Brian, Jonathan & Councilors: This aligns fairly closely with the RrSG position that each SO/AC should submit the number of delegates required to be representative, but be encouraged to keep the number as small as possible. Thanks- J. From: <Winterfeldt>, "Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com>> Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 12:56 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Dear Jonathan: As an initial reaction, I am tentative to agree with the four SG representative model for this WG. In parallel, with respect to the IANA transition steering committee, I would refer you to the formal IPC comments on the matter below. The comments essentially conclude that each of the seven constituent organizations within the GNSO should be represented on the steering committee. · ISSUE:The composition of theSteering Committeeis troublesome. o Fromthe GNSOpoint ofview, havingonly two memberson the Steering Committeeis inconsistent with the multistakeholder compositionof the GNSO. The GNSOis an “umbrella” forseven distinctorganizations,representing different categoriesof stakeholders,with widelydiffering and often opposed points of view.It isnot acceptable that at least five,if not six, of the GNSO constituentorganizations, and atleast two, and possiblythree, of theGNSO Stakeholder Groupswill not berepresented onthe SteeringCommittee. Who willnot be representedand why? o On theother hand, theASO (as an ICANNSO) and the NRO(as an “affected party”) each get2 representatives.However, theASO and the NROare essentially thesame organization pursuant to their2004 Memorandum of Understanding.(This MoUestablishes that theNRO fulfills therole, responsibilities, and functionsof the ASO as definedwithin theICANN Bylaws. Seehttp://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou,A.... 1.) o Viewedfrom outsideICANN, thisis an even moretroublesome proposal. For example,if one orboth of the GNSOrepresentatives is fromeither theRegistry or RegistrarSG, therewould beno representativeof the “private sector”(i.e., CSG) or no representativeof “civilsociety” (i.e.,NCSG), orboth. Atthe same time,it is possible thatthe Registriescould haverepresentatives comingthrough IETF or IABchannels, givingthem additionalrepresentation. · PROPOSAL:The Steering Groupshould bereconstituted so thateach of theseven constituentorganizations of theGNSO has a SteeringCommittee seat, whilethe NRO/ASO (combined) entityhas two seats. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: May 23, 2014 at 9:43:18 AM EDT To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Agree with Volker, John & Jonathan, and believe this approach should be adopted by other community groups (e.g. The proposed IANA Steering Group). Thanks— J. From: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:38 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Jonathan, I would support any recommendation that properly weights the voice of the GNSO community. Berard On May 23, 2014 4:29 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, It is my view that the GNSO should reasonably expect to have four representatives (one per SG) on this Working Group. Please let me know if you think similarly or differently. Jonathan From: David Olive [mailto:david.olive@icann.org] Sent: 16 May 2014 08:46 To: Jonathan Robinson; Byron Holland; Louie Lee; heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca<mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Lars-Johan Liman; Jun Murai Cc: Theresa Swinehart; Samantha Eisner Subject: FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Dear SO-AC Chairs: In follow up to ICANN’s recent announcement on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability review, part of the success of this group will be through the SO and AC’s identification of members to serve on the Working Group. In contrast to the ATRT reviews and others, ICANN will not be making community appointments to the group from a slate of identified candidates; the community representation on this Working Group is to be determined by the SO/AC leadership. We are hoping that you can start consideration of membership from SO or AC that you are leading. As ICANN is trying to align the timeline of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability work to the IANA Stewardship Transition work, we are hoping that we can have community representation identified in advance of ICANN50 in London. To help structure the work of the Working Group, ICANN has identified a range of subject matter areas within which competency would be helpful, including: · Internet Technical Operations · International Organizational Reviews · Global Accountability Tools and Metrics · Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism · Internet Consumer Protection · Economics (Marketplace and Competition) · Global Ethics Frameworks · Operational, Finance and Process · Board Governance · Transparency · Risk Management While we did not specify the full number of community members that will be appointed to the Working Group, we are hopeful that each SO and AC will consider identifying two representatives (and no more than three) so that the Working Group is of a size that can perform its work in an efficient manner. We also encourage the consideration of the subject matters when identifying representatives. If you have more questions about this process, please let Theresa Swinehart or myself know. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:47 AM To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> Subject: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabilit... Proposed Next Steps for the Process Establishing the ICANN Accountability Working Group: At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, members of the community suggested establishing a working group to address topics raised around ICANN Accountability. To respond to both the community dialogues and suggestions, an ICANN Accountability Working Group is proposed. The leaders of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be responsible for appointment of community members to the Working Group. Community members with skills in the subject matter areas listed below are encouraged to have their names put forward by the leadership of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for participation in the Working Group before the end of the comment and reply period. The Board may appoint liaisons to the Working Group. ICANN staff will identify external experts in these subject matter areas to join the Working Group and bring in new ideas. The subject matter areas are: * Internet Technical Operations * International Organizational Reviews * Global Accountability Tools and Metrics * Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism * Internet Consumer Protection * Economics (Marketplace and Competition) * Global Ethics Frameworks * Operational, Finance and Process * Board Governance * Transparency * Risk Management After the public comment and reply period, the Working Group will commence in time for the ICANN 50 Meeting. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all including experts. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would coordinate community dialogue, including discussion on draft materials on the discussions and proposed themes outlined above with regards to strengthening ICANN's accountability to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and other identified issues. One of the first tasks of the Working Group will be to identify the issues that need to be solved. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would prepare a draft report on issues identified including whether measures are needed to strengthen ICANN's accountability, and if so, the recommended time frames for development of new or improved mechanisms, if any. The draft report would be provided for public comment. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would submit its final report to the ICANN Board. The Board would immediately and publicly post the final report, consider whether to adopt all or parts of it, and direct the CEO to implement those parts it has accepted once that decision is made. It is expected that the ICANN Accountability Working Group would operate in an open, transparent and inclusive process, primarily through remote participation opportunities, that would include: * A website that would include a timeline of activities and events, as well as all materials and communications from the working group, and a full archive of all content provided and evaluated throughout the process; * A mailing list to ensure anyone can remain involved in the activities and progress of the group; and, * All meetings and phone conference would be open for stakeholders to observe and transcripts and recordings would be posted. Questions for Community Discussion: As the next steps are being outlined and process finalized, ICANN is collecting community input to help provide feedback to further the work of the ICANN Accountability Working Group once it is comprised. ICANN is now seeking community discussion on both the questions first posed in March 2014 as well as some additional questions: * What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? * What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? * Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? * What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? * What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? Please provide your input on the questions above at comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14@icann.org<mailto:comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14@icann.org> Download a PDF of this document here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.pdf> [PDF, 375 KB]. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================