- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: Call for Nominations for ALAC Chair
by Beran Gillen - Yahoo Aug. 21, 2014

Aug. 21, 2014

Dear all, I have only been in ALAC circles for some time now but I am still in awe of the energy and zeal that Olivier comes with to ICANN meetings the latest being ATLAS II in London. Your selflessness is unrivaled and u will be sorely missed. However your choice of a successor is a great one and I support the nomination. Beran "There is nothing more difficult to arrange and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change..." Machiavelli Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Aug 2014, at 13:06, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > This message has no content.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: Call for Nominations for ALAC Chair
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 20, 2014

Aug. 20, 2014

Cheryl, Raf, Glenn, Evan, Vanda and Tijani, I thank you very much for your kind words. If selected, I will do my best to live up to your expectations and to the examples set by my predecessors. Alan

1 0

Fwd: Congratulations on ATLAS II
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 20, 2014

Aug. 20, 2014

Dear ATLAS II participants, please be so kind to find the ICANN Board's official acknowledgement of the ATLAS II Declaration. (Ref: http://atlas.icann.org/150-representatives-70-countries-5-ralos-1-declarati… ) Again, well done everyone! Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Congratulations on ATLAS II Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:43:37 -0600 From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> CC: Stephen D. Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org> Olivier and Heidi, Please forward this to the full ALAC and the participants of ATLAS II. ============================================================== Folks, I have now had a chance to read the Final Declaration from The 2nd At-Large Summit (ATLAS II). What an impressive piece of work! It’s quite obvious there was extensive organization and preparation ahead of time and that everyone worked diligently throughout the Summit. The Recommendations and Observations cover a lot of ground. We understand the Declaration is now going through its public comment period, and I am sure there will be plenty of discussion. I expect this will be an important part of the interactions with the ICANN Board during the meeting in October. On behalf of the ICANN Board I congratulate everyone who took part in the Summit. At our next Board meeting in early September we will pass a formal resolution acknowledging your hard work and our receipt of the Declaration. Thanks! Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Accountability - Changes
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 16, 2014

Aug. 16, 2014

Tijani, The board did not propose that it would develop the charter. That document came from staff. Best regards, Rinalia On Aug 16, 2014 7:31 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: > Olivier, > > > > Yes, it is too complicated. I see that we are going towards an identical > structure of the transition of IANA functions stewardship and the ICANN > accountability and Governance: a coordination group and a cross community > working group. > > > > With the experience we have now from our participation in the IANA function > stewardship transition coordination group, we need to be careful and > vigilant not to have groups unbalanced geographically and membership. > Also, > we have to be clear from the beginning that we can’t accept any capture. > > > > Also, why the Board wants to draft the charter of the accountability CWG??? > Are they not happy with the one drafted for the CWG on IANA transition by a > community drafting team (Julie, Léon and myself are members)???? > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ > Crepin-Leblond > Envoyé : vendredi 15 août 2014 23:51 > À : alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet : Re: [ALAC] Accountability - Changes > > > > Hello all, > > > > a follow-up. > > > > Things have been going rather slowly on the ICANN accountability front. > > The Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability is still not > > formed. There was an initial proposal that there be 7 people from > > At-Large to be selected to be on the cross community working group. > > > > Now the next steps have been published: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en > > With an info-graphic showing: > > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/process-infographic-14aug14 > -en.pdf > > > > As a result, the Cross "Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability > > & Governance" could be filled with as many people as we wish it to be, > > or as many as the charter will allow - and so far the proposal is that > > the Board writes the CCWG's Charter. There will also need to be a > > selection of 1 participant from each ICANN SO & AC & SG. - so our > > already formed Selection Committee are definitely going to need to make > > a selection of at least 1 person to go on the "ICANN Accountability & > > Governance Coordination Group". But please wait until a call for > > candidates is sent out. We cannot just collect names of applicants if we > > don't know what those applicants are going to apply for! > > > > I have heard some feedback from many sources in the past few days. Some > > consider this structure to be too complex. Some are concerned that this > > proposal was made, with no possibility of community feedback. So this > > might not be the last version of the system that will be put in place. > > It certainly appears to be a laborious process to get the ball rolling > > on this. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 15/08/2014 02:20, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > Thank you Rinalia. > > > Worth noting, SO,AC and SG Chairs have had a call with ICANN Staff > > > Leadership today and the only topic of the call was the process > > > described here. > > > It appears that the new revised structure still does not satisfy > > > significant portions of the GNSO. > > > As soon as the transcript is published, I'll forward its details to the > > > ALAC. > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > Olivier > > > > > > On 15/08/2014 02:07, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > >> ALAC, > > >> > > >> Have a look at this. > > >> > > >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ALAC mailing list > > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >> > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > >> > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

