September 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Finances template
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 18, 2013

Sept. 18, 2013

Dear all, Jørgen Abild Andersen and I have written the attached template regarding finances. I am looking forward to seeing you in Washington. Jørgen is unfortunately unable to attend the meeting. I hope you all will enjoy your weekend. Best, Lise

3 2

ATRT2 - Remote Participation Details for DC Meeting
by Charla Shambley Sept. 18, 2013

Sept. 18, 2013

For those of you participating remotely, please use the following details: Remote participation details: Link to Adobe Connect: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/> http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ CONFERENCE ID: 27318 Dial-in numbers: are listed below according to your country of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list available at: <http://adigo.com/icann> http://adigo.com/icann/ Should you require a dial-out, please provide us with your phone number. Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney - T - +61 290 372 962 Melbourne - T - +61 399 996 500 Brisbane - T - +61 731 777 546 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 New - 0800 892 3882 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 China North - 10 800 712 1212 South - 10 800 120 1212 All - 400 120 0691 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Denmark L - 8088 7326 M - 8088 6280 T - +45 89 880 470 France 0800 913 680 0800 90 25 56 T -+33 975 181 806 Kenya No dial-in number available. Kindly provide your number and we will dial out to you. Russia New - 8 10 8002 2085011 T - 7 499 5042850 United Kingdom 0800 056 9431 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921

3 2

Draft Agenda for Washington DC meeting - revised
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 18, 2013

Sept. 18, 2013

Attached is the revised agenda for the Washington DC meeting. Best regards, Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

2 1

At hotel in Washington...
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 18, 2013

Sept. 18, 2013

1 0

FW: [council] Staff paper on RAA Remaining Issues PDP
by Margie Milam Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

Dear ATRT-2 members- As discussed on our call last week related to the WHOIS-RT implementation efforts, please find attached the Report on the Conclusion of the 2013 RAA Negotiations forwarded to the GNSO Council addressing the policy work to be commenced with respect to privacy and proxy services. All the best, Margie _____________ Margie Milam Senior Director, Strategic Initiatives ICANN _____________ From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:04 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Staff paper on RAA Remaining Issues PDP Dear all, Please find attached the ICANN staff paper summarizing the remaining issues from the completed RAA negotiations to be considered and recommendations developed by the GNSO, following the Board's initial request in October 2011, the Final RAA Issue Report in March 2012 and, most recently, the approval by the Board of the new 2013 RAA in June 2013, signifying the conclusion of negotiations on the RAA. The paper includes a procedural summary of each of these various stages, an annex of relevant excerpts from a number of prior community efforts and reports, and (in Section VIII) an Issues Chart detailing specific issues and questions pertaining to the "remaining issues" to be considered by the GNSO in this PDP. We hope you'll find the paper a useful summary and follow-up from the initial briefing that Margie and I conducted at the Council meeting earlier this month. As discussed separately at that meeting, one of the options for improving or moving a PDP along was the possibility of having a draft Working Group Charter first developed by ICANN staff. Given the Council's hesitation at that meeting to move forward with such a proposal, however, we have not included a draft charter in this paper. Should this paper, especially the Issues Chart, find approval with you and your constituencies and stakeholder groups, we would be happy to include at your direction a draft charter for this particular PDP as a means of "testing" one of the suggested PDP improvements. We look forward to further discussions on the RAA Remaining Issues PDP at the next Council meeting. I should note, in addition, that we are hopeful that the GNSO-commissioned WHOIS study on Privacy/Proxy Abuse, which as you know is being conducted by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, will be published before the end of the month - which would allow for its findings to be considered by the Council and the GNSO community during the establishment of the WG for this PDP. Thanks very much, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. *

1 0

Staff Response - Inventory Item #23 - "Comment" & "Reply Comment"
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

Dear Brian, Staff would like to provide a response to inquiry from the Review Team regarding insuring that blackout periods around ICANN meetings are explicitly enforced. This item relates to ATRT 1 recommendations 16 and 17. Inventory Item #23 - Provide "Comment" cycle & a "Reply Comment" comment cycles; review and adjust fixed timelines for Notice & Comment. Blackout periods around ICANN meetings are incorporated into the ICANN DNA through continuous reminders to staff about this important practice. Additionally, detailed instructions about blackout periods will be incorporated into the written staff instructions for the public comment postings. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

1 0

Staff clarification and request for additional information - Inventory Item #6 - Distintion between PDP & executive function
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

