Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA)
Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us:
In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider:
- The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?
* would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet
- The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature?
* lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice.
- The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP?
* Becky?
- In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard?
* this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility?
- The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?
* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan
All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Avri Doria* <avri@acm.org> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-...
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Would strongly support the concept of having SSAC examine the proposal and comment on it, I have a remembrance somewhere in the back of my head that that might actually already be in process? (Was possibly today at the ICG) -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Thursday 18 June 2015 11:25 To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA) Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us: In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: * The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? * would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet * The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? * lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice. * The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? * Becky? * In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? * this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility? * The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? * personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi Jordan, All, My two cents on the last point of Larry (The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?) . We, the community, can envisage million of sticks and procedures to “punish” - “react” - “remedy" to actions of people who are not doing their job well. However, accountability is something that must be part of a company’s attitude and working methodology, it must be in the DNA of those who are expected to serve any community. Best, Giovanni On 18 Jun 2015, at 11:25, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us: In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: * The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? * would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet * The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? * lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice. * The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? * Becky? * In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? * this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility? * The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? * personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> [cid:2934C4EE-CAF2-4BA4-9DC0-AB9A25CC6ADC@Docomointertouch.com] #2015euWA Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer
Thanks Jordan and Giovanni, On the question of staff/management accountability: That role is and should remain the responsibility of the Board. We are not trying to replace the Board's very legitimate and appropriate role, to include holding the ICANN management and staff accountable. We are simply trying to ensure the Board is accountable to the community. We have no desire to create a new structure that interferes in the day-to-day operations of ICANN. However, there may be new mechanisms or triggers where the community could compel a review of Staff by the Board and we should consider those. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Seppia Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:43 AM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA) Hi Jordan, All, My two cents on the last point of Larry (The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?) . We, the community, can envisage million of sticks and procedures to "punish" - "react" - "remedy" to actions of people who are not doing their job well. However, accountability is something that must be part of a company's attitude and working methodology, it must be in the DNA of those who are expected to serve any community. Best, Giovanni On 18 Jun 2015, at 11:25, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us: In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN's accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: * The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? * would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet * The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of "operationalizing" groups that to date have been advisory in nature? * lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice. * The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? * Becky? * In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? * this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility? * The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? * personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community's completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D0A9BD.69891910] #2015euWA Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English<http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian<http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian<http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese<http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian<http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish<http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech<http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish<http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian<http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch<http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak<http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek<http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish<http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French<http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian<http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish<http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian<http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian<http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German<http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic<http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian<http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese<http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish<http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian<http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer>
That is a very important point, Keith, the critical nature of f which is being raised at this very moment by GDD staff's decision to make the PDDRP and URS starting points for legacy gTLD renewal agreements, as reflected in the proposed .Travel, .Pro and .Cat renewal agreements. As I understand it Board review of the final, post-comment RAs is optional. At the time these "implementation details" of the new gTLD program were created it was well understood that their application to legacy gTLDs could occur only after their performance and the issues they raised had been extensively analyzed (which has yet to happen - the policy staff Issues Report won't be delivered until September) and then only through a PDP. This staff action is, in my opinion, an attempt to create de facto Consensus Policy in violation of the Bylaws. Let's see what happens once the comment period ends and after this is raised in BA. But, whatever the outcome, it illustrates the need for "new mechanisms or triggers where the community could compel a review of Staff by the Board". Accountability mechanisms that focus solely on Board action or inaction would leave staff free to make ad hoc policy decisions via contract changes absent any consultation with, much less Bylaws-required deference to, the GNSO and broader ICANN community of stakeholders. And Giovanni, in my oral testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last month I stated: While enhanced ICANN accountability measures are overdue they will operate best only if ICANN's Board and senior staff embrace a culture of accountability that assumes responsibility for the fallout of ICANN decisions and encompasses early consultation with the multistakeholder community that provides organizational legitimacy. So I am in complete agreement with your view that "accountability is something that must be part of a company's attitude and working methodology, it must be in the DNA of those who are expected to serve any community". Unfortunately, we are some considerable distance from that within ICANN at the present time and the final accountability mechanisms must take that into account. Best, Philip 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:54 AM To: Giovanni Seppia; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA) Thanks Jordan and Giovanni, On the question of staff/management accountability: That role is and should remain the responsibility of the Board. We are not trying to replace the Board's very legitimate and appropriate role, to include holding the ICANN management and staff accountable. We are simply trying to ensure the Board is accountable to the community. We have no desire to create a new structure that interferes in the day-to-day operations of ICANN. However, there may be new mechanisms or triggers where the community could compel a review of Staff by the Board and we should consider those. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Seppia Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:43 AM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA) Hi Jordan, All, My two cents on the last point of Larry (The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?) . We, the community, can envisage million of sticks and procedures to "punish" - "react" - "remedy" to actions of people who are not doing their job well. However, accountability is something that must be part of a company's attitude and working methodology, it must be in the DNA of those who are expected to serve any community. Best, Giovanni On 18 Jun 2015, at 11:25, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us: In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN's accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: * The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? * would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet * The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of "operationalizing" groups that to date have been advisory in nature? * lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice. * The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? * Becky? * In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? * this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility? * The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? * personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community's completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D0A9B9.32FC64F0] #2015euWA Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English<http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer> Estonian<http://www.eurid.eu/et/legal-disclaimer> Italian<http://www.eurid.eu/it/legal-disclaimer> Maltese<http://www.eurid.eu/mt/legal-disclaimer> Romanian<http://www.eurid.eu/ro/legal-disclaimer> Swedish<http://www.eurid.eu/sv/legal-disclaimer> Czech<http://www.eurid.eu/cs/legal-disclaimer> Spanish<http://www.eurid.eu/es/legal-disclaimer> Latvian<http://www.eurid.eu/lv/legal-disclaimer> Dutch<http://www.eurid.eu/nl/legal-disclaimer> Slovak<http://www.eurid.eu/sk/legal-disclaimer> Greek<http://www.eurid.eu/el/legal-disclaimer> Danish<http://www.eurid.eu/da/legal-disclaimer> French<http://www.eurid.eu/fr/legal-disclaimer> Lithuanian<http://www.eurid.eu/lt/legal-disclaimer> Polish<http://www.eurid.eu/pl/legal-disclaimer> Slovenian<http://www.eurid.eu/sl/legal-disclaimer> Bulgarian<http://www.eurid.eu/bg/legal-disclaimer> German<http://www.eurid.eu/de/legal-disclaimer> Gaelic<http://www.eurid.eu/ga/legal-disclaimer> Hungarian<http://www.eurid.eu/hu/legal-disclaimer> Portuguese<http://www.eurid.eu/pt/legal-disclaimer> Finnish<http://www.eurid.eu/fi/legal-disclaimer> Croatian<http://www.eurid.eu/hr/legal-disclaimer> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10037 - Release Date: 06/17/15
On 18 Jun 2015, at 15:53, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Jordan and Giovanni,
On the question of staff/management accountability:
That role is and should remain the responsibility of the Board. We are not trying to replace the Board’s very legitimate and appropriate role, to include holding the ICANN management and staff accountable. We are simply trying to ensure the Board is accountable to the community. We have no desire to create a new structure that interferes in the day-to-day operations of ICANN.
Indeed.
However, there may be new mechanisms or triggers where the community could compel a review of Staff by the Board and we should consider those.
That's no a bad idea; it would also show we weren't ignoring his advice. We should also not ignore his concern about the accountability of the community. Here I think the key thing is ensuring that the IRP is accessible and effective even when the community would prefer a different decision (for example, even if the community supported action by ICANN outside its authorised scope, or in defiance of its core commitments) Malcolm.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Seppia Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:43 AM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA)
Hi Jordan, All,
My two cents on the last point of Larry (The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?) . We, the community, can envisage million of sticks and procedures to “punish” - “react” - “remedy" to actions of people who are not doing their job well. However, accountability is something that must be part of a company’s attitude and working methodology, it must be in the DNA of those who are expected to serve any community.
Best,
Giovanni
On 18 Jun 2015, at 11:25, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation...
Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions.
On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us:
In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider:
· The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?
* would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet
· The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature?
* lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice.
· The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP?
* Becky?
· In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard?
* this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility?
· The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?
* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs...
Lots of food for thought here.
best Jordan
All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-...
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager
EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu http://www.eurid.eu
#2015euWA
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: English Estonian Italian Maltese Romanian Swedish Czech Spanish Latvian Dutch Slovak Greek Danish French Lithuanian Polish Slovenian Bulgarian German Gaelic Hungarian Portuguese Finnish Croatian _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
“Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus” Makes me wonder if phrasing like this is already in the bylaws. "* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account” That is my view too * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and Acs… We have to, and it’s not the first time this issue has been raised Cheers, Roelof From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: donderdag 18 juni 2015 16:25 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA) Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for conversation... Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers to all of these questions. On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us: In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: * The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? * would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals? * I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.) * new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the process of ending the NTIA contract. * our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a high bar for v2 to meet * The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? * lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on * I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"? "Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice. * The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? * Becky? * In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? * this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of CWG-Stewardship's responsibility? * The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? * personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and staff to account * we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and ACs... Lots of food for thought here. best Jordan All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (7)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Giovanni Seppia -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Phil Corwin -
Roelof Meijer