2 1

Accountability - Changes
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 16, 2014

Aug. 16, 2014

ALAC, Have a look at this. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en Best regards, Rinalia

5 6

Fwd: FW: SO-AC-SG Leadership Conference Call with CEO and ICANN Leaders
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

Dear ALAC members, Attrached, please find the Transcription of the 14^th of August 2014 SO/AC/SG Leadership conference call. This is the call where the new structure of accountability working groups was proposed. Link to the audio file of the 14^th of August conference call: http://audio.icann.org/so-ac-leaders-14aug14-en.mp3 Kind regards, Olivier

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Netmundial leaked docs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Netmundial leaked docs Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:06:19 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org> FYI, I have received this email about NetMundial forthcoming plans: Leaked documents: https://k52lcjc5fws3jbqf.onion.lt/

2 1

Fwd: Re: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed Accountability Process
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

Dear ALAC members, a follow-up on the Accountability thread. You will note the email from Theresa Swinehard responding to the Statements which were made by the ISPCP, the RySG/BCEC joint Statement and the NCSG Statement. I have indicated to Keith Drazek that on the whole, ALAC members mostly support the main lines of the Statements that were presented although not in all its details. Another SO/AC/SG Call will take place in a few hours. Are there any additional lines I should develop on the call, based on Theresa Swinehart's answer below? Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed Accountability Process Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:00:27 +0000 From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, 'Drazek, Keith' <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> CC: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, 'Jonathan Robinson' <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, 'Louie Lee' <louie(a)louie.net>, 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' <ocl(a)gih.com>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf(a)netnod.se>, 'Jun Murai' <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, 'Lars-Johan Liman' <liman(a)netnod.se>, 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Kristina Rosette' <krosette(a)cov.com>, rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, 'William Drake' <william.drake(a)uzh.ch>, 'Rudi Vansnick' <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight' <michele(a)blacknight.com>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian(a)icann.org>, 'Global Leadership' <global_leadership(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Dear Rafik, Keith, Elisa, and Tony Thank you for all of your thoughtful additional input to the accountability process. As I also shared in a note last week, we have already considered further revisions to the accountability process based on the feedback received on the draft shared on the SO/AC/SG call last week. The revised process – along with a summary and analysis of the public comments focused on process – will be posted this week. The summary and analysis is focused on the process, not the substantive input received on accountability topics and proposed solutions; those inputs will be addressed through the process. As you can imagine there is a wide range of interest in the accountability process both within the ICANN community and outside the community. This is a critical inflection point for all stakeholders within ICANN – including ICANN itself. The accountability process and looking at whether any additional accountability mechanisms are needed in light of the changing historical relationship with the US is a process of interest to the ICANN community and far beyond the ICANN community. It would be premature (and not for ICANN staff) to pre-determine the outcome of the process, and whether for example one of the outcomes may be the establishment of the independent accountability mechanism as called for in the GNSO joint statement in London. This is for the process to address together with the other substantive issues and solutions identified by the community. It is this broader view of the goals and possibilities of this work that ICANN is relying on in building the accountability process. Just as there is a very important role for all ICANN stakeholders in this conversation, there is also a need to ensure there’s acceptance outside the immediate ICANN community. Thus the approach must allow for variations of existing models, complemented by identifying external expertise to enable this process to reach conclusions that are acceptable both within the ICANN community and outside the ICANN community. In the ICANN multistakeholder model, the range of interests well outside the community are as equally relevant to this process as the immediate ICANN community. The multistakeholder ICANN Community is not separate and apart from the ICANN entity. The cross community working group called for in your letter may be independent of ICANN staff or Board, but it is not independent from ICANN. We appreciated the concern about ICANN staff or Board identifying up to 7 advisors to the coordination group and have modified this to ensure the appointments are not done that way. We look forward to discussing the revised process on the call on the 14 August. As one small addition, I noted the reference to the GNSO’s policy development process in Keith and Elisa’s note. While there is always the possibility that some of this accountability work may result in items that need to be referred to a PDP, this accountability process is not a PDP. There has been substantial time available for discussion of the accountability process which began in May, ending in June, including the ICANN 50 meeting. ICANN will post the process shortly after sharing it with the SO/AC/SG leadership on 14 August – ICANN has a responsibility to be responsive to the community as a whole to allow this process to move forward. The work ahead is going to be challenging, and we trust that you will bring the enthusiasm you bring to the process design to the accountability work itself. Kind regards, Theresa From: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:56 PM To: "'Drazek, Keith'" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org>>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org <mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org>> Cc: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>, 'Louie Lee' <louie(a)louie.net <mailto:louie@louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf(a)netnod.se <mailto:paf@netnod.se>>, 'Jun Murai' <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec@wide.ad.jp>>, 'Lars-Johan Liman' <liman(a)netnod.se <mailto:liman@netnod.se>>, 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, "krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>" <krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>>, 'Rudi Vansnick' <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>>, "'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'" <michele(a)blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org <mailto:susie.johnson@icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian(a)icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian@icann.org>>, global leadership team <global_leadership(a)icann.org <mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed Accountability Process Dear Theresa The ISPCP Constituency have discussed the staff proposal regarding the proposed approach to handle the accountability process. We have also discussed the official joint statement that was forwarded to ICANN on behalf of the RySG and the BC Constituencies earlier today. As a result of our deliberations the ISPCP now offer full support for the statement made by those two Constituencies. The ISPCP wish to make it clear that there is absolutely no desire to delay this process or the transition of the IANA stewardship, but consider it is essential that a bottom-up consensus process to design independent accountability mechanisms for ICANN staff and board should be controlled by the community– not by ICANN staff and board. The mechanisms required to achieve that goal are already well proven and in place – a CCWG. The ISPCP firmly believe there is no proven need to set in place a different structure and share the many concerns that have already been expressed within the RySG and BC statement. In addition the ISPCP would like to add weight to the call for ICANN to provide an analysis of its consideration of the public comments that were submitted and how they were taken into account when the new proposal was developed. We remain totally committed to the bottom-up, consensus driven approach that must remain the cornerstone of all activities if ICANN is achieve the goals it has set. Sincere Regards Tony Holmes Chair ISPCP Constituency *From:*Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] *Sent:* 12 August 2014 02:10 *To:* Theresa Swinehart; Fadi Chehade; John Jeffrey; David Olive; Robert Hoggarth *Cc:* Byron Holland; heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>; Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan Liman; Elisa Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>; William Drake; Rudi Vansnick; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership; Duncan Burns; Samantha Eisner *Subject:* Joint RySG and BC Position Statement on ICANN Staff's Proposed Accountability Process Thank you, Theresa. Recognizing that you’re working on a new update to the proposed Staff Proposal, please find attached an official joint statement from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Business Constituency (BC). I expect that other community groups may choose to sign on this statement following their internal, bottom-up, consensus-based deliberations taking place this week, but, in the interest of time and efficiency, we decided it was important to communicate our position immediately so you can incorporate it before the release of your next draft proposal. I’ve also included the text below. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks and regards, Keith BEGIN TEXT Dear Fadi and Theresa, As noted in our previous public comments on “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” the undersigned groups continue to support ICANN’s decision to bring the question of its accountability forward for community development. However, ICANN’s proposed mechanism to create a two-tiered process in the form of a “Community Assembly” and “Community Coordination Group” (Staff’s Proposal) deviates from ICANN’s long-established policy development process and, instead, creates a new process in which the community has a minority role in the final development of policy. We write to express our views and concerns with the process in its current form, and call instead for ICANN to support a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) and to prevent additional delays in moving forward on this important issue. ICANN staff must align its suggested approach with the community on this critical issue. At the outset, we note that the full community has not yet had the opportunity to properly review, discuss, and comment on Staff’s Proposal. Given ICANN’s determination to call for support from community leaders on Staff’s Proposal, with little notice and a short deadline, we believe we must make clear our concerns. Our paramount concern is that a bottom-up consensus process to design independent accountability mechanisms for ICANN staff and board should be controlled by the community– not by ICANN staff and board. Rather than proceeding with a community driven initiative, traditionally accomplished through a CCWG, ICANN Staff have instead created a new proposed bifurcated process without involving the community until a late stage.[1] <#_ftn1> The Staff Proposal creates a process which provides the community limited opportunity to identify issues for discussion (the “Community Assembly”) and extremely limited and controlled participation in the group that actually determines the issues from which it will build recommendations (the “Community Coordination Group”). Indeed, Staff’s Proposal for enhancing accountability proposes that ICANN steer the accountability process through appointment of the majority of members of the “Community Coordination Group”, which has the primary role of (1) determining which community identified issues it will respond to, (2) building solution requirements for issues, and (3) creating and issuing the final report and recommendations. The actual ICANN community is limited to one participant from each SO/AC on the Community Coordination Group and has no say or oversight in the selection of up to seven external advisors, ICANN Staff representatives, Board liaison, or others. The concession to the community