January 2015 - Ccwg-accountability3

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

Dear All, This is one option . We need to llok at other options At anyrate, the apportionment of representation is an important issue. There is no equal footing between SO ,AC as some wouls have more qwider representation which should be respected. Regards Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: 2015-01-28 20:58 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Eric, To be clear, no one has ever said that, “…only registries can provide the necessary oversight of the Board as it relates to the continued function of the Root Zone Management.” Where did you get that? In order for any accountability structure to be meaningful and acceptable, it should represent all members of the community and there should be appropriate balance among all community participants and interests. As an employee of a gTLD Registry and Chair of the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group, I can state definitively that we have a strong interest in ICANN’s accountability to us and to the rest of the community. I find your suggestion that registries might not have a place in a possible cross-community membership model odd, to say the least. Regards, Keith *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric Brunner-Williams *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:51 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure On 1/28/15 8:50 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: If a ccTLD manager is not a member of the ccNSO, is paying no fees to ICANN and is not bound by ccNSO policy, please help me understand how they are impacted and why they would care about the ICANN Board's accountability mechanisms to its community. I fully understand why every TLD registry cares about the IANA functions and changes to the root zone file, but our issue of greater ICANN Accountability is a broader discussion than the IANA-specific concerns and accountability mechanisms currently being addressed via the CWG Transition. It is not so very long ago that a (previous) Executive and (previous) Board made changes requested by delegees of iso3166 code points conditional upon a form of agreement. The policy pursued by that Executive and that Board were not subject to substantive community review (notice and comment) prior to being implemented, with the accountability issue I hope many, not just the directly concerned, still recall. Additionally, the interests of parties (of any type) need not encompass the union of all interests of all parties in the mechanisms and policies relating to accountability. The pursuit of the narrow self-interest of a hypothetical ccTLD, or gTLD, delegee or contractual party, through its operator, should not, by itself, remove a party pursuing its narrow self-interest from what ever may eventually be a body of "members". Were it so, the removed would be at least some of those the USG observed in the AOC which constitute " a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally." However, given the general awareness that the continued function of the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners is of fundamental importance, and the limited interest _as_delegees_or_contractees_ in issues other than the continued function of the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners, it seems unnecessary to encumber the problem of accountability-via-membership (already quite difficult if not intractable, in my opinion) with notions that delegees and contractees, as delegees or contractees, contribute an interest absent but for their status as "members", whether represented en toto, or as self-organized aggregates, or by lottery. In simple terms, why registries-as-members at all? Does anyone believe only registries can provide the necessary oversight of the Board as it relates to the continued function of the Root Zone Management? I think that the function of the Board is general oversight of the registries, arising from its technical coordination of unique endpoint identifiers delegated authority, and contractual oversight arising from its delegated contracting authority, so the assumption that registries have a necessary place in a hypothetical membership model is one that should be examined carefully for self-interest and self-dealing, as well as for necessity and utility. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Fwd: draft response to Lise and Jonathan
by Avri Doria Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I sent the following in reply: > > > Seems mostly ok. On the IAP, I thought there was also an element where the proposals may not be aligned and that CWG needed to also explore its own mechanisms. > > Also, should i should send it on to the WA 3 - am i authorized to do so. > > thanks > > avri Got authorization to pass it on in the phone call. And asked for a day to reply. Note I will be reporting on this in the CWG meeting on Thursday, so would like this sent before then, avri - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: draft response to Lise and Jonathan Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:55:45 +0100 From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Hi Avri, we have prepared a response to Lise and Jonathan, which you find below. As promised, we keep you in the loop. Are you ok with us sending it as is? Thanks, Thomas Dear Lise and Jonathan, Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January. It was helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was informative and showed we are working in the same direction. We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that discussion follows. You can also find details of the session, including staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500 (noting that the draft is a living document and we held our discussions on 19 January. • Budget Accountability and Transparency While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically address the IANA budget. Therefore we encourage the CWG to recommend measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget, we will support requests for increased transparency. • Accountability for (re)delegations To the extent that the Board may take decisions on this area, CCWG intends to recommend accountability mechanisms that would be relevant and supportive. We expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration process for Board as well as management/staff decisions. • Independent Review of Board Actions CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very much in tune with CWG approach. • Independent Appeals Panel We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we aligned in our thinking/approach. • Control over ICANN Board decisions. When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had not had chance to review before the meeting. The CCWG is now considering options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions. We are very aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature of the ICANN policy decision-making process. Community oversight of Board decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to make a decision in the case of inaction. This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the coming weeks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUx+R/AAoJEOo+L8tCe36H0kUH/0tfzmiRYrLaAjzqU5KygxkO hIV6T5i5tFfjssevYGIQdRwDgzsaEdYPY763nMXz9vYmgfiB03tlfL0CCCtC4Bxx d26VdihXAjlNX15aNw8RB9h/fG++VxTn0k3ELGDzwhscuRoaoGLlI7fd3Z971jE8 KTjUaKJ16qmDs/xO5IK2bS6O+vUi6IBsgmtVFD2rdnImJPT6rGNdZN32MiutR+o+ vdiYpidU22/oWfb7IjQsIq4GZj6fS32VqGDln4ZVNQRvYan7jZnHC3zH0H+tdJ5M 2zCw/o48NtEPUjLbxZHhy18jyyJ3NLS8sY8Z+ZHeZtP5pn53Sv8YWETxf7NcyC0= =FHQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Snapshot of CW-Stewardship Accountability dependencies
by Avri Doria Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Hi, Apologies for this last minute contribution to our meeting, but the CWG is still developing its solution and it has proven challenging to nail down the accountability dependencies. The attached document, is a draft/snapshot of where we have gotten to at this point. The issues are still under discussion as we have both the mainstream 'Frankfurt' model that was the subject of our comment draft and have several alternative 'Internal model' proposals that are being discussed based on comments received. Some of these dependency concerns may be more applicable to one model than another, but even that is still difficult to accurately delineate. Also in some instances, like the IAP (Independent Appeals Panel) we have yet to 'decide' whether this uses a mechanism that the CCWG-Accountability might create or is a structure the transition team builds separately. The dependencies paper is short and does not include much by way of description or explanation - the Stewardship solution is still under discussion. I will be happy to provide as much explanation as I can during the meeting, as I am sure the various other members/participants of the CWG-Stewardship who are attending this week's meeting will do. I will bring back to the CWG-Stewardship any comments the CCWG may have on thses issues. I suggest that the WA3 will be able to continue to dig deeper after our meeting. Thanks avri

1 0

CWG-CCWG issue matrix
by Avri Doria Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Hi, I have started building a matrix of the related issues. Only one entry so far, but now that the table is started others can either tell me what to add, or add themselves. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WS3+-+CWG-CCWG+issue+matr… Do we need to plan on a conference call? Or can we use the table and the email list for a bit. The subject does permeate the other discussion so I am not sure what we would do in a specific meeting on this issue, but perhaps it would be good to have a least one. Please let me know. thanks avri

2 2

Re: [Area 3] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote "* in the absence “**mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." * *Unquote* *Kavouss * 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris(a)milk.toast.net>: > +1 > > Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to > anything I could write. Thanks. > > One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency > (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should > actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem > is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a > system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. > We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems > of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and > open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place > before the transition can be allowed to occur. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn>, < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 > Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition > > Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms > in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the > Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the > exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made > before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there > is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it > affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the > community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would > further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had > consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should > not occur. > > Paul > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > 509 C St. NE > Washington, DC 20002 > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > *From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM > *To:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition > > Dear all, > > I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found > it too different from the one in our charter: > > In the charter: > · *Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN > accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame > of the IANA Stewardship Transition; > · *Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics > for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may > extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition > > The new proposal: > · *Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or > committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any > accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability > would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even > if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against > the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. > · 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. > > I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter > without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their > approval. > > On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of > having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done > in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement > > I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Tijani BEN JEMAA * > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est > active. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

2 1

Re: [Area 3] [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Alissa Thankj you very much for that explanation However, I draw your attention to the part of the CCWG Charter as ststed below: Quote “In the discussions around the accountability process, the CCWG-Accountabili ty will proceed with two Work Streams: · *Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition*; Whereas · *Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition* *In that sense , ICG is expected to receive the results of activities of Work Stream 1 .No doubt the activities of that Work Stream should include but not limited to cover the outcome of the CWG accountability part on naming . * *Moreover, Work Stream 1 shall also receive the inputs from **for **CRISP( for numbers ) **; and from **IANAPLAN.( foir protocol and parameters ) .* *In other words all accountabilities relating to Naming, Numbers , and proptocol including parapametrs ,irrespective their transmission to ICG as You have mentioned , must be seen together in a pachkage by CCWG under Work Stream 1. .Without that information from CCWG the accountability actions referred to in WS1 IANA TRANSITION WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.* *This is an issue that must be discussed in CCWG thoroughly.* *Moreover, I do not understand the term “ CONDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY” the accountability is not coherenet and understandable with such qualification.* *In addition the results of CWG ,efven if it come to ICG at the end of Januar , it must have the consensus of community . I have doubt that community would have sufficient time to comment on the output of CWG.* *I therefroe see a major difficulty here that such a proposal may come from CWG at the end of Jan. 2015 without being sufficiently discussed by the community and not reached consensus.* *We are rushing to do something which may have serious inconsistencies . * *Regards* *Kavouss * 2015-01-15 7:49 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: > Agreed. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Thanks Alissa, > > > > I think this is spot on. > > > > Best, > > Keith Drazek > > > > *From:* internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM > *To:* ICG > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline > > > > Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the > relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran > the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and > make sure we are all on the same page. > > > > In our RFP < > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en…> > we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational > communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was > convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP > response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it > was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN. > > > > RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to > the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal > that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send > it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals > that are missing the oversight and accountability component. > > > > We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the > communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the > last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest > of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal > for submission to NTIA < > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…>. > As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be > complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not > be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG. > > > > Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common > is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps > that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but > not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other > bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For > example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it > expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might > outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN > proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects > other parties to make. > > > > I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have > this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish > the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We > have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and > we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will > send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus > if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns > out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both > the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have > to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it. > > > > Alissa > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >

1 0

Comments on accountabilty
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear Mathieu Dear All Please find attached my comments on the document provided by mathieu on accountabilty Regards Kavouss

1 0

Re: [Area 3] [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 3, 2015

Jan. 3, 2015

Dear Avri, Dear All. Thank you very much for your comments I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to «community" What is that magic term "community» covers? Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders? As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society Private Sector, Technical Community including academics Governments In your views and the views other those who repeatedly refer to "Community" do they mean; Global Multistakeholer" as described above. If that is the case how the " community" fits in that overall description. When there are comments received from «community" have we checked whether all four categories of multistakeholder have commented? Do we treat the comments with equal footing. I know that your are defending the equal rights of the constituency In CSTD you defended that equality of rights for more than 2 hours and finally succeeded to win How we decide whether comments from a limited number of people ( mostly those who comments on everything are representing which of those four categories of community How we have taken into account whether the number of comments is representative of the entire multistakeholder . I give you an example, for the issue of ICANN accountability at one point of time ICANN mentioned based on 17 comments it modified the approach previously submitted. Did we checked whether all four categories of Multistakeholder commented ? Have we checked whether any Government commented or as they are frustrated they did not? What footing criteria were used to conclude on the representativeness of the comments? Did we consider comment made on behalf on a big community with equal footing with comments received from an individual who spoke on behalf of herself or himself? We need to be careful when we refer to the term “ community” Until the time that the constituents of Global Multistakeholder Community is not clearly specified and their footing are not agreed ,it is difficult to associate any serious value to the comment received from a limited number of permanent commenting people which may not representing the community as such. Best Regards Your friend Kavouss 2015-01-02 16:42 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>: > Dear Kavouss > > > > I reply to you privately simply because I think we have pretty much > exhausted our friends on the listserve. I found your answer fascinating. > And I think, in the end, the difference lies in the perspectives of our > different worlds. Where I work (here in Washington DC) if I am going to > have a fight with someone, it is often beneficial to create a public > perception that I am being reasonable and the other fellow is the one who > is being unreasonable – and having the Board say “no” to my question would > help me in that regard. > > > > Best wishes > > Paul > > > > > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, January 2, 2015 9:10 AM > > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig > *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > > > Dear Paul, > > Dear All > > I am coming back to reply to your kind responses on which we have major > agreement on the substance but different views on the approaches. > > Let me just clarify my points that I raised many times and no answer was > give. > > Currently, there is constitutional and legal mechanism for ICANN > accountability > > On the other hand, there are some sort of optional accountability ( in > form of ATRT Recommendations and comments received from a limited number of > people ( Public Comments ) > > However, there is no mechanism at all to verify whether the > responsibilities entrusted to the Board have been properly held or > implemented. > > Moreover, there are not any constitutional (legally adopted) by > stakeholder accountability terms and conditions. > > We have bylaws crafted by board and under the Board authority to modify > and or update > > In my view having more than 40 years of constitutional experience the > Board is no more than an executive entity > > What they execute is AoC and Bylaws .The first one is designed to meet the > NTIA requirement .The second one is a quasi-unilateral provisions crafted > by Board and commented by a limited number of people ( public ) without > knowing that whether or not that limited number of people commented > represents the entire multistakeholders ( Civil Society, Private Sector, > Technical Community including Academics and last but not leased Governments > ) > > There is no separation of authority between those who establish policy/ > Multistakeholders or their legally designated or elected representatives > with appropriate footing and those who implement policies ( ICANN) and in > particular the policy itself ( modified version of AoC plus modified Bylaws > ) Every thing is mixed. > > Currently ICANN is at least is responsible to NTIA for certain actions and > responsible to UNKNOWN Public for certain other actions .Once the > transition is done the entire responsibilities goes to that UNKNOWN Public > without having any authority to scrutinize actions implemented and no > authority to sanction those who did not implement the established policy > > Now CCWG is making every effort to clarify the situation .We are at the > beginning of the process. In my view, that takes many months if not many > years to do so . > > Now you and those supporting your approach consider that we need to ask > the Board in an upfront approach what they believe implementable and what > believe Un/ Non implementable > > Allow me dear Paul to describe the scenarios. > > We would wish to ask an entity whether or not that entity agrees that we > a) limit its authority) designating or establishing a mechanism for > overnighting their action and c) implement sanctions if they have not or > will not perform their duties as prescribed by the Policy Terms and > condition > > Now I am asking this simple question > > Do you know any one or any entity wants that a) ,b) and C) individually > and or/ collectively be implemented in her or his regard? > > In this world that we are living no one wants to be limited in authority > nor being held more responsible than she or he is currently responsible > and more importantly no one which is not under any sanctioning rules to be > under that rules > > If the answer is yes, then we should not raise any question to them at all. > > Moreover, does the legislating authority ask the executing authority which > kind of authority