[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
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@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@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@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@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@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.†Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found 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 ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
Carlos Gutiérrez: 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
David Johnson has proposed between ICANN and the Registries. Others have suggested a quasi-contract via Bylaws amendments that are enforceable through arbitration by the community. The floor is open for other suggestions if you want to make one … P **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:47 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 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@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@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@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@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@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@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@acm.org <mailto:avri@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@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@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.†Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found 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 ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
Carlos Gutiérrez: 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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I have been making that suggestion already, numerous times, to NTIA, ICANN/Chehade, ccNSO, CWG. EACH current ccTLD Manager (not Registry) who does not have one yet, needs to enter into a BILATERAL contract with the IANA Function Manager. And, NOBODY ELSE, has input there. Basically the contract will not state less than unless the ccTLD Manager substantially misbehaves, the IANA Function Manager will take no unilateral action of any kind against the ccTLD Manager, ie the FoI Principles. I will assume that it will also not state less than that unless the IANA Function Manager substantially misbehaves the ccTLD Manager will take no unilateral action against the IANA Function Manager. Or words to that extent. In other words, codify the status quo. And, of course, if a CONSENTED revocation from such a "contracted" ccTLD Manager happened, the subsequent delegation to a new ccTLD Manager would require a new contract, which could be identical to the above, or be entirely different. I do not mind at all any measure to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable to the terms of any such contract. I also would like to see measures in place that assured that ccTLD Managers without a contract would not be treated worse than a "contracted" one, ie maybe we can develop a "sample contract" as base of departure. But, that Is quite a separate issue, in itself. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 29, 2014, at 20:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
com
I am having odd email issues and am not sure this made it to the list... Can one of the co-chairs confirm receipt to me directly? el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 29, 2014, at 21:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been making that suggestion already, numerous times, to NTIA, ICANN/Chehade, ccNSO, CWG.
EACH current ccTLD Manager (not Registry) who does not have one yet, needs to enter into a BILATERAL contract with the IANA Function Manager. And, NOBODY ELSE, has input there.
Basically the contract will not state less than unless the ccTLD Manager substantially misbehaves, the IANA Function Manager will take no unilateral action of any kind against the ccTLD Manager, ie the FoI Principles. I will assume that it will also not state less than that unless the IANA Function Manager substantially misbehaves the ccTLD Manager will take no unilateral action against the IANA Function Manager. Or words to that extent.
In other words, codify the status quo.
And, of course, if a CONSENTED revocation from such a "contracted" ccTLD Manager happened, the subsequent delegation to a new ccTLD Manager would require a new contract, which could be identical to the above, or be entirely different.
I do not mind at all any measure to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable to the terms of any such contract.
I also would like to see measures in place that assured that ccTLD Managers without a contract would not be treated worse than a "contracted" one, ie maybe we can develop a "sample contract" as base of departure. But, that Is quite a separate issue, in itself.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 29, 2014, at 20:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
com
Dr. Lisse —In compiling a list of overall ICANN accountability mechanisms, I have been eager to accommodate suggestions from all CCWG participants. But I would say that your note (below) is suggesting mechanisms for the transition of IANA functions — not for overall ICANN accountability. So I have not entered your points in the current inventory<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accoun...>, but please let me know if you feel that your suggestions are actually within scope of our CCWG. —Steve On 12/29/14, 7:20 PM, "'Dr Eberhard W Lisse'" <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been making that suggestion already, numerous times, to NTIA, ICANN/Chehade, ccNSO, CWG. EACH current ccTLD Manager (not Registry) who does not have one yet, needs to enter into a BILATERAL contract with the IANA Function Manager. And, NOBODY ELSE, has input there. Basically the contract will not state less than unless the ccTLD Manager substantially misbehaves, the IANA Function Manager will take no unilateral action of any kind against the ccTLD Manager, ie the FoI Principles. I will assume that it will also not state less than that unless the IANA Function Manager substantially misbehaves the ccTLD Manager will take no unilateral action against the IANA Function Manager. Or words to that extent. In other words, codify the status quo. And, of course, if a CONSENTED revocation from such a "contracted" ccTLD Manager happened, the subsequent delegation to a new ccTLD Manager would require a new contract, which could be identical to the above, or be entirely different. I do not mind at all any measure to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable to the terms of any such contract. I also would like to see measures in place that assured that ccTLD Managers without a contract would not be treated worse than a "contracted" one, ie maybe we can develop a "sample contract" as base of departure. But, that Is quite a separate issue, in itself. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Dec 29, 2014, at 20:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Steve, of course they are, please include. Of course this has been triggered, again, by the transition because the alleged foundation falls away on which ICAN bases its premise, but, few ccTLDS have formally agreed to that and it never has been tested. This is a long standing issue I have raised for many years at numerous fora. I read Contract-Co on this mailing list occasionally, so if we talk about that, we'll talk about it correctly. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 29, 2014, at 22:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Dr. Lisse —In compiling a list of overall ICANN accountability mechanisms, I have been eager to accommodate suggestions from all CCWG participants. But I would say that your note (below) is suggesting mechanisms for the transition of IANA functions — not for overall ICANN accountability.
