October 2014 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FILED: Business Constituency supports proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

The BC filed this comment today. Thanks again to Ron Andruff for chairing the SCI. And thanks to J Scott Evans for drafting this comment. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sunday, October 19, 2014 at 9:14 PM To: "policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>" <policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency supports proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures The Business Constituency ("BC") submits these comments to the Proposed Changes Operating Procedures developed by the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation ("SCI") posted for public comment on September 17, 2014. The BC wishes to thank the members of the SCI for this thoughtful proposal. The BC fully supports the recommendations of the SCI for two amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures and the one amendment to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines described in Section I. The BC appreciates the opportunity to provide our comments on these recommendations. This comment was approved in accord with our charter. - Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

ICANN Board passes resolution on dealing with Accountability CCWG Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 18, 2014

Oct. 18, 2014

Board passed a resolution on dealing with Accountability CCWG Recommendations. It's what we were told us on Sunday — except there was no opportunity for community discussion, as Bruce promised. There is one twist: the resolution says board can only cite ‘Global Public Interest’ as reason to reject CCWG recommendations. So they can’t just say ‘this will be impractical’ or ‘ this might generate legal challenges’ etc. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I JUST WANT TO SORT OF SET A PREFACE HERE IN THAT FIRSTLY THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ACTING QUICKLY TO CONVENE A CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED OVER THE PAST WEEK OR SO IS THEY'RE WANTING SOME CERTAINTY FOR WHAT THE BOARD WILL DO WHEN IT GETS THE OUTPUT OF THAT CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP. AND BEFORE I RUN THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED AND THAT PROCEDURE IS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE BYLAWS FOR TAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CCNSO AND GNSO, IT IS A BIT OF THE BLEND OF THE TWO. BEFORE GOING INTO THAT PROCEDURE, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE BOARD IS CONCERNED, WE THINK IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THIS PROCEDURE WILL EVER BE INVOKED. AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WILL BE WORKING THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY ON THIS TOPIC AND THE BOARD WILL ALSO HAVE A LIAISON IN THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND ANY ISSUES THAT MIGHT GET IDENTIFIED IN THAT PROCESS, WE EXPECT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED EARLY AND INCORPORATED IN THE REPORT THAT WE GET FROM THAT CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP. BUT JUST AS STEVE DELBIANCO HAS SAID BEFORE, WE'VE GOT TO DO SCENARIO PLANNING. SO THIS IS THE SCENARIO -- THE WORST CASE SCENARIO AND WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY ON HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THAT WORST-CASE SCENARIO IN THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMES TO THE BOARD. SO IT IS RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD COMMITS TO FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES WHEN CONSIDERING THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE. THESE PRINCIPLES APPLY TO CONSENSUS-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP ON ENHANCING ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE. IF THE BOARD BELIEVES IT IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP, IT MUST INITIATE A DIALOGUE WITH THE WORKING GROUP. A DETERMINATION THAT IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION REQUIRES A 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE BOARD. THE BOARD MUST PROVIDE DETAILED RATIONALE TO ACCOMPANY THE INITIATION OF THE DIALOGUE. AND THE BOARD WILL AGREE WITH THE WORKING GROUP ON THE METHOD WHICH MIGHT BE TELECONFERENCE, EMAIL OR OTHERWISE, BY WHICH THAT DIALOGUE WILL OCCUR. THE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE HELD IN GOOD FAITH AND IN A TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MANNER TO FIND A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. THE WORKING GROUP WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD'S CONCERNS AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD ON FURTHER DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING -- REGARDING THE BOARD'S CONCERNS. THE WORKING GROUP SHALL DISCUSS THE BOARD'S CONCERNS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S INITIATION OF THE DIALOGUE. IF A RECOMMENDATION IS MODIFIED THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP, IT IS RETURNED BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. THE WORKING GROUP IS TO PROVIDE DETAILED RATIONALE ON HOW THE MODIFICATION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE BOARD. IF, AFTER MODIFICATION, THE BOARD STILL BELIEVES THE WORKING GROUP IS NOT IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THE BOARD WILL SEND THE ITEM BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, THIS WOULD REQUIRE A 2/3 VOTE OF THE BOARD TO DO THAT. AND, AGAIN, A DETAILED RATIONALE FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION IS REQUIRED. KEY POINT, IN THE EVENT THE BOARD DETERMINES NOT TO ACCEPT A MODIFICATION, THEN THE BOARD IS NOT ENTITLED TO SET ITS OWN SOLUTION ON THE ISSUE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE WORKING GROUP AND THE BOARD REACH AGREEMENT. SO THAT IS THE PROCESS. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT, STEVE. IT'S CHRIS. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL COMMENT THAT WE TAKE AS WE'VE SAID MANY TIMES, WE TAKE THESE EFFORTS FROM THE COMMUNITY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SUCCESS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SUBSTANCE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOLID ENGAGEMENT. THIS IS A COOPERATIVE VENTURE. THERE IS NOT -- AT THE HEART, THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY FUNDAMENTAL TENSION AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S ALWAYS CONCERN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF AND SO FORTH. BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THIS WORKS AND SHOULD WORK REASONABLY SMOOTHLY AND THAT WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SHARING VIEWS AND FOR WORKING IT OUT AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE TUSSLES OVER TURF. SO WITH THAT, LET ME CALL FOR THE VOTE. GO AHEAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. [CHORUS OF AYES. ] ANY OPPOSED? [NO VERBAL RESPONSE. ] ANY ABSTENTIONS? [NO VERBAL RESPONSE. ] THANK YOU. >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, STEVE. AND THANK YOU FOR PASSING IT. [APPLAUSE ]