is that it may participate as an “observer” to the Community Coordination Group. While such observation status may give some transparency to the process (as is required), it does not allow for true community participation and actual ownership of the process. Observation is not bottom-up participation in the process; it is observation of a process. Staff’s Proposal does not respond to the community’s near unanimous call for a genuine bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. Indeed, the proposal appears to ignore community comments and allows the ICANN staff and Board to ultimately control the outcome of the accountability discussions. We believe it is important to re-submit the GNSO community’s London joint statement here, to ensure ICANN’s Staff and CEO have the opportunity to refresh their understanding of the statement and that it does not get lost in the mix of comments. We highlight particular sections that relate directly to Staff’s Proposal: /The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to *_support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism_* that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. / /True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of "the world," nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board's decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN's governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. / /As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. *_We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative_*./ In addition to the cross-community statement made in London, we took the opportunity to review all the public comments submitted to ICANN in connection with “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” to see if ICANN took these comments into account in developing the Staff Proposal. · Only 3 comments specifically made statements in support of the originally posted staff approach. · 23 out of 47 substantial submissions did not comment on the originally posted staff approach, but rather provided specific ideas for how to improve ICANN accountability. · 20 key comments out of these 47 substantial submissions were ignored by staff in developing their proposed approach: o 12 submissions stated that ICANN staff or Board should not manage or control the discussion; o 7 submissions said specifically that the community or some combination of community members and staff/board should select the experts; o 4 submissions pointed out that ICANN is conflicted in this process; o 4 submissions said a CCWG should be used; Given our findings, we call on ICANN to provide a summary and analysis of its consideration of public comments and how the public comments support the Staff Proposal. We do not find such support in the comments and, as a result, do not believe the Staff Proposal reflects a workable process to advance the creation of a true independent accountability mechanism called for by the community in London. The community must be in control of the bottom-up, consensus process that will create independent accountability mechanisms to act as oversight on ICANN Staff and the Board – not the staff and Board. The Staff Proposal is, in reality, a brand new construct sitting on top of, and potentially stifling, the legitimate bottom-up community input process. Such a mechanism will not only create delays in implementation, but will limit community dialogue and participation as a result. The groups signing on to this letter are not aligned with Staff’s Proposal. We believe the community is, however, aligned, in implementing a CCWG to address these important issues. We agree that, as part of this process, independent experts have a key role in providing advice to the community. We do not agree that the experts should be selected exclusively by ICANN staff and Board. We commit to participation in a process of identifying and engaging with such experts, and call on ICANN’s support in this endeavor. We call on ICANN to prevent further delay and allow this process to move forward so the community can begin prioritizing the accountability reforms that are necessary to enable a timely and successful IANA transition. Sincerely, Elisa Cooper Chair, GNSO Business Constituency Keith Drazek Chair, GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group END TEXT *From:*Theresa Swinehart [mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org] *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 6:08 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith; Fadi Chehade; John Jeffrey; David Olive; Robert Hoggarth *Cc:* Byron Holland; heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>; Jonathan Robinson; Louie Lee; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Jun Murai; Lars-Johan Liman; Elisa Cooper; tony holmes; Kristina Rosette; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>; William Drake; Rudi Vansnick; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Susie Johnson; Tina Shelebian; Global Leadership; Duncan Burns; Samantha Eisner *Subject:* Re: Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC Keith, all, Per note also Patrik, we appreciate all the emails and thoughtful points received both on the call on Monday and since then. We appreciate the support and input to move this forward. We've looked at further revisions, and are including that input with it in materials to accompany the diagram for clarifying context. Theresa *From: *<Drazek>, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Date: *Friday, August 8, 2014 4:44 PM *To: *Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org <mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org>>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org <mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org>> *Cc: *Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net <mailto:louie@louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se <mailto:paf@netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec@wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman(a)netnod.se <mailto:liman@netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, "krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>" <krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org <mailto:susie.johnson@icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian(a)icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian@icann.org>>, global leadership team <global_leadership(a)icann.org <mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC Fadi, Theresa, David and Rob, Thank you for socializing ICANN staff's suggested approach for managing the ICANN Accountability process during Monday's special call with the SO-AC-SG leaders. I also welcome your understanding from Monday's call that most community leaders would need some additional time to consult with our respective communities and groups before any possible "alignment" could take place. That said, the RySG (and I believe the broader community) is as anxious to get started on this work as you are, so we are committed to sending you our views next week. As I indicated during the call, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) has formed an internal ICANN Accountability WG to facilitate our participation and input into the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability tracks. Our WG met on Tuesday and has since been hard at work evaluating the Staff proposal. We expect to have more substantive and formal comments for you next week after our WG's recommendation is reviewed and approved by the full RySG. Until such time, please be advised that the RySG is *not* aligned with the Staff proposal as discussed on Monday and *not* aligned with the subsequent "Version 13" of the document circulated later that night. As I indicated during Monday's call, we have serious concerns with the Staff proposal. Based on subsequent conversations with other community leaders, I understand the RySG is not alone. There is no community alignment with the Staff proposal at this time because most of us (a) have questions and/or concerns, (b) haven't had a chance to adequately discuss it with our communities, or (c) both. Thank you for your agreement on Monday's call that the community leaders would be afforded the time needed to properly consult our communities in a bottom-up, consensus-based manner on this critical issue. Finally, as requested during the Monday call, to help us better understand the staff proposal, please send to this group the Staff summary and analysis of public comments on which the proposal was based. Sincerely, Keith On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:03 AM, "Theresa Swinehart" <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> wrote: All, Thank you for the very useful call today and good discussions. We appreciate the efforts of all and the importance of these discussions as we work together. Please find attached the next version of the draft graphic, to include observers and participants in the Coordination Group are expected to be engaged in the process, in their respective roles. We appreciate some expressed thoughts over the use of the term 'Assembly'. If there are suggestions for a better name/term, please let us know. As noted on the call, both the Assembly and the Coordination Group must operate in an open and transparent manner. Kind regards, Theresa *From: *Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:32 PM *To: *David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net <mailto:louie@louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se <mailto:paf@netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec@wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman(a)netnod.se <mailto:liman@netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, "krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>" <krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Cc: *Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org <mailto:susie.johnson@icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian(a)icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian@icann.org>>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org>>, global leadership team <global_leadership(a)icann.org <mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> *Subject: *Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC All, In follow-up to David's note, and the dialogue on the SO-AC-SG leaders call 17 July, please find attached the draft graphic reflecting the proposed accountability process. As noted in my blog post updating on the process, we plan to post the process, next steps with an accompanying summary document late next week. We look forward to our dialogue and talking through the attached with you on the 4 August call. Kind regards, Theresa *From: *David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:15 PM *To: *Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net <mailto:louie@louie.net>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se <mailto:paf@netnod.se>>, Jun Murai <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec@wide.ad.jp>>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman(a)netnod.se <mailto:liman@netnod.se>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, "krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>" <krosette(a)cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Cc: *Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org <mailto:susie.johnson@icann.org>>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian(a)icann.org <mailto:tina.shelebian@icann.org>>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org>>, global leadership team <global_leadership(a)icann.org <mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>> *Subject: *[global leads] Special August 4 Call with Fadi and the SO-AC-SG Leaders on the ICANN Accountability Process - 13:00 GMT/UTC Dear SO-AC-SG Leaders: On our 17 July call, Fadi and Theresa noted that ,as leaders of the community, we should work closely to ensure that whatever next steps emerges from the public comments on ICANN's accountability process, we need to be aligned. We are finished with the public comment analysis, and we would like to follow up with a 4 August call, with those who are interested, to go over the proposed process before we publish it. Our purpose is to make sure that we understand how we came up with the process and that your inputs are heard so that we come out totally synchronized and aligned when we announce it to the ICANN community. A copy of the transcript of 17 July call can be found at : _https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdbac… A calendar invite will be sent to you shortly with the details for this call on Monday, 4 August at 1300 UTC. We hope you can join Fadi and Theresa on this call. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> <Coordination Group Graphic V13.pdf> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1>Indeed, we note the document outlining this new proposed process was first provided to the community for input only after ICANN was on version 13 of the document.

