- Ccwg-accountability2 - lists.icann.org

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

Additions to table from elsewhere
by Malcolm Hutty Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Not everything that needs to be considered was raised in that particular public comments round. Please find attached additions to your table to include some comments in which I was involved made in other comments rounds, together with citations. Three of them (Prevent Board acting ultra vires, Prevent Board changing mission without community consensus, Ensure Board adheres to Bylaws) would be appropriate for inclusion on the list of "Stress tests" the BC has produced. The last was a suggestion from ISPCP for a possible alternative to the recently proposed "Bylaws change for GAC advice", decision on which was deferred by the Board pending this group's work. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- 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

2 1

Re: [Area 2] Welcome to Work Area 2
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Thanks, that first link is very helpful, Marika. Wish I’d discovered it earlier! On 12/12/14, 8:15 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Steve, You may have already seen this, but following the public comment period, staff also attempted to summarise the issues as well as solutions identified that may assist in this effort. You can find the summary of proposed solutions here: https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg and the summary of issues identified here: https://community.icann.org/x/mibxAg. Best regards, Marika From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday 12 December 2014 06:08 To: "ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Area 2] Welcome to Work Area 2 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/

1 0

Re: [Area 2] Welcome to Work Area 2
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

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/

1 0

4 New Volunteers
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Dear all, There are four new volunteers to this group: * Siva * Cheryl * Becky * Stephanie Best, Grace

1 0

Welcome to Work Area 2
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

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 Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/

1 0