1 0

Feedback of ICANN 51 in Los Angeles
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 17, 2014

Oct. 17, 2014

please do respond individually. I think that we can improve the meetings through candid feedback. A few of my comments: 2015 and beyond IG session was poorly planned and missing expert speakers on first segment. second segment did not fulfill meeting description. Was very good to have major number of hotel rooms and facilities for meeting in one venue. Tent was a challenging idea, and moving to rotating its use was fair resolution to a poor situation. Not enough time in public forum. Forum used to be full day. consider returning to longer PF, with effort to encourage input from newcomers, nextgen, govts, developing co speakers. Maybe organize differently to ensure some diversity in one segment. should have real bd meeting at least at annual meeting. THAT meeting might then be Friday am. once a year. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Lipinski <lynn.lipinski(a)icann.org> > Date: October 16, 2014 at 6:25:31 PM PDT > To: Lynn Lipinski <lynn.lipinski(a)icann.org> > Subject: Tell us what you thought of ICANN 51 in Los Angeles > > Dear ICANN 51 participant: > > Which sessions were most valuable to you, and which were least valuable? How would you rate the quality of the live interpretation? Take just a few minutes and send us your thoughts via the ICANN 51 Participant Survey today. All ICANN 51 participants are encouraged to provide feedback. > > Let us know about your experience. Future meetings can be made better but only through your feedback. The survey will be available until Wednesday, 5 November. > > Click here: https://survey.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6zoOPdrRhB7DcQB to take survey in: > > العربية > 中文 > English > Français > Português > Русский > Español > > You are receiving this email because you told us when you registered that it was OK to send you information about the meeting. Thank you! > > — > Lynn Lipinski > Executive Communications Manager > +1 310 745 4263 (mobile) > lynn.lipinski(a)icann.org > lynn.lipinski.icann (Skype)

1 0

BC's Accountability intervention at the Public Forum in Los Angeles
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 16, 2014

