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

CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 27, 2014

Dec. 27, 2014

Keeping you in the loop on CCWG accountability suggestions. I added David Johnson’s contract idea in addition to the BC's Member structure. Just let me know of questions/suggestions by end of day Sunday. —Steve On 12/27/14, 3:38 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays. I just added several requests that arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5 is attached, reflecting these changes: David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties. Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions. CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1. These items are flagged with CWG (in bold) Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes. Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.” Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found by the community" Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2. Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and ‘Contract Co.’ for naming-related IANA functions. Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2 Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Please email me with further changes by Sunday evening so we can circulate before our next CCWG call. — 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

FILED: BC comment on proposed launch programs for .MADRID
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 24, 2014

Dec. 24, 2014

Today we submitted the attached comment on two proposed launch programs for .MADRID Thanks to Stephen Coates for drafting this comment. Also thanks to several BC members who reviewed the draft thoroughly and provided specific improvements. —Steve

2 1

FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on CWG proposal for Naming Related Functions
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

The attached comment was filed by the BC tonight, regarding the public comment period on draft proposal for transition of naming-related IANA functions. Thanks to Aparna Sridhar for drafting and to Philip Corwin for his suggested closing point. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

2 1

Accountability CCWG: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 21, 2014

Dec. 21, 2014

BC members — keeping you informed of progress on the Accountability CCWG. Below and attached are what I sen to the CCWG today for discussion on Tuesday’s call (1:00am Eastern). All are welcome to join the call. —Steve On 12/21/14, 9:10 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: To: members of CCWG and Work Area 2, After our last call on 16-Dec, the chairs tasked the entire CCWG with this action: 3. ACTION review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either additions to or deletions from the list. With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. The chairs also recommended next steps for our Work Area 2, after our inventory is complete. (see bottom of this email) As rapporteur for Work Area 2, I reviewed emails since 16-Dec (see email archives<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/2014-December/date.html> for Work Area 2 and for entire CCWG<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/…>). Most of the correspondence was about Public Interest and International Law, but I found notes relevant to Work Area 2 from Kavouss Arasteh, Alain Bidron, Google, Paul Rosenzweig, and Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez. For your review, I attach an updated drafted with these changes: - added a footnote to page 1 citing how Member oversight is enabled by California Law and by ICANN Articles of incorporation, and noted that ICANN’s present bylaws would have to be changed to recognize Members. - I did not delete any items at this point, but for items where opposition has been noted, you will see under the Support column, [opposition noted] - Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the rationale for work stream designations. These appear in the headers of the table and are shown below: Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these Bylaws changes. 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above). For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the change. [I folded the Transparency items into this category] Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s call. — 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 On 12/18/14, 3:10 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: B. WA 2 With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December. It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will, as next steps, consider the following: * Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1 (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2 (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition). Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of the inventory). * Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1 or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG charter. Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a) develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the CCWG recommendations. As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations: Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but are not limited to: * What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause? * What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? * What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after. * If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented? * How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but are not limited to: * What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA Stewardship Transition? * If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed and implemented? * How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested? Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to: * What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role? * What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing accountability mechanisms? * What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed? * If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date? *

1 0

ICANN Accountability CCWG - latest draft of prior proposals
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 15, 2014

Dec. 15, 2014

Here’s what I circulated to the Accountability CCWG (link<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>) on Sunday evening, for discussion on tomorrow’s call. Hope you’re good with how I organized previous accountability proposals into 3 sections: 1. Mechanisms to give the community authority over the ICANN corporation 2. Mechanisms to prescribe or restrict actions of the ICANN corporation 3. Mechanisms to ensure transparency of the ICANN corporation and the broader community Our current draft list is very manageable, at under 2 pages. I proposed this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs. All other items are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. How does that sound to you? As I noted earlier, we are tasked now just to give a starting point of accountability enhancement suggestions. Our entire CCWG will surely develop more enhancements over the course of our work. —Steve

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on ICANN draft 5-Year Operating Plan
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN’s draft 5-Year Operating Plan. Many thanks to Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Angie Graves for drafting this for the BC. Very professional and to-the-point. We are all about those KPIs ! —Steve

