Hi, I understand why many think that we need 4 reps, and that seems like it should be easy to agree with. My thoughts go to parity. Are we also arguing that all other groups should have 4 (numerical parity), or are we saying each according to their needs (some sort of social/organizational parity). For example, do we support that At-Large, which is organized around regions, should get 5. Needs based parity is ok with me, I just want to be clear. I also am concerned that we seem to believe that it is impossible for each house to find someone who can neutrally and equitably represent the interests, needs and viewpoints of both sides of a house. Though this is perhaps more a question for the GNSO review. avri

Jonathan, As we have seen in other areas (e.g., the proliferation of staff-initiated cross community working groups, the call for primary comment from the Council on issues of interest to the constituencies, the reliance on outside experts), ICANN is moving to rely on credentials and hierarchy to accelerate its decision making time frames in the face of political need. We ought to avoid succumbing to such stimulus & response by offering up a proposal or two of our own that aligns with the expectations of the constituencies and stakeholder groups we represent. By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 5/29/14 7:44 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Thanks Avri, From my perspective, you raise an important additional / related point here on parity. To the extent that the GNSO "gets" its 4 or more participants, what does this mean for the other SO & ACs? Also, if any issue in the group goes beyond discussion and is taken to a vote, how many votes per SO / AC? Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 25 May 2014 16:35 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Hi, I understand why many think that we need 4 reps, and that seems like it should be easy to agree with. My thoughts go to parity. Are we also arguing that all other groups should have 4 (numerical parity), or are we saying each according to their needs (some sort of social/organizational parity). For example, do we support that At-Large, which is organized around regions, should get 5. Needs based parity is ok with me, I just want to be clear. I also am concerned that we seem to believe that it is impossible for each house to find someone who can neutrally and equitably represent the interests, needs and viewpoints of both sides of a house. Though this is perhaps more a question for the GNSO review. avri

For clarity, I should highlight that I raised three points on the call with the CEO, which I believe to be connected as follows: 1. Workload / resourcing 2. Bottom-up and what is understood by this 3. Representation & weighting N.B. I am not convinced we are setting the agenda on the question of 4 or 5, merely stating that 2 or 3 doesn't work in most if not all cases. There was a spontaneous suggestion from Fadi of some sort of intercessional workshop to discuss and better understand these. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 29 May 2014 16:15 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Hi, On 29-May-14 10:55, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.

I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process, there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model. I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind. For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to represent us. That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives. On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and they want to bring every issue back to vox populi. Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other. The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak. avri

I should be clear that I am extremely cautious around the issues of representing or being seen to represent the GNSO since I am clearly aware of the sensitivities here. Important to note that today’s call had participation from groups within the GNSO. To the extent that I end up in any dialogue with staff I am very clear on the structure and functioning of the GNSO. Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 29 May 2014 16:40 To: Avri Doria; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Avri, Now it is a party. With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations. As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many. If I were Fadi, I'd want to do the same thing. It makes life neater and makes decisions more easily reached. But that is not the way we have and ought to work. My view. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 5/29/14 8:14 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Hi, On 29-May-14 10:55, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.

I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process, there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model. I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind. For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to represent us. That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives. On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and they want to bring every issue back to vox populi. Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other. The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak. avri

Hi, I strongly disagree with this. avri On 29-May-14 12:21, Tony Holmes wrote:

I have to support John here. Any expectation by ICANN staff or from Fadi, that Jonathan or anyone else as chair of the Council can speak for all of the GNSO on any, issue needs to be nailed. It’s not a practical proposition, neither is it fair on those individuals who sit in the hot seat. However I have little doubt that if we don’t continually strive to make that abundantly clear, it’ll be used as a fast track route for progressing contentious issues when it suits.

This does not imply any criticism, I’m aware that Jonathan in particular has often gone out of his way to state that he’s not empowered to speak for the GNSO on a variety of issues. It also underlines the lack of appreciation of how different and diverse the GNSO is compared with most other SO’s. That’s something we need to work hard to change at every opportunity.

Tony

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *john@crediblecontext.com *Sent:* 29 May 2014 16:40 *To:* Avri Doria; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

Avri,

Now it is a party. With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations.