Oct. 16, 2014

On the topic of Accountability, we got a reasonable answer from Bruce Tonkin. STEVE DELBIANCO, WITH RESPECT TO GENERAL ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENHANCEMENTS. LAST NIGHT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENTS JOINED THE REGISTRY STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND WITHDREW A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST THAT WE FILED A LITTLE OVER A MONTH AGO. WE DID IT IN RECOGNITION THAT STAFF AND MANAGEMENT REVERSED COURSE AND LISTENED TO THE COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO A CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND OUR ABILITY TO DEFINE THE SCOPE. WE ARE VERY MUCH IN APPRECIATION OF THAT, AND THANK THE STAFF, MANAGEMENT FOR THAT, AS WELL AS ANY ROLE THE BOARD PLAYED IN THAT. I WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND REQUEST. THE STATEMENT IS THAT, AS WE EMBARK ON THIS CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP TO COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE ADVICE -- WE'LL TRY TO TAKE THE ADVICE ABOUT HAVING TWO TRACKS. WE SEE THOSE TWO TRACKS AS ONE BEING ALL THE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT HAVE TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE IANA CONTRACT TRANSITION. THE SECOND WOULD BE ITEMS THAT CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE TRANSITION. A SIMPLE DISTINCTION THAT WE MAY PURSUE. BUT IT WILL BE UP TO THE COMMUNITY TO DEFINE THAT. THE SECOND IS THIS NOTION OF WHAT THE BOARD WOULD DO WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IS ARISE FROM THE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, HOPEFULLY BEFORE THIS TIME NEXT YEAR. OUR REQUEST WOULD BE THIS: AS THE BOARD LEARNS OF CONCERNS IT HAS ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY OR THE LEGALITY OF SOME OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IN OUR OPEN CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, IT WOULD BE SO HELPFUL TO HEAR REALTIME FROM THE BOARD ON THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS, SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THEM IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT IS FAR SUPERIOR TO THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH OF US SENDING THINGS TO THE BOARD ONLY TO HAVE THEM COME BACK. SO IT'S A REQUEST TO GET INFORMATION FROM YOU. THANK YOU. >>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I THINK, STEVE, I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY THE INTENT OF THE BOARD AND THAT THE BOARD WILL HAVE A LIAISON ON THE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND CERTAINLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE MATTERS BACK AND, YOU KNOW, DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT ISSUES IF WE THINK THERE MIGHT BE LEGAL ISSUES AND KEEP THE BOARD INFORMED. ALSO BOARD MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THEMSELVES OTHERRER SO WEF BOARD MEMBERS MEMBERS OF THE ADDRESSING COMMUNITY, THE COUNTRY CODE COMMUNITY AND GNSO COMMUNITY. SO I'M EXPECTING THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE FAIRLY ACTIVE WITHIN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES AND GIVE FEEDBACK IF THEY SEE ANY ISSUE. ALTHOUGH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT I GUESS IT'S A SCENARIO PLANNING OR STRESS TESTING AS YOU SAY, STEVE, WE BASICALLY JUST WANTED TO SET OUT CLEARLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN A PARTICULAR SCENARIO IF BUT WE'RE NOT EXPECTING THAT SCENARIO WOULD EVER EMERGE. WE'RE EXPECTING THE REPORT WILL ALREADY HAVE THE BOARD'S AGREEMENT BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO US.

1 0

Slides I will use for today's panel on Accountability
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 16, 2014

