- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

BC council nominations
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Thanks for the notification of the two nominations, Brenda. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2015, at 8:21, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > <image001.gif> > Hello BC Members, > > The nomination period for the GNSO Councilor Election is closed. There are two candidates nominated and their Candidate’s Statements will be distributed on or before January 13, 2015. > > 1. Timeline for 2014/2015 GNSO Councilor Election > > · Nomination period of two weeks: December 29, 2014 – January 09, 2015 > · Provision of Candidate statements to bc-private(a)icann.org on or by January 13, 2015 > · Discussion with Candidates: > Candidates Call on January 16, 2015: Time to be announced. > Recorded and transcribed/posted to BC membership list > > > 6. Formal Distribution of Names of Nominees: On or Before January 13, 2015 > > · The Voting Officer will transmit a list of confirmed and qualified nominees to the BC membership and publish a notification message on or before January 13th and announce a Candidates BC Members Dialogue conference call. > > > With kind regards, > Brenda Brewer > Secretariat - BC, IPC, and ISPCP > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Email: brenda.brewer(a)icann.org > Skype ID: brenda.brewer.icann > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bc-private mailing list > Bc-private(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private

1 0

ICANN Accountability WG and the BC Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Just a quick update on work in the ICANN Accountability Working Group (CCWG). This week, CCWG member Eric Brunner-Williams circulated draft scenarios to help design and evaluate accountability mechanisms. Earlier, I had circulated the ten BC stress tests<http://bizconst.org/stresstests> as a starting point for scenarios. But Eric included only 3 of our stress tests in his list. So today I added the missing scenarios from what the BC submitted in in May-2014. See my attached markup, or list below, where numbers 14-21 are the ones I added. If you have other ideas for stress tests, please pass them along soon. —Steve Scenarios for the CCWG to consider: 1. Change authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) relating to the content of the IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. 2. Delegation authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) relating to the delegation from the IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. 3. Litigation arising from existing public policy, e.g., Anti-Trust (Sherman Act, et. seq.). Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) and/or policy development relating to one or more relevant activities. 4. New regulation or legislation (see above). Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) and/or policy development relating to one or more relevant activities. 5. Domain industry financial crisis. Consequence: significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues and significant increase in registrar and registry continuity costs, threatening Icann’s ability to continue operating. 6. General financial crisis. Consequence: loss affecting reserves sufficient to threaten business continuity . 7. Litigation arising from private contract, e.g., Breach of Contract. Consequence: significant loss of contracted party fees. 8. Technology competing with DNS Consequence: significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues and significant increase in registrar and registry continuity costs. 9. Major corruption of fraud Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant litigation and loss of some or all reserves 10. Chairman, CEO or major officer acting in a manner inconsistent with the organization’s mission. Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant litigation. 11. Compromise of credentials. Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant loss of authentication and/or authorization capacities. 12. Capture by one or several groups of stakeholders Consequence : major impact on trust in multistakeholder model, prejudice to other stakeholders 13. One or several stakeholders excessively rely on accountability mechanism to “paralyze” Icann Consequence : major impact on corporate reputation, inability to take decisions, instability of governance bodies, loss of key staff, … 14. ICANN or NTIA choose to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments. Consequence: ICANN would no longer be held to its Affirmation commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required implementation of review team recommendations. This consequence could be avoided if Affirmation reviews and commitments are added to ICANN’s bylaws. 15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation where Internet users or domain registrants are seeking legal remedies for ICANN’s failure to enforce contracts, or other actions. Consequence: affected parties could be prevented from seeking legal redress for commissions or omissions by ICANN. 16. ICANN uses fee revenue or reserve funds to expand its scope beyond its technical mission, through grants for developing nations or other causes. Consequence: ICANN has the power to determine fees charged to TLD applicants, registries, registrars, and registrants, so it presents a large target for any Internet-related cause seeking funding sources. 17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. Consequence: DNS security and stability could be undermined, and ICANN actions could impose costs and risks upon external parties. 18. Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for approving advice to ICANN’s board. Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example. 19. ICANN attempts to re-delegate a gTLD because the registry operator is determined to be in breach of its contract, but the registry operator challenges the action and obtains an injunction from a national court. Consequence: The entity charged with root zone maintenance could face the question of whether to follow ICANN re-delegation request or to follow the court order. 20. A court order is issued to block ICANN’s delegation of a new TLD, because of complaint by existing TLD operators or other aggrieved parties. Consequence: ICANN’s decision about whether to honor such a court order could bring liability to ICANN and its contract parties. 21. A government telecom minister instructs ICANN to re-delegate a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), despite objections from many current registrants and user communities in the country concerned. Consequence: Faced with this re-delegation request, ICANN lacks measures to resist re-delegation while awaiting the bottom-up consensus decision of affected stakeholders.