As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.

If I were Fadi, I'd want to do the same thing. It makes life neater and makes decisions more easily reached. But that is not the way we have and ought to work.

My view.

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 5/29/14 8:14 am To: council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi,

On 29-May-14 10:55, john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point > of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up > process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside > (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it. >

I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process, there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model.

I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind. For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to represent us.

That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives.

On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and they want to bring every issue back to vox populi.

Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other.

The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak.

avri

On 29-May-14 13:42, Tony Holmes wrote:

Hi Avri Not sure whether you disagree with part of it or all?

I rarely fully agree or fully disagree with anything. (I am sure we can find counter examples) Though I often do it strongly.

But if you can find someone who can faithfully claim to represent all of the diverse views of the many GNSO Constituencies on every topic and satisfy all parties in doing that, then they're working below their pay grade and would be better employed solving world peace. :-)

We elect them to represent. It is their job to do that. They can fairly represent and they can point to others when there is view they do not feel qualified to state neutrally. I think that the ability to express the viewpoint of others neutrally and fairly is a requirement for chairs, a role that is often filled by mere mortals who do it more or less well. And they are accountable for how they do it, and they get slammed when they make mistakes.

Being more serious, I always have major concerns whenever the GNSO Council involves itself in anything outside of generic name policy which is all it was set up to address. Speaking for a broad base set of constituents on other issues is fraught with problems, which ideally should be tackled by cross community WG's that allow ALL of those diverse views to be voiced, rather than diluted through a mechanism that was set up to progress a tightly defined policy process.

Yeah it is tough gig. That is why we should elect carefully. And why we do it every year. Just in case we pick wrongly.

Looks like we have the basis for a good discussion over a beer in London!

Or over a Gin. looking forward to it. avri

Tony

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 29 May 2014 17:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

Hi,

I strongly disagree with this.

avri

On 29-May-14 12:21, Tony Holmes wrote:

...

I have to support John here. Any expectation by ICANN staff or from Fadi, that Jonathan or anyone else as chair of the Council can speak for all of the GNSO on any, issue needs to be nailed. It’s not a practical proposition, neither is it fair on those individuals who sit in the hot seat. However I have little doubt that if we don’t continually strive to make that abundantly clear, it’ll be used as a fast track route for progressing contentious issues when it suits.

This does not imply any criticism, I’m aware that Jonathan in particular has often gone out of his way to state that he’s not empowered to speak for the GNSO on a variety of issues. It also underlines the lack of appreciation of how different and diverse the GNSO is compared with most other SO’s. That’s something we need to work hard to change at every opportunity.

Tony

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *john@crediblecontext.com *Sent:* 29 May 2014 16:40 *To:* Avri Doria; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

Avri,

Now it is a party. With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations.

As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.

If I were Fadi, I'd want to do the same thing. It makes life neater and makes decisions more easily reached. But that is not the way we have and ought to work.

My view.

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 5/29/14 8:14 am To: council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi,

...

By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger

On 29-May-14 10:55, john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: point

...

of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.

I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process, there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model.

I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind. For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to represent us.

That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives.

On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and they want to bring every issue back to vox populi.

Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other.

The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak.

avri

Avri, Pardon the colloquialism at the top of my last email. As you know, I have a tendency to be flip. But in this case, I find the bylaws quite specific: The GNSO shall consist of: (i) A number of Constituencies, where applicable, organized within the Stakeholder Groups as described in Section 5 of this Article; (ii) Four Stakeholder Groups organized within Houses as described in Section 5 of this Article; (iii) Two Houses within the GNSO Council as described in Section 3(8) of this Article; and (iv) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO, as described in Section 3 of this Article. The bold face above is mine. The GNSO Council, of course, is but one element of the GNSO overall. It has a chair devoted to keeping we Councillors on course, and Jonathan (and Stephane before him and Chuck before him) has done the job well. That is a big job the Council has, but it does not cover everything on which the GNSO can have a voice. See you in London! Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 5/29/14 9:51 am To: council@gnso.icann.org On 29-May-14 11:39, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

Now it is a party.

Sorry?

With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations.