Oct. 16, 2014

As discussed in the BC meeting on Tuesday, I was invited to a panel on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Thursday 8:30 - 9:45 in Los Angeles Room. ICANN staff want us to describe the 'Stress tests' proposed in the BC comments (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-reply-comment-on-Enha…>, starting bottom of page 8 and at http://BizConst.org/StressTests ). I will show just 2 slides in the 5 minutes allotted us: Slide1 : What are Stress Tests, and why use them? Definition: A plausible and challenging scenario that helps us design and test a new mechanism or process. Plausible -- not Probable. A stress test is something we believe could happen. Why do Stress Tests? * Lets us be creative about future scenarios (instead of defensive about past problems) * Gives critics a productive way to express their concerns, so we can develop responses. * Helps us design an ICANN for the future Slide: Here are 10 Stress Tests the BC proposed in June. noting: All these affect overall ICANN accountability - once USG relinquishes the contract. 1. ICANN cancels the Affirmation of Commitments 2. Corporation changes its legal presence 3. ICANN becomes financially insolvent 4. ICANN greatly expands scope 5. ICANN adds a new TLD despite security concerns 6. GAC changes to majority voting 7. Governments move censorship to the core 8. Court bars re-delegation based on contract breach 9. Court bocks a delegation 10. ccTLD re-delegation dispute The light blue Stress Tests are those that involve IANA directly. Let's focus on just two of them: numbers 1 and 10. #1. Let's say that ICANN unilaterally cancels the Affirmation of Commitments, which it may do with just 120 days notice. Presently, the discipline imposed by needing to win the IANA contract forces ICANN to adhere to the only external accountability it has today: the Affirmation of Commitments. If Affirmation reviews are to remain part of the new ICANN accountability framework, we need to address this stress test in the IANA transition and Enhanced Accountability WGs. How? Guess we could amend the AoC without an option for ICANN to quit. But still a bilateral. Guess we could try getting +100 governments and others to sign along with USG. 'web of Affirmations'. But that's not going to be easy. The BC recommended we bring the AoC reviews into the ICANN Bylaws. #10. Let's say a government telecom minister instructs ICANN to re-delegate a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), but there are vocal objections from most registrants and user communities in the country concerned. Faced with this re-delegation request, what response options and measures could be available to the entity charged with maintenance of the root zone - presumably ICANN? That's one for the Naming Functions group of the IANA Transition WG.

1 0

Discussion of new gTLD issues and subsequent round, today at 8:30
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 15, 2014

Oct. 15, 2014

In yesterday's BC meeting, we discussed experiences and problems with current round of gTLD expansion. The GNSO Discussion Group on this topic meets today at 8:30am in Constellation. (link<http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures>) Hoping some BC members can participate. Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures F2F DG meeting - Wednesday 15 October Welcome and introductions Update on current status In depth discussion of issue mind map Next steps Confirm next meeting

3 2

Blog on Accountability (mentions the BC)
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 15, 2014

Oct. 15, 2014

I posted this at CircleID and wanted to share. This post mentions the BC comments on accountability. ICANN in Hollywood: Foreshadowing a Happy Ending?<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141014_icann_in_hollywood_foreshadowing_a_h…> As we arrived in Hollywood -- the land of happy endings -- ICANN had just given us cause to hope that the ICANN accountability process might get its own Hollywood ending, despite a fitful start. As one who's been critical of ICANN management's heavy-handed attempts to control the accountability process, it's only appropriate to give credit where credit is due. In accepting the community's strenuous -- and nearly unanimous -- calls for a cross-community working group to lead the process of improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms, ICANN management says it's now prepared to follow the community's lead, rather than dictating and constraining it. <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141014_icann_in_hollywood_foreshadowing_a_h…>read more<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141014_icann_in_hollywood_foreshadowing_a_h…>»<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141014_icann_in_hollywood_foreshadowing_a_h…> - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

remarks today on Accountability Working Group planning
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 14, 2014

