May 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

The ALAC and IANA-Issues meetings last week brought a lot of clarity to the position of At-Large with respect the CCWG-Accountability Proposals. One area where participants seemed to hold varying opinions was to what extent the new accountability measures need to be "enforceable". For a power given to the community to be enforceable, the community or its representatives ultimately need to be able to go to court if ICANN (ie the ICANN Board) does not honor the communities directives. That doesn't mean that anyone WILL sue, but the right and therefore the possibility is there. Currently, we have no such right. Although there have been numerous times where parts of the community (at times large parts) have been dissatisfied with Board action, it is not clear that IF we had the planned powers at that time, would we have used them. In a typical case, although some parts of the community may be dissatisfied, others were delighted with the decision. In a case such as the creation of "digital archery" to address the order in which new gTLD applications would be processed, pretty much everyone was dissatisfied, but it is far from clear it was an issue that warranted extreme action. If there is no formal enforceability, then we would rely on good faith and trust to address points of contention. In the case of failure, most parties seem to agree that removal of the Board (or selected parts of it) must be fully enforceable. The current CCWG proposal calls for COMPLETE enforceability. This implies certain structural changes. Here are several questions. This message is also being sent to the IANA Issues list. Only one reply is needed. Please reply by Monday if at all possible. 1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? 2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member removal if you supported that). 3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? Alan

9 8

Re: [ALAC] Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Perhaps the logic is similar, but the implications if the ALAC were to take such a position an possibly jeopardize the accountability measures being adopted and thus the IANA transition are not insignificant. Alan At 31/05/2015 01:00 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >Not exactly opposite, Alan. Olivier did qualify his NO response with >" I see no particular harm in a call for something that will, >in practice, likely neither work, nor ever be used. If we reach the >need for legal enforceability, it means ICANN really is in >trouble." which prompted my "Well, What's the point.." > >On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Murray, You cannot fully support the comments of Maureen and Olivier >because they answered exactly oppositely to Q3. > >Alan > >At 31/05/2015 12:15 PM, Murray McKercher wrote: >>1. Yes, 2. No 3. Yes >> >>I fully support the comments made by Olivier and Maureen. >> >>Consensus consultation and transparency provide the foundation for >>democratic process. If ICANN is serious in its dedication to >>creating a democratic global governance system, then commitment to >>consensus consultation and transparency is key. Substantive >>movement towards confrontational legalistic processes may undermine >>the strategic goals of the organisation and the spirit to which the >>volunteers are committed. >> >>Murray McKercher >> >> >> >> >>On Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:14 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >> >>Yes, No and No. >> >>At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >> >1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the >> >ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? >> > >> >2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal >> >enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member >> >removal if you supported that). >> > >> >3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, >> >is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? >> > >> >Alan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ >>(ALAC) > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [IANA-issues] CLARIFICATION: Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

Well, you will recall that my preference is not to have the ability to take action except in the case of a Board refusing to step down. But if fact, the need to indemnify just decreases the chance that ICANN would defy the comunity. At 31/05/2015 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hi Alan, all > >Thinking aloud here: By all these legal stuff, ain't we creating an >avenue for coup/gaming in near future? Why do we want to transition >into a phase where SO/AC would be so exposed and where ICANN would >become so distracted with bearing legal cost that may arise as a >result of one external organisation charging an SO/AC legally. > >I am yet to be convinced of the need permit such legal >enforceability by the community as i think the possible >disadvantages would most likely outweigh its advantage. I think the >legal suing route should always be between ICANN (as an >organisation) and its client (contracted parties). > >While i agree with Olivier that this may never happen, i don't think >such option should even be possible. As we may be surprised that it >would test the creativity of some members of the community. > >Regards > >On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I thought that this was clear from the teleconferences, but I guess not. > >The concept of having legal status to allow, in the extreme, court >action, also brings the possibility of action against legal >counterpart of the AC/SO. ANY such provisions REQUIRE that ICANN >indemnify and cover all costs associated with these rights. If we >cannot get that written into the Bylaws and binding, all such >"enforceability" rights are not a possibility. > >And to be clear, yes, ICANN would have to indemnify us (individuals >and AC/SOs) for all costs involved in suing ICANN (that is a common >clause in some contracts). > >Alan > > >At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The ALAC and IANA-Issues meetings last week brought a lot of clarity >to the position of At-Large with respect the CCWG-Accountability Proposals. > >One area where participants seemed to hold varying opinions was to >what extent the new accountability measures need to be "enforceable". > >For a power given to the community to be enforceable, the community >or its representatives ultimately need to be able to go to court if >ICANN (ie the ICANN Board) does not honor the communities >directives. That doesn't mean that anyone WILL sue, but the right >and therefore the possibility is there. > >Currently, we have no such right. Although there have been numerous >times where parts of the community (at times large parts) have been >dissatisfied with Board action, it is not clear that IF we had the >planned powers at that time, would we have used them. > >In a typical case, although some parts of the community may be >dissatisfied, others were delighted with the decision. In a case >such as the creation of "digital archery" to address the order in >which new gTLD applications would be processed, pretty much everyone >was dissatisfied, but it is far from clear it was an issue that >warranted extreme action. > >If there is no formal enforceability, then we would rely on good >faith and trust to address points of contention. In the case of >failure, most parties seem to agree that removal of the Board (or >selected parts of it) must be fully enforceable. > >The current CCWG proposal calls for COMPLETE enforceability. This >implies certain structural changes. > >Here are several questions. This message is also being sent to the >IANA Issues list. Only one reply is needed. Please reply by Monday >if at all possible. > >1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the >ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? > >2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal >enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member >removal if you supported that). > >3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, >is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? > >Alan > > >_______________________________________________ >Iana-issues mailing list ><mailto:Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org>Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