As I tried to explain I think we have different views of the degree of grasp the bottom-up needs for each and every utterance a Representative makes. these give different views of what we regard as bottom-up. My expectation is that the senior staff has a more representative notion ass opposed to the kind of understanding you indicate the BC has, for example.

As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.

Perhaps, but the bylaws make it clear that he is the elected head of the GNSO. I am among those who have found themselves irritated by the fact that some attempt to diminish that role by trying to limit it to the council. I would be equally irritated if the chair were to reject the duality of the role as chair of the Council and of the GNSO. I think it is a good thing that we have someone we can trust to speak for the GNSO when asked by the Chair of the Board or the President of Company. And since that is the way the by-laws names the role, that is who I was electing, when I voted for chair. We as council members where entrusted by our SGs to be representatives and given the vote to elect a chair for the Supporting organization. We did and we should not attempt to undercut the authority he was given by our election. avri

Avri, Yes, I saw that but assumed (my bad?) that as it is within the context of the Council, it means the Council. I make the judgement that the word "Council" is not attached to the Chair because whoever wrote the draft didn't want to use the same word three times in the same sentence. If there is some background that can illuminate the intention, I would love to see it; but until then, I have to maintain my starting position. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 5/29/14 10:23 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Hi, I was referring to X.3.7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. I.e one of the functions of the council is to elect the GNSO chair. We did that. avri On 29-May-14 13:12, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

Avri,

Pardon the colloquialism at the top of my last email. As you know, I have a tendency to be flip. But in this case, I find the bylaws quite specific:

/The GNSO shall consist of:/

/(i) A number of Constituencies, where applicable, organized within the Stakeholder Groups as described in Section 5 of this Article <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#X-5>; /

/(ii) Four Stakeholder Groups organized within Houses as described in Section 5 of this Article <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#X-5>;/

/(iii) Two Houses within the GNSO Council as described in Section 3(8) of this Article <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#X-3.8>; and/

/(iv) *a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO*, as described in Section 3 of this Article <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#X-3>./

The *bold face* above is mine. The GNSO Council, of course, is but one element of the GNSO overall. It has a chair devoted to keeping we Councillors on course, and Jonathan (and Stephane before him and Chuck before him) has done the job well. That is a big job the Council has, but it does not cover everything on which the GNSO can have a voice.

See you in London!

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 5/29/14 9:51 am To: council@gnso.icann.org

On 29-May-14 11:39, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

...

Now it is a party.

Sorry?

...

With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations.

As I tried to explain I think we have different views of the degree of grasp the bottom-up needs for each and every utterance a Representative makes. these give different views of what we regard as bottom-up. My expectation is that the senior staff has a more representative notion ass opposed to the kind of understanding you indicate the BC has, for example.

...

As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.

Perhaps, but the bylaws make it clear that he is the elected head of the GNSO.

I am among those who have found themselves irritated by the fact that some attempt to diminish that role by trying to limit it to the council. I would be equally irritated if the chair were to reject the duality of the role as chair of the Council and of the GNSO. I think it is a good thing that we have someone we can trust to speak for the GNSO when asked by the Chair of the Board or the President of Company.

And since that is the way the by-laws names the role, that is who I was electing, when I voted for chair. We as council members where entrusted by our SGs to be representatives and given the vote to elect a chair for the Supporting organization. We did and we should not attempt to undercut the authority he was given by our election.

avri

Thanks All for your input on this topic. Helpful to get the support for / perspective on enhanced representation. Insightful to get the detail on IPC position. I hope we will see the GNSO having the opportunity to be represented by a minimum of the four and have provided that feedback. Jonathan From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: 24 May 2014 13:56 To: Winterfeldt, Brian J.; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process 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> Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 12:56 To: GNSO Council List <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. See <http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-> http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou,A rt. 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 / www.kattenlaw.com <http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: May 23, 2014 at 9:43:18 AM EDT To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <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> Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:38 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: GNSO Council List <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> 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; 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 www.icann.org From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:47 AM To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org" <soac-infoalert@icann.org> Cc: Theresa Swinehart <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 y 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 Download a PDF of this document here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabili ty-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 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). ===========================================================