September 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Question to ICANN Directors on this list - NomCom Directors
by Christopher Wilkinson Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

Good evening: Allow me to say that I find that Alan's questions, below, are quite pertinent to this discussion, and I trust that some of the Board members on the List may decide to respond in the light of their personal experiences. I would also raise a specific point regarding "CCWG proposal Section 7.3" about removing individual ICANN Board members: There, it is proposed that any Supporting Organisation or Advisory Committee (SO/AC) may initiate the process to remove an individual Director appointed by the Nominating Committee, That is not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. It is a fundamental objective of the internal governance of ICANN that there is a permanent and effective balance between the interests of the functional/operational communities and the public interest. This is most important in the light of ICANN's regulatory responsibilities respecting fair competition, users' interests and international and local law. Some of these responsibilities have significant financial and economic consequences. 2. When the Nominating Committee process was initially established in 2002, it was as a successor to, and a surrogate for, the election of ICANN Board members by Internet users. The NomCom process was accepted at the time by the ICANN Community as a feasible method of creating and re-enforcing the necessary balance in ICANN's internal governance. Thus, the idea that any particular Supporting Organisation may threaten to attack individual independent Board members - appointed by the NomCom - from which they happen to dissent, would seriously undermine the independence of NomCom appointed Directors as well as the intrinsic balance of powers and interests within the ICANN structure. 3. Since the Section 7.3 proposal, if implemented, would further compromise the balance between commercial interests and the public interest in ICANN, it would inevitably give rise to additional demands for enhanced governmental influence within ICANN through the GAC. I trust that CCWG and CWG shall reconsider their positions in this regard. Regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: For the attention of the Co-Chairs of CCWG and CWG: I did not see this clause before. I do not know where it came from or who drafted it. It was not discussed on the conference calls which I attended, although - as you know - I have not been able to attend all of them. On 01 Sep 2015, at 23:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > This is a personal message (not on behalf of the ALAC) and targeted at the voting directors on this list. > > We have been told regularly that if the community has the power to remove individual directors, and particularly if those appointed by SO/ACs can be removed by sole action of the entity that appointed them, that this would impinge on the independence of directors and particularly, those directors threatened with the potential of removal would act differently, presumably to appease their communities or protect their right to remain an ICANN director. > > If I counted correctly, there are eleven voting directors on this list, four appointed by AC/SOs and seven by the NomCom. I think I know most of you to some extent, and some I have worked closely with or observed for quite a number of years. > > My own perspective is that if you were confronted with a situation where you had to pander to the community or do what you thought was right, it would be a moderately easy choice, and it would be to do what you thought was right. Would you consult and discuss? Certainly. Would you change your opinion in the face of a good argument, I hope so. But would you just give in to protect your position? For those of you that I know, not very likely, perhaps you would move in the opposite direction! > > If my assessment is correct, then the question becomes do we believe that SO/ACs will deliberately appoint people who are malleable and will vote as their SO/AC desires instead of making decisions on behalf of ICANN as a whole. I would contend that there is nothing to prevent them doing so now. If there is strong evidence of a problem, then we should take action regardless of changes proposed. If not, then perhaps the problem is not as large as some presume. > > Given all that, what am I misunderstanding and what is the problem with the power to remove directors, a power that I suspect will be used as often as the current board power to unilaterally remove directors and most liaisons without cause (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#VI-11) > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Question re fiduciary duties and separation
by Jordan Carter Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

Hi there I have a question which participants may recall the answer to: Is the ICANN board allowed to agree to a separation of the IANA functions operator, given its fiduciary duties to the corporation? Relatedly: Was this question explicitly addressed by the legal advisors to the CWG - and if so, where can I find that advice? I ask because I want to test the feasibility of the separation model in the ICG proposal. Many thanks for any assistance you can offer. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

7 10

Please read to prepare for call: Re: Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear all, Paul Kane had circulated the agreed SLEWG output earlier this week, but I wanted to include it in the agenda email to ensure that everyone would review the document in preparation for the meeting. Please refer to the attached document (also posted on the Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/IANA%20Service%20 Level%20Expectations%20-%20AGREED.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=14410226620 00&api=v2> ). Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:59 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 3 September at 11:00 UTC: Agenda: 1. Opening remarks 2. Review of SLEWG output 3. Update on legal work 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues 5. AOB 6. Closing remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear All, Thank you for your comments on list to the draft of CWG position on IANA IPR. Jonathan and I have carefully reviewed the comments, and revised the text accordingly. Today we have sent the correspondence below to the ICG on the subject of the IANA IPR. Best regards, Lise Fra: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16 Til: alissa(a)cooperw.in Cc: Patrik Fältström (paf(a)netnod.se) Mohamed El Bashir (mbashir(a)mbash.net) Emne: CWG Position on IANA IPR Dear Alissa and ICG Colleagues, As you know, the final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response to your ICG RFP, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the CWG proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWGs intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal, including the full preparation of a term sheet and a subsequent associated contract. Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, it has become apparent that further clarification on the CWG position on the IANA IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, including referring to the ICG proposal and the three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org, .com and .net) being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of 15 August 2015 on the same subject. With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet the detailed requirements and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated timelines. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs For and on behalf of the CWG

1 0

Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 3 September at 11:00 UTC: Agenda: 1. Opening remarks 2. Review of SLEWG output 3. Update on legal work 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues 5. AOB 6. Closing remarks Best, Grace

1 0

FINAL - Agreed text for IANA Service Level
by Paul M Kane - CWG Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

(apologies for cross posting) Dear all, I am delighted to attach the agreed Service Level Expectation document, containing the specifics of what ICANN/IANA has agreed to monitor and report. I would like to thank the members of the working group, (Elaine Pruis, Jeffrey Eckhaus, Jeff Neuman, Patricio Poblete, Jay Daley, Adam Smith and ICANN/IANA; Kim Davies, Bernard Turcotte, Elise Gerich, David Conrad) for their dedication and professionalism over the past months. They contributed to over 300 hours of discussions, 8 full WG meetings, 15 sub-group meeting and countless emails ... and it is with pleasure I advise that the first phase is done. I'd also like to thank ICANN staff for their support in facilitating the WG discussions. ICANN/IANA will now plan the scope of work to implement this SLE, operating the service in a test phase/parallel mode to start the necessary real-world data capture. Please circulate the agreed SLE document as you consider appropriate which demonstrates ICANN/IANA's commitment to enhanced reporting and transparency post transition which I am confident will be welcomed by the global community. Kind regards Paul Kane SLE WG Chair.

3 3