Oct. 14, 2014

Just delivered this for the BC: STEVE DelBIANCO WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE TURNAROUND AND RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY-DRIVEN PROCESS AND WE'RE READY TO GET TO WORK. AND THE KEY IS THE DRAFT OF THE CHARTER, WHICH WILL HAVE BOARD INPUT BUT IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN CHARTER AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. THE KEY PART OF THE CHARTER FOR THIS ACCOUNTABILITY WORKING GROUP WILL BE FIGURING OUT THE TWO WORK STREAMS AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM. SO LET ME JUST FOCUS MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. STAFF AND SECRETARY STRICKLING GAVE US SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE RELATIVELY SIMILAR, SUGGESTIONS THAT WE DO TWO WORK STREAMS, AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SECRETARY STRICKLING JUST SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE FIRST STREAM, ON ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT. AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, TO SAY, "SET YOUR FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT MIGHT NOT BE THERE ANYMORE." WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IANA CONTRACT. AND I THINK ACTUALLY FADI THIS MORNING DESCRIBED IT IN A WAY THAT WAS CLOSER TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAD BEEN ASKING OVER THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS. HE DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY: HE SAID, "WE NEED ONE STREAM TO DEAL WITH ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS THAT MUST BE REINFORCED OR ADDED BEFORE THE TRANSITION OCCURS." SO THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE BEFORE THE IANA TRANSITION, BEFORE THE CONTRACT IS LET GO. THE SECOND THING FADI SAID WAS, "AND THE OTHER STREAM WOULD LOOK AT THE BROADER ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE MAY NOT NEED TO DO, NECESSARILY TAKEN CARE OF, BEFORE THE TRANSITION OCCURS." SO IT'S A BEFORE AND AN AFTER TRANSITION. I THINK BOTH FADI AND SECRETARY STRICKLING ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THE IANA CONTRACT EXPIRATION MEANS IS THE END OF CONTRACT LEVERAGE. WHY DOES THAT MATTER? WHY DO YOU NEED LEVERAGE? IT'S SIMPLY THIS: WE MAY NEED SOME LEVERAGE -- WE IN THE COMMUNITY -- TO ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO ACCEPT SOME VERY TOUGH NEW ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS THAT WOULD HOLD THE BOARD AND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. SO WE VIEW THAT -- I THINK WE VIEW THAT CONSISTENTLY -- WHAT THE TWO STREAMS ARE, THINGS WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO BEFORE THE IANA TRANSITION, BECAUSE THEY'RE THINGS FOR WHICH WE NEED THE IANA CONTRACT AS LEVERAGE AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IN THAT SECOND STREAM THAT CAN OCCUR AFTER THE TRANSITION. THE BC HAD PUT FORTH SIX ELEMENTS THAT WE THINK COULD FORM THAT, AND I REALIZE THAT COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, WE'RE ALL GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY OUGHT TO BE. BUT I DO THINK IT COULD BE A HANDFUL OF ACCOUNT- -- A HANDFUL OF ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS THAT NEED TO BE THERE BEFORE WE EXPIRE THE IANA CONTRACT. IS THAT CLOSE TO YOUR THINKING? >>LARRY STRICKLING: WELL, FIRST OFF, I HOPE YOU WEREN'T SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN MY TWO FORMULATIONS. OKAY. GOOD. BECAUSE I INTENDED TO JUST SAY IT CONSISTENTLY. SO I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS LEFT UNSAID IN YOUR QUESTION. [LAUGHTER ] >>LARRY STRICKLING: SO I -- SO FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE NOTED IN PRIOR PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT THE ABSENCE OF A BOARD RECALL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY, THAT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE WITHIN THE MORE LIMITED INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY -- NOW, THAT'S A BIG ISSUE. IT'S NOT A TINY ISSUE WHATSOEVER. BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES PEOPLE WILL HAVE CONCERN ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF -- WHAT PREVENTS THIS ORGANIZATION FROM SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL WHEN THE U.S. CONTRACT ISN'T THERE ANY LONGER. NOBODY EXPECTS IT TO HAPPEN, BUT I THINK ALL OF US, TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THIS TRANSITION, NEED TO THINK THROUGH THOSE POSSIBILITIES AND UNDERSTAND WHAT MECHANISMS EXIST TODAY OR NEED TO BE PUT INTO PLACE TO PREVENT BAD THINGS LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: AND I'M JUST MENTIONING THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) THE BOARD AND THAT IS, IN FACT, ONE OF THE SIX THINGS THE BC WAS RECOMMENDING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] Secretary Pritzker's Best Quote today
by Jimson Olufuye Oct. 13, 2014

Oct. 13, 2014

1 0

Secretary Pritzker's Best Quote today
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 13, 2014

