Dear all, Included statement is forwarded at request and on behalf of Eberhard, Kind regards, Bart On 15/12/15 08:27, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to you because of:

1) Calling the below a "Joint Statement of the ccNSO Appointed Members to the CCWG" is *FALSE*; and

2) I do not agree with its content;

for the following reasons:

1) There are 5 members appointed to the CCWG Accountability, and not 4, as falsely stated below, namely (in alphabetical order):

Jordan Carter (.NZ) Eberhard Lisse (.NA) Roelof Meijer (.NL) Giovanni Seppia (.EU) Mathieu Weill (.FR) (co-chair)

I (one of the 5 appointed members) have not been (made) aware of any proposal to draft such a "Joint Statement" by the other (4) ccNSO appointed members and hence could not assist in drafting it and/or attaching a Minority Opinion to it.

So, this attempt at deceiving the ccTLD community is either deliberate or further proof of the amateurishness that has marred the CCWG process.

In the spirit of accountability and transparency Council must:

a) obtain and publish a comprehensive explanation from the author(s); and

b) obtain and publish all pertinent (email) correspondence in this regards.

2) It goes without saying that I do not agree with the below deceptions:

The Third Draft Proposal by the CCWG Accountability ("Third Draft") is extremely complex, albeit unfinished, obfuscated, and is gNSO centric, never mind that it was produced in haste by way of arbitrary, self imposed milestones and deadlines.

I addition to my own objection to the Third Draft, to which I added a Minority Opinion (a copy of which is enclosed for ease of reference), even one of the gNSO appointed members (Ms Gross) has objected to the Proposal.

So whether there is even Consensus within the CCWG Accountability is highly debatable.

It is not clear at all whether the Third Draft (in particular when viewed together with the CWG Proposal) is in fact workable.

And asking the community to sign off on an UNFINISHED product makes no sense. Never mind without sufficient time to consider.

Human Rights Provisions have been so watered down as to be meaningless.

There is nothing discernible in the Third Draft for ccTLD Managers in particular no enhancement of safeguards. In fact it could even be understood to increase ICANN's powers over ccTLD Managers (especially those who are not ccNSO members)

Most of the ccNSO "guidelines" produced in Dublin are not relevant to ccTLD Managers.

I remain concerned about the elevation of ACs to the level of the SOs.

Where this can lead to was evident during the deliberations of the CCWG Accountability, when the appointed ALAC members reneged on their previous Consensus with regards to the enforcement model in favor of the one currently proposed.

An increase of the threshold from currently 1/2 to 2/3 of Board members to reject (Consensus) GAC advice does not provide any guaranties against anything.

In fact, it increases risk significantly, when viewed in combination with this Third Draft's also opening the door to the GAC to water down their definition of Consensus,

It has come to my attention today that the Board has issued politely worded but shockingly strong warning of some 27 pages that it considers this Third Draft unfinished.

Though I find myself in disagreement with some of the rationale given by the Board, I am relieved to note that they consider the Public Interest is better served by "geting it right" than by "getting something done, now".

I also share their concern that entities not involved with IANA would be in a position to affect the IANA budget.

I view the IANA transition and its corresponding issues to be of such importance that I do not believe there is a place for ccNSO Council to take this important decision by itself.

At the very least this should be taken by the ccNSO Members, best by way of formal Policy Development Processes imitated within the ccNSO once the CCWG Accountability will have completed Work Streams 1 and 2, respectively.

In any case, I urge ccTLD Managers (and the ccNSO Council) to reject this (premature) Third Draft, so the CCWG Accountability can go back and do this right.

Dear Staff, please ensure that *ALL* Council members, even these who are not allowed to subscribe to ccNSO lists, get a copy of this, as I can't post to the Council list.

greetings, el

On 2015-12-11 13:57 , Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

Please find below a statement sent by ccNSO-appointed members of the CCWG-Accountability. The statement reports on consistency between the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report and recommends that the ccNSO Council endorses these proposals.

You can find the English and translated versions of the proposals here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016)

Best regards,

Mathieu Weill

Jordan Carter

Roelof Meijer

Giovanni Seppia

*De :*Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] *Envoyé :* vendredi 11 décembre 2015 12:52 *À :* Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca) *Cc :* 'Bart Boswinkel'; (jordan@internetnz.net.nz); Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl; 'Giovanni Seppia' *Objet :* Joint CCWG-Accountability member input to the ccNSO Council

Dear Byron,

As members of the CCWG-Accountability working group appointed by the ccNSO we would like to thank all those who tirelessly participated in the process and congratulate the working group for the third proposal that takes into due account the recent feedback from many stakeholders. We are pleased to submit the following statement to support the recommendations published by the CCWG on 30 November 2015.

We believe that the recommendations:

- Ensure adequate enhancements to ICANN¹s accountability in light of the IANA Stewardship transition;

- Meet the CWG dependencies;

- Take the ccTLD interests into due account within the ICANN framework and follow the principle of non-interference into ccTLD management from ICANN;

- Enhance the safeguard measures available to ccTLD managers in case of misconduct on behalf of ICANN.

Furthermore, the recommendations are fully consistent with the guidelines produced at the end of the Dublin ccNSO meeting. Specifically:

- The need for community dialogue in the exercise of the community powers to be embedded in several steps of the escalation process that lead to the exercise of such powers;

- The Sole Designator model is the current reference model for enforcement;

- The compromise approach for the removal of SO/AC appointed ICANN Board directors is in line with the discussions held during the ICANN meeting in Dublin in October 2015;

- A caretaker budget is envisaged to address the concerns about the possible adverse effects of a one-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 was found to accommodate the concerns expressed by the IAB;

- Human rights provisions will be added to the Bylaws and a Framework of Interpretation will be developed shortly;

- An exception to the community right to veto a Bylaw change is carved out to address the concerns raised in Dublin. Therefore, PDP-based Bylaw changes will not be subject to community veto;

- The balance regarding the consideration of any GAC advice by the ICANN Board provides guarantees against the perceived risk associated with a change in the GAC decision-making process.

While some of us have specific concerns ­ such as the endorsement of the CCWG proposals by the GAC with regard to GAC advice, in particular the condition that only full consensus advice needs a 2/3 vote in favour for the Board to reject or the exception to the community right to veto a Bylaw change if that Bylaw change is PDP-based ­ we would like to recommend that the ccNSO Council endorses the CCWG recommendations.

Mathieu Weill, co-chair

Jordan Carter

Roelof Meijer

Giovanni Seppia

_______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld