December 2014 - Ccwg-accountability2

CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 4, 2015

Jan. 4, 2015

Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays. Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes: CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1. These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold) 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. In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it. 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.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2 Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Look forward to discussing on our next 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

3 2

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

Dec. 27, 2014

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

Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Paul Rosenzweig Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

I would be completely comfortable with an “exhaustion” requirement that invokes outside adjudication only after efforts at internal mediation have been unsuccessful. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:42 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: Malcolm Hutty; ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Mr. Ojedeji Respectful disagreement (and agreement with Mr. Hutty) on two counts: First, the principle as stated is at too high a level of generality. We need to be specific and if you are going to call for community oversight you need propose a mechanism. I am seeing it as the mechanism is what we are to determined in this process. Second, in disputes between the community and the Board, the community will often be an interested party. If you refer to dispute that that remained unresolved among both parties then i agree. My main point is that the existing community processes needs to be exhausted before seeking any external options. As you know, I favor the community generally over the Board, but it is reasonable for the Board to insist on an independent adjudicator. Saying that some issues may be “too complex to understand” is not persuasive. The Bylaws are “law” and interpreting law is a very common practice. I agree but again based on the understanding i have mentioned above. Thanks Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:48 AM To: Malcolm Hutty Cc: ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> ; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 Hi Malcolm, While I agree that it may be moved to WS1, I will like to suggest a rewording as below: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its own Bylaws, and effective remedy granted if breach found by it's community." I don't think an independent external entity will understand the bylaw than the community because they are the ones directly affected. They may engage the external entity if required but the trigger should happen from the community and the decision made by them. However as you have observed, the WS1 item seem to be the start-up and what is in WS2 is the continuation. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Dec 2014 17:17, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm(a)linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net> > wrote: On 21/12/2014 21:10, Steve DelBianco 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. Steve, 1. I would like to propose that the item "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its own Bylaws, and effective remedy granted if breach found by independent adjudicator." be reclassified to WS1. I have three reasons for this. Firstly, I would suggest that this is a fundamental element of accountability. Although the is not limited to such extreme scenarios, it includes the case where the Board willfully defies the bylaws. If you cannot ensure that the Board honours the bylaws, any accountability mechanisms that that depend upon the bylaws are critically weakened. This makes this foundational, and I think that reason alone is sufficient to justify placing it in WS1. In short, the statement "these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above)" does not apply unless this is WS1. Secondly, my own view is that the only way this accountability objective can be achieved robustly is to create an independent/external body that is able to review the Board's actions for compliance with the bylaws (presumably on an appellate basis) and, if it finds a breach, to vacate the Board action. To be effective, in my view, in the face of a theoretically defiant Board, this entity could not be answerable to the Board. While it is possible that others may not support such a mechanism, this type of approach clearly ought to be considered. Any such a mechanism would have to be created by NTIA, not ICANN; the ICANN Board is self-evidently incapable of setting up something in authority over itself and its own bylaws. For that reason I believe that this also qualifies this scenario for WS1 according to your own criterion of "things that cannot be done if left until after transition has occurred" Thirdly, this overlaps with another proposal you have classifed as WS1 "Establish a permanent cross-community working group with power to refer any board decision to an independent review panel." If the only grounds for making such a referral is an alleged breach of the bylaws then the one is a perfect superset of this other proposal: referral from a cross-community one of a range of possible means of having such an allegation considered by an independent review panel, but not the only one. If it was intended that the cross-community group be able to refer decisions on other grounds too, then there is overlap but not duplication. 2. I would like to propose that the items "Ensure ICANN Board does not act "ultra vires", and stays within assigned mission and scope. e.g., prevent scope creep in policies imposed via RAA." and "Prevent ICANN Board redefining mission/scope in Bylaws without community consensus" be reclassified to WS1. My reasons are similar to the previous item. A Board that is capable ignoring its mission or of redefining its mission at will cannot be accountable to anyone: if anyone says it has done wrong it can simply redefine the goals so as to justify its preferred actions. This item is therefore foundational for any other mechanisms, which is in my view sufficient to justify WS1 classification. Moreover, the ability to set the goals and thereby determine the criteria according to which any accountability mechanisms will operate is so fundamental that it largely defines "who is in charge". It is almost inconceivable that any Board would yield up ultimate decision-making authority on this issue to anyone else, unless faced with extraordinary leverage. NTIA transition is therefore the only opportunity for the community to seize this authority directly, and so it also qualifies for WS1 according your "now or never" criterion. Finally this overlaps with another proposal you have assigned to WS1: "Establish a permanent cross-community working group with power to approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 majority". A permanent cross-community working group is one means by which community consensus might be established, but not the only possible means (for example, changes to the bylaws and articles could be ratified directly by ACs and components of SOs directly). 3. Lastly, I am a little concerned that the proposals relating to Affirmation Review Teams might be a bit too narrow and 'solution-oriented' for WS1 track. There is an underlying idea, I think, that continuing community oversight is required and that the community needs a permanent ability to initiate major perform, but I suspect the details of this may need to be left to WS2; the minimum requirement in these proposals it to be confident such reforms could be initiated later. However I've just tried three times to come up with an alternative way of framing this that would allow these proposals to be reclassified as WS2 and found myself unsatisfied with my own idea each time. I will therefore await the discussion -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Paul Rosenzweig Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Mr. Ojedeji Respectful disagreement (and agreement with Mr. Hutty) on two counts: First, the principle as stated is at too high a level of generality. We need to be specific and if you are going to call for community oversight you need propose a mechanism. Second, in disputes between the community and the Board, the community will often be an interested party. As you know, I favor the community generally over the Board, but it is reasonable for the Board to insist on an independent adjudicator. Saying that some issues may be “too complex to understand” is not persuasive. The Bylaws are “law” and interpreting law is a very common practice. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> Link to my PGP Key From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:48 AM To: Malcolm Hutty Cc: ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4 Hi Malcolm, While I agree that it may be moved to WS1, I will like to suggest a rewording as below: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its own Bylaws, and effective remedy granted if breach found by it's community." I don't think an independent external entity will understand the bylaw than the community because they are the ones directly affected. They may engage the external entity if required but the trigger should happen from the community and the decision made by them. However as you have observed, the WS1 item seem to be the start-up and what is in WS2 is the continuation. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Dec 2014 17:17, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm(a)linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net> > wrote: On 21/12/2014 21:10, Steve DelBianco 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. Steve, 1. I would like to propose that the item "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its own Bylaws, and effective remedy granted if breach found by independent adjudicator." be reclassified to WS1. I have three reasons for this. Firstly, I would suggest that this is a fundamental element of accountability. Although the is not limited to such extreme scenarios, it includes the case where the Board willfully defies the bylaws. If you cannot ensure that the Board honours the bylaws, any accountability mechanisms that that depend upon the bylaws are critically weakened. This makes this foundational, and I think that reason alone is sufficient to justify placing it in WS1. In short, the statement "these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above)" does not apply unless this is WS1. Secondly, my own view is that the only way this accountability objective can be achieved robustly is to create an independent/external body that is able to review the Board's actions for compliance with the bylaws (presumably on an appellate basis) and, if it finds a breach, to vacate the Board action. To be effective, in my view, in the face of a theoretically defiant Board, this entity could not be answerable to the Board. While it is possible that others may not support such a mechanism, this type of approach clearly ought to be considered. Any such a mechanism would have to be created by NTIA, not ICANN; the ICANN Board is self-evidently incapable of setting up something in authority over itself and its own bylaws. For that reason I believe that this also qualifies this scenario for WS1 according to your own criterion of "things that cannot be done if left until after transition has occurred" Thirdly, this overlaps with another proposal you have classifed as WS1 "Establish a permanent cross-community working group with power to refer any board decision to an independent review panel." If the only grounds for making such a referral is an alleged breach of the bylaws then the one is a perfect superset of this other proposal: referral from a cross-community one of a range of possible means of having such an allegation considered by an independent review panel, but not the only one. If it was intended that the cross-community group be able to refer decisions on other grounds too, then there is overlap but not duplication. 2. I would like to propose that the items "Ensure ICANN Board does not act "ultra vires", and stays within assigned mission and scope. e.g., prevent scope creep in policies imposed via RAA." and "Prevent ICANN Board redefining mission/scope in Bylaws without community consensus" be reclassified to WS1. My reasons are similar to the previous item. A Board that is capable ignoring its mission or of redefining its mission at will cannot be accountable to anyone: if anyone says it has done wrong it can simply redefine the goals so as to justify its preferred actions. This item is therefore foundational for any other mechanisms, which is in my view sufficient to justify WS1 classification. Moreover, the ability to set the goals and thereby determine the criteria according to which any accountability mechanisms will operate is so fundamental that it largely defines "who is in charge". It is almost inconceivable that any Board would yield up ultimate decision-making authority on this issue to anyone else, unless faced with extraordinary leverage. NTIA transition is therefore the only opportunity for the community to seize this authority directly, and so it also qualifies for WS1 according your "now or never" criterion. Finally this overlaps with another proposal you have assigned to WS1: "Establish a permanent cross-community working group with power to approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 majority". A permanent cross-community working group is one means by which community consensus might be established, but not the only possible means (for example, changes to the bylaws and articles could be ratified directly by ACs and components of SOs directly). 3. Lastly, I am a little concerned that the proposals relating to Affirmation Review Teams might be a bit too narrow and 'solution-oriented' for WS1 track. There is an underlying idea, I think, that continuing community oversight is required and that the community needs a permanent ability to initiate major perform, but I suspect the details of this may need to be left to WS2; the minimum requirement in these proposals it to be confident such reforms could be initiated later. However I've just tried three times to come up with an alternative way of framing this that would allow these proposals to be reclassified as WS2 and found myself unsatisfied with my own idea each time. I will therefore await the discussion -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

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? *

5 4

FW: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Dear all, I'm forwarding Daniel's remarks on the work of WA2 so that his comments may be reflected in the archive for this group. Best, Grace On 12/22/14 9:52 AM, "Castro, Daniel" <dcastro(a)itif.org> wrote: >Steve/All, > >Great work compiling these items. As part of the list of mechanisms, I'd >like to propose for consideration adding "Establish an open data policy >and develop an open data action plan" as part of the efforts to increase >ICANN's transparency and accountability (WS2). > >There has been a growing movement to adopt open data among nations (see >G8 Open Data Charter), non-governmental organizations (World Bank, UN, >etc.), and nonprofits/universities. This takes freedom of information >policies to the next level by establishing an "open by default" rule for >an organization (rather than requiring individuals to request >information). Developing an open data action plan for ICANN, could allow >stakeholders the ability to prioritize high-value data sets for release, >ensure data sets are released in a timely and complete manner, and ensure >machine-readability so that data sets can be analyzed and visualized. All >of these efforts can be used to improve the transparency of ICANN >operations, and bring ICANN's transparency efforts in line with other >leading global organizations. > >Daniel Castro >Director | Center for Data Innovation >202-626-5742 | dcastro(a)datainnovation.org | www.datainnovation.org >Twitter: twitter.com/castrotech | LinkedIn: >www.linkedin.com/in/danieldcastro > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

On ICANNs Aacountability
by Carlos Raul Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

I have represented my country in the GAC for 3 years, from 2011 to 2013. I was member of the ATRT2. Since the last ICANN meeting in LA i;m now member of the GNSO Council (NomCom). Base on my personal observations during that time I would like to suggest my ideas to the WS 2 to the ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group. 1. *Equal footing of stakeholders*: I think we have to rethink the separation of SOs and ACs. At least Users (if represented in ALAC at all) and Governments (GAC) deserve an equal footing with commercial interests in the whole policy making process, however defined (see below). The Haphazard Cross Community efforts are creating a lot of confusion, lack common work methodologies and in the end nobody knows if it is going to work (see our discussion on the public interest). are going to be more or less legitimate or interpreted in the right way by the world at large. 2. *Equal footing in policymaking*: i think the differences between contracted and non-contracted parties is getting blurred with the new gTLDs. Particularly the representativeness of non-commercial Stakeholders, vis a vis ALAC and GAC remains a mystery to me. Academic accreditation does not seem necessarily related to the issues discussed in the IANA Stewardship transition and some of the newer PDPs. If there is equal footing as per 1 above, the GNSO houses have to be rebalanced as per above under 1. 3. *Structural and/or Organizational separation* between a) Policy Making, b) Operations and c) Compliance functions. Lots of progress there with the separation of the new gTLDs under a separate arm and the higher visibility of the compliance function. But the clear and arms length separation of staff and budgets for those very different functions has to be based on statutory changes. This clean up of the ICANN budgetary process is VERY necessary. 4. An additional oversight layer, with limited authority to validate technical or technical related Board decisions, if required by any affected party. It should have the power to approve or disprove, but not to modify the technical or technically related decisions of the Board. In case of disapproval, it has to go back the "new" PDP based on the broad and balanced representation suggested under 1 and 2 above. 5. Numbering and Protocol related functions should be under entities that meet at least the same Accountably and Transparency standards and Naming functions. To the best of my knowledge not all RIRs meet those standards, nor can the IETF be compared to the bottom up policy development process of the GNSO. For legitimacy and credibility all IANA functions have to find stewardship under the same high standards. Best regards *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA*

1 0

Updated draft 3 for Work Area 2
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 20, 2014