Murray, You cannot fully support the comments of Maureen and Olivier because they answered exactly oppositely to Q3. Alan At 31/05/2015 12:15 PM, Murray McKercher wrote: >1. Yes, 2. No 3. Yes > >I fully support the comments made by Olivier and Maureen. > >Consensus consultation and transparency provide the foundation for >democratic process. If ICANN is serious in its dedication to >creating a democratic global governance system, then commitment to >consensus consultation and transparency is key. Substantive movement >towards confrontational legalistic processes may undermine the >strategic goals of the organisation and the spirit to which the >volunteers are committed. > >Murray McKercher > > > >On Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:14 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >Yes, No and No. > >At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the > >ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? > > > >2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal > >enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member > >removal if you supported that). > > > >3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, > >is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? > > > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] CLARIFICATION: Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

One further note. Q 3 was asked for information only. A decision on whether to accept or reject any final report will be made at the time that report is tendered, not now. Alan At 31/05/2015 12:33 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I thought that this was clear from the teleconferences, but I guess not. > >The concept of having legal status to allow, in the extreme, court >action, also brings the possibility of action against legal >counterpart of the AC/SO. ANY such provisions REQUIRE that ICANN >indemnify and cover all costs associated with these rights. If we >cannot get that written into the Bylaws and binding, all such >"enforceability" rights are not a possibility. > >And to be clear, yes, ICANN would have to indemnify us (individuals >and AC/SOs) for all costs involved in suing ICANN (that is a common >clause in some contracts). > >Alan > > >At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>The ALAC and IANA-Issues meetings last week brought a lot of >>clarity to the position of At-Large with respect the >>CCWG-Accountability Proposals. >> >>One area where participants seemed to hold varying opinions was to >>what extent the new accountability measures need to be "enforceable". >> >>For a power given to the community to be enforceable, the community >>or its representatives ultimately need to be able to go to court if >>ICANN (ie the ICANN Board) does not honor the communities >>directives. That doesn't mean that anyone WILL sue, but the right >>and therefore the possibility is there. >> >>Currently, we have no such right. Although there have been numerous >>times where parts of the community (at times large parts) have been >>dissatisfied with Board action, it is not clear that IF we had the >>planned powers at that time, would we have used them. >> >>In a typical case, although some parts of the community may be >>dissatisfied, others were delighted with the decision. In a case >>such as the creation of "digital archery" to address the order in >>which new gTLD applications would be processed, pretty much >>everyone was dissatisfied, but it is far from clear it was an issue >>that warranted extreme action. >> >>If there is no formal enforceability, then we would rely on good >>faith and trust to address points of contention. In the case of >>failure, most parties seem to agree that removal of the Board (or >>selected parts of it) must be fully enforceable. >> >>The current CCWG proposal calls for COMPLETE enforceability. This >>implies certain structural changes. >> >>Here are several questions. This message is also being sent to the >>IANA Issues list. Only one reply is needed. Please reply by Monday >>if at all possible. >> >>1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the >>ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? >> >>2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal >>enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member >>removal if you supported that). >> >>3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, >>is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? >> >>Alan

