Thanks Becky. I see a reference in here to a requirement to use the IRP. Under this model,should I understand this to mean that the place of enforcement – or where the member (or designator) would bring their claim – would be to the IRP? Sam From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday Becky, Thank you for this, its excellent work. At a high level this proposal seems like it could represent a well considered compromise between the various models that we have discussed over the past few months. In concept I support it, as someone who was previously heavily invested in the membership model but I think this could be an acceptable compromise for me, and furthermore think that we should work to expedite work on the details so that the greater community can evaluate it in detail with each of our own individual wants and needs. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 11:47 To: "Burr, Becky" Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday For those who prefer PDF... attached J On 21 June 2015 at 11:27, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Dear All - Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus. The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline. This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members. Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list. Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date. * The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality * If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2. * A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers. * Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms. * The Empowered SO/AC model: * does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc. * Permits each SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want. * reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted. * would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable. Best, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

Thank you Jordan and apologies for overlooking that J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday For those who prefer PDF... attached J On 21 June 2015 at 11:27, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Dear All - Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus. The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline. This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members. Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list. Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date. * The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality * If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2. * A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers. * Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms. * The Empowered SO/AC model: * does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc. * Permits each SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want. * reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted. * would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable. Best, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=p1U5AkmMs00fKZ5AwCxYhoBJGljang6zJcAjE-ezL9Y&s=ocLja26LaodAhI-o8eX_b5MuImy36bYZ_Kc7vMRLoa0&e=> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

Thanks too to Becky for pulling this together, and I agree with Robin that the straight comparison involved here would be v helpful. I just have a point about one sentence of Robin's email: "I know there is greater power for those who choose to be members under the Hybrid Model with respect to budget and strat plan, but let's play out how far we *can* get with the Empowered Designator Model? " I think we need to clearly separate what the powers we propose are, from the degree to which they can be made to stick if anyone decides not to do what the community asks. The powers we propose (budget, bylaws controls; removal of directors or Board) are the *same* under the three models. Under the *bylaws only* or *voluntary* model, none of the powers are enforceable in law. Under the *empowered designators* model, all of the powers except budget / strat plan are enforceable in law. Under the *SO/AC empowered *model, an SO or AC that opted to make the declaration could enforce any or all of the powers in law. Whoever can or cannot enforce the bylaws as they relate to these powers, it makes no difference as to how the powers themselves work. That is, if there was a mix of statuses for different SOs and ACs, it would not change the balance of influence we end up proposing for the actual operation of the powers. This is an important point for us all to be super clear about as part of our working discussions - including the absolute possibility that my interpretation above isn't right (after all, I am not a lawyer...). cheers Jordan On 21 June 2015 at 12:16, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

It would be useful to play both scenarios out a bit - how would we do this under the Empowered Designator model and also the Hybrid Model?

How would we craft an optimal system under both models? What would they look like? How far can we get? I know there is greater power for those who choose to be members under the Hybrid Model with respect to budget and strat plan, but let's play out how far we *can* get with the Empowered Designator Model?

If we do this exercise in an objective and non-prejudicial manner, it would be extremely helpful to assist our group tease out the consequences, possibilities, and limitations of each scenario.

Thanks, Robin

On Jun 21, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:

Dear All -

[...]

A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable.

Best,

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz <Empowered SO AC PP 21 June 2015.pptx> _______________________________________________ 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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

• “A simple statement of intent to do so confers the legal status (personhood) needed to enforce recommended powers and authorities • No legal filings are required” Seems a little counter-intuitive (self-confer a statutory status, without involvement by the state). A little more explanation from the lawyers might help. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:25 AM Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday Thanks too to Becky for pulling this together, and I agree with Robin that the straight comparison involved here would be v helpful. I just have a point about one sentence of Robin's email: "I know there is greater power for those who choose to be members under the Hybrid Model with respect to budget and strat plan, but let's play out how far we *can* get with the Empowered Designator Model? " I think we need to clearly separate what the powers we propose are, from the degree to which they can be made to stick if anyone decides not to do what the community asks. The powers we propose (budget, bylaws controls; removal of directors or Board) are the same under the three models. Under the bylaws only or voluntary model, none of the powers are enforceable in law. Under the empowered designators model, all of the powers except budget / strat plan are enforceable in law. Under the SO/AC empowered model, an SO or AC that opted to make the declaration could enforce any or all of the powers in law. Whoever can or cannot enforce the bylaws as they relate to these powers, it makes no difference as to how the powers themselves work. That is, if there was a mix of statuses for different SOs and ACs, it would not change the balance of influence we end up proposing for the actual operation of the powers. This is an important point for us all to be super clear about as part of our working discussions - including the absolute possibility that my interpretation above isn't right (after all, I am not a lawyer...). cheers Jordan On 21 June 2015 at 12:16, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: It would be useful to play both scenarios out a bit - how would we do this under the Empowered Designator model and also the Hybrid Model? How would we craft an optimal system under both models? What would they look like? How far can we get? I know there is greater power for those who choose to be members under the Hybrid Model with respect to budget and strat plan, but let's play out how far we *can* get with the Empowered Designator Model? If we do this exercise in an objective and non-prejudicial manner, it would be extremely helpful to assist our group tease out the consequences, possibilities, and limitations of each scenario. Thanks, Robin On Jun 21, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Burr, Becky wrote: Dear All - [...] A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable. Best, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> <Empowered SO AC PP 21 June 2015.pptx>_______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

On 21/06/2015 16:24, Jordan Carter wrote:

The powers we propose (budget, bylaws controls; removal of directors or Board) are the *same* under the three models.