Dec. 20, 2014

In this draft, I have merely re-arranged the accountability suggestions, 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 I presume staff will post this version to our Wiki so that all CCWG colleagues can review before our call on Tuesday. Both a pdf and Word doc are attached. --Steve On 12/12/14, 8:30 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Thanks to Malcolm Hutty for his edits today. And thanks to Marika Konings for sharing a staff summary<https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg> of accountability proposals taken from the public comment period. This made our job much easier. That staff document had about 250 ideas. I skipped those focusing on IANA functions since that is out of our CCWG scope. I skipped items that were just comments on current accountability. About 100 of the items were consolidated into the second draft of our deliverable (attached). Our current draft list is very manageable, at under 2 pages. Mathieu suggests we eventually add tags so that related items can be grouped together (e.g., “Checks and Balances”, “Review”, Redress”, etc.) Per a question from Mathieu, I propose 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? Please review and comment over the weekend, so we can send to our colleagues on Monday morning. Feel free to add accountability mechanisms that were suggested earlier this year, even if outside of ICANN’s public comment forum. 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 On 12/12/14, 5:08 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Thanks for volunteering to help with Work Area 2: to Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2. Our deliverable (by Monday) is a list of items that have been suggested, and identify whether these belong in WS1 or WS2. As our rapporteur, I drafted a format that might be useful to our working group colleagues. And I filled-in about a page of items to show how this format could work. (attached) There are around 70 comments in the two comment periods we need to examine. Not every comment includes suggested accountability mechanisms. The process I recommend is: First, scan the comment and for any accountability suggestion,and see if there’s already a similar item in the list/table. If so, add the comment source under the Source column (Google, BC, etc.) If not in the list yet, add the row and the source. Second, Indicate whether this accountability item should be required before the IANA contract is relinquished (WS1). If it can wait until after transition, it goes into Work Stream 2 (WS2) Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily. Make sense? Now, how to divide the work? I suggest that Paul Rosenzweig, Jordan Carter, and I go thru the 53 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/>, 7-May thru 30-Jul, 2014. Could we have a few others volunteer to go thru the second set of comments? There are 21 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/inde…>, 6-Sep thru 13-Oct, 2014 Ideas welcome! — 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 12/11/14, 5:11 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2 Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both. Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco Volunteers: * Jordan Carter * Leon Sanchez Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/

7 9

Comments from Mr. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC, ICG)
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 17, 2014

Dec. 17, 2014

Dear all, Here attached is Mr. Arasteh's first contribution to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as he shared on the main mailing list on 15 December. Below I've copied an excerpt of his document that relates to WA2. 2.2 Working Group 2 This working collects and complies information as contained in public comments relating to accountability. It is important to verify and collect all information and not selective comments irrespective from whether comments in question submitted by a community or by an individual Best, Grace

1 0

Updated draft for Work Area 2
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 13, 2014

Dec. 13, 2014

Thanks to Malcolm Hutty for his edits today. And thanks to Marika Konings for sharing a staff summary<https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg> of accountability proposals taken from the public comment period. This made our job much easier. That staff document had about 250 ideas. I skipped those focusing on IANA functions since that is out of our CCWG scope. I skipped items that were just comments on current accountability. About 100 of the items were consolidated into the second draft of our deliverable (attached). Our current draft list is very manageable, at under 2 pages. Mathieu suggests we eventually add tags so that related items can be grouped together (e.g., “Checks and Balances”, “Review”, Redress”, etc.) Per a question from Mathieu, I propose 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? Please review and comment over the weekend, so we can send to our colleagues on Monday morning. Feel free to add accountability mechanisms that were suggested earlier this year, even if outside of ICANN’s public comment forum. 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 On 12/12/14, 5:08 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Thanks for volunteering to help with Work Area 2: to Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2. Our deliverable (by Monday) is a list of items that have been suggested, and identify whether these belong in WS1 or WS2. As our rapporteur, I drafted a format that might be useful to our working group colleagues. And I filled-in about a page of items to show how this format could work. (attached) There are around 70 comments in the two comment periods we need to examine. Not every comment includes suggested accountability mechanisms. The process I recommend is: First, scan the comment and for any accountability suggestion,and see if there’s already a similar item in the list/table. If so, add the comment source under the Source column (Google, BC, etc.) If not in the list yet, add the row and the source. Second, Indicate whether this accountability item should be required before the IANA contract is relinquished (WS1). If it can wait until after transition, it goes into Work Stream 2 (WS2) Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily. Make sense? Now, how to divide the work? I suggest that Paul Rosenzweig, Jordan Carter, and I go thru the 53 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/>, 7-May thru 30-Jul, 2014. Could we have a few others volunteer to go thru the second set of comments? There are 21 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/inde…>, 6-Sep thru 13-Oct, 2014 Ideas welcome! — 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 12/11/14, 5:11 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2 Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both. Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco Volunteers: * Jordan Carter * Leon Sanchez Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/

3 3