release, ensure data sets are released in a timely and complete manner, and ensure machine-readability so that data sets can be analyzed and visualized. All of these efforts can be used to improve the transparency of ICANN operations, and bring ICANN's transparency efforts in line with other leading global organizations. Daniel Castro Director | Center for Data Innovation 202-626-5742 | dcastro(a)datainnovation.org | www.datainnovation.org Twitter: twitter.com/castrotech | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldcastro

2 1