December 2015 - Ccnso-council

Draft Statement to the CCWG 3rd Proposal
by Byron Holland Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As per our December 23rd discussion regarding our feedback to the CCWG 3rd proposal, please see the attached for our proposed statement. For your convenience I have also pasted it below. I would like to send this to the CCWG on Monday. If there are any suggestions or concerns, please provide your feedback asap. Happy New Year, Byron Draft Statement on the 3rd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG Accountability) The ccNSO Council fully appreciates the exemplary, long and intensive efforts the CCWG-Accountability has undertaken to deliver the 3rd Proposal to the ccNSO as one of the chartering organizations and wholeheartedly thanks all members and participants of the CWG-Accountability for their perseverance and hard work. The ccNSO Council wants to draw the attention to the comments made by the CWG-Stewardship, and its assessment that the 3rd Proposal does not fully meet the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Taking into account the support for the substantial elements in the 3rd Proposal by a majority of the ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG, and factoring in the guidance from the Dublin ccNSO meeting as well as the public comments from the ccTLDs and Regional Organisations on the 3rd Proposal, the ccNSO Council provisionally supports the direction of travel of the 3rd Proposal. However, the ccNSO Council strongly recommends that the CCWG-Accountability implement the changes requested by the CWG-Stewardship. In addition, the ccNSO Council also notes that based on comments and input from ccTLDs and Regional Organisations, the 3rd CCWG Accountability Proposal may need additional refinement to take into account concerns raised so as to increase the likelihood of adoption of the Final Proposal by all. The ccNSO Council would appreciate hearing from the CCWG Accountability, on whether and to what extent it intends to amend its report and the associated timeline for such amendments.

9 17

Informal notes special Council call 23 December 2015
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 23, 2015

Dec. 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from todays special Council call, Kind regards, Bart ———————————————— Special Council Call - 23 December 2015 @12:00 UTC Agenda: 1 Welcome & roll call 2. Taking stock - Where are we? 3. Next steps Notes Welcome & roll call Apologies: Peter Vergrote Young-eum Lee Hiro Hotta Not attending: Souleymane, Vika, Ching Chiao, Celia Meeting is quorate. Fluid nature of CCWG In contrast to where we anticipated when we agreed to have special meeting Basic Agenda Agreed by all present In November meeting agreed to have today's meeting Goal at the time to be in position to make a decision Watching process, it is a fluid situation. Purpose now is to have a feeling from Council on direction of travel. Agreed Basic methodology Understand if there is general consensus Requisite number of members of CCWG need to support proposal Unanimity is not required. Their job to engage in process (together with participants) Further general support for essence of proposal from community and thirdly conditionality of CWG -Stewardship needs to be met. Invitation to Councilors need to speak up Taking stock Timeline: Submission by end January Recent events put timeline under question. · Number of comments received, including from ROs and individual ccTLDs · US Politics: DOTCOM has not come to floor and likely will not, not part of the US Omnibus. Maybe some positive elements not make as well. -> Becky: Process is less clear, some level or order we do not have now. If result is well structured and well supported, could shorten 30 legislative day process. If all went relatively well, may not need 30 legislative days. · Board comment is extensive: one side relative supportive, on other side critical. Without addressing those potential of slippage GAC position appears to be on its way ccNSO appointed CCWG member are not unanimous. Concerns on process CWG Stewardship Comment Requirement is that a minimum more clarity is needed. Summarize as being positive and headed in direction of support, but need for additional clarity if not change Next Steps Nigel: Brief sense. Will there a resolution? Response: Not in position to pass a resolution, but need provide an opinion Nigel: agree not in a position to take a resolution We could provide feed-back to CCWG, wants to provide input, could do over the list? Response: What are we going to do still not clear, but basic suggestion is to make a meaningful and constructive contribution Other communities have had varying opinions. Looking at the ccTLD contributions, generally positive but at a minimum need for additional clarification and number of issues, that need to be addressed. For overview see email Mathieu as forwarded. Question: What is Council going to do over evolved landscape Stephen: No reason to go forward other than with thank you , premature to take other position, before last hurdles have been taken. Lesley: Inclined to be more supportive then Stephen Include need for clarity. Minded to be supportive, subject to clarification Keith: I don't really think we need to - would be nice to get greater clarity to see if we can achieve unanimity... Becky: In agreement as described by Lesley and Byron Proposed direction statement · Appreciate work · Reminding CCWG that from cTLD perspective - Conditionality of work around the CWG-Stewardship must be met - Note fact that ccTLD and ROs in general supportive but flag they have noted issues. At a minimum provide more clarity. Any comments on messaging? Peter Van Roste supportive of line of reasoning as well as Abibu and others Drafting process · Include messages in draft ( Byron and Bart) · To be circulated over the list right after X-Mas: Ensure that it is on the list so Councillors could chime in · Send to CCWG just before new-year General agreement over procedure. All expect brief text over next few days Revisit topic on regular scheduled meeting 21 January 2016 AOB No further questions