sphere or responsibility domain it wishes to perform its > function? > > The answer is no > > The legislator establishes the laws and rules and the executing entity > MUST implement that Law or Rule. > > However, in devising those laws and Rules there is continuing dialogues > between the two CCWG and ICANN Board. > > In summary, in view of the above, we should not raise any such questions > to the Board but continue to exchange views between the Board and CCWG ,as > appropriate > > Kavouss > > > > > > 2015-01-02 9:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > > Dear Paul, > > Thank you very much in deed to kindly answering my question. > > Yes it helps ( your clarification) . > > I will revert to you in few hours > > Thanks again for your kind answer and analysis > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 Jan 2015, at 00:08, Paul Rosenzweig < > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss > > > > Thank you for this question which is a very sensible one. Let me try to > clarify what I am trying to accomplish by my proposal. > > > > I am a complete and firm support of Board accountability to the > Community. That is 100% clear and I think you and I are in firm agreement > on that. > > > > I may, however, not be clear about my method and process. From my > perspective the strongest accountability would be with a clear Bylaw > limitation on ICANN functionality and a provision for an outside arbiter. > Both of those changes would require Board approval. I am not trying to > subordinate the CCWG to the Board. Far from it – what I am trying to do > is find out as early in the process whether the Board is going to be > willing to agree to subordinate itself to the Community through those > mechanisms. > > > > So, I think the place where you may misunderstand me is at the very end of > your note – where you say “why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those > areas of accountability that Board wishes?” I think you are assuming that > if the Board said “no” to the questions I was asking that my reaction would > be to say “oh … oh well. That is OK. If the Board won’t agree, we can’t > do it.” > > > > My real reaction, in practice, would be exactly the opposite – I would > urge the Community to dig in for an extended discussion with the Board and > use my limited powers of persuasion to rally the community to demand that > the Board changed its mind. J And I would probably urge CCWG to > recommend those same things anyway – but at least we would do that knowing > what was going to happen. > > > > Does that help? > > Regards > > Paul > > > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:39 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig > *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > > > Dear Paul, > > The way you commenting on the matter could have two different > interprétations or leave two different impressions: > > A) You are a firm supporter of accountabilty process when we note your > comments about Mathieu > > B) You wish to raise the question Under discussion to the Board asking > what they wish to see from CCWG and what they do not see from CCWG .The > latter interpretation ,in my view, seems to be subordinating CCWG to the > Board in the sense that we just study, elaborate and recoomend those area > of accountability that Board is comfortable with but not CCWG address the > full picture, objectives, requiremnets of accountability. > > Pls find a coherence between interpretation A) and interpretation B) .In > order words if you are really in favour of addressing the accountability in > a fullflege scope why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those areas of > accountability that Board wishes? > Thank you very much to clarify your position. > > Best Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-01-01 21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>: > > Bruce is a wonderful man. But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal > commitment from the Board. That’s why we need to ask the question in an > official manner. > > > > Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with > ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a > question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess > when/if it perceives such would be very limited. If we are so unwilling to > even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.” > > > > In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1 > has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we > might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong result. > > > > Warm regards > > Paul > > > > ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** > > 509 C St. NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM > *To:* Seun Ojedeji > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made > > > > Dear All > > I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG. > > Still why there is a need that we raise any such question to the Board, > > Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison > > Kavouss > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if > those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more > of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing > and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in > this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be > encouraging to have implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board > majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the > earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better. > > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > wrote: > > Hello Seun, > > >> I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome > especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law > modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making > process may be useful. > > In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously > been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated > with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en . > > Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here: > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en > > Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows: > > - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG > > - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws > > - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment (45 days) > > - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments - a 2/3 majority of the Board > is required to make a bylaw change > > If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws > language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public > comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >

3 2