Dear Avri and Brian, Staff has been reviewing the proposed observations and recommendations considered by the ATRT 2 and would like to offer several clarifications. As you are the ATRT 2 members assigned to complete the analysis and the documentation on various items, staff would appreciate your consideration of the information summarized here. Inventory Item #6 - Clarify distinction between PDP & executive function Draft Recommendation: To be developed after input from staff. Clear criteria should be established distinguishing between policy and implementation. Staff response and clarification: ATRT 1 recommendation pertaining to clarification between PDP and executive function has been implemented. Recognizing the importance of the wider topic of policy and implementation, the Board would welcome community's feedback on defining the line between policy and implementation. Policy staff has engaged the community in this dialogue (in Toronto and Beijing), and a working group has been formed within the GNSO (charter document<https://community.icann.org/x/5FV-Ag>), meeting on a regular basis. The issue of policy vs. implementation is broad and will require extensive discussion and consideration for some time to come. The GNSO working group's first task is to develop a work plan. Staff has provided information<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730155/Policy+%26+Implem…> as a starting point to organize the group's discussions and in order to derive a concrete work plan with deliverables and timelines from it. Staff appreciates the significant work effort that you and the Review Team have committed to making ongoing improvements in ICANN's accountability and transparency. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

1 0

Revised template for PDP recommendation
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

1 0

Re: [atrt2] Staff clarification and request for additional information - Inventory Item #37 - Volunteer engagement
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

You might look at the input received from Rinalia Abdul Rahim on input-to-atrt2 under At-Large Volunteer Constraints and particularly section vii on Poor Volunteer Appreciation. Rinalia used to run another mluti-stakeholder organization (Global Knowlwdge Partnership) which relied heavily on volunteers, so she does have some idea of what works. Alan At 16/09/2013 08:04 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215ABA660D250BEXVPMBX1001ex_" > >Dear Carlos, Avri and Alan, >Staff has been reviewing the proposed >observations and recommendations considered by >the ATRT 2 and would like to offer several >clarifications. Additionally, it would be very >helpful to get further clarification from the >Review Team on several points raised. As you >are the ATRT 2 members assigned to complete the >analysis and the documentation on various items, >staff would appreciate your consideration of the >information summarized here and your response of clarification. >Inventory Item #37 Review actions of the Board >and staff in ensuring public interest: Volunteer engagement >Draft Recommendation: >ICANN to establish a sustainable model for >relying on volunteers to do functions normally done by professionals. >Staff response and request for clarification: >ICANN values the contributions of all the >stakeholders as they volunteer their services >for working groups, councils and other >activities and fully supports the importance of >evolving the volunteer model. Commitment to >establishing a sustainable model for volunteer >participation has been ongoing and includes new >outreach and engagement strategies, expanded >information sharing, travel support to ICANN >Public Meetings and a continuing commitment to >effective remote participation capabilities. >New regional strategies are being developed and >implemented to engage more community >participants at the regional and local >level. Also, Chris Gift has provided >information and examples to the Review Team of >new strategies being developed and tested to >engage more new participants through various >channels. For more information, please see ><http://labs.icann.org/en>http://labs.icann.org/en. >Additionally, orientation for incoming volunteer >leaders is being conducted through online >training as well as face- to- face >programs. The Online Education Platform is >ICANNs on-line learning initiative and an ICANN >leadership training initiative (initially a >pilot effort before the ICANN Public Meeting in >Buenos Aires) is a broader proposal being >considered to expand community learning. >While each of the structures has conducted its >own orientation, ICANN is working to regularize >this effort across all structures and provide >structures with additional support. An >Orientation Program will be conducted at ICANN >48 in Buenos Aires by existing leaders of SOs and ACs. >Staff would appreciate further clarification of >the objectives of this draft recommendation and >looks forward to continuing to engage with the >ATRT 2 and the broader community to look for >innovative methods to engage volunteers. >Staff appreciates the significant work effort >that you and the Review Team have committed to >making ongoing improvements in ICANNs accountability and transparency. >Larisa B. Gurnick >Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ><mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org >310 383-8995 > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list >atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

1 0

Development of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) and Delivery of Work - Response to Registry Submission to the ATRT2
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 17, 2013