2 1

FW: CCWG Accountability Update for the ccNSO council
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 23, 2015

Dec. 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find included email by Mathieu in preparation of tomorrow’s meeting, Kind regards, Bart From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Tuesday 22 December 2015 17:23 To: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Subject: RE: CCWG Accountability Update for the ccNSO council Dear Byron, In anticipation of the council meeting tomorrow, here are some additional elements as promised. The Call for comment has closed on Dec 21st as planned. More than 80 comments were received. 4 of the 6 chartering organizations have submitted inputs : SSAC (comments, no key issue) ; ASO (no issue) ; GAC (3 comments) ; ALAC (issues with recommendations 2, 5 and 6). gNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies have provided inputs of a more diverse nature, and the gNSO should provide formal input mid January. Overall the comments (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30…) are quite supportive, with softer support for recommendation 6 (human rights) and 11 (GAC Advice – with dissenting directions for the objections received). As you know the Board also submitted comments raising global public interest concerns for 5 recommendations (#1 inspection rights, #4 IANA Budget, #5 Mission statement, #6 Human rights, #12 Work stream 2). Within the ccTLD space, comments were received from : 1 CENTR community (30+ members expressed support) support recommendations. Additional work needed, in particular in ensuring CWG-Stewardship recommendations with respect to members and non-members ccNSO. Recommend ex-post assessment of efficiency of procedures and structures set up. Stress that Icann policies should only apply to ccTLD registries who agreed to adhere. 2 AFTLD: AFTLD community Supportive of all recommendations. 3 LACTLD Board position: Generally in support of recommendations. With respect to IANA Functions budget more clarity needed role of IANA customers. 4 NirA: supportive of recommendations 5 Auda: In line with Board comment - not supporting HR recommendation additional work needs to be done, 6 Nominet: Support recommendations 7 NORID: Additional questions need for clarification (especially need for IANA Budget to include inputs from direct customers). Stress importance of subsidiarity principle for ccTLDs I hope that these indications can be shared with the Council and that they are useful in its deliberations. Our group is looking forward to receiving input from the ccNSO. I remain available for any further clarification. Best, Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 18 novembre 2015 17:58 À : Byron Holland (byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>) Cc : 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'Becky Burr'; 'Jordan Carter' Objet : CCWG Accountability Update for the ccNSO council Dear Byron, Since I’m not attending the ccNSO council call, I prepared the following update. I seize the opportunity to thank Kim and Bart for their outstanding support in the organization of the webinars ! Best Mathieu Dear Councillors, Thank you for dedicating time to the work of the CCWG Accountability. I apologize for not being able to attend the call in person, due to a conflict with my own Board's meeting. I know that Becky Burr should attend and she is certainly the right person to answer any of your questions. I thought it would be useful to provide a short written update : In terms of timeline, which we discussed last time, the CCWG accountability has published on November 15 a Formal Update regarding progress made in Dublin and after (https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on…) This document provides a preview of most of the recommendations that the group should publish as part of its Draft Report on November 30th. The Draft report will be, as planned, open for public comments until 21st December but also sent for consideration of the Chartering Organizations. We are still planning on receiving confirmation of support or feedbacks from the Chartering Organizations in that same timeframe. In