1 0

Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Thought BC members would like to hear about breaking news on US Congressional actions. See Phil Corwin’s CircleID post (here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141210_breaking_us_government_funding_bill_…> and below). A reporter just asked me about this, and here’s the answer I gave (speaking personally): This policy rider is not an attempt to stop the transition, as far as I can tell. It seems designed to prod NTIA to do a short extension of its current IANA contract, since it allows NTIA to resume using funds to plan the transition after September 2015. I don’t think this should alarm global stakeholders or the ICANN working groups already planning the IANA transition. We have lots of work to do and aren’t depending on NTIA funds to help us. And given the aggressive timelines we saw on yesterday’s initial call for the Accountability project, we may need the extra time an IANA extension would allow. Phil Corwin in CircleID: Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition On the evening of Tuesday, September 9th, Congressional leaders unveiled a 1,603 page, $1.01 trillion FY 2015 appropriations bill to fund the U.S. government through the end of September 2015. One provision of the omnibus bill would delay the IANA transition until after the September 30, 2015 expiration of the current contract between the NTIA and ICANN. Language in the bill<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20141210/102799/BILLS-113rcp113-59pp…> states: SEC. 540. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall expire on September 30, 2015. That language, a modified version of the “Duffy Amendment” that was contained in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would allow NTIA to start spending funds on a transition after exercising its first option to extend the contract. In addition, the explanatory report language of the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the omnibus spending bill, in which the above language is contained, states the following: Internet governance.-The agreement reiterates House and Senate language regarding the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) matters and modifies Senate language by directing NTIA to inform appropriate Congressional committees not less than 45 days in advance of any such proposed successor contract or any other decision related to changing NTIA's role with respect to ICANN or IANA activities. In addition, NTIA shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 45 days of enactment of this Act regarding any recourse that would be available to the United States if the decision is made to transition to a new contract and any subsequent decisions made following such transfer of Internet governance are deleterious to the United States. This language appears to require NTIA to inform Congress 45 days prior to extending the IANA contract or taking any other decision in regard to it; as well as to submit a report to Congress within 45 days after the spending bill’s enactment regarding whether the US would have any post-transition recourse if subsequent decisions were deleterious to the U.S. This final bill language has already been negotiated with and accepted by Senate Democratic and House Republican leaders and is likely to be enacted and sent to President Obama by the weekend. It is unlikely that the White House would veto the bill and risk a government shutdown over this IANA language (although other provisions could become sticking points between the Administration and Congress). Rumors were already circulating in Washington that NTIA was prepared to extend the current IANA contract by at least six months in recognition of the fact that it may be impossible for the ICANN community to design and stress test enhanced accountability measures by the end of the current contract term, much less have them in place by then. So the bill may have little effect on the actual timetable for the transition. It remains to be seen what reaction to its enactment comes from ICANN, the ICANN community, and other nations.

1 0

ICANN's 2015 Nominating Committee now taking applications
by Stephane Van Gelder Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Colleagues, FYI. http://post.milathan.com/2014/12/icanns-2015-nominating-committee-now-takin… Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com

1 0

IANA Transition: Draft proposal and webinar for Naming Related Functions
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

The IANA Transition CWG published their draft proposal for the Naming-related IANA functions for public comment. (link)<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> Comments close on 22-Dec. For BC comments, we’ll look to the BC members closely following this CWG: Aparna Sridhar, Phil Corwin, Tim Smith, and Angie Graves. Also, the Coordination Working Group (CWG) is hosing webinars this week to brief on their proposal and collect feedback: to brief the community on the contents on this draft transition proposal and encourage community feedback, the CWG will be organizing three identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 3 December from 7:00 – 8:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) * 4 December from 12:30 – 14:00 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) * 4 December from 16:00 – 17:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) ________________________________ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwgiana/>. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> and indicate which day / time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG Wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/SIEHAw>. ________________________________ The Draft Transition Proposal The CWG structured its draft transition proposal based on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals. These are: 1 Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 2A Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements – Policy Sources 2B Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements – Oversight and Accountability 3 Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements 4 Transition Implications 5 NTIA Requirements 6 Community Process Sections 1, 2A and 2B describe the current situation. Section 3, which is the heart of the transition proposal, is still a work in progress as not all details have been ironed out as of the publication of this consultation. Although lacking some details, the information provided in this section should be sufficiently detailed to allow the communities to comment on all key components. In summary, section 3 proposes the creation of 4 new entities to replace the current NTIAarrangements. These are: 1. Contract Co. – This primary function of this entity (likely a non-profit corporation) is to be signatory to the contract with the IANA Functions Operator. This entity should be lightweight and have little or no staff. 2. Multistakeholder Review Team (MRT) – The MRT would be a multi-stakeholder body with formally selected representatives from all of the relevant communities (exact composition TBD). The operation of the MRT would be based on the concept of maximum public transparency. The responsibilities of the MRT will include: * Developing the detailed contract terms for the agreement between Contract Co. and theIANA Functions Operator, based on the key contract terms proposed as part of this proposal and set forth as Annex 3 * Making key decisions for Contract Co. (e.g., whether or not to enter into a rebidding (RFP) process for the operation of the IANA Naming Functions) * Conducting the IANA Functions Operator Budget Review * Addressing any escalation issues raised by the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) including the possibility of engaging in enforcement * Performing certain elements of administration (including periodic performance reviews) currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by theNTIA * Managing a re-contracting or rebidding (RFP) process for the operation of the IANAFunctions, both as an enforcement option and as part of a regular rebidding procedure The CWG is in the process of discussing whether there is an additional enforcement role for the MRT related to policy implementation by the IANA Functions Operator; specifically, whether the MRT should be able to commence a proceeding before the Independent Appeals Panel. 3. Customer Standing Committee (CSC) – While the exact composition is still to be determined, the CSC would primarily be made up of a number of representatives of registry operators, including ccTLD and gTLD registries. Input from the CSC would feed into and inform the work of the MRT. It is possible that the CSC would also include additional individuals with relevant expertise and/or liaisons (or representatives) from other SO/ACs. The CSC would: * Work with the MRT to establish Service Levels and Performance Indicators for the performance of the IANA Naming Functions * Receive reports from the IANA Functions Operator including regular performance reports. * Review these reports against established service levels and escalate any significant issues to the MRT 4. Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) – The CWG recommends that all IANA actions which affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database be subject to an independent and binding appeals panel. The Appeals Mechanism should also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies are applied. This need not be a permanent body, but rather could be handled the same way as commercial disputes are often resolved, through the use of a binding arbitration process using an independent arbitration organization (e.g., ICDR, ICC, AAA) or a standing list of qualified people under rules promulgated by such an organization. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are currently in development and are directly dependent on the final choices that will be made for section 3. For further details, you are encouraged the review the draft transition proposal in its entirety, availablehere<https://community.icann.org/x/SoEHAw>. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CWG's work, please see https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

1 0