1 0

CLARIFICATION: Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

I thought that this was clear from the teleconferences, but I guess not. The concept of having legal status to allow, in the extreme, court action, also brings the possibility of action against legal counterpart of the AC/SO. ANY such provisions REQUIRE that ICANN indemnify and cover all costs associated with these rights. If we cannot get that written into the Bylaws and binding, all such "enforceability" rights are not a possibility. And to be clear, yes, ICANN would have to indemnify us (individuals and AC/SOs) for all costs involved in suing ICANN (that is a common clause in some contracts). Alan At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The ALAC and IANA-Issues meetings last week brought a lot of clarity >to the position of At-Large with respect the CCWG-Accountability Proposals. > >One area where participants seemed to hold varying opinions was to >what extent the new accountability measures need to be "enforceable". > >For a power given to the community to be enforceable, the community >or its representatives ultimately need to be able to go to court if >ICANN (ie the ICANN Board) does not honor the communities >directives. That doesn't mean that anyone WILL sue, but the right >and therefore the possibility is there. > >Currently, we have no such right. Although there have been numerous >times where parts of the community (at times large parts) have been >dissatisfied with Board action, it is not clear that IF we had the >planned powers at that time, would we have used them. > >In a typical case, although some parts of the community may be >dissatisfied, others were delighted with the decision. In a case >such as the creation of "digital archery" to address the order in >which new gTLD applications would be processed, pretty much everyone >was dissatisfied, but it is far from clear it was an issue that >warranted extreme action. > >If there is no formal enforceability, then we would rely on good >faith and trust to address points of contention. In the case of >failure, most parties seem to agree that removal of the Board (or >selected parts of it) must be fully enforceable. > >The current CCWG proposal calls for COMPLETE enforceability. This >implies certain structural changes. > >Here are several questions. This message is also being sent to the >IANA Issues list. Only one reply is needed. Please reply by Monday >if at all possible. > >1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the >ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? > >2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal >enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member >removal if you supported that). > >3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, >is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? > >Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Questions on Accountability Proposals
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

Yes, No and No. At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the >ability to remove parts of or all of the Board? > >2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal >enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member >removal if you supported that). > >3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, >is that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it? > >Alan

2 1

New ALAC Member from NARALO
by Alan Greenberg May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

I am pleased to report that Garth Bruen has been selected to replaced Eduardo Diaz as an ALAC Member from NARALO, beginning at the end of ICANN 54 in October 2015. Eduardo had been term limited and was no longer eligible. Alan

11 12

Reminder: PPSAI WG Seminar
by Carlton Samuels May 25, 2015

May 25, 2015

FYI ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-19-en ------------------------------ Call for RSVPs | Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Webinar | 28 May 2015 at 14:00 UTC 19 May 2015 Please RSVP to nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 25 May 2015. Please join the interim co-chairs of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group for a one-hour webinar on Thursday 28 May 2015 at 1400 UTC, to hear about the preliminary recommendations that have now been published for public comment by the Working Group. This Working Group (WG) was chartered <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> [PDF, 463 KB] by the GNSO Council in October 2013 to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) with the aim of developing policy recommendations to guide ICANN's implementation of an Accreditation Program for privacy and proxy service providers. The topic of privacy and proxy registrations had been identified upon the conclusion of ICANN's negotiations with the Registrars Stakeholder Group for a new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) as an issue that remained unresolved and that would be suited for a PDP. The 2013 RAA <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> contains an interim Specification on Privacy & Proxy Registrations <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri…> that is due to expire on 1 January 2017. The WG's Initial Report, containing a number of detailed preliminary recommendations and several open questions for which it is seeking community input, was published for public comment on 5 May 2015. The announcement, forum for submitting comments, and a copy of the WG's Initial Report can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-05-en. The WG's preliminary recommendations include: (i) requiring that accredited providers expressly include certain mandatory provisions in their customer terms of service; (ii) an obligation to relay initial electronic requests seeking to contact a customer; (iii) an illustrative framework for the handling of requests from trademark and copyright owners for the disclosure of customer contact information; and (iv) steps regarding provider de-accreditation. Open questions on which the WG has yet to reach consensus include the escalation of relay requests, how to deal with disclosure requests received from law enforcement and other third parties other than intellectual property rights-holders, and whether domain names associated with online financial transactions should be able to use privacy or proxy registrations. This webinar will highlight the WG's preliminary recommendations and open questions, including an opportunity to ask questions of the interim co-chairs. All are welcome; please reply to nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org if you wish to attend and to receive details about logging on to the webinar.

1 0

FLICKR GROUP Page created
by Glenn McKnight May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Hi All Here is the FLICKR Group page ICANN AT LARGE https://www.flickr.com/groups/2812389@N24/pool/with/16499578002/ We are asking people to add your favourite pictures from BA, renaming them and tagging them in order to tell a story Glenn . Glenn Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0