Oct. 13, 2014

In today’s opening ceremony, US Commerce Secretary Pritzker said: WE MUST ENSURE THAT ICANN CAN BUILD ON ITS EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND BECOME DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS AND TO THE BROADER INTERNET COMMUNITY. Yep, she said DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. That’s our point exactly. With her full remarks below FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, October 13, 2014 News Media Contact: Office of Public Affairs, 202-482-4883<tel:202-482-4883> U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PENNY PRITZKER DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS MEETING Remarks As Prepared for Delivery Thank you, Steve Crocker, for your introduction and for your leadership as the Chairman of ICANN. I also want to thank you, Fadi Chehade, and the entire Board of ICANN for bringing together so many leaders in the global internet community and for taking the lead in advancing the multistakeholder process. And I want to acknowledge Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling and our entire team at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for their daily work on Internet policy issues, domain name system issues, and protecting the Internet as an engine for innovation and prosperity. We come together at a time when Internet governance is as important as ever. The fact is that we must do everything we can to protect and preserve this revolutionary platform that is the essential connector of people, economies, and communities across the planet. I do not have to tell anyone in this room that more people are working, shopping, interacting, and learning online than ever before – all because of the work so many of you have done throughout the years to build and strengthen this system. I hope all of you will read my friend Walter Isaacson’s wonderful new book, The Innovators. In it, Walter says that collaborative creativity is what drives technological advancement -- and I quote -- that “innovation comes from teams more often than from the light bulb moments of lone genius.” Walter is absolutely right. Of course, we owe much to those light bulb moments, but innovators are by nature collaborators. That is, no one person alone can turn a cutting-edge discovery into a world changing product or a service without a team. History makes that clear: it is that same collaboration that has enabled the Internet to become what it is today. Facilitated initially by U.S. government investment through DARPA, the Internet as we now know it was built off of one inventive leap on top of another -- And through the amazing genius ranging from Vint Cerf to Bob Kahn to Steve Crocker to Tim Berners Lee to Marc Andreessen to so many others. Their work has given us the most dynamic communications and connective platform that the world has ever seen. The Internet indeed improves quality of life for millions and enables people from all over the globe to achieve greater economic opportunity. Without the Internet, a teenager from a remote village in southern India would not have been able to create his own business. Abin Jose Tom was 19 years old when he was given a school assignment to create a website. Five years later, Abin’s project is now a global web solutions and design company named Webandcrafts, with more than 550 clients worldwide. We live in an era when all an entrepreneur needs to start, build, and promote a business is a mobile device and a Wi-Fi connection. Put simply, the Internet is a fundamental gateway to new growth for developing nations and continued prosperity for developed nations. The Internet is also a vital platform for free expression and the exchange of ideas. And that is why I stand before you today to make this fundamental promise: the United States will protect and preserve a free, vibrant and open Internet. At the Department of Commerce, we are proud to call ourselves America’s innovation and data agency. As someone who comes from the private sector and started five companies, I know first-hand the essential role the Internet plays in making sure businesses are able to compete globally. I have the privilege of being President Obama’s point person on entrepreneurship. In leading our Presidential Ambassadors for Global Entrepreneurship, I get to work with some of America’s most successful CEOs to inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs at home and abroad. In my 15 months as Secretary, I have visited more than 20 countries. And everywhere we travel—from Ghana to the Philippines—the innovators we meet make clear that the web is a critical tool needed for success. That is why we must all work together to protect the Internet, and to keep it open and free. Our global economy and the young entrepreneurs of the world are counting on us. Indeed, the Internet has become a fixture of modern life, not just in the United States and the West, but in big cities, rural villages, and small towns across the globe. Consider the transformations of recent years: · Twenty years ago, there were 16 million Internet users. Today, that number is over 2.5 billion. · In 2008, roughly 1.5 billion devices were connected to the Internet. Today, there are an estimated 7.5 billion. By 2018, experts predict that figure to exceed 18 billion. · And the people largely driving this growth are living in developing countries, where the number of households with Internet access has more than doubled in the past five years. All of this means that we are at a critical moment for ICANN and the important work you do. This means that how we govern and use the Internet is of global importance. This means that consensus decisions related to the Internet domain name system made today in Los Angeles can shape lives and livelihoods in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere not just today but long into the future. All of us are stakeholders in a strong and vibrant, global Internet. The Internet has thrived precisely because citizens around the world have a voice in how the Internet is governed. That is why we -- the United States government -- support multistakeholder processes. This is our bedrock principle for Internet governance. Let me be clear about this. The United States will not allow the global Internet to be coopted by any person, entity, or nation seeking to substitute their parochial worldview for the collective wisdom of this community – you, the community of stakeholders represented so well here today. As such, that is why six months ago NTIA announced the decision to transition its stewardship role over the Internet Domain Name System to the global multistakeholder communities. From the inception of ICANN in 1998, the United States government envisioned that its role with respect to the IANA functions would be temporary. Over the years, many stakeholders took comfort in the fact that the United States provided some level of stewardship over ICANN. I have been encouraged by the way the global community and ICANN have stepped up to develop the transition proposal. We rally our allies and will continue to build international coalitions to support multistakeholder governance of the Internet. And we are strong supporters of an ICANN that is committed to the idea of individual voices coming to consensus decisions. We must all recognize, however, that this was not inevitable, and we should not take it for granted. We all know that multistakeholder governance, and institutions like ICANN, are under intense and unprecedented pressure and scrutiny. Yet we are confident that the multistakeholder model offers the greatest assurance that the Internet will continue to thrive. And we must work together to ensure that the Internet remains an engine for economic growth, innovation, and free expression. We must continue to work hard to sustain multistakeholder governance, because it has enemies who want to reduce Internet governance to a meeting of governmental technocrats promoting narrow national interests. We must make clear this approach is the best tool to secure the openness and the vibrancy of the Internet. We must ensure that ICANN can build on its efforts to strengthen the multistakeholder process and can become directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Next week, at the International Telecommunication Union Conference in Korea, we will see proposals to put governments in charge of Internet governance. You can rest assured that the United States will oppose these efforts at every turn. We know that those interested in government control tend to be countries that censor content and stifle the free flow of information. We will be clear that these steps are contrary to our belief in the value of free speech – whether on the Internet, in society, in the public sphere – both here at home and abroad. We will remind all players – in each instance – that the multistakeholder model will preserve and protect a strong and resilient Internet. In closing, the world is watching ICANN, and some are waiting for us to fail. But we cannot – and must not – let that happen. We have to get this transition right. Make no mistake: I stand by ICANN. I am “all in” when it comes to the global debate over Internet governance. And we will preserve and protect a free and open internet. From the birth of the Internet through the present day, this community has stood together on the cutting edge of the drive to extend access to and the reach of the Internet – a key path for growth and success in the 21st century. And in every forum, the United States will remain a steadfast champion of the Internet, working to ensure that it remains an open platform for economic opportunity, innovation, and free expression. But moving forward, all of us need to step up – like my friend Walter likes to say: · We must collaborate to protect and expand the global Internet; · We must collaborate to ensure that the Internet continues to flourish; · And we must collaborate to guarantee that the Internet remains a gateway to prosperity and free expression the world over. Thank you all for gathering together today and every day to advance our shared vision of a more open, more free, and more accessible Internet. ###