1 0

Policy calendar for 8-Jan-2015 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 8-Jan-2015 Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process Recently filed: On 22-Dec we filed <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-pro…> comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-CWG-propos…> on the Community WG on Naming-related IANA functions, draft transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en>. Thanks to Aparna Sridhar for leading this draft. Now waiting on staff summary of the comments. (more at the end of this email) On 24-Dec we filed comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-pro…> on proposed launch programs for .MADRID (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/madrid-alp-application-2014-11-11-en>) Thanks to Steve Coates for leading this draft. On 9-Dec we sent a letter<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BC-comment-on-safeguards…> to ICANN board in support of ALAC’s call to freeze delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. On 19-Dec ICANN’s board replied<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-greenberg-1…> to ALAC, promising engagement but declining to stop the subject TLD delegations. Current ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-comment-2012-02-25-en>. Selected open comment opportunities below: 1. Reply comments on Board Working Group Report for NomCom (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>). Reply period closes 9-Jan-2015. The BC filed <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bwg-nomcom-21aug14/pdf1orQuZk6DX.pdf> initial comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-BWG-NomCom…> on 13-Nov. The GNSO Council will submit a reply comment <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16956.html> based on a letter drafted by John Berard. 2. Renewal of .JOBS sponsored TLD registry agreement (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/jobs-renewal-2014-12-09-en>). Reply period closes 20-Jan. 3. Release of country and territory names in .BMW and .MINI gTLDs. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en>) Reply period closes 23-Jan. 4. Translation/transliteration of contact data, PDP Initial report. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-…>) Comments due 1-Feb. 5. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en>). Comments due 27-Feb. Note: BC members are encouraged to file their own comments. The BC selects topics based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Gabi Szlak and Susan Kawaguchi are our Councilors. Next GNSO Council meeting is 15-Jan-2015, at 18:00 UTC. Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm> and motions were not yet posted as of 7-Jan. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison. Intersessional meeting of the GNSO non-contract party house in Washington DC, Jan 12-13, 2015. (agenda attached) BC outreach event in Washington DC, 14-Jan-2015 CCWG on enhancing ICANN Accountability: As the community demanded, ICANN created a cross-community working group (CCWG<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>) to design accountability enhancement that ICANN needs before NTIA hands-over the IANA functions. David Fares worked on the charter<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>, which includes "Stress testing<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Stress+Tests+from+the+Bus…>”. The CCWG wiki page is here<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. In the CCWG, Steve DelBianco represents the CSG (Commercial Stakeholder Group) and was asked to lead Work Area 2 to document accountability suggestions generated over last several months. Steve generated a list<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471>. The CCWG is debating accountability enhancements needed BEFORE the IANA transition, known as Work Stream 1 (WS1). Steve 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. Some CCWG members are concerned that ICANN Board would reject significant new accountability mechanisms. Steve proposed that the IANA transition creates unique leverage over the board, and that we should not miss this opportunity. On 6-Dec the CCWG consensus was not to ask the board any formal question at this point. Steve will attend the CCWG face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt Jan 18-20. CWG on IANA Transition (Naming-related functions) The CWG is holding an "intensive work weekend" Jan 10-11. Phil Corwin notes: On substance, there was majority support for most of the initial plan but less so for Contract Co. There was broad agreement that the plan lacked adequate details, that the process was going too fast, and that it was impossible to make a meaningful final judgment until we had the interrelated accountability proposal to look at. The CWG is taking an internal survey on how to react to the comments and will be working throughout next weekend to meet its January 15 deadline for submission to the ICG. See Phil’s recent CircleID post on this topic (link<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_…>).

2 1

CCWG on ICANN Accountability: Work Stream 1 and the concept of Leverage
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

First, Happy New Year! And second, here’s an update from the Accountability CCWG<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. We had our 4th call on Tuesday (call notes<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414982>). The work team I am leading has documented<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…> many accountability mechanisms, placing them into one of 2 ‘work streams’ according to this rationale: 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. At this point the CCWG is debating that rationale, with some members fearing that ICANN's board might reject significant new accountability measures. Below is the response I gave to Alan Greenberg when he expressed that concern: On 1/2/15, 5:12 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Alan Greenberg has questioned the accountability measures we were placing into Work Stream 1, saying, "I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition. Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition.” In responding to Alan, several of us said that a direct link to IANA transition is neither required nor desirable. Instead, the IANA transition is the community’s last bit of leverage to force accountability measures on ICANN’s board. The leverage is directly held by NTIA, who has said they would not transition IANA unless there was consensus about holding ICANN accountable to the community once the IANA contract is gone. And the internet community has indirect leverage, though pressure being brought on the US Administration and on Congress. So I would hope that Alan and others can gain confidence and comfort with the leverage our CCWG holds in this process. With that leverage comes the responsibility to create accountability mechanisms that will guide DNS policy making for decades to come. And we must also get our work done without causing undue delay to the IANA transition process. Alan’s group is the ALAC, which has often felt the lack of leverage over ICANN’s board and and management. As a recent example, ALAC called on ICANN to stop delegating new gTLDs serving highly regulated sectors but lacking enforceable public interest commitments (link<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/alac-to-icann-board-16…>). ICANN’s board and management might continue signing contracts despite concerns of the ALAC and others, perhaps fearing lawsuits by gTLD applicants. The fear of lawsuits may also have led the board to ignore community concerns over delegating both singular and plural forms of the same gTLDs. After all, the ICANN board’s duty is to the interests of the ICANN corporation — not to the community. (see Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#VI> Article 6, Section 7). What would be the source of leverage to hold the board accountable to the community for this decision? We have seen the futility of Reconsideration requests and Independent Reviews that lack leverage to reverse a board decision. This IANA transition is our last chance to create mechanisms that could hold ICANN’s board accountable to the community it was designed to serve. Let's embrace that challenge and use all the leverage we have. — 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

3 2

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