July 2015 - Ccwg-accountability4

Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made.
by Avri Doria July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Hi, I am sure I missed some, but the ones I found going through the email while doing some prep work earlier today. Please let me know of any formulation I missed. _Doria 1_ /Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the UN./ _Curry __1_ /Work to ensure that ICANN respects human rights within its mission and accounts for the impact on human rights in its policy creation, policy implementation, review and assessment./ _Doria 2_ /In order to enure that openness of the Internet within ICANN's mission may be maintained, human rights impact assessments will be done on ICANN policies [as appropriate]/ _Doria 3_ /ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operations/ _Drazek 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information./ _Arasteh 1_ (I know there is one but i can't find the text.) _Shatan 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights/ _Drazek as amended by Lisse_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights, inter alia, the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information./ _Lisse 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect fundamental human rights, in particular the exercise of free expression, free flow of information and due process. / _Doria 4 (with offlist help)_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)./ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 3

Update for 15-Jul ST-WP call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

This doc will be discussed Wednesday 15 Jul at 11:00 UTC during our next ST WP call. It is also being packaged with other docs to be reviewed in Paris, since the ‘French freeze’ occurs before our call. I updated what I sent on 12-Jul, after analyzing public comments on Stress Tests, and extracting 2 stress tests from the Board-Legal memo. Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California courts. See pages 25-26. Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention. Edited ST 20 per comment from RySG Edited ST 20&24 per comment from Sue Radel Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl in public comments. See pages 27-28 Added a stress test on “rogue voting”. See page 29 Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests. See pages 30 – 33 Added two questions from the Board-Legal memo of Jun 20 (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>) but we cannot analyze until the enforcement model is settled.(p.34) First attachment is the updated ST doc for discussion on our next call, in prep for our presentation in Paris on Friday afternoon. Second attachment is redline from ST section we published on 3-May for public comment. Regarding the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>), Adam Peake went thru the memo and found more potential stress tests: 1. SO/AC Membership Model Q1. ST NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants? Q3. ST NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of capture? Q4. Might build conflict of interest considerations into ST NTIA-2. New test considering member powers (once known) and mitigate for. Q5. ST NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if SO/AC opt out. Q6. See new test mentioned in Q4, consider ST NTIA-4: Unintended consequences. Also Stickling's statement also says "How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?" which could be the basis of a new stress test or stress tests: does the proposal interfere with security and stability of the DNS test, and, a second test: does the proposal a create a different set of accountability questions. Q9. Suggests need for a test on the affect of member rights/powers (first identifying what those are). See Q4 above. If still relevant with the new model being considered? Q10. Q11, See Q9 and Q4. Q12. ST NTIA-2 and also new tests suggested in Q9 and Q4. Q14. ST NTIA-1 Q15. ST NTIA-1, consider adding concept of member dispute resolution to the test, and recommend to create such a mechanism if found relevant Q19. Proposed test, what if GAC advice is accepted by the board and rejected by the community mechanism (test was mentioned some months ago) 2. Community Right to Cause Reconsideration of or Reject Board Approved Budgets and Strategic/Operating Plans Q1. - Q5. See Q6 section above re security and stability. Voting thresholds in the community mechanism (council) may provide the answer, but if not new test. 3. Community Right to Reject Changes to "Standard" Bylaws and Approve Changes to "Fundamental" Bylaws Q1. See Q9 in section 1. Suggestion for a new test. 5. Community Right to Remove Entire ICANN Board Q1. Existing test on reputational risk? 6. Independent Review Process Enhancements Q1. New test on: potential ramifications of assigning "due process rights?"

2 1

For Paris Freeze doc: answering public comments on Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

The attached doc reflects my attempt to tackle the public comments received on Stress Testing in our 3-May draft CCWG proposal. For each comment, I analyzed, updated our latest draft of stress tests in several cases, and gave an explanation to the commenter. There are a few items that need further exploration, which are highlighted in yellow. This is by no means final, but is adequate for inclusion in the frozen PC analysis before Paris. —Steve

1 0

For 15-Jul ST-WP call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2015

July 13, 2015

As promised on our 8-Jul call, I updated our section on Stress Tests to reflect our discussion: Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California courts. See pages 25-26. Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention. Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl in public comments. See pages 27-28 Added a stress test on “rogue voting”. See page 29 Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests. See pages 30 - 33 First attachment is the updated ST doc for discussion on our next call, in prep for our presentation in Paris on Friday afternoon. Second attachment is redline from ST section we published on 3-May for public comment. Third attachment is the public comment notes document we discussed last week. Still need to review the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>). At our request, Adam Peake went thru the memo and found many potential stress tests: 1. SO/AC Membership Model Q1. ST NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants? Q3. ST NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of capture? Q4. Might build conflict of interest considerations into ST NTIA-2. New test considering member powers (once known) and mitigate for. Q5. ST NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if SO/AC opt out. Q6. See new test mentioned in Q4, consider ST NTIA-4: Unintended consequences. Also Stickling's statement also says "How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?" which could be the basis of a new stress test or stress tests: does the proposal interfere with security and stability of the DNS test, and, a second test: does the proposal a create a different set of accountability questions. Q9. Suggests need for a test on the affect of member rights/powers (first identifying what those are). See Q4 above. If still relevant with the new model being considered? Q10. Q11, See Q9 and Q4. Q12. ST NTIA-2 and also new tests suggested in Q9 and Q4. Q14. ST NTIA-1 Q15. ST NTIA-1, consider adding concept of member dispute resolution to the test, and recommend to create such a mechanism if found relevant Q19. Proposed test, what if GAC advice is accepted by the board and rejected by the community mechanism (test was mentioned some months ago) 2. Community Right to Cause Reconsideration of or Reject Board Approved Budgets and Strategic/Operating Plans Q1. - Q5. See Q6 section above re security and stability. Voting thresholds in the community mechanism (council) may provide the answer, but if not new test. 3. Community Right to Reject Changes to "Standard" Bylaws and Approve Changes to "Fundamental" Bylaws Q1. See Q9 in section 1. Suggestion for a new test. 5. Community Right to Remove Entire ICANN Board Q1. Existing test on reputational risk? 6. Independent Review Process Enhancements Q1. New test on: potential ramifications of assigning "due process rights?"

2 1

For 8-July call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Just a note to the Stress Test work party about tomorrow’s call (11 UTC) and preparing our next draft for public comment. The attached document notes stress test items gathered from queries, requests, and filed comments since 3-May. This is a very manageable task. However, there are many stress test items in the ICANN Legal/ICANN Board letter that came to us on 19-Jun (link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>). Have not yet had time to analyze those, and welcome your help there as well. Also, Malcolm Hutty wrote us about Stress Test #23 and the various enforcement models under consideration (Member, Designator, etc.) See Malcolm’s note below and his attached analysis. Would be great to discuss on our call. Best, Steve From: Malcolm Hutty Date: Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:09 AM To: "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Subject: [ST-WP] Analysis for Stress Test 23 Dear all, I hope you had a safe and comfortable trip back from Buenos Aires, those of you who were there. On my way back I spent some of the time writing up an analysis of how the CCWG proposal performs against stress test 23, under each of the models currently being discussed. The heart of this is a process diagram flow-chart. You may have to use zoom to read the text on the diagram; there is table of notes that explains each box on the diagram. I hope you find this a useful, 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/

1 0