case the support could not be confirmed across all Chartering organizations, we would quickly turn around a Supplementary Draft Report that would be submitted for your consideration in January. In terms of the recommendations to be expected, I am also happy to report that the group is making progress towards finalization of the last outstanding items, and that this progress is consistent with the conclusions of the Dublin ccNSO sessions. Specifically : - the need for community dialogue in the exercice of the community powers is embedded in several steps of the escalation process that lead to the exercice of such powers - the Sole Designator model is now the reference model for enforcement - the compromise approach to the removal of SO/AC appointed Board directors is consistent with the Dublin discussions - As discussed in Dublin, a caretaker budget is designed to address the concerns about the potential adverse effects of a 1 year Budget veto (PTI budget is still a separate process) - the exclusion of ccTLD delegations and revocations from the scope of the IRP is maintained - the mission and core values are being refined and a way forward has been found to accomodate concerns from the IAB - Human rights provision will be added to the Bylaws - an exception to the community right to veto a bylaw change will be carved out to address the concerns raised in Dublin - Stress test 18 discussions are under way to find an appropriate way forward. With this progress, we are confident that the proposals will meet the CWG conditions. While I apologize for not attending the call, please feel free to channel any question or feedback to our group. I wish you a fruitful meeting, and look forward to our future meetings. Best, Mathieu -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
by Nigel Roberts Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear Bruce, dear Matthieu I am following this point with particular interest (pun not intended). We (ccNSO Council) meet tomorrow to consider the Proposal in the light of the Board's carefully expressed and detailed reservations, as well as the other public comments. Clarification on this point from either or both of you would be helpful. On 22/12/15 14:30, Mathieu Weill wrote: > Dear Bruce, > > After the topic was raised again during our CCWG call today, may I > kindly request an update on this request for clarification ? > > Best > > Mathieu > > *De :*Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] > *Envoyé :* mardi 15 décembre 2015 08:34 > *À :* Bruce Tonkin; Accountability Cross Community > *Cc :* Kavouss Arasteh > *Objet :* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third > CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations > > Dear Bruce, > > Thank you again for providing our group with the Board comment. > > As raised in the CCWG call today, we are kindly requesting if the Board > could provide our group with a response to the following question. > > What are the legal basis and criteria by which the Board considers a > given Recommendation to be contrary to the Global Public Interest ? > > Clarification would really be useful to help our group, but also the > Chartering Organizations, to check our own recommendations. > > Thank you for sharing this email with the Board, and happy to expand on > the question if need be. > > Best, > > Thomas, Leon & Mathieu > > Co-chairs > > *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part > de* Bruce Tonkin > *Envoyé :* lundi 14 décembre 2015 11:49 > *À :* Accountability Cross Community > *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third > CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations > > Hello Jordan, > > Thanks for posting to the list. > > The comments are also available in the public comment forum at: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30… > > We had a half day meeting of the full Board on Thursday 10 Dec, and then > spent a few hours again with the full Board finalizing the comments > yesterday – Sunday 13 Dec. That was in addition to another half day > meeting held on Saturday 5 Dec. All dates are relative to my time zone J > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