2 1

ALS Decertification
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

It has taken a long time, but the documentation for the decertification of two NARALO ALSes is now complete. I am making the following two motions and ask for another ALAC member to second them. I understand a vote is set to begin once seconded. Alan ============================ Whereas the ALAC Rules of Procedures and the associated Adjunct Document 04 At-Large Structure Framework allows the ALAC to decertify an At-Large Structure (ALS); Whereas, as documented at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Consumer+Web+Watch+%28NARALO%29…, the ALAC and NARALO have determined that the ALS Consumer Web Watch either no longer exists or no longer satisfies the requirements to be an ALS as identified in the At-Large Structure Framework, and/or the ALS requirements as outlined in the RALOs rules; It is resolved that the ALAC decertifies the ALS Consumer Web Watch as an ICANN At-Large Structure. Such decertification is subject ICANN Board Reconsideration as per Article IV, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws and is done without prejudice to any future re-application of this organization for certification as an ALS, or the application for ALS certification of any other group bearing the same name. ============================ Whereas the ALAC Rules of Procedures and the associated Adjunct Document 04 At-Large Structure Framework allows the ALAC to decertify an At-Large Structure (ALS); Whereas, as documented at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/The+Alberta+Community+Network+A…, the ALAC and NARALO have determined that the ALS Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA) either no longer exists or no longer satisfies the requirements to be an ALS as identified in the At-Large Structure Framework, and/or the ALS requirements as outlined in the RALOs rules; It is resolved that the ALAC decertifies the ALS Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA) as an ICANN At-Large Structure. Such decertification is subject ICANN Board Reconsideration as per Article IV, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws and is done without prejudice to any future re-application of this organization for certification as an ALS, or the application for ALS certification of any other group bearing the same name.