3 2

FILED: BC comment on proposed bylaws change for board consideration of GAC advice
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 5, 2014

Oct. 5, 2014

After a 14-day review with no objections, we filed comments today on ICANN’s proposal to change voting thresholds on GAC Advice. I formatted the draft comment to match BC submission layout (attached). Thanks again to Brian Huseman, who had help from Aparna Sridhar, Phil Corwin, David Fares, and J Scott Evans. John Berard and Marilyn Cade also provided input. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW: BC comment on proposed bylaws change for board consideration of GAC advice ICANN has a public comment period on a proposed bylaws change for board consideration of GAC advice (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en>) (reply comments by 6-Oct) We discussed this on our last two BC member calls (see emails below) Attached is a draft comment prepared by Brian Huseman and edited by Aparna Sridhar, Phil Corwin, David Fares, J Scott Evans. John Berard and Marilyn also provided input. It’s now time for rest of BC members to review and comment — please REPLY ALL well before the 6-Oct deadline. Thanks again to the drafters for accommodating member views with a cohesive and articulate statement. From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:04 AM To: Huseman, Brian; Aparna Sridhar; Marilyn Cade; David Fares; Phil Corwin; J Evans Cc: BC Private Subject: BC Comment on 2/3 vote threshold to reject GAC advice Thanks for working on a draft comment on the proposed bylaws change to require 2/3 board vote to reject GAC advice (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en>) (reply comments by 6-Oct) As a follow-up to last week’s BC Member call, here are some points I noted from our discussion: Let’s be positive in our tone, instead of sounding critical of the GAC. This bylaws change is not being pushed by the GAC. It arises from ATRT back in 2010. It’s unfortunate timing to consider this bylaws change in the midst of Enhancing ICANN Accountability as part of the IANA transition. The BC proposal for Enhancing ICANN Accountability included a ‘stress test’ based on GAC changing its procedures to majority voting (see below). That should be considered as part of this discussion. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-initial-comment-on-En…>) The BC proposal called for a permanent cross-community working group with new powers to ensure ICANN board and management are accountable to the community. And we specifically included the GAC as a voting member of that cross-communtiy working group. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-initial-comment-on-En…>) The most promising path is getting governments engaged earlier and more specifically in the policy development process. Hope this helps with your drafting. Let me know what I can do facilitate getting a draft to BC members before the 6-Oct comment deadline. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: Regarding proposed change to ICANN Bylaws for overriding GAC Advice ICANN announced last week a proposed change to its Bylaws (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en>). This change would make it harder for the board to reject GAC Advice, by raising the voting threshold from simple majority to 2/3 majority. This change arose from recommendations and follow-up to the first review team on Accountability and Transparency, back in 2010-11. To help BC members evaluate this proposal, here are some prior positions, perspectives (and my personal advice): The new gTLD program Guidebook raised the board's obligation to respond to GAC consensus advice, but this requirement does not apply to general GAC advice outside the new gTLD program, which is governed by the bylaws. Throughout the new gTLD program and RAA revision, the BC has sought help from the GAC to pressure ICANN on consumer protection, security requirements, etc. Toward that end, we have sometimes encouraged the board to follow GAC advice (singular-plural TLDs and regulated industries, etc.) In Mar-2011, for example, we supported much of the GAC’s Scorecard advice on new gTLDs (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BC-Statement-on-Board-Re…>). However, we did not recommend raising the voting threshold. In Mar-2014<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-Comments-ATRT2-Final.…>, the BC went this far regarding advice from Advisory Committees, but did not endorse a new voting level: The BC fully supports ATRT2’s recommendation to institutionalize ICANN’s obligation to respond to review team recommendations: 9.1 Mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include: The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so. In our Jun-2014 comment on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-initial-comment-on-En…>), we included this 'stress test’ regarding bylaws and GAC advice: Scenario: Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting. Today GAC adopts formal advice according to its Operating Principle 47: “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”13 But the GAC may at any time change its procedures to use majority voting, where each government has equal voting power, such as in the UN and ITU. (Notably, only 61 governments were present at the GAC meeting in Singapore during March 2014, where several GAC members expressed dissatisfaction with the multistakeholder process and consensus threshold for new gTLD program advice.) While ICANN’s board is not strictly obligated to follow GAC advice, this scenario should assess how ICANN could respond to GAC advice with strong majority support but less than consensus. This scenario might also indicate need to amend ICANN bylaws regarding deference to GAC advice that is not supported by consensus. Cite: ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - Operating Principles, October, 2011, at https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles This stress test indicated a BC belief that only ‘consensus’ GAC Advice should receive deference from ICANN. My personal advice (not yet confirmed by NetChoice members) is that we should support the new 2/3 rejection threshold ONLY FOR GAC CONSENSUS ADVICE. In other words, we could suggest that the bylaws specifically reference and define 'GAC consensus advice’ that should require 2/3 board majority to reject. Any GAC advice with less than consensus would not require 2/3 to reject. Hope that helps, and look forward to the discussion on list and on next week’s call. —Steve From: John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 1:26 PM I would like to make the case against this by-laws change by placing it in proper perspective. There are a number of ways the GAC has asserted extra-organizational rights (start with the fact that the GAC advice on new gTLDs was to be done on a string-by-string basis) that makes this by-laws change of greater significance than when viewed on its own. Setting aside the rubber-stamp instinct of the Board, it is unlikely that GAC advice would ever be rejected.

1 0