LACTLD Board Comments CCWG Accountability
by Carolina Aguerre Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear Councillors, I am sending in the attached document the comments sent by the LACTLD Board to the CCWG Accountability proposal. I look forward to our call tomorrow. Thanks. Best regards, Carolina -- *Carolina Aguerre* General Manager *Casa de Internet de Latinoamérica y el Caribe* Rambla Rep. de México 6125 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay +598 2604 22 22 www.lactld.org <http://www.lactld.org>

1 0

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal
by Nigel Roberts Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear Fellow Council Members We will be discussing the Third Draft Proposal of the CCWG at our meeting shortly. Part of that discussion will involve the consideration of whether we, sitting as Council, may commit the ccTLD community (including non-ccNSO members) by endorsing wide-ranging changes to the structure of ICANN (including significant increased powers of the GAC over ICANN/IANA policy) as well as removal of the US Government's historic role. For those of you who have not followed the intense debates in the CCWG list, it will be important to understand the context we are in, and to have read the 300 pages or so, of the proposal carefully, since major changes to ICANN's structure are proposed therein. In the meantime, the below email from Prof Mueller ought to be taken seriously into account, particularly where he describes the 'major controversy' in the WG list. We must also have in mind the two different Minority Reports from CCWG members Robin Gross and Eberhard Lisse, and the Comments of CCWG members Paul Rosensweig and Brett Schaefer in which they comment that "the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was crThe consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. > > Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report eated calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness". And finally, the Board's recent comments expressing significant concerns about the Draft Proposal and their re-confirmation that this needs to be done right, rather than rushed. I look forward to our discussion. Nigel Roberts > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:10:14 -0500 > From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > To: 'Rosemary E. Fei' <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>, 'Mathieu Weill' > <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' > <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>, > ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > CC: 'Sidley ICANN CCWG' <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, 'ACCT-Staff' > <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, 'ICANN-Adler' <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> > > > > This simply reconfirms my view that we are going too fast and that our > pace has outstripped our capacity to keep up.Â In comments we filed > earlier this week, Brett Schaeffer and I wrote the following: > To begin with, we believe that the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was created calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness. The consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. > > Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report to the community represents a complete revision of the proposed oversight mechanism of ICANN—yet this novel approach has not been fully vetted by the community and is now being subject to a truncated 21-day comment period, with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs urging all commentators to preferentially submit their comments through their supporting organizations and advisory committees (SOs and ACs). > > We reject that limitation. This novel proposal still has many open questions that require answers. Indeed, even as we write this comment a vibrant debate continues to occur on the CCWG-Accountability discussion list over exactly how, if at all, the proposed revised Mission Statement will effect existing contractual obligations. This week, it was suggested that this legal question be certified to outside lawyers for answers even though that fundamental question must be answered before the transition moves forward. The Board also submitted detailed comments this week (discussed further below) on the Draft Proposal that, if accepted by the community, would reflect a further fundamental transformation of the accountability proposals.[3] > > We recognize that uncertainty about certain specifics in the Draft Proposal during the public comment period may aid in moving the process forward in order to meet a predetermined timeline. But that ambiguity is a critical failure that raises questions about the legitimacy of the CCWG-Accountability process. Moreover, the specific language of new and amended bylaws to implement outlined reforms of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) remains at the conceptual stage and has yet to be drafted by CCWG-Accountability legal advisers. Asking the community to give its final support or opposition to an incomplete product is unacceptable. > > According to the chairs of the CCWG-Accountability, “The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations.”[4] Thus, even though there may be a number of significant objections and concerns raised by individuals, civil society, and businesses during this public comment, there are no plans for another draft to be opened for public comment. > > We urge individual members of the ICANN community along with the SOs and ACs to demand that this document be treated as a provisional draft until all outstanding issues are settled, including specific language for bylaw revisions, and instruct the CCWG-Accountability to provide a final draft for public comment that incorporates comments on the Draft Proposal from the ICANN community, the chartering organizations, and the Board of Directors. In our judgment, these process flaws are so significant that the community should insist that final approval of the transition be deferred to ICANN 56. More to the point, if unremedied, these process flaws alone are sufficient for us to urge rejection of the transition, notwithstanding our substantive views on the merits of the transition proposal. > > That, it seems to me, is ineluctably correct. Under the current flawed process the result cannot stand as a reflection of our good work. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > > > _____________________________ > > The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. > > Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > From: Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> > To: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, Accountability Cross > Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org) > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Mathieu Weill > <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, ACCT-Staff > > Dear Holly and Rosemary: > > Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, > It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third > Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are > critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the > Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of > the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification > would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw > drafting effort. > > MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of > the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyoneâs motives. > You did, however, point out that there was a need for clarification > where the draft may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly > made some quite reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These > suggestions were not reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts. > > Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing âthe > interests of the corporationâ to âthe global public interestâ > determined via a bottom up MS process. > > As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of > us believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about > which they have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet > an arbitrary date target and not giving due consideration to public > comments or even to the kind of changes you suggested. Thereâs no way > around it: Rosemaryâs message pretty much confirmed those > concerns. This doesnât say anything about motives and is not a > personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our attention to the costs > of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed editorial changes > and I hope they are incorporated this time. > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology >

1 1

CENTR Comment on 3rd draft proposal ccWG Accountability
by Peter Van Roste Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Dear Council members, Please find the CENTR comment on the 3rd draft proposal attached. Best Regards, Peter [cid:image001.png@01D13C17.F732A1E0] Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org/> - twitter: centrnews

1 0

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits
by Stephen Deerhake Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