Sept. 17, 2013

Inventory Item #13 and #14 (ATRT 1 Recommendations 23 and 25) Development of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) and Delivery of Work Response to Registry Submission to the ATRT2 Submitted by Amy Stathos, Deputy General Counsel and Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel to the ATRT2 Date: 16 September 2013 Development of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) ICANN, through the Board Governance Committee, carefully planned for the ASEP work after ATRT 1's recommendations were issued. As noted in the very first implementation plan delivered, the timelines set in Recommendations 23 and 25 were not feasible and would not be met. Through coordination with the Board Governance Committee (BGC), a substantial amount of work was devoted to identifying the types of expertise that would be necessary for the composition of such a panel. The BGC discussions of this issue - taking place well before September 2012 - are represented in the BGC minutes (see, e.g., minutes of 5 October 2011, at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-05oct11-en.htm, and minutes of 30 November 2011, reflecting discussion on how the planning for implementation was proceeding, at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-30nov11-en.htm; minutes of 22 February 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-22feb12-en.htm discussing identification of experts; minutes of 15 March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-15mar12-en.htm, 4 May 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-15mar12-en.htm, and 22 June 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bgc-22jun12-en.htm discussing the ongoing work to identify experts.) In 2011, ICANN staff began outreach to governance experts and organizations to obtain some initial ideas about the types of expertise that would be useful towards this review, as well as seeking initial recommendations of experts that might be appropriate for service on the ASEP. After determination of the desired qualifications for the panel and conversation with the BGC, on 11 March 2012 ICANN issued a call for expressions of interest to serve on the ASEP, see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11mar12-en.htm. ICANN received only four responses to the call. Staff then continued its outreach and finally identified three experts - one a former Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa with notable governance background; one a noted jurist from Australia with governance and ombudsman experience; and a U.S.-based governance expert and speaker on corporate leadership and workplace issues. See http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. Though the panel was not announced until September, as ICANN identified and completed contracting with the panelists and coordinated their biographical information, the ASEP membership began their work in earnest in August. The Progress of the ASEP and Timing of Work For the duration of the ASEP's work, an email address was opened, with publicly threaded comments available. Only one comment was ever received there. The ASEP members worked diligently in both the development of a project plan (available at http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep/project-plan-24se…) and towards the development of recommendations, including a two-day work session and multiple conference calls. Two members of the ASEP attended ICANN's Toronto meeting, and worked to refine their recommendations, interview community members and consult with the Board Governance Committee. Towards the end of the week, the preliminary work of the ASEP was presented to the community in an interactive session. Given the complexity of the ICANN meetings schedule, the ASEP session was carefully planned to reduce conflicts with the higher interest topics within the community; there were no New gTLD-related sessions occurring at the same time, and the session was even scheduled prior to the start of the GAC plenary discussion for that day. Notwithstanding that planning work, there was very light attendance at the session. During the ASEP panel discussion, Bruce Tonkin, Chair of the BGC, noted that concerns had been raised regarding the timeframe within which the ASEP was performing its work. Bruce noted that if the ASEP believed that it needed more time to perform its work, it could take the time needed. See http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-asep-17oct12-en.…. The ASEP did not feel that more time would be of benefit. There was no ICANN-imposed rush to completion. The ASEP's report was posted on 26 October 2012, after ASEP consideration of the feedback it received in Toronto. The public comment posting also included proposed Bylaws amendments, which were provided so that the community could see how the recommendations would be implemented if adopted. Two comments were received, and each comment was reviewed with the ASEP to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the recommendations within the report. In the summary and analysis of comments, the comments raised were addressed, including direct response to the Registry Stakeholders Group concerns regarding the standard of review for the Independent Review Process ("After a review of comments in coordination with the ASEP, in response to the RySG, it is important to note that the imposition of a standard of review into the Independent Review process assures that the process will be used for review, and not for a rehearing. There is a need for Board decisions to be able to be relied upon and implemented, unless there is the type of failure identified by the ASEP.") The cautions raised by both the RySG and the other commenter, Alejandro Pisanty, regarding the risks that the establishment of a standing panel could bring, were actually incorporated into the final recommendations as adopted by the Board. No comments were received regarding the modifications to the Reconsideration process. Adoption of the ASEP Recommendations On 20 December 2012, after the close of the comment period, the Board accepted the ASEP report and approved the Bylaws amendments, while noting that further implementation work needed to be complete prior to assigning an effective date to the resolutions. Because of the community comments regarding the implementation of a standing panel, the Board specifically acknowledged that the Bylaws could be modified to further address those concerns, if needed. The resolution and rationale are available at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20dec12-en.htm#2…. The Board's 20 December 2012 discussion is included within the Minutes, at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-20dec12-en.htm#2.c, and the briefing materials presented to the Board are located beginning at page 124 of the main Board book (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-20dec12…) and beginning at page 124 of the Board book containing reference materials (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-2-20dec12…) The April 2013 action referenced within the Registry Stakeholder Group comment is the determination of the Accountability Structures Bylaws Effective Date (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-11apr13-en.htm#1…) Contrary to the statement provided to the ATRT2, the brevity of the consideration of this item through the consent agenda cannot be attributed to a rush towards implementation. The Board had already considered the ASEP recommendations, had already discussed those recommendations, and had directed that nearly four months of implementation work proceed prior to putting the Bylaws in place. This was a follow-on action to the Board's December 2012 decision. As part of the recommendations, the Board ultimately approved an expansion of the grounds for bringing a Reconsideration Request, to now explicitly allow reconsideration to be based upon the provision of false or misleading information to the Board in addition to the already existing grounds. The ASEP recommendations on the whole bring more predictability to the timing and procedure for all who use the accountability mechanisms. The ASEP report was carefully thought out, and the members worked diligently for the duration of their service to ICANN. The work internal to ICANN in developing how ICANN could go about implementation of ATRT1's recommendations 23 and 25 was also diligent. Significant amounts of work went into the design of the panel, the difficult work of comprising the panel, and in supporting the ASEP's work. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

1 0