So I have not entered your points in the current inventory, but please let me know if you feel that your suggestions are actually within scope of our CCWG.
—Steve
On 12/29/14, 7:20 PM, "'Dr Eberhard W Lisse'" <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been making that suggestion already, numerous times, to NTIA, ICANN/Chehade, ccNSO, CWG.
EACH current ccTLD Manager (not Registry) who does not have one yet, needs to enter into a BILATERAL contract with the IANA Function Manager. And, NOBODY ELSE, has input there.
Basically the contract will not state less than unless the ccTLD Manager substantially misbehaves, the IANA Function Manager will take no unilateral action of any kind against the ccTLD Manager, ie the FoI Principles. I will assume that it will also not state less than that unless the IANA Function Manager substantially misbehaves the ccTLD Manager will take no unilateral action against the IANA Function Manager. Or words to that extent.
In other words, codify the status quo.
And, of course, if a CONSENTED revocation from such a "contracted" ccTLD Manager happened, the subsequent delegation to a new ccTLD Manager would require a new contract, which could be identical to the above, or be entirely different.
I do not mind at all any measure to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable to the terms of any such contract.
I also would like to see measures in place that assured that ccTLD Managers without a contract would not be treated worse than a "contracted" one, ie maybe we can develop a "sample contract" as base of departure. But, that Is quite a separate issue, in itself.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 29, 2014, at 20:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I will check out David's proposal. But registries are already contracted parties. Would the new terms amend the current standard contract or be a new second agreement? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Dec 29, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: David Johnson has proposed between ICANN and the Registries. Others have suggested a quasi-contract via Bylaws amendments that are enforceable through arbitration by the community. The floor is open for other suggestions if you want to make one … P **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:47 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1 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@actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@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@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@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@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@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.†Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found 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 ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
Carlos Gutiérrez: 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@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
Phil, ccTLD Managers do not have contracts (but for 5 or so). el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 30, 2014, at 00:52, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
I will check out David's proposal. But registries are already contracted parties. Would the new terms amend the current standard contract or be a new second agreement?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 29, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
David Johnson has proposed between ICANN and the Registries. Others have suggested a quasi-contract via Bylaws amendments that are enforceable through arbitration by the community. The floor is open for other suggestions if you want to make one …
P
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:47 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
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@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@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@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@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@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.†Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found 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 ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
Carlos Gutiérrez: 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
Hello Eberhard,
ccTLD Managers do not have contracts (but for 5 or so).
I could imagine a bit of a combination of contract and policy. For example the ccNSO can recommend polices on behalf of ccTLDs, which once approved by the ICANN Board become ICANN policies. The contracts would be able to specifically reference the policies, and include penalties etc if the policies are not complied with. While not all ccTLDs have contracts – they should be able to benefit from the requirements that ICANN follow the approved policies. ccTLDs that are not contracted parties still have access to the other accountability mechanisms such as reconsideration and independent review that are in the bylaws should ICANN not follow a policy. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (6)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Steve DelBianco