2 1

Fwd: draft NCSG accountability statement
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 13, 2014

Aug. 13, 2014

Hello all. The following is the current draft of the NCSG statement on the current ICANN Accountability processes. I ask my fellow At-Largers to read and consider this statement; I would like to suggest ALAC's endorsing it. - Evan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan(a)gmail.com> Date: 11 August 2014 17:54 Subject: Re: draft NCSG accountability statement To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Dear All I have made some edits to the google doc mostly tightening up the language. Updated text is posted below for your ease of reference Regards Cintra Sooknanan DRAFT Proposed NCSG Statement on ICANN Staff’s Accountability Plan v.03 The NCSG appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the ICANN Staff’s non-stakeholder led proposal for further work on “Enhancing Accountability” at ICANN. A number of public comments and discussions in London focused on the inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own accountability and transparency mechanisms, so it was surprising to see that input had not been taken into account in the development of this proposal. NCSG notes its disappointment with the staff having skipped the step of providing a synthesis of the community feedback received from the ICANN public comments forum and the London accountability discussions. Over a month ago, staff assured it was working on this during GNSO Council and SO/AC leadership calls since the London meeting; normally, staff can produce a synthesis of a comment period within a week, so we are at a loss to explain this delay. NCSG reiterates its request to see the synthesis of public input upon which staff relied in the formulation of its accountability proposal. It is impossible to know where the components of staff’s proposal come from and on what basis they are called for, without being privy to staff’s assessment of the public input on the subject. It is difficult to find those elements in the written comments to effectively evaluate the proposal. At a time when the world is indeed watching ICANN to discern if it can be trusted without NTIA oversight of its global governance functions, and is particularly interested in the formulation of a proposal for resolving ICANN’s accountability crisis; to skip the step of providing the rationale for staff’s proposal, including its basis in the community’s stakeholder comments, seems imprudent at best. From its inception, the community should have been engaged in the formulation of the proposal, not pressured into signing-off on a staff proposal at the 11th hour. This is an example of top-down policymaking, which runs counter to ICANN’s bottom-up methodology and may inspire mistrust on the part of the stakeholders. Regarding the substance of the staff proposal, the NCSG does not support it as currently drafted. Of particular concern is the proposed Community Coordination Group (CCG), which would prioritize issues identified by the community and build solutions for those issues. As proposed by staff, this group is too heavily controlled by the ICANN board and staff and as such it replicates the problem of ICANN’s accountability structures being circular and lacking independence. We reiterate that given the overwhelming number of public comments submitted supporting the need for an independent accountability mechanisms, it is unclear on what basis ICANN staff proposed a solution in which the ICANN board and staff would fill a large number of the seats on the CCG. It is also unclear on what basis staff thinks board-picked advisors should have an equal voice as representatives of community members. Outside experts are welcome and can provide valuable input, but they should be selected by and report to the community not the board or staff, for independent accountability to be achieved. An advisor’s role must be clarified as an informational role, rather than a decision making role that representatives of stakeholder interests would hold in a bottom-up process. It is also necessary that the role of any ICANN board or staff on this CCG serve in a non-decision making, support or liaison function. For the CCG to have legitimacy as a participatory form of democracy, the decision-making members must consist of stakeholders, not the ICANN board and staff. The make-up, roles and responsibilities of the members of the proposed CCG must be reformulated in a more bottom-up fashion by the community for this proposal to be acceptable. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> wrote: > Thune & Rubio certainly deserve a place in the Accountability discussion! > > Enviado desde mi iPad > > _________________________ > email carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se > skype carlos.raulg > cel +506 8335 2487 > home +506 4000 2000 > > Apartado 1571-1000 > San jose COSTA RICA > > > El 11/08/2014, a las 10:23, Edward Morris <emorris(a)MILK.TOAST.NET> > escribió: > > Hi Avri, > > Thanks for doing this. > > Would it be possible to insert the word "transparency" in the document > somewhere? I'd suggest here: > > > inherent conflict of interest behind staff developing its own > accountability *and transparency* mechanisms, so it was surprising to see > that input had > > > > but anywhere is fine. The important thing is to keep the concept alive, > and the concept of accountability broad. > > I'll note that the Thune-Rubio letter that so concerned Mr. Chehade: > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thune-rubio-to-crocker… > > calls for a FOIA type mechanism at ICANN. In debating accountability > structures I don't want to lose sight of the fact that accountability > without transparency is impossible. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

7 9