May 2015 - Ccwg-accountability4

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for ST-WP #6 - 27 May
by Kimberly Carlson May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Stress Test WP Meeting #6 - 27 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772513 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items Action: answer to Avri's question "What is special about being members or not members in our test." Seek an answer to this Action: Steve to write up the scenario, and review on a future call. Action to re-write a stress test scenario to address the main issues in the thesis. To be sent to Chris and Paul to check issues have been captured. And this may take the group to test 28 (expansion of stress test 12). Notes Stress Test WP Meeting #6 - 27 May 2015 This call is being recorded. Links ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards AGENDA: NOTES & ACTION ITEMS: These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Roll call as AC room Towards the end of the public comment phase. Tuesday's 26 May CCWG call, re-start the stress tests and consider the implications of the different members and UA models on the test scenarios. Will powers be enforceable, and legal counsel seems to be advising that enforceability comes through California law. A common thread on the stress tests: almost all have the words: block, veto, challenge, binding. Sends a signal that the powers would be enforceable, not to rely on persuasion. If we look at the stress tests and remove blocking, veto, challenging, binding, do the tests still pass. When listening to the lawyers, also hear them saying we could take eachother to court right now. So this is not a special new power. For those who don't like courts, hear the answer that but that's the answer for the US. If we created shadow UA, where there is the SO/AC chair or other as the person making decisions, what holds them accountable to the group that sent them? So unless the SO/AC are the UA, you are creating another legal entity that is accountable to another non-legal entity. Case of the At Large: the existing rules of procedure for the At Large have clear rules for the removal of officers. Can be removed without cause at any stage. This might need to be considered across the SO/AC. Is a stress test needed: what if the designated member, the UA representative, then what happens if they don't follow directions of their community. Should the stress test team look at the role of each SO/AC to see of they means to remove there offices. Or produce a normative statement recommending SO/AC action? See stress test 12. But stress test group's task is not to produced such normative statements. That's the task of the whole CCWG. Consideration of capture internal to the SO/AC. Might requrie fine tuning of stress test 12. Text that when the representative is not heeding the wishes of their SO/AC membership, this should trigger recall of a representative New stress test that describes the flaw, when creating the individual to represent the membership in the UA, when they are not listening/heeding the membership, that recall and reappointment is appropriate. They should act as instructed or as agreed by their community. GNSO has five votes. And if one of the SG believes that the individual holding the vote on their behalf is not acting, behaving ask directed by that SG, then the SG would be able to remove that person. 3 scenarios. An identity between the SO/AC. The other extreme is the chairs are designated as the members of the SO/AC. And fuzzy, when the SO/AC is not an UA or has a UA attached to it. May 3rd legal memo: 4 stress tests in that document, but only relating to the UA. If a councillor refused to leave the stage, what would we do? May quote from the memo in the new test. See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/REVISED%20Memo%20 on%20Unincorporated%20Associations%20May%203%2C%202015-207411876-v4.pdf But, as the US can already take them to court. The end of every process, potentially. What is special about being members or not members in our test? Question of winning. Should have standing, and members have that. And winning once there. Action: answer to Avri's question "What is special about being members or not members in our test." Seek an answer to this Stress test on budgets: power to veto: veto and block. we are talking of an enforceable power. Without the power, we haven't improved accountability. Have the ability to challenge through an IRP. And might reverse the decision, but when reversed we expect it to be binding, enforceable. So see a weakening of the first bunch of stress tests without enforceability. And to what degree is enforceability different for each member arrangements? from ST-WP that the action of comparison of powers from CCWG call of 6 May will be required. Stress test 9. Corruption/fraud. Force the board. To veto or block a budget tainted by fraud. If board members were involved then they should be recalled. This requires enforceability. Go to court, or vote someone out. These are basically two unacceptable ways of achieving a goal. What membership adds, is not acceptable. Why the degree of enforceability rests in a court of law. But doesn't change the answer in a column 3 of the stress test. For consideration by the lawyers/legal team: a comparison of enforceability among the different structures. A comparision of enforceability. Standing and the likelihood to prevail Chris Disspain suggested stress test (email displayed) 1. A vote that directs the board to take an action. The ability to force to board to do something seems to be part of the CCWG myth. The AoC review teams recommend and action, the Board decides not to as it's outside the mission, the rejection of the Board action becomes a reversal of the Board's decision to do nothing. Rephrase 1. 2. A disagreement about whether the issue was outside the scope of the bylaws. Is it directing the board, or canceling the decision? Action: Steve to write up the scenario, and review on a future call. Is the court evaluation the authority of the community to make the changes, or is it testing the substance of the issue. The court affirms the community's authority. i.e. ultimate authority is being handed to the members. If an IRP evaluates a decision and revokes that decision, nothing has changed. Consideration of the email, analysis of it. Action to re-write a stress test scenario to address the main issues in the thesis. To be sent to Chris and Paul to check issues have been captured. And this may take the group to test 28 (expansion of stress test 12). First 30 on of the next call to review the rest of the stress test. And the remaining hour for the two new scenarios: Disspain email and the modification of the capture Invite Chirs and or Paul Szyndler, and Leon if legal input needed.

1 0

Re: [ST-WP] [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Avri Doria May 25, 2015

May 25, 2015

Hi On 25-May-15 08:23, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > In my opinion, having a couple Directors who understand the functioning of the IFO in meeting TLD registry needs would increase the chances that the Board would " have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly and effectively". What guarantee is there that just because the Registries appoint the people they would be knowledgeable about the all issues before the PTI on any particular year or that they would understand the IFO any better than anyone else. Does every person in Registry SG have the requisite knowledge and judgement? Additionally wouldn't the fact that they were from Registries mean it was more likely they had a bone to pick with the IFO? I expect that the Registries would have to use some sort of judgement in deciding. As the Registries particpate in the nomcom they can bring their judgement to bear in that group in a multistakeholder manner. As with others, I am speaking personally and have not gone to my SG yet to check on what they thought of a PTI Board biased toward Registries. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

Stress Test and Accountability
by Avri Doria May 16, 2015

May 16, 2015

Hi, Was reading something that was quoting Strickling and came across: it is critical that this group conduct “stress testing” of proposed solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as attempts to influence or take over ICANN—be it the Board,staff or any stakeholder group—that are not currently possible given its contract with NTIA. Which got me wondering. To what extent, and how, would NTIA been able to respond to all of our stress tests. Is our answer in all cases: Not renew the contract a few years from now. Is that an answer we should be able to give? If we were to be challenged that some of our stress test go beyond anything that NTIA could have done anything about, do we have an answer? Is the NTIA contract a hammer for all stress tests. Sitting here on Saturday morning in Geneva during a break in the ITU Council meeting, I wonder. There have been accountability problems at ICANN for a while, and various of us do beleive that it has at least been partially captured at various times (we may even beleive that it is currently captured to some degree - though the better part of collegiality indicates we should not talk about that too much). What has NTIA done on those occasions? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

2 2

Do we cover this condition
by Avri Doria May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Hi, One of the concern going around at the moment is that if we legally separate IANA as the CWG is close to planning, that some rich mega corporation could come along and gain control. I tend to believe this could only happen if ICANN were to sell it to them. Which seems unlikely. What do you all think? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

2 1