Under the *bylaws only* or *voluntary* model, none of the powers are enforceable in law.

Under the *empowered designators* model, all of the powers except budget / strat plan are enforceable in law.

Under the *SO/AC empowered *model, an SO or AC that opted to make the declaration could enforce any or all of the powers in law.

Jordan, You are referring to the enforceability of the specific community powers created by the working party you chair, WP1. However I'm not sure that is the limit of the distinction between the models. What about the general ability to require adherence to the bylaws? For example, a great deal of the accountability improvements this CCWG proposes are delivered through a reformed IRP. What happens if ICANN fails to implement the IRP, as it is required to under the Bylaws? (e.g. if ICANN simply fail to appoint IRP panelists). Who would have an enforceable remedy, and under what model? My understanding is that an Empowered SO/AC would have the right to go court to demand that ICANN be ordered to implement the IRP. By contrast, under the Designator mode nobody would have the right to go court and ask for an order to correct such a failure. Is that a correct understanding? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

I’d just like to add my thanks to Becky and echo those who have said that this looks promising indeed. Much fleshing out to be done and doubtless many as yet unanswered questions but promising nonetheless. Cheers, Chris

On 22 Jun 2015, at 02:03 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:

Hi Becky,

This sure looks very promising, almost to good to be true.

Just to make sure that I understand correctly:

"A simple statement of intent to do so confers the legal status (personhood) needed to enforce recommended powers and authorities"

With that statement, would the SO or AC in question now qualify as a UA? Is that the intention?

...

"Take the steps necessary to admit members under applicable law in the event any SO or AC elects to declare its intent to work collectively to exercise or enforce authority granted in the Bylaws"

I understood from legal counsel during our session last Friday, that such a “statement of intent” would have to be issued before any situation in which the SO or AC would file for enforcement of powers, occurs. So we should probably expect certain SO’s/AC’s to file those statements when it becomes possible, having as a result that ICANN would become a membership organization, is that right?

Cheers,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: zondag 21 juni 2015 11:27 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday

Dear All -

Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus. The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline. This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members. Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list.

Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date.

The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality

If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2.

A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers.

Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms.

The Empowered SO/AC model:

does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc.

Permits each SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want.

reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted.

would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes

A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable.

Best,

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Thanks, Becky, excellent. Still looks very promising! Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: zondag 21 juni 2015 14:45 To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday Taking a stab at answering Roelof’s questions in blue font below J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 1:17 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday I’d just like to add my thanks to Becky and echo those who have said that this looks promising indeed. Much fleshing out to be done and doubtless many as yet unanswered questions but promising nonetheless. Cheers, Chris On 22 Jun 2015, at 02:03 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Hi Becky, This sure looks very promising, almost to good to be true. Just to make sure that I understand correctly: "A simple statement of intent to do so confers the legal status (personhood) needed to enforce recommended powers and authorities" With that statement, would the SO or AC in question now qualify as a UA? Is that the intention? I think we have gotten wrapped around a short hand on the UA stuff. The bottom line is that to have ultimate enforcement authority as a member you must have “personhood” - either natural or legal. The requirement for this status in this situation is the declared intention to exercise membership rights. The declaration gives you the necessary status– in some jurisdictions you might be called an “unincorporated association” but it might be something else in Switzerland or Argentina or anywhere else on the planet. The bottom line is by making a declaration of intent you qualify as a legal person under the statute "Take the steps necessary to admit members under applicable law in the event any SO or AC elects to declare its intent to work collectively to exercise or enforce authority granted in the Bylaws" I understood from legal counsel during our session last Friday, that such a “statement of intent” would have to be issued before any situation in which the SO or AC would file for enforcement of powers, occurs. So we should probably expect certain SO’s/AC’s to file those statements when it becomes possible, having as a result that ICANN would become a membership organization, is that right? Again, this is not my area of expertise but it is my impression that you would need to act (make the declaration) before the harm occurs. So, it probably is not necessary to file immediately, and my distinct sense is that the SOs and ACs would welcome additional time to consider their options. In a worst case scenario, the Board would have “one free bite” at the bad behavior apple, and even that provides meaningful disincentives for such behavior. Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: zondag 21 juni 2015 11:27 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday Dear All - Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus. The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline. This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members. Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list. Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date. * The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality * If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2. * A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers. * Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms. * The Empowered SO/AC model: * does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc. * Permits each SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want. * reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted. * would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes A final, important note. It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan). So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable. Best, Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ 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