This post to the CCWG list is an abridged version of the entire Rosenzweig/Schaeffer comment referenced in my prior post to the Council list that captures the points in their more detailed post to the CCWG Accountability public comment section. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake American Samoa (.as) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:10 AM To: 'Rosemary E. Fei' <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>; 'Mathieu Weill' <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: 'Sidley ICANN CCWG' <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>; 'ACCT-Staff' <acct-staff(a)icann.org>; 'ICANN-Adler' <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits This simply reconfirms my view that we are going too fast and that our pace has outstripped our capacity to keep up. In comments we filed earlier this week, Brett Schaeffer and I wrote the following: To begin with, we believe that the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was created calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness. The consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report to the community represents a complete revision of the proposed oversight mechanism of ICANN—yet this novel approach has not been fully vetted by the community and is now being subject to a truncated 21-day comment period, with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs urging all commentators to preferentially submit their comments through their supporting organizations and advisory committees (SOs and ACs). We reject that limitation. This novel proposal still has many open questions that require answers. Indeed, even as we write this comment a vibrant debate continues to occur on the CCWG-Accountability discussion list over exactly how, if at all, the proposed revised Mission Statement will effect existing contractual obligations. This week, it was suggested that this legal question be certified to outside lawyers for answers even though that fundamental question must be answered before the transition moves forward. The Board also submitted detailed comments this week (discussed further below) on the Draft Proposal that, if accepted by the community, would reflect a further fundamental transformation of the accountability proposals.[3] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> We recognize that uncertainty about certain specifics in the Draft Proposal during the public comment period may aid in moving the process forward in order to meet a predetermined timeline. But that ambiguity is a critical failure that raises questions about the legitimacy of the CCWG-Accountability process. Moreover, the specific language of new and amended bylaws to implement outlined reforms of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) remains at the conceptual stage and has yet to be drafted by CCWG-Accountability legal advisers. Asking the community to give its final support or opposition to an incomplete product is unacceptable. According to the chairs of the CCWG-Accountability, “The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations.”[4] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> Thus, even though there may be a number of significant objections and concerns raised by individuals, civil society, and businesses during this public comment, there are no plans for another draft to be opened for public comment. We urge individual members of the ICANN community along with the SOs and ACs to demand that this document be treated as a provisional draft until all outstanding issues are settled, including specific language for bylaw revisions, and instruct the CCWG-Accountability to provide a final draft for public comment that incorporates comments on the Draft Proposal from the ICANN community, the chartering organizations, and the Board of Directors. In our judgment, these process flaws are so significant that the community should insist that final approval of the transition be deferred to ICANN 56. More to the point, if unremedied, these process flaws alone are sufficient for us to urge rejection of the transition, notwithstanding our substantive views on the merits of the transition proposal. That, it seems to me, is ineluctably correct. Under the current flawed process the result cannot stand as a reflection of our good work. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em…> From: Rosemary E. Fei [mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 12:10 AM To: Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> ) <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ) <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> ; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ) <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> ) <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >; ACCT-Staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ) <acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >; ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits Dear CCWG: To confirm our comprehension of the CCWG’s decisions on the many changes from the Second to the Third Proposal, we reviewed the Third Proposal as published. In doing so, we noted points where the language in the Third Proposal does not unambiguously reflect our current substantive understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In our comments on the Third Proposal draft, we suggested edits on many of these points which were not accepted, so perhaps we have misunderstood the intent. As to other points, we don’t have a clear understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In either case, we would like clarification. In the attached table you will find our joint substantive comments on the Third Proposal as published. As we approach the implementation stage, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss any of our comments that raise questions or concerns, to ensure we know what we’re asked to implement. We also hope these comments may be useful to clarify the final proposal for the general reader. To make the volume of our comments more manageable, we are sending staff separately our comments on the Third Proposal that raise only non-substantive issues. Holly and Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> , and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.

1 0

Rosenzweig/Schaefer comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal
by Stephen Deerhake Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

I refer fellow Council members to the following comment on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n ov15/pdfjwiMvw6xUZ.pdf Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake American Samoa (.as)

1 0

REMINDER: Special ccNSO Council call - 23 December @12:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Dear all, This is a reminder of this week's Special ccNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, @12:00 UTC. Please find the dial in details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available on the Adobe Room. If you are unable to attend, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards,

1 0